Problemas e soluções no transporte público e na mobilidade clipping cidade Verde

de Pernambuco serão devolvidos à União atualizados na forma da legislação vigente, aliás como prevêem os Termos de Compromisso.”

Por outro lado, a unidade técnica verificou que nos novos editais lançados pelos órgãos do Estado de Pernambuco para a aplicação desses recursos não foi dado cumprimento às obrigações constantes dos Termos de Compromisso e referentes às ocorrências apontadas no Acórdão 1.797/2008- Plenário. Assim, entendo pertinente a proposta de determinação efetuada para que a CBTU fiscalize adequadamente a execução dos referidos Termos de Compromisso e comunique a este Tribunal as medidas adotadas.

Feitas essas considerações, voto por que o Tribunal adote a deliberação que ora submeto à apreciação deste Colegiado.

9

TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO

TC 007.799/2009-7

ACÓRDÃO No 1772/2009 – TCU – Plenário

1. Processo no TC 007.799/2009-7. 2. Grupo II – Classe V – Assunto: Relatório de Auditoria 3. Interessados: Companhia Brasileira de Trens Urbanos; Congresso Nacional 4. Órgão/Entidade : Companhia Brasileira de Trens Urbanos 5. Relator: Ministro Benjamin Zymler. 6. Representante do Ministério Público: não atuou. 7. Unidade: Secretaria de Controle Externo - PE (SECEX-PE). 8. Advogado constituído nos autos: não há. 9. Acórdão:

VISTOS, relatados e discutidos estes autos de Auditoria – Fiscobras/2009, realizada na Companhia Brasileira de Trens Urbanos – Ministério das Cidades, responsável pelas obras de restauração do sistema de Trens Urbanos de Recife (PT: 15.453.1295.5754.0026),

ACORDAM os Ministros do Tribunal de Contas da União, reunidos em Sessão Plenária, ante as razões expostas pelo Relator, em:

9.1. determinar à Companhia Brasileira de Trens Urbanos (CBTU) que:

9.1.1. motive adequadamente os atos praticados pelas comissões de licitação que afetem interesses ou direitos dos licitantes, nos termos do art. 50, inciso I, da Lei 9.784/99;

9.1.2. fiscalize o cumprimento das condições elencadas no item 4.3 da Cláusula Quarta Obrigações dos Intervenientes dos Termos de Compromisso n.o 001/2008 e 002/2008, firmados com o Governo do Estado de Pernambuco, adotando as medidas corretivas que julgar adequadas e enviando a esta Corte, no prazo máximo de 60 dias, cópia das medidas adotadas;

9.1.3. quando dos procedimentos de implantação de novos sistemas de transporte por meio de veículos leves sobre trilhos – VLT’s, realize, encaminhando cópia a esta Corte, previamente estudo da viabilidade técnica e econômico- financeira do empreendimento, abarcando hipótese que abarque veículos mais compatíveis com o mercado internacional;

9.3. encaminhar cópia desta deliberação, acompanhada do Relatório e Voto que a fundamentam, à Comissão Mista de Planos, Orçamentos Públicos e Fiscalização do Congresso Nacional.

9.4. arquivar o presente processo

10. Ata n° 32/2009 – Plenário. 11. Data da Sessão: 12/8/2009 – Ordinária. 12. Código eletrônico para localização na página do TCU na Internet: AC-1772-32/09-P. 13. Especificação do quorum: 13.1. Ministros presentes: Ubiratan Aguiar (Presidente), Walton Alencar Rodrigues, Benjamin Zymler (Relator), Augusto Nardes, Aroldo Cedraz, Raimundo Carreiro e José Jorge. 13.2. Auditores convocados: Augusto Sherman Cavalcanti e Marcos Bemquerer Costa. 13.3. Auditores presentes: André Luís de Carvalho e Weder de Oliveira.

