The MT Position

By Mark Foss

Recently I passed the 25-year mark in the transit industry. During the 12 years I was a driver I experienced various road and weather conditions. I also experienced a wide spectrum of passenger behavior. Each day had a character of its own. Some days were quiet. Some days were very busy but straightforward. Some days consisted of a collection of the worst possible conditions — sloppy weather, molasses-thick traffic and packed sweaty buses with angry, frustrated passengers.  It was a gritty experience at times. The key, under those conditions, was to find motivation to get through the day in a good frame of mind — despite my circumstances.

The news over the past week consisted of the gritty fallout of the transit industry’s various financial crises. In addition to operational budget shortfalls causing service cuts in various places (e.g. AC Transit, some major capital projects are running into trouble. New Jersey’s ARC project, which called for a 9-mile commuter rail line between North Jersey and Manhattan, is in financial trouble due to cost overruns. A federal audit shows that the project lacked safeguards to “combat fraud waste and abuse.” Others dispute the federal audit. Whatever the source of the problems, Governor Christie stopped new spending on the project due to expected cost overruns of about $1 billion. And New Jersey’s project isn’t the only one in trouble.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LA transit’s Expo Line will fall short of its goal due to cost over-runs. It is expected to cost $900 million instead of the originally expected $640 million — prompting a call for independent inspector general and an ethics officer.

Some transit agencies, like Capital Metro, Austin, Texas, publish budgets and financial status reports online. Capital Metro also publishes how it plans to use federal stimulus money and executive salaries. The Puget Sound area’s Sound Transit, which is facing a $3.9 billion decline in revenue, recently published a proposed 2011 budget with revised goals.

Reduced or cancelled plans, projects and service cuts are part of our current “gritty” financial landscape. For those of us on the front line, it is important to know and understand that funds are spent responsibly. Understanding what is happening can’t come from news organizations alone. It must come from the agencies we work for.

Transparency is always important. Any lack of transparency is felt acutely in tight economic times. Some transit agencies manage well and others, apparently, not so well. Publicly traded corporations must file regular financial reports, and submit to audits. Transit agencies should too. Motivation and trust of the workforce depends transparency — as does the agency’s customer service.

Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC). Contact him via LinkedIn.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

I’m coming to the end of my two-week trip to Europe and I’ve experienced a lot of different forms of public transit. I have to say the biggest challenge we in the United States have to overcome is ignorance.

When I started with Mass Transit going on five years ago, the thought was not to talk about European transit because the United States was so far behind. Since then times have changed. The high cost of gas has been a big factor in making that change. And yet, the view of transit to the general public hasn’t changed.

For most of America, transit is something they have never experienced and for many, never will. My publisher and I were marveling over the thought of some people we knew never traveling beyond Wisconsin, let alone outside the U.S. border.

And here in Europe traveling between countries (at least on the mainland) is as easy as traveling between states. But the one difference is they have more options than we do. You can take the train from two cities that in America we can’t. Suede, technically, I can take the train from Milwaukee to Indianapolis, but really the only options are to fly or drive. One is a hassle and the other takes too long — you decided which is which.

We as a nation are ignorant. Ignorant to the fact that a $3.5 billion road project may only last 25 years. If I were to throw that stat out for a transit project, people would be looking for their torches and pitchforks.

It’s ignorance. Ignorance to the fact that it really isn’t that bad to walk a couple blocks to get to a station or stop to catch a train or bus.

And I know that I will catch flack from the transit folks over this, but am I going to give up my car? Oh, Hell no. But it’s not because I wouldn’t want to, I simply can’t.

We can tell our stories all we want, but what we need to show is how transit isn’t just this wacko idea for a small portion of the country, but the direction the world is moving in.

We need to become less ignorant to the world around us if we are going to keep up with it.

Thanks for reading,

Fred

fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Connect to me via LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter!

by Jim Baker

This September rail Internet pioneer Nomad Digital announced that it has acquired spectrum in the United Kingdom to deliver broadband communication services to trains.  This is the first time a private communications operator has bought spectrum for such a specific application, so Unwired decided to interview Nomad Executive Chairman and co-founder Nigel Wallbridge to find out more about the strategy behind the acquisition.

