WALLY commuter train

[OwlCaboose2853]

You can not get around ADA requirements. Equal access for the disabled is a right in this country, not something to be ignored because those who are fully abled don't feel like bearing the equal cost burden for those less fortunate. If the idea of keeping vehicles off the road and avoiding traffic backups is the whole purpose of this line, why would we stick the disabled people right back on the road?

John Ryan;
ADA has must have very requirement for any special equipments by laws. If any everywhere in USA companies do ignores an ADA by laws, Federal Gov't. Courthouses will give them large fines $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$ azz pains. . I am a disability. I know about ADA laws in 1992.

[OwlCaboose2853]

John Ryan,
I have a pop up, I warn you that you don’t start discrimination about ADA disabilities. I let you know you don’t know whom several disabilities watch you’re saying in the forums. I noticed a priest has a disability mobile chair; he has very interest his railroad hobby at train shows and railroad fan. I have no idea that he had joined forum here or Michigan RR Lower, others and history forum too.
Thanks,
Steven

[Raildudes dad]

Why are we assuming that a consulting firm with many years of experience, composed of retired railroaders from high management positions and centuries of cumulative experience, working within known federal guidelines, would deliberately create a fictional, inflated cost structure to justify their fee? Do any of you personally know anyone who works for RLBA? (I do.)

Because I've managed consultants who wanted to design me a Cadillac when all I wanted or could afford was a Chevy Mailbu. Some use "Federal funds" to gold plate I'd like to drive a Cadillac or Lincoln but I have a hard time justifying the extra $$$$ when public money is involved. Right now their sentiment is an Aveo is sufficient.

An example- a gov't agency was going to spend $60,000 on a study to come up with a solution to fix an erosion problem (The $60,000 did not include any construction costs). They were given a solution for free that cost $13,000 to construct.

You can not get around ADA requirements. Equal access for the disabled is a right in this country, not something to be ignored because those who are fully abled don't feel like bearing the equal cost burden for those less fortunate. If the idea of keeping vehicles off the road and avoiding traffic backups is the whole purpose of this line, why would we stick the disabled people right back on the road?

In GR, the Rapid provides on-demand "Go Bus" service in lieu of some handicapped buses. It certainly is worth a request for a temporary waiver. Sometimes the feds will surprise you.

No 480V standby power? You really want to leave four sets of equipment running all night and all day to keep the coaches heated or air-conditioned? Do you have any idea what that will cost in diesel fuel in just one year?

All 4 trains are going to be moved to and from storage as 1 unit according to the report . 1 HEP on one train could power the house needs (Might need to be wired accordingly). Again. lets see if the service succeeds before we build lots of infrastructure.

No sidings for storage? Do we just leave the trains on the main line? How can that possibly make any sense?

Read the report, it says "the existing sidings could be used but we recommend new sidings be added". Again, they can be added if the service is a success.

$50,000 might buy you a nice luxury car, but it will buy the railroad exactly two power switch machines for a siding.

4 trains one way with no opposing traffic on 30 minute headway's do not need power switches nor do they need CTC for 27 miles.

I'll stand by my assessment, the proposal is gold plated for a trial service to see if the public will come.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one

[Robert MacDowell]

On ADA -- the actual ADA law is quite brilliant and fair, actually. It says simply - you have to accommodate the handicapped if doing so is simple and cheap for you ("readily achievable".) If it is not, you don't have to - the handicapped must deal with the fact that not everyone can go everywhere. In other words you have to move a shelving unit needlessly placed in the hallway on the way to your restaurant's bathroom -- but you do not need to install an elevator. The exception is new construction or major remodeling - it is assumed that a new building can be built accessible almost as cheaply as it can be built inaccessible. The other exception is government - if it's a public government facility, or if G-bucks are involved in it, then accessibility is a "string attached" to the money.

Where does that put WALLY? As a private venture that's a tough call - new service with old equipment. If the hand of government is in there, then yes, they will have to.

They must always do what is "readily achievable", i.e. easy; so for instance expect to see little braille stickers around the cars, and station stops called out on a P.A.

[Robert MacDowell]

On costs --

No rail transit system anywhere in the civilized world makes money. That is a hard reality. That said...

In 1993, the Southern Pacific Railroad offered a one-week demonstration commuter rail service in the San Francisco East Bay. They wanted to convince BART to make some fast/easy system extensions using commuter rail technology. They borrowed some Metrolink rolling stock. They laid some asphalt to improvise station platforms at BART Oakland West, Crockett, Antioch and Brentwood. One route went to Brentwood, the other to Davis, I believe. The cost to SP was about $50,000, mostly for station work. No publicity. By Day 3, the trains were standing room only. Huge success.

The Nashville system went in for about $3.3 million, this is a 32 mile line with 3 trainsets, old stock similar to the coaches currently stored in Michigan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_City_Star

The Salt Lake commuter system got a number of former METRA coaches, more of that same stock, for FREE.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n11467249/

I think there's LOTS of room in the transit business for the kind of thrifty engineering Michigan is famous for.

So yes -- the $30M contractors are "smoking something". They are the sort to roll into moneyed places like Seattle or Miami, and spend your "magic government money" like it's going out of style. Which, in fact, it is.

[John Ryan]

Reading comprehension, puhlleeezz.

Music City Star's fixed capital costs at startup were $41M, clearly stated in the Wikipedia link. You have somehow confused annual operating cost with startup cost. That "estimated" cost you cite was also a poor estimate, as the service didn't develop the expected ridership, and now is losing about $4M per year.

The article cites the $1.3M per mile startup cost of MCS as being the lowest in the nation. RLBA's estimate of $30M for the roughly 28 mile WALLY line would be right up there with MCS capital costs, perhaps even cheaper on a per-mile basis. I'm still not seeing how they are "smoking anything."

As for those chicago bi-levels purchased by UTA, have you heard that they turned one wheel in revenue service? Nope. UTA decided they were junk and pursued former New Jersey Transit equipment instead.

As for WALLY and ADA access, the State of Michigan is paying for the refurbished equipment, so it is not exempt from ADA requirements. All "new start" service must be fully ADA compliant, and you can't even get away with one-car-per-train anymore.

[OwlCaboose2853]

I know that wheelchairs are making an expensively that needing more any equipments than blind impaired, hearing impaired and special needs are small equipments. So what!

[AARR]

I know that wheelchairs are making an expensively that needing more any equipments than blind impaired, hearing impaired and special needs are small equipments. So what!

Maybe we can place racks on the back of trains and hook the wheelchairs on with people still sitting in them. That will free up space in the cars and accomodate the special needs people

[OwlCaboose2853]

orget

I know that wheelchairs are making an expensively that needing more any equipments than blind impaired, hearing impaired and special needs are small equipments. So what!

Maybe we can place racks on the back of trains and hook the wheelchairs on with people still sitting in them. That will free up space in the cars and accomodate the special needs people

Cheaper; Flat car or gondola car with dome tent? Oh I forget add; blue or green portable outhouses too…

[AARR]

orget

I know that wheelchairs are making an expensively that needing more any equipments than blind impaired, hearing impaired and special needs are small equipments. So what!

Maybe we can place racks on the back of trains and hook the wheelchairs on with people still sitting in them. That will free up space in the cars and accomodate the special needs people

Cheaper; Flat car or gondola car with dome tent? Oh I forget add; blue or green portable outhouses too…

We can place barrels on them and build a fire for heat . Actually, that's where the kids who misbehave should go

[OwlCaboose2853]

We can place barrels on them and build a fire for heat . Actually, that's where the kids who misbehave should go

Put in iron potty...

[Buster Manning]

nah Steve, just cut a hole in the floor of the car--kinda like the old days on pass cars.....