UBIRATAN AGUIAR Presidente

BENJAMIN ZYMLER Relator

Fui presente:

1

TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO TC 007.799/2009-7

LUCAS ROCHA FURTADO Procurador-Geral

=

http://www.lightrailnow.org/industry_issues.htm#cost-budget

5 June 2009

Brisbane Reality Check:
The high cost of "cheap" busways

In the ongoing battle between backers of light rail transit (LRT) and the rather blurry concept dubbed "bus rapid transit" ("BRT" ), Brisbane (capital of Queensland, and Australia's third-largest ciry, on the country's eastern coast) is definitely one of the hottest flashpoints, with Queenslland Premier Anna Bligh touting "BRT" busways as costing about half as much to build as LRT, and Transport Minister John Mickel advancing the merits of a "tramway-style" LRT system.

First, some background on Brisbane's public transport system...

The city's pervasive and efficient light rail electric tramway (streetcar) network was scrapped in the 1960s during the worldwide Transit Devastation era (when most city officials and planners were doing all they could to "motorize" their local travel and promote public dependency on personal motor vehicles running on public roadways).

In this process, as the electric tramways were ripped out, they were replaced by motor buses running on petroleum fuel (believed to be forever cheap and abundant). Fortunately, Brisbane's legacy regional passenger rail (RPR) transit system relained, to evolve into today's efficient Citytrain system, reaching some 382 km (237 miles) of route throughout the metro area.

In recent years, the need for a more rapid, medium-capacity surface transit system has sparked a debate between advocates of light rail transit (LRT) – basically, a re-introduction of tramways – and "BRT", operating on both dedicated busways and streets. In 2000, "BRT" won the initial round, with the opening of the first of the region's busways. Now 19.3 km (12 miles) of busway serve the Brisbane metro area, carrying some 100,000 weekday rider-trips. Promoters are claiming supposedly lower costs and greater "flexibility" as reasons to favor more "BRT" development rather than a light rail transit (LRT) system, proposed as an alternative by rail advocates.

brb-bus-brt-pax-bdg-lg-queue-outbd-buses-at-stn-2007jan-133x_Karl-Fjellstrom_ITDP.jpg ¬

One reason for the high cost of busways is the need for passing lanes at stations to enable capacity approaching that of rail – but high ridership results in serious queuing of buses. Imagine your waiting time if you're trying to catch your bus home after work, but it's somewhere in that "conga line" of "BRT" buses trying to access the station! 
[Photo: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP]

In Brisbane as elsewhere, proponents of "BRT" typically mix-and-match design criteria and lowball investment estimates in their campaign to assert that "BRT" is "just like light rail, but cheaper"

The claim that busways are "cheaper" than light rail merits examining with considerable skepticism – as Light Rail Now has done repeatedly, in numerous articles on this website. See: "Bus Rapid Transit" Analyses and Articles

In terms of capital investment cost, our research of Brisbane's busway projects hardly justify the claim of "low cost" compared with LRT.

Obtaining the costs of Brisbane's busway projects is not particularly easy – the public agencies involved don't publicize them to facilitate access. However, the following two documents (recently available) have proven to be an extremely helpful source of basic information needed:

• Public Transport Mode Selection: A Review of International Practice
http://etcproceedings.org/paper/download/1679

• State of Queensland (Queensland Transport) 2009 — Busways
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Projects_and_initiatives/Projects/Busways/

Splicing together data from these two sources, we've been able to ascertain the actual cost, converted to current (2009) US dollars, of several of Brisbane's major busway projects, as follows:

• South East Busway (completed 2001):
15,6 km (9.7 mi), US$421 million
$27 million/km
$43 million/mile

• Inner Northern Busway (completed 2008):
4.7 km (2.9 mi), US$408 million
$87 million/km
$141 million/mile

• Northern Busway Project (currently under way):
1.2 km (0.7 mile), US$158 million
$132 million/km
$214 million/mile

These unit capital costs seem staggering, and it leaves little wonder why they are not more readily publicized by the authorities and "BRT" promoters.