JB: Can you tell me what the key drivers were for Nomad to seek the spectrum in the first place? What were the challenges you had to overcome?

NW: There is broad agreement that an effective wireless broadband connection to rail vehicles significantly reduces costs for operators and improves service for passengers.  In the past we have had to construct the best wireless networks out of whichever spectrum was available to us. In certain cases, such as the Dubai Metro, we have used licensed spectrum. In Germany T-Mobile was able to obtain spectrum at 450MHz to service D-Bahn’s ICE trains with passenger Wi-Fi.

We strongly believe that the public policy benefits of providing licensed spectrum for public transit are self evident and we also think that public transit operators should use a service provider to access this spectrum; we want to be such a provider. We want to be the ‘Verizon’ for the transit industry. This UK license is another, very early, step on our journey.

JB: How long has the process taken from initial research to the granting of the spectrum, and when was that spectrum granted?

NW: The spectrum was awarded in September 2010, but it has been a long haul. We have worked with Ofcom, the UK spectrum regulator, on a number of different spectrum parcels.

JB: Your recent press statement states the grant is 5.01 to 5.02GHz — how is this spectrum allocated and are there power restrictions that might hinder operations?

NW: The spectrum is not constrained to 10 MHz in a single channel, and the requested power reflected our ambition to create an effective, high-capacity link off the train for outgoing traffic. The maximum EIRP is 47dBm delivering a significant uplift from both mobile phone solutions for the uplink and license-exempt spectrum in both directions.

JB: Somewhat unusually the spectrum had been previously managed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); what was the use of the spectrum before Nomad acquired its license?

NW: The spectrum was, and is, targeted by the CAA for the use of automatic landing systems for planes although, in this case, the spectrum isn’t in use for this application right now. The UK Government has promoted the efficient use of spectrum by asking users to share it where appropriate, so we worked with the CAA to show that we could safely share the band.

JB: What are the top three applications you envisage using this spectrum for?

NW: When we started we were certainly focused on customer Wi-Fi and that certainly continues to be a huge success for us. But we are now seeing even more growth in other applications, such as ‘live’ passenger information systems and data file download from trains. So I would say that upload and download of large files from trains would also be ideal candidates for the use of this spectrum. In the end the Nomad model is to provide IP connectivity for all the applications that can be used to improve train operations and services. And we think that there are tens, or even hundreds, of them.

JB: 5GHz is a fairly high frequency relative to cellular frequencies. What network topology do you envisage using in this band? Mainly train-to-shore? And if so, will this be primarily in fixed locations like railway stations or do you plan also using track-side infrastructure along the right-of-way?

NW: Yes, certainly for train-to-shore communications. In the short term we will see the spectrum used wherever we need high bandwidth and where there isn’t an easy alternative. So yes we will use it in depots and stations and perhaps where there are gaps in coverage — such as in tunnels. We are not yet ready for a ubiquitous trackside roll-out because we can roam onto public networks and take advantage of that infrastructure at low cost. Things may change though.

JB: The 5GHz band has a light-touch licensing regime in the UK. Did the move to seek your own spectrum reflect a concern that the rest of 5GHz could become too crowded?
 
NW: In the UK the light touch public 5GHz licenses are not yet too crowded — but these bands are very low power and we do predict that they will become busier as they have in the U.S.  Our new licensed spectrum gives us a secure, higher power alternative over which we have more control.

JB: Will you be developing your own equipment to work at this frequency or are their existing wireless broadband equipment vendors who support the band?

NW: Our current intention is to use existing off-the-shelf equipment.

JB: Does communication-based train control (CBTC) play an important part in Nomad’s service offerings either today or in the future, and if so, could this spectrum be used for such an application?