[Raildudes dad]

As I said, I had high hopes initially for the service. It was supposed to provide relief for the US 23 reconstruct project (I don't even know if that happened.) A low budget temporary service would have demonstrated if the permanant demand was there. Maybe an AFDA waiver couldn't have been obtained but it could have been dealt with. The consultant is proposing a lot of permanent infrastructure and higher speed service for an operation that I suspect will be about as sucessful as Nashville

[John Ryan]

Exactly! We do agree on one important underlying concept; that the ridership doesn't exist to support this service. RLBA discovered that there would be about 300 riders per day if the UofM didn't front the cost of tickets for their employees. It's not a convenient service because it doesn't actually go into downtown Ann Arbor, and this was pointed out in the study. Remember who first proposed the train and why. It wasn't a group of concerned citizens who were fed up with traffic delays, it was the individual who stood to make the most money off of this.

Commuter service in Syracuse, NY, the only city with commuter rail that was comparable in size to Ann Arbor, failed completely. Incidentally, that "OnTrack" service failed to reach downtown because of a bridge dispute, and it was too much hassle for the riders to complete the trip on their own. Does this have a lesson for Ann Arbor? Of course, but someone is too interested in leasing 60 year old railcars than understanding why things work.

When the leadership in this state changes hands in a few days, will the fiscal conservatives look kindly on boondoggle projects?

[OwlCaboose2853]

nah Steve, just cut a hole in the floor of the car--kinda like the old days on pass cars.....

Buster, okay see this http://factorydirecttrains.com/images/v ... ctId=12359 that's better?

[Robert MacDowell]

Reading comprehension, puhlleeezz.

Music City Star's fixed capital costs at startup were $41M, clearly stated in the Wikipedia link. You have somehow confused annual operating cost with startup cost. That "estimated" cost you cite was also a poor estimate...

Holy smoke, you are right... I grabbed the wrong figure. However in my defense, it wasn't clearly stated at all, the article is poorly written. "Reading comprehension, meet me halfway".

Agreed, that puts a new spin on the consultant's analysis. I agree it's probably fair, though I still remain skeptical that a transit system need be expensive or gold-plated simply because so many are. I still don't see where you need power switches or CTC.

As for those chicago bi-levels purchased by UTA, have you heard that they turned one wheel in revenue service? Nope. UTA decided they were junk and pursued former New Jersey Transit equipment instead.

As for WALLY and ADA access, the State of Michigan is paying for the refurbished equipment, so it is not exempt from ADA requirements. All "new start" service must be fully ADA compliant, and you can't even get away with one-car-per-train anymore.

"ADA compliant" does not mean wheelchair accessible. It means you comply with the law, which often says you don't have to be accessible. Case in point, the NYC subway. Highly non-accessible, 100% ADA compliant.

I am not surprised the requirements are now that every car be accessible. The newer ADA laws reflect a change in thinking from "mere access" to "equality". Now, they want new buildings to allow wheelchair patrons to enter the main entrance with their friends, not be relegated to some maze, back entrance or embarrassing contraption to get them over a barrier. It makes sense that similarly, they'd require every car to be accessible.

That explains why nobody wants gallery coaches and everyone is buying those "GO cars". On CalTrain, the lift for the gallery coaches is this Rube Goldberg contraption that unfolds like Optimus Prime, and delays the train 2-3 minutes... on their GO cars, it's a simple ramp that flops down in about 5 seconds. Low floor, for the win.

[John Ryan]

CTC signaling seems absurd for a line that would have a freight curfew and directional traffic. However, I think RLBA is looking ahead to 2015, when the federal Positive Train Control requirement takes effect. The CTC would provide the foundation for an electronic overlay in the future. Still, yes, CTC is a bit much, but I think the debate here is with the geniuses in Congress. I'm not well versed in the PTC requirements, so this is largely speculation on my part.

For the exact reasons you've mentioned, most agencies have shied away from the former Metra bi-levels. Not only are they old, with the first order being built in 1949-1950, but they are very difficult to modify to accommodate a wheelchair. They have narrow center vestibules and narrow doors, unlike the larger area on more modern cars. Chicago, when faced with looking ADA compliance, opted to run a parallel bus service at a cost of $7-9M per year in addition to a $16M cost for acquiring mobility busses. These are mid-1980's dollars if I remember correctly. The planners at Metra decided this was a lesser expense than modifying the old cars. The bus service lasted until they were able to acquire enough new accessible cars.

One of the things that I think is worth discussing is the fact that both this and the Detroit service are "Trial services to see if the public will come." The Detroit line has been repeatedly denied federal funding because no survey shows ridership numbers that will support it. One study I saw showed that the line would have the highest capital and operating costs per rider of any service in the entire country. Yet we are forging ahead to see if all 20 studies could be wrong.

Really, if I had any hope, I think all the money spent on the commuter services should be put towards trying to develop a really strong intercity rail system, something with dedicated equipment and possible state ownership of the ROWs. It's ridiculous to see Amtrak get jerked around, as CN is back to their 30 axle rule and NS dropped speed on the Michigan Line to 60. Ridership is already strong and growing on the intercity routes, so wouldn't it make the most sense to double frequency on all those routes instead of throwing money at two commuter lines that all studies say will be big losers?

[Raildudes dad]

I suspect that although we started out rather “heated” in our “opposing” positions, we are quite close to a consensus . I erred in assuming the consultant was driving the conclusion. Most likely the conclusion was what the “owner” was looking for. I wouldn’t doubt the WALLY said emulate the “low cost start up” in Nashville.

I followed the Nashville line quite closely during it’s planning because it was very similar to the WALLY. However, they didn’t spare many frills either. Complete rebuilding of the track structure, some pretty fancy stations etc. I was also working with informal group in GR on a possible rail commuter line and was looking for some low cost solutions for a possible trial operation here.

As for ADA compliance, the “guidelines” have changed quite a bit in the last 4 years. There was a time that the sidewalk ramp standards changed twice from the time one of our projects was bid until the ramps were actually built (A 4 month period). MDOT “enforces” the “guidelines” very strictly after the City of Detroit was sued over the sidewalk ramp issue. (It was understandable that Detroit lost since their position was they were not going to comply). You would not want to hear how many brand new sidewalk ramps we have removed and replaced because the cross level was off by ¼ inch in 5 feet. The ADA folks have indicated that tolerance is within the intent of the law but the MDOT personnel say “tear it back out”.

I don’t have a problem with the U of M paying for employees tickets. They either have to build more parking structures or provide transportation into the campus. Given the traffic congestion on US 23 north of AA, their subsidy is a win for their employees, the commuters on US 23 and frees up parking on campus for visitors (thinking here of the hospital).

We have that issue here in GR. We’re building lots of ramps and surface lots for the downtown employees. Many employers pay for the parking. Why not have the employers pay for a rail commute (or bus in GR’s current case)? Then developers could build new buildings for offices etc and add jobs downtown.

I think we all would like to see a low cost trial passenger service in AA and determine it’s viability before the taxpayers sink a lot of money the state and country does not have into a loser (and I classify the Nashville experience a failure based on it’s current ridership) .

I think we both agree whole heartily that the DET - AA service is a total waste of taxpayer dollars

[ns8401]

Don't forget that the AATA still needs much $$$ to get this rolling and they want it from the feds and have been denied twice... John Dingell was in town yesterday to announce that the AATA has been awarded a contract for 10 Hybrid Gillig buses for 2011 delivery. My contacts in the transit world of Ann Arbor don't give this project a great chance of getting off the ground. They have an outside consultant running it, and the ideas been around since Mike Bolton was in charge in the late 80's or early 90's. Then the idea was for buses to go directly on the rails to create a "bus-way" as it were.

[OwlCaboose2853]

AATA on WALLY Rail: Forward with Caution http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/09/15 ... h-caution/