These costs are particularly striking in comparison with the costs of LRT lines on exclusive rights-of-way (comparable to busways). There is no project in Australia in such an alignment (the Adelaide LRT was an upgrade of an existing railway alignment), but two projects in US urban areas could be considered comparable:

• Charlotte — Lynx LRT, South corridor (completed 2007):
9.6 mi (15.5 km), US$496 million
$32 million/km
$52 million/mile

• Sacramento — Folsom LRT extension (completed 2004):
7.4 mi (11.9 km)
$25 million/km
$41 million/mile

(Again, all costs above expressed in 2009 US dollars.)

These comparative costs would certainly seem to call into strong question the claim of "BRT" promoters – in Brisbane and elsewhere – that busways are significantly "lower-cost" investments than LRT lines.
Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#BRB_20090605

Updated 2009/06/05
=

2 June 2009

USA:
Obama administration's DOT appointments suggest more signs of major policy change

More indications of a pro-public transport orientation on the part of the new Obama administration in Washington seem to be provided by more recent actions with respect to the US Department of Transportation (DOT).

On May 21st, John Porcari was confirmed as DOT Deputy Secretary.

Mr. Porcari has been the head of Maryland's DOT since 2007, and previously served in that position from 1999 to 2002. The Maryland DOT is responsible for all modes of transportation in the state – highways, aviation, mass transit, maritime, commerce and rail – and Porcari is also the chairman of the entity that oversees the state's bridges and tunnels.

During his tenure at the Maryland DOT, Mr. Porcari implemented a number of highway projects, including the controversial $2.6 billion InterCounty Connector, a six-lane toll highway between Gaithersburg and Laurel. He was also directly involved with the $2.4 billion project to replace the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Mr. Porcari is considered friendly to light rail, heavy rail, and Amtrak. He has been a supporter of the Purple line in Montgomery County; and although he has not stated his preferred mode for the line, he said that the decision should not be based on short-term economics, but on what will best serve the long-term growth in the region.
[Washington Post, "Dr Gridlock", 23 Oct. 2008.]

Porcari serves on the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA's) Board of Directors. APTA President William W. Millar lauded the nomination of Porcari and said that APTA looks forward to working with him.

He also has a background in environmental planning and a reputation for addressing environmental concerns associated with large-scale projects. As the Washington Post reports [19 May 2009], environmental and "smart growth" groups praised Porcari and called him one of the country's most "progressive" transportation secretaries, saying that he seriously considers the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and uses mass transit to focus growth. Porcari is a member of Maryland's Climate Change Commission and Smart Growth Cabinet, and he chaired a special task force on Transit-Oriented Development in 2000-01.

At a forum in April, regarding the upcoming federal transportation reauthorization bill, Porcari emphasized that "The reauthorization bill must be bigger in dollar terms, but you don't start the discussion with dollars. You start with allocating the funding more broadly, making it much more inter-modal, and holding States accountable with performance measures." He spoke of the need for a "balanced" transportation system, and of the importance of the nexus between land use and transportation. [1000 Friends of Maryland, "Follow the Money: A New Direction for Transportation in Maryland", April 2009.]

Mr. Porcari said that he might commute to his new job from Cheverly, Maryland, via the Washington Metro.

As Light Rail Now has previously reported, The Senate also confirmed Peter Rogoff to Head the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Joe Szabo to head the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). See: USA: "Regime change" at FTA, FRA bodes well for public transport.

And in what may be a further signal of the Obama administration's emphasis on public transport development, at the end of May President Obama announced his intention to nominate Polly Trottenberg as DOT's assistant secretary for transportation policy.

Trottenberg is executive director of Building America's Future, described by Progressive Railroading (June 3rd) as "a national bipartisan coalition that supports U.S. infrastructure investments and seeks a more accountable, sustainable and performance-driven national transportation policy." The coalition is co-chaired by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The PR article provides further details about Trottenberg 's background:

>>
Trottenberg previously served in the U.S. Senate for 12 years, lastly as deputy chief of staff and legislative director for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). She also was legislative director for Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a legislative assistant for transportation, public works and environment for the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). In addition, Trottenberg previously served stints at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Massachusetts Port Authority and Joint Commerce and Labor Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate. 
<<
— Susan Pantell, with LRN team
Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#USA_20090602

Updated 2009/06/02

25 May 2009

Los Angeles:
Voters demonstrate increasing enthusiasm for rail transit initiatives

Los Angeles — Rail advocates have long contended that, once an urban area has a rail transit system up and operating, public enthusiasm grows and voters exhibit willingness to OK even more rail.