NW: Yes the spectrum could be used for CBTC. So far Nomad has tended to stay in the non-safety critical market. But things are changing; some of our customers are coming to us and saying that they need to move their signaling to IP. Nomad is in the business of IP communications to trains and we are pleased to work with our customers to provide safety critical services, such as CBTC, if there is benefit in doing so.

In many parts of the world railroads have adopted the GSM-R standard and this has proved to be expensive and very slow to roll-out. The technology demands ubiquitous coverage before services can become operational. Very few counties have properly operational networks and some of the core network equipment is already heading towards obsolescence. I hope that the implementation of equivalent systems in the U.S. will allow for roaming between multiple technologies and will use IP. That way the railroads can have low-cost, flexible and easy network roll-out.

JB: There are other useful licensed spectrum holdings in the UK, 3.5GHz for example. Has Nomad considered sub-licensing spectrum from other licensed spectrum holders for rail applications?

NW: The spectrum market is unusual. In the past there has been a tendency to horde spectrum. I think that regulators clearly see broad economic benefits in increasing usage efficiency. More spectrum is therefore becoming available through initiatives like spectrum sharing and the digital dividend. So even though demand for spectrum is high we are entering a phase with high supply as well. Nomad is always looking for opportunities to find and develop spectrum for its customers in public transportation.

JB: The 2.5-2.6GHz spectrum is due to come up for auction in 2011. Do you envisage Nomad wanting to play a role in that auction, either solo or within a consortium? If not, do you have any views as to what might be the outcome of that auction?

NW: Nomad is working with spectrum regulators in many countries to try to ensure that the needs of public transportation are not ignored as spectrum is packaged, allocated and, in certain cases, auctioned. So yes, we are certainly considering 2.5-2.6GHz.

I think that this spectrum would be very useful for public transportation. The general mobile network operators are increasingly focused on sub-1GHz spectrum to reduce their network roll-out costs and in many countries the fixed wireless access model has never really taken off. So 2.5-2.6GHz may not draw very high prices at auction.

JB: Nomad had an increasing presence in North America, having won several major contracts and being best known for the Amtrak Acela deployment. What have been some of the challenges in building solutions using a combination of licensed and unlicensed bands for wireless infrastructure in the U.S., and do you think Nomad make seek licensed bands of its own in the U.S. one day?

NW: Acela was certainly a great contract for us. We really enjoy working with Amtrak and the U.S. railroad and mass transit scene is very promising. As I said earlier it’s important to allow for roaming between different technologies to provide flexibility and ease of roll-out.

The spectrum market in the U.S. is exciting and the government has tried to make spectrum available for municipal use.  We would love to take advantage of the 4.9GHz band, which we think is underutilized and we see other opportunities as well, especially around 700MHz.

–

Jim Baker is managing partner at Xenventure, a market strategy and private equity firm based in San Francisco and London. A C-level wireless industry veteran, Baker has been involved in many deployments of wireless technologies on passenger transportation worldwide and is a recognized industry expert on Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G convergence. He is chair of the Technology Committee at the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications which is developing a strategic plan for implementation of wireless technologies in mass transit. Contact Baker via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

I had the rare opportunity this week to travel between France and England by plane and train on consecutive days. If nothing else, this illustrated to me the power of rail — and how we are lacking it in the United States.

I’ve discussed on here previously how incredulous I am with what the airline industry is allowed to do to passengers trying to board their vehicles. You’re practically strip searched, forced to remove shoes and belts (among a litany of other items) and subject to bag searches, pat downs and just about any other indignity they can dream up.

Such was the case when I flew from Paris to Manchester this week. Shuffling along as I left the security area, holding up my pants dragging my suitcase, my arms full of a variety of personal items I thought there has to be a better way.

Add to that the fact that this was an international flight. From picking up my ticket to entering England my passport was checked no less than five times. I understand at the ticket counter and customs, but really, when I board, halfway down the jetway and as I got on the plane? Was someone going to knock me off and take my place in the 50 yard segments between each point?

Now, on my return trip I took the Eurostar train through the Chunnel. I got my ticket —no passport required there — I went through security — not here either — and through customs before resting in the lounge area before boarding my train. So a total of one view of my passport from start to finish.