That contention appears to be corroborated – at least, for the Los Angeles area – by a voting tally compiled by Roger Christensen, chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Roger's tally of LA-area rail transit initiative measures, below, provides the percentage of voters in favor and the outcome of the measure – plus additional information, as appropriate.

• 1968 – 44.88% – measure failed...
• 1974 – 46.39% – measure failed...
• 1976 – 39.64% – measure failed...
• 1980 – 54.33% – measure passed (vote that authorized construction of rail starter lines)...
• 1990 – 50.44% – measure passed (Blue Line opened in July)...
• 2008 – Over 67% – measure passed (2/3 voter approval now required – Blue, Green, Red, Purple, and Gold lines all open)

This obviously mounting and widespread voter enthusiasm for rail transit – commensurate with the LA public's increasing experience with it, as more and more lines have opened – must be highly irritating to such intrepid naysayers and ferocious opponents of rail as the LA-based Reason Foundation and critics such as University of Southern California professors Peter Gordon and James E. Moore II, who, along with accounting consultant Thomas Rubin, have relentlessly attacked LA's rail development ... even at times to the point of advocating that the Red Line metro be replaced by a busway system! Tough breaks, muchachos...

As Roger sums it up, "What is suggested here is that LA, now that it has some rail, wants a lot more. The City is growing up!"
Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#LA_20090525

Updated 2009/05/25

=

10 May 2009

Portland:
The freeway city that might have been – without light rail

Portland, Oregon is certainly a model of the benefits a good light rail transit (LRT) system can bestow – but that attribute also lifts Portland high in the target sights of dedicated rail critics, who relentlessly try to portray soaring success as abject failure.

Because of the MAX interurban LRT system, installed in 1986, and the Portland Streetcar, installed in 2001, central-city Portland is today an exceptionally livable urban environment, with clusters of retailers, restaurants, inner-city housing, small shops, sidewalk cafes, and other amenities.

So it's relevant to consider what Portland would have been like if it had followed the typical American city's freeway-focused path of development, rather than the rail transit-focused path it took – in other words, the kind of development pattern favored by anti-transit, pro-sprawl advocates such as Randal O'Toole, Wendell Cox, and Portland anti-rail activist John Charles and his Cascade Policy Institute.

Such a vision of Portland as a "might have been" freeway city was resuscitated in a Feb. 16th article by Elly Blue on the BikePortland.org website, titled The Portland that might have been.

Elly refers to the map shown further below – which she says she rediscovered recently – describing it as "the map that might have sealed our fate, developed by Portland city planners in 1966 in response to freeway guru Robert Moses’ vision for the city."

Robert Moses (in case you don't know, or need reminding) is the planning consultant and official who basically devastated swaths of New York City with his freeway-development plans – forcing the destruction of the city's once-extensive urban electric light rail (street railway) system in the process.

As a Wikipedia article (20 May 2009) describes him,

>>
Moses was arguably the most powerful person in New York state government from the 1930s to the 1950s. He changed shorelines, built roadways in the sky, and transformed neighborhoods forever. His decisions favoring highways over public transit helped create the modern suburbs of Long Island and influenced a generation of engineers, architects, and urban planners who spread his philosophies across the nation. 
<<

The article further notes that "his works remain extremely controversial."

>>
His critics claim that he preferred automobiles to people, that he displaced hundreds of thousands of residents in New York City, uprooted traditional neighborhoods by building expressways through them, contributed to the ruin of the South Bronx and the amusement parks of Coney Island, caused the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants Major League baseball teams, and precipitated the decline of public transport through disinvestment and neglect.

His career is summed up by his sayings "cities are for traffic" and "if the ends don't justify the means, what does?" 
<<

Robert Moses is perhaps best remembered for what he did to "motorize" New York City, but his efforts on behalf of private automobile-based, sprawl-oriented urban development touched other cities as well — including Portland.

Elly Blue continues this story in her blog entry:

>>
Moses was known for saying “Cities are for traffic,” and he dedicated his career to creating freeway networks inside cities, many of which cut across existing neighborhoods — often the poorest ones.

This map is fascinating. The red lines represent freeways already built. The green ones were planned. Look at how North Going Street, which is slated to be part of one of Portland’s next bike boulevards, would have been a huge expressway. Can you imagine Alberta Street being what it is now if Prescott had been a freeway? And what would have happened to the neighborhoods around SE 20th and SE 52nd? 
<<

por-hwy-map-Moses-freeway-plan-1960s_City-of-Por.jpg ¬


[Map: City of Portland]



>>
The green lines are planned freeways, and the Mount Hood Freeway was the first of these that would have been built. It was stopped by a strong grassroots effort, with the support of local political leaders. After that, none of the other projects got rolling, and much of the money that was appropriated for the freeway instead went into other transportation projects like the first MAX light rail line.

[...]

We’re lucky to have escaped the fate of many other cities – but I hope we are not getting ready, with the Columbia River Crossing project and all the stimulus spending in our near future, to make some of the same mistakes that we avoided forty years ago. 
<<

por02x.jpg ¬

Instead of a city sliced by freeways, Portland opted for a more livable development pattern centered on light rail and other good mass transit, pedestrian amenities, and cycling facilities. The result is people-oriented neighborhoods like this with small shops and open-air cafes. 
[Photo: LRN file]


Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#POR_20090510

Updated 2009/05/10

=

20 April 2009

Detroit:
As "BRT" plan fizzles, light rail moves to center stage

Detroit — After decades of procrastination and indecision on rail transit – including several years of fantasizing about a "Bus Rapid Transit" ("just like rail") system concept that has apparently evaporated – Detroit seems at last headed toward reinstating rail transit with not one, but two light rail transit (LRT) plans that seem to be gathering real momentum ... and funding.

"Light-rail trains could shuttle people along downtown Detroit's Woodward Avenue as soon as late next year." That's the assessment of Crain's Detroit Business (8 Mar. 2009), focusing on the mostly privately funded streetcar-type LRT starter system now dubbed the M1-Rail project.

As Crain's describes the $103-120 million proposal, "The M1-Rail will be a 3.4-mile curbside light-rail loop along the Woodward corridor from Hart Plaza to Grand Boulevard in New Center, running past major business, cultural, medical, educational and sporting destinations."

In a 3 April 2008 article, Detroit: Streetcars at last to make a comeback? Light Rail Now provided a map of the proposed route, and noted that the 3.4-mile "Woodward Transit Catalyst Project" would include "12 stops near busy destinations such as Campus Martius Park, Wayne State University and the Detroit Medical Center."

The M1-Rail streetcar line – which already has received funding commitments totalling $74 million (about 62-72% of the projected capital investment) – is envisioned as just the "first link" in a potentially much larger, regional system. First there's the longer, faster Woodward corridor "Detroit Transit Options for Growth" rapid LRT plan – an 8-mile route, with many more stations, using rapid-type LRT rolling stock, with a projected capital investment of $371.5 million.