You know, I’m not going to get into comparing the trips. Suffice to say the train ride was where I am writing this after a full meal.

Will this ease of boarding rail ever change? Let’s hope not, but all it will take is some terrorist bombing a train to ruin it for everyone like so much that has happened with the airline industry. But in the meantime it’s relaxing to be on the train.

Next week I’ll recap the first leg of my trip. As always, you can follow my daily updates on Twitter @mtposition.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday. For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit news fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Connect to me via LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter!

By Jim Cameron 

One of the (few) joys of commuting by train is that, as Metro-North used to say in its marketing, “train time is your own time.”  You can read, nap or work on your laptop … unless the inconsiderate passengers around you are yapping on their cell phones.

Years ago, Amtrak began offering passengers an alternative:  “The Quiet Car” … a car which, as conductors remind passengers, offers a “library-like atmosphere” free of loud conversations, especially on cell phones. In some cases, getting cooperation from passengers can be a problem, but for the most part riders who want to conduct business by phone don’t have to be told where to go.

To its credit, NJ Transit has just begun a three-month experiment with its “Quiet Commute” on 29 daily express trains between Trenton and New York City. Two cars on each train, the first and last, will be offering a calmer, quieter ride.

VRE also has Quiet Cars with simple rules explained on its website.

Now I have nothing against cell phones.  I have one and use it often, but I always try not to intrude on other passengers’ karmic “space.”  Nobody is proposing that cell phone users be segregated in their own car, as we used to do with smokers. Instead, let’s segregate silence-seeking riders in a quiet car on all trains.

Some operators say they don’t want to get involved by making their conductors enforce social regulations. But they have no trouble reminding us to keep our feet off the seats or to put our bags in the overhead racks, so how hard would it be to enforce a little silence and civility?

In NJ Transit’s case, peer pressure will be the main means of enforcement. If that doesn’t work, conductors will discreetly hand the offending blabbermouth a small business card explaining the program.

Let’s face it. We’re all basically selfish. In our automobiles we can turn up the radio, smoke a cigar, belch and carry on as we wish. But when we have to share our transportation space with others, these behaviors aren’t appropriate. 

As newcomers start their “training,” they have to learn how to share their space. If they don’t … well, you can only push commuters so far. Commuter trains in the Northeast are so crowded there aren’t enough seats for all ticketed passengers. Then you make them all put up with some noisy blowhard who insists on yapping the entire trip in a voice loud enough to be heard several rows away?

One New York commuter tells me she witnessed the following example of “cell rage” on Metro-North: A passenger asked a cell caller to “keep it down.” He didn’t. He asked the conductor to instruct the passenger to be considerate. The conductor wouldn’t. So, this distraught vigilante grabbed the cell phone and threw it against a wall, smashing it to pieces. A quiet car would avoid such violence.

Amtrak says its “Quiet Cars” have been a marketing success, so much so they have trademarked the name. The service has attracted new passengers and brought much-needed revenue.

Metro-North, apparently feeling it owns the market of commuters, doesn’t try to compete by attracting passengers. It has more than it can handle. Numerous requests from our Commuter Council to experiment with quiet cars have been rejected out of hand.

Instead, the railroad has undertaken a PR campaign asking passengers to be considerate and keep their calls brief and in a low volume.

Admittedly, this has helped a bit. I often see passengers now get out of their seats and move to the vestibule for longer calls. Others cup their hands around the mouthpiece and speak in subdued tones. Blackberries and similar text messaging equipment have also reduced the drone. This is a good start.

Meantime, in the words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just try to get along?”

—————————————————————————————————–

Jim Cameron is chairman of the Connecticut Metro-North Commuter Council but the opinions expressed here are only his own. You can reach him at cameron06820@gmail.com or  www.trainweb.org/ct   

By Mark Foss

If they take away my bus, I’ll take the train. Will you?