Then there's the "full regional plan", envisioning, as reported by the Detroit Free Press (March 16th),

>>
...400 miles of routes served by a variety of equipment, from light rail and high-speed buses to commuter trains. The full plan would cost $10.5 billion and take up to 25 years to build out. 
<<

According to information presented on April 19th at a combined meeting of Transportation Research Board (TRB) and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Light Rail and Streetcar technical committees (in conjunction with the TRB/APTA Joint Light Rail Conference in Los Angeles), the Woodward corridor streetcar will be designed with infrastructure capable of handling larger, faster rapid-type LRT rolling stock.

det-lrt-sim-Grand-Blvd-New-Ctr-stn-2008_dtogs.jpg ¬

Rapid LRT using larger, faster rolling stock in Woodward corridor would be based on original streetcar project and infrastructure. In this simulation, rapid LRT train serves proposed Grand Blvd/New Center station. 
[Photo: Detroit Transit Options for Growth (DTOG]



Rail planning in Detroit has come full circle since a Woodward rapid transit plan was presented in the 1970s; light rail was jawboned for about the next two decades, and then a "Bus Rapid Transit" ("BRT") proposal was launched with huge fanfare in 2001.

While rail visions were effectively discarded, "BRT" promoters – inspired by the "BRT" promotion campaign of George W. Bush's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) – hawked the fantasy of a glittering bus-based "rapid transit" network, dubbed "SpeedLink" and modeled on the "BRT" system in Curitiba, Brazil (see Brazil – Rail Transit, Light Rail, Tramway, and Public Transport Developments). SpeedLink, according to its main promoter, the Metropolitan Affairs Coalition (MAC), would be a

>>
..."train-on-tires" delivering rapid transit service comparable to a train, with dedicated busways, sheltered passenger stations, signal preemption and color-coded, train-like vehicles. 
<<

SpeedLink buses, the promotional pitch explained, were to represent the "rapid transit" element of a three-tiered regional system, including an intermediate service called InterLink ("transportation using traditional buses") and HomeLink, a "flexible, neighborhood-based service". Furthermore, claimed the MAC "BRT" promoters, "SpeedLink should be quicker, easier and less expensive to install than light rail, while offering many of the same features...."

As the MAC website underscored, Detroit's "BRT" plan was encouraged by Bush's FTA:

>>
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is helping to support bus rapid transit evaluation projects in 10 cities nationwide.... The FTA wants the program to show how combining planning and technology will allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability and efficiency of light rail – at a fraction of the cost. 
<<

The plan optimistically sketched out "an initial phase that would investigate the technical feasibility of bus rapid transit for metro Detroit...." This would demonstrate the system to be "technically feasible" and pave the way for "BRT" throughout the "metropolitan Detroit region".

Eight years later, the "train-like" rail-substitute "BRT" plan has fizzled into obscurity – the casualty of lukewarm public interest, lack of regional cooperation behind it, and a realization that operating vast brigades and armadas of buses (even if there were sufficient ridership attracted to justify them) posed both logistical problems for central-city streets as well as some daunting costs in terms of operations and maintenance, and frequent periodic rolling stock replacement.

In contrast, as "BRT" has dropped from the radar of Detroit's civic leadership, LRT has obviously re-ascended to become the focus of attention once again. In addition to the substantial influx of private investment commitments for the streetcar plan, the more extensive Woodward rapid LRT plan is also moving forward, with planning under way to meet FTA New Starts guidelines (and funding qualifications). State and county funding, as well as efforts to secure federal economic stimulus funding, are also under discussion.

Among community and civic leaders, hope is rising that, indeed, Detroit may at last be on its way to re-installing an urban public transit system commensuarte with the city's needs and importance. As the March 16th Free Press expressed it, "After decades of missed chances, southeast Michigan appears closer than ever to getting what other major cities already enjoy – a true regional transportation system."
Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#DET_20090415

Updated 2009/04/15

=

14 April 2009

US streetcar development gets another boost from Blumenauer

Following in the tradition of his landmark Small Starts legislation of 2003 – intended to nurture new streetcar line investment, but hijacked by the Bush administration to stymie rail development and instead promote "Bus Rapid Transit" – on 3 April 3 2009 US Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon introduced two new bills that would improve federal support for streetcar system development.

One bill, the Federal Streetcar Revitalization Act of 2009, would modify the Small Starts program created under the Bush-sponsored SAFETEA-LU federal mass transit assistance program. The Streetcar Revitalization Act would increase the amount to qualify under Small Starts from the current level of not more than a $75 million federal match and $250 million total capital cost, to a new level of up to a $100 million federal match and $300 million total cost.

The bill would also change selection criteria used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to eliminate consideration of "cost-effectiveness" and micro-manage the "accuracy" of forecasting models; and it would add consideration of reductions in vehicle-miles traveled in the corridor and greenhouse gas emissions.

The evaluation criteria under the existing law are as follows:

>>
(A) determine the degree to which the project is consistent with local land use policies and is likely to achieve local developmental goals; (B) determine the cost effectiveness of the project at the time of the initiation of revenue service; (C) determine the degree to which the project will have a positive effect on local economic development; (D) consider the reliability of the forecasting methods used to estimate costs and ridership associated with the project; and (E) consider other factors that the Secretary determines appropriate to carry out this subsection. 
<<

The new criteria would read:

>>
(A) determine the degree to which the project will have a positive effect on local economic development; (B) determine the effectiveness of the project to reduce per capita auto travel demand in the corridor of the project; and (C) determine the reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the completed project, including related development, travel pattern, and land use changes. 
<<

The bill would eliminate the requirement that the FTA rate the projects as high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low based on the project justification criteria and the degree of local financial commitment. Significantly, the bill would revise the definition of "fixed-guideway" to no longer include corridor-based bus projects.

The second bill introduced by Representative Blumenauer, the Fast Starts Program Act of 2009, would create a new grant program to fund streetcar projects. According to this bill, "A delay in authorizing grants under the Small Starts program has created a backlog of streetcar projects requiring attention outside of that program."

The bill would provide federal grants to streetcar projects of up to $60 million with no local match requirement, and authorize $400 million for fiscal year 2010. The projects would need to have a local financial commitment, meet environmental requirements, meet the revised evaluation criteria contained in the other bill, and be ready to begin construction on or before March 1, 2012. There would be no restriction on other sources of federal funding. A streetcar project is defined as "a new fixed guideway capital project that is electricity and rail based."

As noted above, Rep. Blumenauer's original 2003 Small Starts legislation was intended to help jump-start streetcar projects, but the Bush FTA distorted the intent of the program, refashioning it into a de facto anti-rail policy and transmogrifying it into a program to facilitate "BRT" schemes. For a number of years, many transit advocates and industry professionals have decried the Bush FTA's corruption of Blumenauer's original legislative mandate.

For example, in our article As Washington Meanders Toward "Regime Change"...Here's Our Wish List for Rational US Public Transport Policies the Light Rail Now Project team contended:

>>
FTA should eliminate the restrictions and requirements it has imposed on Small Starts projects, eliminate the emphasis on "BRT", and permit adequate flexibility in planning to permit workable streetcar projects and a return to the original aims of the Small Starts program. 
<<

It would certainly seem that Rep. Blumenauer's legislation is a forceful step in the direction of fulfilling this wish....

— Susan Pantell, with LRN team
Light Rail Now! NewsLog

URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q2.htm#USA_20090414

Updated 2009/04/14

=

Modelo do VLT atrai os moradores

Cerca de mil pessoas visitaram ontem o modelo do novo trem, exposto no Setor Comercial Sul
Luísa Medeiros

Publicação: 09/09/2009 08:52 Atualização: 09/09/2009 09:03

Wesley de Almeida destaca o conforto do trem aberto à visitação pública

Brasilienses puderam conhecer ontem um modelo de vagão do veículo leve sobre trilhos (VLT) que terá seu primeiro trecho construído na superfície da W3 Sul e Norte, na área onde hoje é o canteiro central da avenida. O novo transporte tem como meta principal desafogar o trânsito do Distrito Federal com a redução do número de carros e ônibus nas ruas. O trem está exposto na Quadra 6 do Setor Comercial Sul, em frente ao shopping Pátio Brasil. Quem passou pelo local teve a oportunidade de entrar e conferir como é o novo veículo. Segundo a Secretaria de Transportes, mais de mil pessoas visitaram o vagão, que ficará aberto até o dia 20.
 