On Sunday, September 26, Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter train will make trips designed to serve Seahawk fans. Trips will travel to Seattle from Tacoma (in the south) and Everett (in the north). Return trips will depart at 10, 20 and 40 minutes after the game ends. The fans love it.

Bus service is another story. King County Metro (KCM) has been providing event shuttle service for years with great success. The full cost of the shuttles are met — with "no tax dollars involved". The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) created policy in 2008 prohibiting federally funded transit agencies from providing shuttle service for large public events, if private carriers were willing to bid on the business. Then late in 2009 it was reported that Senator Murray (WA) helped put through a provision (in the 2010 Senate Transportation Bill), designed to reverse the 2008 policy. KCM event shuttle service to Safeco Field started up again April 13, 2010. However, the game on September 12, King County Metro advertised Seahawk shuttles — with a caveat. " A lawsuit in federal courts could affect whether Metro can provide special shuttle service for the entire football season. The hearing on that challenge is expected to resume in late September."  Shuttles for Seahawks and Huskies are still on Metro’s website. And the saga continues.

My conclusion?
Public transit and private carriers occupy overlapping, but different, market spaces. Some point out that public transit is subsidized — and therefore doesn’t compete fairly. Perhaps. On the other hand, roads, bridges, many utilities, schools and even sports stadiums are subsidized too. We all benefit.

Public transit plays a wider role than private carriers. It provides on-going service to passengers not attending public events. Public transit also offsets traffic congestion and parking problems during public events. Parking problems and congestion affect people not attending the events.

Post-event passenger loads on shuttles can be heavier than pre-event loads. After events, KCM shuttles often accommodate passengers that arrived at the event by other means — car or regular bus service. A large event also presents potential costs to a public agency — even if it isn’t providing shuttle service. For example, regular service may be lost due to congestion or overloads. Likewise event-related traffic issues can cause unscheduled overtime for regular-service drivers. I seriously doubt private carriers are prepared, let alone willing, to make up service gaps for the general public — gaps created by the event they serve.

In general, I see the requirement to give private carriers preference as negative. The public loses the level of service. The elasticity of private carriers to respond to higher volumes is lower than a public agency.

On the other hand, the Sounder rail service to the game is a plus. I would take the Sounder to the game. I think the loss of public transit shuttles to games is a shame. Some fans don’t live near the Sounder line. The federal government missed the bus on this one.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

It’s election season and you know that that means a lot of rhetoric and wild accusations leading to, well, nothing usually. So I’ve decided to take the bull by the horns as it were and see what we’re missing when it comes to rail in the United States.

I’m heading out tomorrow to Europe for two weeks to travel through France, England and Germany by rail to see what they have that we don’t. Full disclosure, this trip has been planned for a little while, it wasn’t a spur of the moment thing  I don’t have that kind of budget at my disposal.

Still, the idea is sound. We hear a lot of blather here in Wisconsin about how rail will never work. We’re not Europe. No one will ride it. It’s a waste of money. And that’s just from the politicians. Granted many of those politicians have never traveled to Europe to check out the trains, let alone ridden any of the ones here in the United States. And I won’t even get into the inaccuracies when it comes to discussing the comparison between transit and highway funding.

Part of this trip is just that, to get a feel for the way transit works in Europe to see what works and what doesn’t. Apart from riding around France on it rail system to get a feel of what “high speed” can really mean, I am going to tackle the Chunnel with the Eurostar and an overnight rail trip from Paris to Berlin. The trip culminates with the Innotrans convention in Berlin Rail Nirvana as it were.

So do I hope to get a better appreciation for rail from the trip? Hardly. I know how rail works, I just want to see it in action. I want to see what it could be if the United States had an interconnected network of high-speed trains. I want to see if “high speed” is all that it’s cracked up to be.

The mayor in Watertown, one of the stops for the new rail line being built in Wisconsin has a great take on this. His feeling is that it’s not his place to argue whether or not the trains are the right thing to do or if the stimulus money was well spent. No, he just wants to make sure his town is onboard when the line is built so it doesn’t miss out on an opportunity the residents could be regretting for years to come.

Now that is a great idea take advantage of an opportunity before it slips on by.

So I’m taking advantage of this opportunity to see Europe by rail. I’ve already traveled on the trains in Spain and marveled at how they work. I hope the rest of Europe is just as marvelous.

Check back next week as I begin a series of blogs about the trip. And follow me on Twitter, as I (Wi-Fi willing) will be posting snippets along the way.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday. For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit news fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Connect to me via LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter!

by Jim Baker

Back in July, Motorola announced it had won a major contract to build a wireless broadband public safety network in the San Francisco Bay Area. The project had gone to tender in September 2009 as part of the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), comprising 10 regional counties, including San Francisco, Marin, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa. Proposals were invited for designing, constructing and running a 700MHz network that would interoperate with the Bay Area’s P25 voice radio network and leverage existing commercial and governmental infrastructure. The successful candidate would be leased 10MHz of public safety spectrum in the 700MHz band held by the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST), and a phased approach would see the network being rolled out in stages starting with pilot projects in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose by late 2010. 700MHz is a highly desirable band often referred to as ‘beach front’ spectrum as signals at this frequency travel further and pass through obstacles such as buildings more easily than at frequencies such as 2.5GHz used by Clearwire’s WiMAX network across the United States.

The original request for information (RFI) made interesting reading in that it specifically called for a solution using 4G long-term evolution (LTE) technology, the next generation of mobile broadband network that has already gone live in Scandinavia and other global markets. It also called for subscriber devices such as handsets and USB dongles to be interoperable with commercial carrier networks such as WiMAX, HSPA (High Speed Packet Access, as used by AT&T and T-Mobile) and EV-DO (Evolution Data Optimized, as used by Verizon and Sprint). Most importantly for the readership of this column San Francisco and San Jose included appendices to the RFI that outlined a requirement for initial pilot projects to cover applications for mass transit, including in-vehicle Internet access, and streaming live CCTV. To understand why this is important, we need to take a few steps back and look at the tortuous history of the 700MHz spectrum in relation to public safety.

In late 2007, in a move to form the groundwork for a national, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety organizations, the FCC granted 12MHz of spectrum in the 700MHz band under nationwide Public Safety Broadband License (PSBL) to the non-profit PSST who would manage the spectrum. Of the 12MHz available, 2MHz is used for guard bands that protect the main 10MHz from interference from adjacent public safety narrowband spectrum used for mobile voice communications. The 10MHz is split into a pair of 5MHz channels, for downlink and uplink respectively. The diagram below illustrates the relationship between the channels (highlighted with black arrows).

In 2008, the FCC auctioned the remaining 700MHz bands that had been vacated by UHF analog TV broadcasters in the move to digital.  The auction raised $19.6 billion, with Verizon paying almost $5 billion 22MHz of spectrum in the C Block and AT&T buying blocks in lower bands. The auction was peppered with lawsuits brought by Verizon and the CTIA who sought to overturn a ruling by the FCC in response to Google, that stipulated open access for applications and devices. Despite the auction generally being a success, the D Block did not meet its $1.3 billion reserve (receiving just one bid for $472 million), possibly due to the clause that the block must be used in conjunction with the existing public safety broadband spectrum for which the PSST wanted lease payments of $50 million per year. Additionally the spectrum could not be used for purely commercial wireless services, and would only be awarded on condition of an aggressive roll-out timetable for national coverage. An FCC investigation into the failure of the D Block to sell was largely inconclusive other than to say there were many layers of  ”uncertainty and risk” involved.

Since the auction, the 700MHZ D Block has languished as the debate rages over how it should be allocated and under what terms. The FCC contends that the spectrum would be best in the hands of a commercial operator like T-Mobile, providing healthy competition for Verizon and AT&T while giving public safety organizations economy of scale by piggybacking on the cash reserves of a major telecommunication carrier. However, those public safety organizations, which include the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), disagree and want the spectrum reallocated for public safety’s exclusive use. They contend that the 10MHz currently available under the PSBL is not enough for future development of public safety applications, which will increasingly require greater bandwidth for broadband data services such as video streaming, transfer of high-resolution imagery and voice-over-IP (VoIP). Ironically, exactly the same arguments that the Big Four carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile) have for expanding their spectrum positions. Public safety quite rightly wants to start building a national wireless broadband network today, to be ready for the demands of tomorrow.