Na hora do almoço, houve até fila para entrar no trem. Atendentes distribuíram planfletos sobre o VLT, enquanto um telão apresentava um vídeo sobre a obra. Moradores de Taguatinga, a dona-de-casa Jean Rocha de Andrade, 39 anos, e o filho Emanuel, 14, foram juntos conhecer o novo transporte ao meio-dia. Eles ficaram quase 30 minutos esperando um lugar no vagão, que recebe 50 visitantes por vez. O esforço foi feito a pedido do garoto, que desde quando ouviu falar sobre o obra, pede a mãe para conhecê-la de perto. “Uma pena que só irá atender o Plano Piloto, mas tenho fé que depois o governo irá construir esses metrôs nas outras cidades”, comentou a dona de casa. Na opinião do adolescente, o trem é “muito bonito” e “será bem melhor” quando estiver circulando.


vlt3_5.jpg ¬
A engenheira Lorenza Oppa pretende usar o VLT para ir ao aeroporto JK

A impressão que o instrutor de treinamento Wesley de Almeida, 28, teve ao entrar no vagão também foi positiva. “Pelo menos parece ser bem mais confortável que os outros transportes”, avaliou. Para ele, o VLT será uma alternativa de mobilidade no centro da capital. “Ás vezes, deixo o carro parado e ando de ônibus. Irei usar o novo transporte com certeza”, afirmou. A engenheira civil Lorenza Oppea, 30, está há apenas sete meses em Brasília mas se sente confiante para falar das dificuldades de fluidez do trânsito local. Acostumada a viajar a trabalho, ela sempre encontra engarrafamento na hora de pico a caminho do aeroporto. “Serei uma futura usuária do VLT e vou aposentar a ida ao aeroporto pelo Eixão”, ressaltou.
 

A preocupação do porteiro Aurélio dos Santos, 32, é em relação ao atendimento do novo transporte. Ele elogiou a iniciativa do novo modelo, que considera moderna, mas criticou o acesso restrito à população do Plano Piloto. “Um sistema desse tinha que atender a todo mundo”, disse.

Tarifa

Vagão do veículo leve sobre trilhos está exposto na margem da W3 Sul, onde circulará quando obra for concluída

Próximo ao horário do almoço, o secretário de Transportes Alberto Fraga foi ao local tirar dúvidas da população sobre o funcionamento do novo trem. Uma das questões mais perguntadas era sobre o valor da tarifa e a integração do VLT com os outros veículos do sistema de transporte. Fraga disse que, provavelmente, o preço da tarifa será o mesmo cobrado hoje no metrô: R$ 3 por viagem. “Mas isso só será definitivamente acertado quando o transporte estiver perto de funcionar”, observou. Sobre a integração entre os outros meios de transporte, ele esclareceu que o mesmo bilhete poderá ser usado para o VLT e o outro modelo, como ônibus, caso o passageiro faça apenas um único trecho.
O trem que está em exposição é um pouco menor do que os veículos que circularão pela W3 a partir de setembro de 2010. A obra começou oficialmente ontem com a demarcação de algumas áreas na avenida. Para tanto, serão retiradas 450 árvores que hoje fazem parte da paisagem do local. Como compensação ambiental, algumas serão replantadas na Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) Ema/Cabeça de Veado além das 1,5 mil previstas para plantação na APA. A primeira etapa da obra irá ligar o fim da Asa Sul (516 Sul) até a 502 Norte. Serão 16 vagões que circularão a 70 km/h. Cada vagão comporta 500 pessoas.
 

As intervenções na W3 só serão sentidas pela população daqui há alguns meses, segundo Fraga. Os retornos da avenida serão fechados aos poucos. “O projeto prevê o fechamento dos retornos porque a prioridade é o transporte coletivo. Para retornar, os motoristas terão que entrar na quadra. Poderá haver um engarrafamento, mas nada que não seja já previsto”, comentou o secretário de Transportes.

=