So the timing of the Motorola contract in the Bay Area is apposite. After the failure of the D Block auction, the National Broadband Plan recommended a modified partnership approach for public safety and commercial broadband deployment. In May the FCC granted conditional waivers to 21 state and local jurisdictions to allow early broadband deployment in public safety spectrum, with LTE mandated for all deployments.  Meanwhile Motorola, in conjunction with the Bay Area UASI, applied for federal funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the broadband stimulus, and was awarded $50.6 million in August.

I do hope I haven’t lost you; it is complicated, but the outcome is important. The 700MHz LTE network that Motorola will build forms part of the Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System (BayRICS), a multi-tiered communications infrastructure encompassing wireless broadband, P25 voice, microwave and backend management. Not only does BayRICS serve public safety requirements, but also those of other government services for public access, including schools, libraries, hospitals and transportation agencies. The network will not only use licensed 700MHz LTE, but also 5.2, 5.4 and 5.8 GHz WiMAX and Wi-Fi in unlicensed bands, and be available to commercial wireless broadband providers seeking to use the network to offer internet access to business and residential customers.

What Motorola and the Bay Area UASI have done is create a viable business model for wireless broadband through an aggregation of spectrum, applications, and private and public funding; a model that touches almost all aspect of local government communication while neatly side-stepping the ongoing political debate around 700MHz and just getting on with it. As and when the D Block issue is resolved, public safety may well get the extra spectrum it’s looking for. But in the meantime the Bay Area will push ahead, and mass transit operators can start to leverage the system for traffic signal control, telemetry, broadband to vehicles and live video surveillance. BayRICS will hopefully provide a blueprint for other municipalities around the nation seeking to understand systems interoperability and looking for an example of best practice.

–

Jim Baker is managing partner at Xenventure, a market strategy and private equity firm based in San Francisco and London. A C-level wireless industry veteran, Baker has been involved in many deployments of wireless technologies on passenger transportation worldwide and is a recognized industry expert on Wi-Fi, 3G and 4G convergence. He is chair of the Technology Committee at the Joint Council on Transit Wireless Communications, which is developing a strategic plan for implementation of wireless technologies in mass transit. Contact Baker via LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter.

by Mark Foss

Many years ago, I drove a bus route that traveled into Seattle from south to north; then continued out of town northbound as another route. The schedules for both legs of the trip were too tight, to say the least. By the time I arrived downtown on the first leg of the trip, I was already 10 to 15 minutes late. The schedule on the second leg of the trip was also not kind.  Passengers on the north end of my trek were very displeased. However, by the end of the line, I would arrive with enough time for my schedule to “recover”.  I would leave southbound on time. Passengers were constantly irritated. Try as I might there was no cure for too little time. Stress was high. And satisfaction was low for everyone.

Pierce Transit (Tacoma, Wash.) has just cut six manager jobs. The positions eliminated consisted of five currently filled managers’ positions and one vacant position. Other recent budget cuts included cost-of-living increases and wage step increases for non-union workers. The projected budget savings total about $1.2 million. The transit union was asked to re-negotiate its contract but refused. The contract is up, however, next year. Negotiations are expected to begin in the spring. I suspect that negotiations won’t be easy given the current financial climate.

Pierce Transit is proposing an increase of the transit sales tax. From my perspective the increase is very small. Currently, the change would be from 6/10th of one percent to 9/10th of one percent or a total of 90 cents on a purchase of $100. Surveys of the public suggest public support for transit but that a vote might do better in February 2011 (than November 2010) (See: Pierce Transit board meeting, August 9, 2010, pp 2-3). Pierce Transit is also considering raising its fares between 14 and 33 percent. Revenue is not projected to increase much before 2015. Pierce Transit is a good agency providing good service. The agency also has a good image. However, will voters approve an increase in taxes slight as it might be? Will they accept a substantial fare increase? It’s hard to say.

The “Nightly Business Report“, on September 6, reported bleak economic news especially with regard to employment. Employers are holding off hiring for a host of reasons. The problems are projected to continue into 2011 to 2012 possibly longer. People are feeling the pinch. This suggests that voters won’t like anything that increases expenses e.g. higher transit taxes or higher fares.

One of the transit management people I know recently commented:  ”They seem to want more with less and less.” My perspective is that transit’s current woes aren’t the kind reminiscent of past calls to “do more with less”. Public transit financial issues in the news remind me a bit of schedule woes of the past. The public riding the bus expected my schedule to be more realistic than it was. So service delivery was found wanting. There is only so much ‘slack’ that can be cut out of a schedule before it becomes fiction. There is only so much slack that can be cut out of a budget before service has to be cut.

Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC). Contact him via LinkedIn.

Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor

I’m a rail guy, always have been. I can remember my first ride on Amtrak with classmates when I was in elementary school. And having traveled around the country seeing some of the best rail transit has to offer. And yet, I’ve recently started to question whether it’s the best option.

As usual in a position like mine, you get a lot of things sent to you to read. A lot. I finally got around to reading an article called “Mass Transit: The Great Train Robbery” this week that was engaging on a couple levels.

At first, I dismissed this as anti-transit propaganda. For the editor of a transit magazine you’d be surprised how much anti-transit stuff I get. I suppose they figure if they can turn me against transit, they can turn anyone. Fat chance.

But as I dug into the article a little more, I realized that it really wasn’t anti-transit. It was more anti-rail, and even then it wasn’t the usual shouting about no one riding trains or you’re taking my car when you pry it from my cold dead hands, that I normally get.

No, this piece was more carefully considered with numbers to back up the writer’s arguments. Now, I know how numbers can be manipulated to work against transit. I see that everyday from the anti-transit groups. Still, it got me thinking.

Rail is expensive. There is no way around it, when you start slinging that much metal at that kind of speed, it is going to cost serious money. But I don’t think it is “prohibitively” expensive. But it may be something we need to rethink.

First of all, and I take offense at the writer’s use of the word “boondoggle”, I think we need to call in a PR agency to help with our high-speed rail situation. Having attended a few local meetings for the new rail line being built between Milwaukee and Madison and talking to many others, I can see that a large part of the opposition comes from ignorance (remember the no one rides trains comment above).

The President’s “vision” needs clarification. We need to drop the idea of “high-speed trains” because, frankly, when you say it like that, dramatic background music springs up and you get that announcer with the deep booming voice from the 50s in your head.

It’s a commuter rail line linking major population centers with others in a network to facilitate quicker travel on a mid-range level. It’s not better than air travel when you’re trying to reach the coasts from the Midwest, but if you want to travel somewhere within your region, it beats standing in a security line for an hour.

And on a local level, we need to rethink light rail. Having ridden the light rail in Portland, Denver, Baltimore, Minneapolis and other cities, I know how nice it is to just walk up, hop on a train and hop off at your destination.

Is rail within a city a bad idea? Far from it. But I am wondering if there are better options. Frankly, light rail vehicles usually are built like tanks, yet tanks have more versatility of movement. Within cities we need something in-between what we have for rail and what we have for buses.

The thing is that most of the movement has been made on the bus side. Buses have moved more toward trains than the other way around. We need a streetcar system that can operate like rail does, but still use some of the recent developments from buses (just look at what Foothill Transit did this week).

Frankly, it seems to me that we need to rethink rail. It’s difficult because that seems to go against rail’s very nature: you put it on the tracks, it goes. And yet, that’s what we need to do. Only then will I think rail get that public acceptance we really want it to.

Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday. For those interested in instant updates, you can now get your latest Mass Transit news fix via Twitter.

Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Connect to me via LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter!