Jim Cameron

Talking Transportation: Avoiding Air Turbulence

February 25, 2020 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

“Buckle up folks. There’s some bumpy air ahead”, said the pilot on a recent flight. No need to remind me; my seatbelt is always fastened as “bumpy air”… a euphemism for air turbulence … is my worst fear in flying. It’s the whole “fear of death” thing.

Intellectually I know that modern aircraft can survive all manner of stress from changing or violent winds, but can I? I’ve been on flights where our aircraft plummeted hundreds of feet without notice, sending passengers, their drinks and laptops flying. There’s not much you can do in a situation like that except, hang on, breathe deeply and pray.

Thanks to climate change there are dire predictions that in-flight turbulence is getting worse, increasing by several hundred percent in some areas. Even today severe air turbulence is thought to cost airlines $200 million a year and is the single biggest cause of passenger injuries.

According to the FAA there were 27 passengers and crew injured by turbulence in 2015. In 2016 that number was 42. And with more and more people flying, those numbers will climb.

Only a few years ago, United Airlines offered passengers an in-flight audio channel where they could listen to air traffic control (ATC) handling their and other flights. That was my favorite channel as I heard our flight being cleared to higher altitudes, warned about other aircraft and being guided across the country. It was reassuring to hear the professionalism of the flight crew and ATC. But the channel was only available at the pilot’s discretion. And when it was turned off mid-flight, I always knew something nasty was coming our way.

Pilots regularly ask ATC for “ride reports” from other aircraft at the same altitude and flight path, always seeking the smoothest flight. But sometimes the turbulence is unexpected, the so-called “clear air turbulence.” You can be cruising along at 35,000 feet when, without notice, you get slammed.

On a Turkish Airlines flight to JFK last March, the 777 jetliner encountered clear air turbulence over Maine that sent everything flying. The terror lasted about 10 minutes and when the plane finally landed, 30 passengers were taken to hospital.

That’s why you should always keep your seatbelt fastened so if the plane drops, you don’t crash into the ceiling.

Now there’s new technology that may help us all have a smoother flight.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is testing an automatic tracking and reporting system to warn flights of “bumpy air.” So far 15 major airlines are sharing data in the test phase of the program.

Their planes are equipped with a black box measuring changes in the flight’s speed and tilt eight times each second. That data is transmitted to the ground and within 30 seconds, flights in the area can be warned of trouble ahead.

So far the participating airlines are generating 115,000 reports a day to the IATA Turbulence Aware system. The system will be most valuable on long, overseas routes where there are fewer aircraft flying the same corridor.

The Turbulence Aware system should be fully operational this year when airlines will have installed the gear on most of their planes. American Airlines alone hopes to have 800 airliners gathering and reporting data in the coming months.

Meantime … buckle up, friends! There’s bumpy air ahead.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

About the author: Jim Cameron is founder of The Commuter Action Group, and a member of the Darien RTM. The opinions expressed in this column are only his own. You can reach him at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: A Conversation With CT DOT Commissioner Giulietti, Part 2

January 29, 2020 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Editor’s Note: This is the second of two articles written by Jim Cameron reporting on his conversation with CDOT Commissioner Joseph Giulietti. Read the first article at this link.

Connecticut’s Department of Transportation (CDOT) Commissioner Joseph Giulietti is about to finish his first year on the job and his plate is more than full. It’s overflowing with controversy.

In my last column, in part one of an exclusive, no-holds barred interview he spoke of his challenges in speeding up Metro-North, coping with the over-budget, behind-schedule Walk Bridge replacement and ordering new rail cars.

This week, in part two of our conversation he speaks of the biggest issue of all … getting the legislature to pass truck tolls to raise money to replenish the Special Transportation Fund, which pays for transportation in our state.

I asked the Commissioner if Governor Lamont had “bungled” this initiative by his constant flip-flopping on what to toll and where.

Choosing his words very carefully, he said, “The Governor has admitted that there were some things he wished had been done differently. If it was bungled, it was because he was trying to come up with bipartisan support for a solution everyone could buy into.”

Giulietti said nobody expected how pervasive and organized the opposition forces would be against tolling.

As for Mr. Sasser, leader of the #NoTollsCT movement, “I’ve never met him. This is never a personal issue.” But when the initial tolling plan was unveiled, he said the #NoTollsCT forces “ran with the paranoia.” But if not tolls: “How do you want to pay for it [transportation]? Connecticut drivers have been subsidizing out of state drivers for years. Tolls are the closest thing we have to a user fee.”

As for the claim that truck tolls will lead to car tolls and the money will be misspent, “The Federal government determines that and that those funds must be spent on the roads [where the tolls would be.]” Trucks don’t buy gas in Connecticut, so they’re getting a free ride.

On the claim that the CDOT wastes money: “We used to have 5000 people at the CDOT. Now we have 2700.” Even snow plowing is done with one driver, guided by a computer on where to deploy brine and how to best clear the snow. One truck can now even handle three lanes of pavement.”

“We’ve always looked how we can be more efficient. That’s the type of department CDOT has become. We always want to be good stewards of the public’s money.”

“I don’t know of a better way [to pay for transportation] than tolls. The Governor has always said, ‘If you have a better idea, come to me with it,’ so if we’re not going to do tolling, what’s the alternative … gas tax, income tax, sales tax? But there don’t seem to be any alternate ideas on how to get this thing [funding] through.”

Giulietti says he has a good working relationship with Governor Lamont. “I’m not a politician, I don’t run for office,” he said. “But I know of very honorable people who do the right thing [like voting in favor of tolls] despite the threats of being voted out of their jobs.”

“I’ve worked now for six or seven governors. Lamont is one of the most honest and decent people I’ve worked with … a genuine good guy who truly wants bipartisan support to try and get this thing through. It makes it easy [for me] to face the criticism because I know he’s trying to do the right thing.”

To which I can only add … Amen!

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: A Conversation With CT DOT Commissioner Giulietti, Part 1

January 14, 2020 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Joseph Giulietti is finishing his first year as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation — CDOT. He’s been busy and less visible in recent months, so imagine my surprise when he offered me a one-on-one, no-holds-barred interview.

“You’ve always been fair, Jim. You’ve hit me hard but you’ve always been fair,” said the Commissioner. That’s music to my ears and I hope he feels the same way after reading this column.

Our conversation covered every aspect of CDOT’s operations from Metro-North to CT 2030 to tolls (which we will cover next week in Part Two). Here are some highlights from our conversation.

I reminded the Commissioner that before he joined CDOT he authored the infamous “30-30-30” report as a consultant to the Business Council of Fairfield County, arguing that it was possible to speed up trains to be able to go between Grand Central, Stamford, New Haven and Hartford in 30 minutes per leg. Any regrets at such a promise?

Giulietti said such speeds are still possible … in a few years. He wants to increase train speeds, re-do some bridges to avoid slowing down and save “five minutes here and 10 minutes there.” He also held out hope for faster service on Metro-North trains to Penn Station (after the Long Island Rail Road’s East Side Access project is finished going into Grand Central.)

“We’ve got cell-phone data from the Feds showing that 40 percent of riders to Grand Central continue south to Wall Street but 20 percent go west toward Penn Station,” he added.

He also held out hope for limited, rush-hour non-stop express service from New Haven to GCT and Stamford to GCT.

As for new rail cars… the additional 66 M8 cars that were to be delivered this year “are running a bit late”, but he called the M8’s a tremendous success. Those M8 cars were supposed to also run on Shore Line East, but even with 405 M8s CDOT doesn’t have enough of them even for the mainline given increased ridership. The Commissioner said he’s still looking at diesel push-pull double-decker cars where a ten-car train could carry almost 2000 passengers.

But he says that electrification of the Danbury and Waterbury branch lines just isn’t on the cards due to the cost.

As for fares: he couldn’t say if they’d go up because he doesn’t know what funding in the Special Transportation Fund will be like. But he did pledge cost savings in his department calling possible rail service cuts “the worst of all worlds.”

While the Walk Bridge project in Norwalk is running late and over-budget, he blamed litigation and said he has firm funding commitments from Amtrak on that bridge and the one over the Connecticut River.

But will CDOT have enough talented engineers after 2022 when 40 percent of the department’s most experienced staffers will be up for retirement? The Commissioner said that succession planning is a huge priority for him. He’s even grooming replacements for his own job.

But among the rank-and-file, it’s hard to keep talent. “I can’t hold onto someone with a CDL (Commercial Drivers License.) “Some of the towns are paying more [than CDOT.]”

With a special session of the legislature coming up in January to consider tolls, there’s a lot hanging in the balance. What does Giulietti think of his boss [the Governor] and Mr Sasser’s “No Tolls CT” movement?

Read those frank comments next week in Part Two of our conversation.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Pre-Cursor of the Tesla, the Dymaxion Car has Connecticut Roots

December 27, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Did you know that Bridgeport was once the home of “the car of the future”? It was the Tesla of its era, but only three were ever built.

This mystery vehicle? The Dymaxion Car. The designer? Buckminster Fuller.

Best known for his pioneering 1940s architectural design of the geodesic dome, a decade earlier Fuller was already inventing other things. It was the 1930s and the country was struggling through the Depression. Fuller saw the need for innovation, for “doing more with less,” and conceived of a mass-produced, pre-fabricated circular house modeled after a grain silo.

Built with aluminum, Fuller only saw two prototypes of the dwelling constructed and even those weren’t actually built until 1945. Fuller called his design The Dymaxion House … Dy for Dynamic, Max for Maximum and Ion for tension.

It was a major flop.

The Dymaxion Car

Next, Fuller moved on to transportation, conceiving the Dymaxion Car, an 11-person, three-wheeled vehicle that he hoped might one day would even be able to fly using what he called “jet stilts”… and this was decades before the invention of the jet engine.

Indeed, the Dymaxion Car looked a lot like a stubby zeppelin with a forward-facing cockpit and tapered, aerodynamic tail. Equipped with a rear-mounted engine that could run on alcohol, it could go 90 mph and get 30 miles to the gallon. The car had dual steel frames while a wooden lattice-work held the outside aluminum panels in place. The single rear wheel could pivot 90 degrees making parking a breeze.

Bankrolled with $5000 from wealthy investor and socialite Philip Pearson of Philadelphia, Fuller needed a place to build a prototype and ended up at the old Locomobile plant on Atlantic Street in Bridgeport’s Tongue Point neighborhood. Don’t bother looking for this piece of history. It’s long gone as the land is now home to the PG&E power plant.

When Fuller set up the auto workshop in March 1933, he hired naval architect Starling Burgess, who recruited 27 workmen, many of them from Rolls Royce, from the 1,000 applications he received. In just three months, the first prototype was completed and rolled out onto the streets of Bridgeport on Fuller’s 38th birthday. The car was immediately shipped to Chicago for display at the World Fair.

Sadly, the prototype was totaled after it was involved in a car crash, flipped over and killed its driver and left VIP passengers injured. Initial orders for the Dymaxion started to evaporate over safety fears even though it turns out the Fuller car had been sideswiped.

A second prototype emerged from the Bridgeport plant six months later. Fuller had hoped to display the Dymaxion at the 1934 New York Auto Show but pressure from Chrysler locked him out, literally. Not to be outdone, Fuller parked prototype #2 right by the front door of the show and got more attention than he might have done on the exhibit floor.

Fuller even brought the car back for the last year of the Chicago World Fair in 1934 but public curiosity didn’t turn into sales. Fuller eventually sold this second prototype to his plant workers while a third model — this one equipped with a stabilizing vertical fin — went to conductor Leopold Stokowski.

Only one of the three Dymaxions survived, car #2, which is now at an auto museum in Reno, NV. But Bucky Fuller fans have built replicas, some of which are still on the roads today 80 years later.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Reading Old Timetables

November 3, 2019 by Jim Cameron 2 Comments

Jim Cameron

I love reading timetables. Not the new ones on smartphone apps, but the old printed ones. Reading about a train or plane’s journey on paper is almost like taking the ride itself.

Growing up in Canada, I was fascinated with the two major passenger railroads, the quasi-government owned “crown corporation” Canadian National Railroad (CNR) and the private Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR). Both ran transcontinental trains from Montreal and Toronto to Vancouver, a journey of 70+ hours … if they were on time.

I wondered why the CPR’s streamliner “The Canadian” left Toronto at 4:15 p.m. while its CNR competitor “The Super Continental” left at 6 p.m. And why did the CNR’s later-leaving train arrive four hours earlier into Vancouver than the CPR’s? Reading the 31 stop itinerary explained why: they took much different routes through the Canadian Rockies. The CPR’s more southerly, scenic route was the highlight of the trip so they timed the journey for daylight hours.

Canada has two official languages, English and French, so it was by reading those timetables I learned that “quotidien” meant daily, “repas” meant meal and “douane” translated as customs, as in crossing an international border.

Fast forward 50 years and I’m still intrigued with old New Haven Railroad timetables, comparing that crack (private) railroad’s speeds with those of present-day Metro-North and Amtrak. How did the New Haven make it from New Haven to Penn Station in 90 minutes while it today takes Amtrak 109 minutes?

But old timetables contain more than train times. They also talk about the entire travel experience.

Did it really (in 1955) cost just $7.75 to go from Boston to NY in coach ($14 in a lower berth, $13 in an upper)? The old timetables also list the trains’ “consists”… what kind of rail cars made up each run: coaches, Pullmans, Parlor-Lounge car (some equipped with two-way radio telephones) and diners.

On the aviation side, I remember when airlines published their own timetables too, often promoting their advanced aircraft: American Airline’s 707 Astrojet, United’s DC-8 Mainliner and Braniff Airlines “Conquistador” DC-6.

The illustrations were always of well-dressed travelers smiling as they boarded their planes using ground-stairs, long before airports had jetways. The seating looked roomy and comfortable, and was tended by well-coiffed stewardesses serving elaborate meals.

But the grand-daddy of all airline timetables was the OAG, the Official Airlines Guide, a phone book-sized (look it up, kids) compendium of every flight in the country. As a one-time road warrior, I even subscribed to the “pocket” version, which was about an inch thick. Miss a flight? Your OAG would show you the alternatives.

What I enjoyed most reading the OAG’s railroad-style timetable wasn’t the flight times, and later, the on-time performance percentage, but the kind of aircraft used on each flight. I took a liking to TWA’s iconic L-1011’s and avoided American’s DC-10’s after the deadly 1979 crash at O’Hare.

And after 9/11, I always opted for any airline flying Airbus equipment. The reason? The 9/11 terrorists had gone to flight school to learn how to fly traditional “yolk” flight controls, but only the airlines’ own simulators could train pilots on the Airbus fly-by-wire joystick controls: i.e., Airbus jets were not going to get hijacked. Or so I hoped.

Today there are no paper timetables. All the information is online and on my phone … handy, yes, but definitely not as romantic.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Community, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Connecticut’s Own … Igor Sikorsky

October 20, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Photo by Adam Bignell on Unsplash.

Jim Cameron

Have you ever flown in a helicopter?

They seem such a glamorous (if expensive) way to travel, by-passing the traffic en route to the airport or sightseeing over rugged terrain.

But do you know that the helicopter had its first flight ever right here in Connecticut, the creation of Russian immigrant and inventor Igor Sikorsky, 80 years ago.

Sure, Leonardo da Vinci made early drawings of a vertical flying machine, but that was in the 1480s. And kids had been playing with hand-turned, propeller-driven toys for centuries before that.

Sikorsky drew his earliest concept drawings of a helicopter years before the Wright brothers ever flew at Kitty Hawk. But when he fled Russia with his family, it was fixed-wing aircraft that gave Sikorsky his start in aviation.

At the age of 21 he designed his first airplane, the S-1, a single-engine pusher biplane. Twenty-three designs later he built the S-42 flying boat, made famous by Pan American as “The Flying Clipper”. The four-engined craft had a range of 1200 miles carrying 37 passengers by day or 14 by night in berths, cruising at 170 mph.

Even as Pan Am was opening literally over-seas markets, Sikorsky was still working on his dreams of a helicopter. At his plant in Stratford his VS-300 made its first flight, albeit tied to the ground, in September of 1939.

A 1942 version, the Sikorsky R-4, became the first mass-produced helicopter, quickly adopted by the armed forces of the US and UK. It had only one crew member, could carry just 500 pounds, but had a range of 130 miles flying 65 mph at up to 8000 feet.

Flash forward to the present and Sikorsky’s old company, now part of Lockheed Martin, still produces helicopters. Sikorsky’s successor companies, then part of United Aircraft Corp, even designed the short-lived (1968 -1976) Turbotrain, powered by a Pratt & Whitney turbine “jet engine.” The train could make the 230-mile New York to Boston run in three hours and 39 minutes. Today’s Acela can do the same run in no less than 3 hours 55 minutes.

In a competition with the electric-powered Metroliner in 1967, the Turbotrain hit 170 mph, a land-speed record for a gas turbine-powered rail vehicle. Acela does no better than 145 mph.

Today’s modern helicopters come in all sizes and speeds … from the beefy Seahawk SH-3 “Sea King” which can carry five tons over 600 miles at 166 mph … to “personal” helicopters for one person flying 60 miles at 80 mph.

For helicopter fans, New York’s east-side heliports at Wall Street and 34th Street offer the chance to see luxury craft in action, some privately owned, others offering passenger service. BLADE Helicopters will get you to the Hamptons from midtown in 33 minutes starting at $695 one-way.

In the 1960s, NY Helicopter flew from the NY airports to the top of the Pan Am building. I took that flight once, transferred to an elevator and walked onto a train in Grand Central. For a while they even choppered to Stamford’s heliport on Canal Street in the South End.

Much has changed in aviation in the last 80 years since Sikorsky’s first helicopter took to the air. And to think that it all started here in Connecticut.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Filed Under: Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: The Train Ride From Hell

August 17, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

It was the railroad trip from hell: the hottest day of the year, stuck for five hours on a sold-out Amtrak train where only half the cars had air conditioning.

The ride to Washington days earlier had been uneventful, almost on time and pleasantly cool, even though I’d made the mistake of taking a Northeast Corridor train, not Acela. Its older Amfleet cars, though recently refurbished on the inside, are still 50-years-old.

But coming back from Washington on a torrid Sunday, by cheaping out for the slower, less expensive train I got what I’d paid for. Put another way, I didn’t get what I’d paid for.

Already a half-hour late arriving in Washington from Newport News Va., train #88 arrived on one of DC’s low-level platforms, meaning boarding passengers had to cue up for about 30 minutes before even being allowed on the platform to board.

One of the station agents said that “extra cars” had been added in Washington, so I immediately headed to the front of the train where I assumed the new cars would be empty. It was already 98 degrees in DC, heading for a “feels like” high that day of 110, so I was looking forward to the super-AC Amtrak is known for.

No such luck, as even the newly added cars were only slightly cooler than outside. That’ll improve when we get going, I thought.

Wrong!

By Baltimore it was getting hot and the fan system was intermittent. Pleas for help to the conductors brought nothing more than promises that “they’ll try to reset the system in Philly,” another hour away.

In desperation I turned to social media, Tweeting sarcastically about Amtrak’s new “Sauna Cars”. Direct messaging to @Amtrak brought no response.

The train was getting later and later on its schedule, partly because of the heat’s adverse effect on the power lines and potential warping of the rails. Knowing there’d be a lot of passengers getting off and on in Philly, I plotted my move to one of the few cars with breathable air. Success … a cooler, though not cold, car with seats.

At Philadelphia, nothing changed, though we did learn that five of the 10 cars on this train bound for Boston carrying 700+ passengers were without air conditioning.

The DC conductor crew never apologized, though they did offer small, free bottles of water, which quickly ran out. But when a new set of conductors boarded in New York, the tone changed significantly.

“We apologize folks. This is not the kind of service we want to provide or you deserve. Please call 1-800-USA-RAIL and register a complaint. If the cars don’t reset after New York, we’ll try again at New Haven,” said one conductor on the PA system.

We got off in Stamford, arriving 90 minutes late, so I don’t know if the cars ever did get cooler during the next four hours run to Boston.

The next day I called Amtrak Customer Service. A 20+ year veteran agent commiserated, empathized and got me a refund voucher.

“Those old Amfleet cars shouldn’t be refurbished, they should be retired,” she said. “Their air conditioning is either on or off. There’s no moderating the temperature. Next time you should take Acela,” she added.

Never mind that Acela costs twice as much. Its AC works and it’s mostly on time! I’ve learned from my mistakes.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Airlines That Are No More

July 16, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Which airline company will disappear next into the clouds? Photo by Leio McLaren (@leiomclaren) on Unsplash.

Rail fans call them “fallen flags”… railroads that are no more, like the original New Haven and New York Central Railroads. But before I start getting all misty-eyed, let’s also pay homage to airlines that have flown away into history.

Like PEOPLExpress, the domestic discount airline ,which flew out of Newark’s grungy old North Terminal starting in 1981. Fares were dirt cheap, collected on-board during the flight and checked bags cost you $3. You even had to pay for sodas and snacks. The airline expanded too fast, even adding a 747 to its fleet for $99 flights to Brussels, and was eventually merged with Continental under its rapacious Chairman Frank Lorenzo, later banished from the industry by the Department of Transportation.

There were any number of smaller, regional airlines that merged or just folded their wings, including Midway, L’Express, Independence Air, Air California, PSA and a personal favorite, Midwest Express, started by the Kimberly-Clark paper company to shuttle employees between its mills and headquarters in Milwaukee.

Midwest flew DC-9’s, usually fitted with coach seats in a two-and-three-configuration, but equipped instead with business-class two-and-two-leather seats. Meals were free and included fresh baked chocolate chip cookies.

We all probably remember the fallen giants like TWA (acquired by American Airlines), Eastern Airlines (also gobbled up by Lorenzo), Braniff (which even flew a chartered Concorde at one point between Washington DC and Dallas TX) and Pan American (which was the US’s semi-official overseas airline for decades.)

And let’s not forget more recent carriers like Continental, merged with United Airlines in 2012 or US Airways (previously known as Allegheny Airlines), which was taken over by American Airlines in 2015. Or how about the old Northwest Orient, which Delta took over in 2008? I especially remember flying AmericaWest before its 2005 merger with USAir.

And then there were the name-change carriers, like ValueJet which rebranded as AirTran after a deadly crash in the Florida Everglades in 1996 following a series of maintenance and safety issues. A 1982 crash of an Air Florida jet taking off in a Washington DC snowstorm quickly grounded that airline for financial reasons.

Anyone remember the Trump Shuttle, successor to Eastern Airlines’ Boston – LaGuardia – DC hourly service? It only flew for three years but innovated such in-flight technology as GTE’s Airphone. You could even rent laptops for use in-flight.

But did you know that the cruise ship line Carnival once had its own airline of the same name? Its fleet of 25 jets funneled passengers to their ships in Fort Lauderdale until 1997 when Pan Am took it over, only to itself go belly-up months later.

Another quirky little airline was MGM Grand Air which flew JFK to LA in an all first-class, luxury configuration. There were swiveling lounge seats, private cabins, an onboard chef and even in-flight fax machines. Their 727 carried only 33 passengers and operated out of a private terminal at LAX, making it very popular with camera-shy celebrities. One way fares were $1400.

But did you know that there was also a Hooters Air, modeled after the restaurant chain of the same name? From 2003 to 2006 the seven plane fleet featured business class seating at low fares and in-flight meals served by, you guessed it, tight t-shirt clad Hooters Girls. The restaurant chain is still going, but the airline folded after $40 million in losses.

Jim Cameron

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

About the author: Jim Cameron is founder of The Commuter Action Group, and a member of the Darien RTM. The opinions expressed in this column are only his own.

You can reach him at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Summer Vacation … Fly or Drive?

July 5, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Photo by Sai Kiran Anagani on Unsplash

Going on vacation this summer? If so, the question is … how to travel: drive, take the train or fly? (I’m eliminating the bus option because, well, life is too short to endure that kind of misery. I have no problems with commuting by bus, but a 10-hour ride is not going to happen!)

In most cases, the choice depends on how far you’re traveling and what your budget allows. For trips of 300 miles or less, the train is my first choice … assuming it goes where I want. In the Northeast, Amtrak service is frequent, convenient and affordable. But to other destinations, not so much.

But it also depends on how many are in your ‘party’ (and traveling with your family is always a party, right?) because traveling as a family of four can add up, especially when each member needs a ticket. Even going into New York City can be cheaper by car (including tolls and parking) than on Metro-North when you have three or more people.

Flying is faster, but maybe not if you include all of the door-to-door time: driving to the airport, arriving two or three hours before departure, checking your bags, going through security, then after arrival at your destination grabbing your bags, finding your rental car, driving to your destination. In most cases by train, you go from city-center to city-center. And by car, well, you get to determine where you’re going.

By train you get to see the country. But so too with driving. Train travel is pretty stress-free. Not so with driving, and certainly not in flying.

In about eight hours you can drive 400+ miles, even with pit-stops. If two drivers can share the behind-the-wheel duties, a full 12-hour day’s worth of driving can easily get you 700 miles. That’s almost the distance to Chicago or maybe Atlanta. But staying alert can really take its strain, so be sure to take frequent breaks and caffeinate.

Of course, having kids on board can complicate things … more stops, more whining. “No, we’re not there yet! Play with your Gameboy.”

If you’re confused about the fly-drive value calculations, there’s a great website that can help: the Be Frugal Fly or Drive Calculator. Plug in the information … origin, destination, make and model of car, driving hours … and voila! The app will figure the cost for both alternatives, even including highway tolls and your car’s mpg. Mind you, gas prices are heading up this summer, so factor that in too.

The final issue is safety. You do want to arrive alive, right?

It used to be on airlines that after you landed the flight attendant would say something like “The safest part of your journey has just ended, so drive safely”. Statistically, that’s true.

Federal safety stats say that one person dies for every 100 million vehicle miles traveled. (Interestingly, Connecticut’s statistics are lower than the national average). Still, there are a lot more highway crashes than air disasters. In 2018 there were no fatalities on US commercial flights and worldwide, only one fatal accident for every 300 million flights.

The National Safety Council says you have one chance in 114 of dying in an automobile crash, but only one chance in 9,821 of dying on a flight. You’re eight times likelier to die by drowning on vacation.

Thanks to the stronger US economy, a lot more people will be taking a vacation this summer. A little planning and you should be able to save time and money. So, bon voyage!

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Jim Cameron

About the author: Jim Cameron is founder of The Commuter Action Group, and a member of the Darien RTM. The opinions expressed in this column are only his own.

You can reach him at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Why the Scorn for Bus Riders?

June 9, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Why do many people have such scorn for those who take the bus?

Forty-one million trips are taken on 12,000 public buses each year in Connecticut in communities across the state (not counting school buses.) Yet, those riders are regarded as losers, not by the transit operators, but by those who drive by car.

When Southington was recently considering restoring bus service for the first time since 1969, a local resident wrote a letter to the local paper declaring “Towns that have bus service are towns that frankly have a lesser quality of people.”

Really? “Lesser quality,” how? Because they can’t afford to own a car? Or because they are minorities? That comment is either racist or classist or both.

As I wrote recently, the Greater Bridgeport Transit bus system carries 18,000 passengers every day (5.2 million a year), 90 percent of them either going to school or work. Something like 26 percent of all Bridgeport train riders got to or from the station by bus.

Sure, some are non-white or non-English speaking. But why begrudge them transportation? You’d rather they not have a job or an education?

And yes, their fares are kept low with state subsidies. But their incomes are also low and for them, even a $1.75 bus fare is expensive. Remember … Metro-North trips (26.5 million per year), though also expensive (the highest in the US), are also subsidized.

But the biggest target of transit scorn is CTfastrak, the four-year-old, 9.4-mile-long dedicated BRT (bus rapid transit) system running between Hartford and New Britain. Transit planners from across the country come to study CTfastrak. The Feds are looking to spend $665 million on similar systems across the US.

Yet Connecticut Republicans were trying to close it before it even began.

When it first opened in 2014, the CDOT projected 16,000 daily riders. To date, the ridership is closer to 11,400. Fares are cheap ($1.75 round-trip) and service is frequent with buses departing every few minutes. From New Britain to downtown Hartford, it’s only 20 minutes, even at rush hour. That’s about half the time you’d spend on I-84 stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

From the dedicated bus-only right-of-way, buses can also transfer to local roads into downtown Hartford and communities ranging from New Britain and Bristol to Cheshire and Waterbury. The stations are clean and modern and the buses even offer free Wi-Fi … something we still don’t (and probably never will) have on Metro-North.

Critics complain about “empty buses” riding up and down the system. Sure, the buses may not be jammed like Metro-North on a summertime Friday, but they do carry thousands every day. Imagine if those bus riders were in cars. How’d you like the traffic then?

Why the scorn for bus riders? Beyond racism and class-warfare, I think there’s actually some jealousy. Why do they get a fast, clean, cheap ride when I’m stuck in traffic? Well, for some it’s a matter of necessity: they don’t own or have access to a car. For others, as with train riders, it’s a matter of choice: they prefer the bus for speed and convenience.

So can we please stop shaming bus riders?

Like all of us, they have places to go, so let’s just allow them to ride in peace and harmony.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

About the author: Jim Cameron is founder of The Commuter Action Group, and a member of the Darien RTM. The opinions expressed in this column are only his own. You can reach him at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Community, Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: The ‘Port Jeff’ Ferry – Mass Transit Making a Profit

May 10, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Public transportation is a money-losing proposition. But Connecticut is home to one of the few profitable transit companies in the US. It’s not CT Transit or Metro-North, both of which are heavily subsidized. No, the operation that’s squarely in the black is the Bridgeport – Port Jefferson Steamboat Company, a.k.a. “the ferry”.

“If you tried to start this ferry company today, you couldn’t do it,” says the ferry company’s Chief Operating Officer, Fred Hall. Today’s ferry is a legacy of the 1883 cross-Sound service run by PT Barnum.

Hall has been on the boats since 1976 when he worked weekends as a bartender as a “side-hustle” to his advertising job in New York City. In those days they used to run a Friday and Saturday night “Rock the Sound” cruise leaving Port Jefferson at 10 p.m. Complete with a live rock band and a lot of drinking (the legal age then was 18), the three-hour cruise drew 600 passengers a night.

From there, Hall was promoted to General Manager of the Bridgeport terminal, Assistant General Manager and finally to Vice President in charge of the entire operation. And he thoroughly enjoys his work, commuting from his home on Long Island to inspect the three-vessel fleet several times a week.

He’s not alone: the ferry carries almost 100 daily walk-on commuters, crossing in both directions, who are an important indicator of the economy’s strength to Hall. “When the numbers of monthly commuter (at $240 per month) are high, that’s a sign of a weakening jobs market because people have to commute long distances to find work,” he observes.

But for cars carried on the ferry, the opposite is true. “In 2005 we carried 460,000 cars. In 2018, only 450,000.” Why? Because Hall says so many of his repeat customers are using the ferry to get to second homes … beach homes on Long Island or winter ski cabins in New England.

“You can probably fly out West in the winter and get more reliable snow conditions and still save money compared to driving to Vermont,” Hall says of his northbound Long Island customers.

Big changes are coming for the Bridgeport ferry, starting with an annual May fare increase. Tickets, which used to be sold on board “using carnival tickets on a broom handle,” are now e-tickets sold and scanned before boarding. If you’re bringing a car, reservations are a must, especially on weekends. If you show up without a ticket, expect to pay a surcharge, just like on Metro-North.

The ferry company is still working on moving to a new, larger terminal farther east in the harbor, a 19-acre site that will also support a deep-water shipping pier … if the US Army Corps of Engineers dredges the harbor. But that work is a Catch 22, he says, noting, “They dredge where there’s shipping traffic. But that traffic depends on dredging.”

The new $35 million ferry terminal will save up to eight minutes unloading and loading the ship and allow foot passengers to board using Jetways. Depending on permits, this new terminal might open in 2020 – 2021. The ferry company also hopes to add a fourth ferry to its fleet, built in the US and probably costing $30–40 million.

But long rumored plans to run additional ferry service from New Haven to Port Jefferson LI probably won’t happen, says Hall. “We just couldn’t find the land [for a terminal],” in New Haven.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Tolls Are in Trouble

April 14, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Jim Cameron

Governor Lamont’s tolling plan is in trouble. I knew it last weekend when I got a call from Dan Malloy.

The former Governor and I know each other going back to his days as Mayor of Stamford, but he’s only called me once before (many years ago when he sought my endorsement in his run for a second term as Governor.)

This time he was calling about my recent column about the Transportation Strategy Board, the panel that 18 years ago was tasked with prioritizing our state’s transportation needs and how to pay for them.

It wasn’t my fawning over then-TSB Chairman Oz Griebel that prompted Malloy’s recent call, but instead my characterization of the “lock box” on the Special Transportation Fund as having, to quote one wag, “more back doors than a hot-sheets motel on the Berlin Turnpike.” The Wag’s words, not mine.

“That comment was not helpful, Jim,” said Malloy. “We’re just trying to get this tolls idea across the finish line and your comments aren’t helping.”

That’s when I knew that the tolls plan is in real trouble. (Why is he calling me, of all people?) Not that there weren’t earlier warning signs that trouble was brewing.

The first was Governor Lamont’s somersaults on tolling from being in favor, then promising trucks-only tolling and finally settling (again) on tolling all vehicles. Voters felt betrayed.

Then Lamont pulled millions in car sales taxes from the STF, potentially bankrupting the transportation fund by 2022.

Those moves gave grassroots No-Tolls groups new-found fertile soil, picketing and tapping into the media’s love of controversy by offering up great photo ops.

Sure, the Republicans helped fan the flames with their so-called “information sessions” in local communities, providing a forum to attack Lamont and tolls while resurrecting their “Prioritize Progress” bonding plan, asking our grandkids to pay for the roads and rails we use today.

Then there were the “no tolls votes” in local communities, non-binding of course, but a clear indication of local sentiment. Even Stamford’s Board of Representatives voted against tolls. Polling by Sacred Heart University, though perhaps poorly worded, showed 59 percent of respondents were against tolling.

But wait. Where are the pro-toll voices?

Well, a coalition of Hartford lobbyists did try to organize an expensive campaign to support Lamont’s tolling vision, seeking money from construction companies and consultants who’d make a lot of money if tolls were approved. But a reporter somehow got hold of their pitch book, detailing the campaign, and it now seems dead in the water. Talk about “not helpful.”

Now, Governor Lamont is on a Magical Misery Tour, holding press events at every crumbling bridge, viaduct and train platform in the state. Against those backdrops, he pitches the need for billions in funding achievable only, he says, through tolling.

In the last couple of months, Metro-North has had two major power meltdowns as circuit breakers, transformers and sub-stations have failed, slowing trains and disrupting service. Commuters take such crises in stride knowing full well they’re riding in shiny new railcars on a century-old railroad crumbling beneath them.

But people upstate couldn’t care less. It’s not their problem, so why should they pay tolls or support mass transit?

Cynicism abounds that toll revenues would really be spent on transportation and not get diverted. Nobody trusts Hartford.

Tolls, my friends, are in trouble.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: State’s Transportation Strategy Solutions Are Remarkably ‘Déjà Vu’

April 2, 2019 by Jim Cameron 1 Comment

When are we finally going to do something about our transportation crisis?

That question has been asked for decades … but never answered, or more importantly, acted upon.

I remember back in 2001 when then-Speaker of the Connecticut House Moira Lyons held a news conference about our state’s transportation mess. The six-term Stamford Democrat, who was long on power by short in stature, stood next to a stack of consultant studies and reports almost as tall as she was. Enough with the studies, she said. Let’s fix it!

One of the best things to come out of that call to action was creation of the Transportation Strategy Board (TSB.) It had representatives from business, labor, commuters, academics and planners. They had a one year deadline to come up with a 20-year-plan for Connecticut’s transportation future and how to pay for it. And they did.

Chairman of the TSB was Oz Griebel. Yes, the same Oz Griebel who ran unsuccessfully for Governor last fall.

One of the TSB’s top recommendations was ordering new railcars for Metro-North, which finally happened under Governor Rell. But they also recommended highly unpopular funding mechanisms: a gasoline tax increase, sales tax surcharge and, yes, tolls.

What have we done since? More studies making consultants rich but never persuading lawmakers to do something. When our elected officials have no political will, they just suggest another study, board or commission.

Former Governor Dannel Malloy had ideas. His $100 billion, 30-year “Let’s Go CT” plan had something for everyone in every corner of the state. It was ambitious, but it wasn’t really a plan, just a laundry list of projects without priorities or funding.

Politicians love to take credit for the ideas but never want their fingerprints on the nasty business of paying for them. That’s why Malloy created … you guessed it … a blue ribbon panel: the Transportation Finance Panel. Among its members … Oz Griebel.

“It was like that movie ‘Groundhog Day’,” Griebel recently told me. “It was the same people we saw at the TSB debating the same issues” 10 years later.

And what did Malloy’s Transportation Finance Panel recommend to pay for his $100 billion “plan”? A gasoline tax increase, a sales tax surcharge, fare hikes and, you guessed it, highway tolls.

Of course, none of those came to pass. It was an election year and who wants to run for a job in Hartford explaining to constituents that they have to pay more, especially when the Republicans mischaracterized such funding as “taxes” instead of user fees.

Along the way, then-Governor Malloy abolished the TSB, ‘lest it should suggest one project had priority over another. He wanted it all, but got none, because he couldn’t sell the plan to pay for it.

But now we have the Special Transportation Fund Lockbox, right? Any money that goes in can only be spent on transportation. Or so we were told. But as one sage observer of the transportation scene for decades recently told me, “The lockbox has more backdoors than a hot-sheets motel on the Berlin Turnpike”. We’ll see.

Will the new legislature have the guts to finally raise the funding we need to fix our roads and rails? Or will I be re-writing this column again in another decade, like “déjà vu all over again”?

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Jim Cameron

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: News, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Connecticut’s Hometown Railroad

March 18, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

The worldwide logo for Genesee and Wyoming Inc.

You might not realize it, but Connecticut is home to the world headquarters of a $5 billion international railroad company on whose trains you’ll never be able to ride.

In a small office building across from the Darien railroad station sits the offices of Genesee and Wyoming Inc, a “short line” railroad conglomerate. The original railroad, founded in 1899, hauled salt on a 14-mile track in upstate NY. Today, G&W owns 122 different railroads on three continents, serving 3000 customers with over 16,000 miles of track.

A “short line” railroad, as its name implies, only operates over short distances, sometimes thought of as rail freight’s first and last mile. They pick up boxcars and tankers at factories and plants and carry them to junction points where they hand them off to the major railroads which carry them to their ultimate destination, a journey often completed by another short line railroad.

In the US G&W’s railroads are as short as a single mile in length and as long as 739 miles. They operate 1300 locomotives and 30,000 railcars. But they only carry freight, not passengers.

And because they only travel short distances, they’re not looking for speed as much as customer service. Moving along at 15 mph saves a lot on track maintenance.

How does G&W’s sales team sell companies on shipping by rail instead of truck? Fuel costs. Trains are four times more energy efficient, a crucial consideration when you’re hauling tons of stone, coal, or wheat instead of Amazon boxes filled with packing peanuts.

The G&W’s most local affiliate, The Providence & Worcester, runs a train on Metro-North tracks each night, hauling crushed rock from Connecticut quarries to Queens NY. I can hear the train from my home, usually just before midnight, as its locomotives strain under the load and rumble through town.

That’s about the only freight train left on the New Haven line. But that’s another story for another time.

Overseas the G&W owns some much larger railroads, but still dedicated only to freight. They run trains, container terminals and freight yards in the UK, Germany, Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Down under in Australia the G&W runs a huge freight operation running north-south through the heart of the continent serving the iron ore and manganese mines hauling intermodal containers through the desert-like interior.

How does a tiny, 20-person office in Darien oversee such a massive railroad network around the planet? It doesn’t. Each of G&W’s nine operating regions is locally managed with capital allocated from headquarters. Keeping the decision-making close to the customers, not being second-guessed from thousands of miles away, has been the key to G&W’s success.

But one thing that all of G&W’s railroads do share in common is the color scheme of their logos, originally designed by Milton Glaser (famous for the I Love NY logo). Every G&W railroad’s logo is orange and black. Not just any orange, but Princeton orange, harkening back to its former chairman’s alma mater.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Jim Cameron

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Why 30-30-30 Doesn’t Add Up

February 10, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

How would you like a faster ride on Metro-North? Who wouldn’t?! How about a 30-minute ride from Hartford to New Haven, from New Haven to Stamford or from Stamford to Grand Central?

That’s the vision announced by Governor Lamont in his inaugural address. It’s known as the 30-30-30 plan and sounds good compared to current running times (52 minutes, 55 minutes and 48 minutes respectively.) But how can such vast improvements be done? Ask Joe McGee, VP of the Fairfield Business Council, who’s been pitching this idea for years.

So confident was McGee of this concept that his Council recently paid $400,000 to Ty Lin Consulting of San Francisco to study it. And which railroad expert did Ty Lin hire to spearhead the study? Joseph Giulietti, former President of Metro-North … recently named as Connecticut’s new Commissioner of Transportation.

Though the Ty Lin study has yet to be released, McGee admits that the 30-30-30 idea is more of a goal than a possibility. Yet, for as little as $75 to $95 million, Ty Lin thinks significant improvements can be made in speeding up service by accelerating Metro-North’s return to a “state of good repair.”

When he was President of Metro-North, Giulietti said it would take five years to get the railroad back in shape after years of neglect. Today, Metro-North says a more realistic time frame is 10 years.

By fixing rail ties and overhead power lines to improve speeds on curves, by restoring the fourth track east of Milford and by adding express trains (at a premium fare), McGee claims service will improve quickly, maybe shaving 24 minutes off of the current 103 minute running time from New Haven to Grand Central. That would make it a 79-minute run, but not 60.

But wait. If this was Giulietti’s idea as a consultant, why didn’t he make that happen when he was running Metro-North? Or how will he now, as Commissioner of the CDOT, get his old railroad to adopt Ty Lin’s (his) ideas? I asked, but he isn’t saying.

What seasoned professionals at CDOT have told me is that the Ty Lin ideas will cost billions of dollars and take a decade. In other words … there’s no quick, cheap fix.

Meantime, Metro-North is planning to add six to 10 minutes of running time to all New Haven line trains for the spring timetable to better reflect the reality of current delays due to work. For 2018, the railroad had only 88 percent on time performance (OTP). By extending the train schedule on paper, OTP will go up and riders will have a more dependable, albeit slower, ride.

Lengthening running times, even on paper, “is not acceptable,” says McGee who hopes to release his Ty Lin study in about two weeks, fully expecting huge pushback from the railroad and east-coast consultants beholden to the MTA.

But it’s really the FRA (the Federal Railroad Administration) that’s the biggest block to faster trains. The slower speeds they required after the 2013 Bridgeport and Spuyten Duyvil derailments won’t be raised until they’re convinced the railroad is safe.

So let the debate begin: is 30-30-30 possible or just a fantasy? Did Giulietti create himself a nightmare in proposing as a consultant what he may not be able to deliver as CDOT Commissioner?

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Global Warming vs. Northeast Travel — An Apology to Future Generations

January 28, 2019 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

What follows is a public apology. Not to you, dear reader, but to future generations.

“To my grand children: I’m sorry we left you with this mess. We should have done more, when we still had time.”

What am I referring to? Not the national debt. Not even global terrorism. No, this apology is about coastal flooding that threatens the Northeast Corridor’s rail lines.

I won’t even get into the debate about what’s causing sea-level rise. Whether it’s man-made or natural, it is happening and we have not been planning for its inevitable effects. Sure, when the tides are high and the winds are from the east, we already see a little flooding along the Connecticut coastline. “Look Dad! The beach parking lot is under water,” the kids would say. But the tides and winds then subsided and we’d forget about it.

Aside from pretty beaches and expensive homes, what else is along Connecticut’s coast? Our railroads: Metro-North, Shore Line East and Amtrak. And according to a long hidden report, those tracks, and the trains that run on them, are being threatened by sea level rise.

Just before Christmas, Bloomberg wrote about a three year study, “Amtrak NEC Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment,” that was finished in 2017 but never released to the public. Using an FOI request, they got hold of a redacted (censored) portion of the study, and its findings are frightening.

The Northeast Corridor of Amtrak runs 457 miles from Washington to Boston and carries 12 million passengers a year on 2200 daily trains. Those tracks not only serve Amtrak’s inter-city trains but also many commuter rail lines, like Metro-North and Shore Line East. And the rising sea level is already lapping at its edge, where in some areas those tracks are just feet from the ocean. By 2050 the water may be two feet higher.

When it was originally built in the 19^th century, the coastline made perfect sense as a location for the railroad tracks: the coast is where the major cities were and the terrain was flat, perfect for trains. Sure, there were storms (even hurricanes) that caused short-term flooding, but nothing that was persistent. Until now.

So what’s to be done?

Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration have no plans to raise the tracks. They’re already facing $40 billion in unfunded projects just to keep the darn trains running. As for building a “wall” to keep out the sea water, even a temporary version erected before a storm would take 12 to 30 days to assemble and cost $24 million a mile.

Keeping this all in perspective, Amtrak reminds us that the cities they serve along the coast are also in danger of flooding, so what are a few damp railroad tracks when your city-center looks like Venice?

What’s most concerning is that this study was suppressed by Amtrak and the FRA because, as Bloomberg wrote, “The disclosure of that information “could possibly cause public confusion.”

I’m not confused, are you? Maybe enraged, but not confused. I may not be around to see these predictions come to pass, but I do feel some sense of obligation (guilt) to future generations to whom I can offer little more than an apology.

Sorry kids. We left you with a mess. We should have done more.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: Trucker Shortage Takes Its Toll

December 9, 2018 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

What does the future hold for the trucks on our highways? Photo by Rhys Moult on Unsplash

As if crumbling bridges and pot-holed highways weren’t enough to worry about, now America’s transportation network is facing a new crisis: a shortage of truck drivers.

According to the American Trucking Association (ATA), trucks carry more than 70 percent of all domestic freight, bringing in $719 billion in revenue. It’s trucks, not trains, that deliver our Amazon purchases and fill the shelves of our favorite big box stores for the holidays. So while we hate to drive behind them on our highways, we love what trucks deliver.

But now, of the existing half-million truck drivers in the US, demographics are taking their toll as more and more retire each year, leaving those jobs unfilled. The ATA estimates the industry needs 51,000 new truck drivers. And new candidates are not stepping forward.

Why? Well, the ATA says Gen Z’ers don’t like the lifestyle. They don’t want to spend long, lonely days or weeks doing long-hauls, eating bad food and sleeping in their rigs. Even money, like $50,000 signing bonuses, isn’t attracting them.

The average trucker makes $59,000 and drivers for private fleets can make $86,000. But lengthy, expensive training courses present a roadblock to immediate recruitment. And newly-mandated technology tracking drivers’ time on the road is exacerbating the problem.

Drivers are only supposed to drive 11 hours of every 14 hours a day, but many used to fudge their paper log-book records because they got paid by the mile. Since last December, electronic logging has been the law, so the safety rules are impossible to circumvent. Of course, nobody wants tired drivers on the road, but in the cause of safety, truckers are losing efficiency.

Where will the industry find new drivers? Well, women still only represent about 6 percent of all drivers. And minorities have seen their numbers increase 12 percent in the past year. And the industry is also seeking a reduction in the minimum driving age from 21 to 18.

What’s this all mean to us as consumers? Higher costs.

Amazon saw a 38 percent increase in shipping costs in the first quarter, forcing it to raise its (unlimited free-shipping) Amazon Prime membership fee from $99 to $119 a year. Across the industry spectrum, shipping rates are rising.

But the real solution will probably be self-driving trucks.

That’s why big companies like Waymo (owned by Google), Tesla and Uber, as well as truck-builders like Freightliner and Volvo are investing heavily in the autonomous technology.

Not that we’ll be seeing driverless trucks on Connecticut interstates anytime soon. There’s probably too much congestion to make them practical. But there are vast stretches of interstates in “fly over country” out west where self-driving trucks make perfect sense, delivering truckloads of products to automated warehouses where robots will unload them.

Automating trucking may be good for the industry but it certainly doesn’t help with recruitment. Who wants to sign on for a career knowing full well they may be replaced by a robot?

Sociologist and 13-year trucker Steve Viscelli says the solution is in changing the system: paying truckers for actual hours on the road (not just mileage), including those times when truckers must waste hours or days waiting for a new load.

Whatever the solution, it’s clear who’ll end up paying: consumers.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Lyme, Old Lyme, Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: An Open Letter to Ned Lamont

November 21, 2018 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Dear Ned:

Well, you did it. Congratulations on your election. And my condolences. The easy part of politics is over: getting elected. Now comes the hard part: being Governor.

I hope you and your transition team are already working on that budget that’s due in three months. There’s a lot of red ink ($4 billion) that needs to be mopped up. And don’t forget those $80 billion in unfunded pensions. But I’m sure you’ve got the solutions, right? That’s what you promised voters, anyhow. So have at it.

But as you are cutting and slashing, may I be so bold as to make a few suggestions on the transportation front? Your campaign assured us you’d fix our roads and rails, so I’m sure you have your ideas. But let’s see if these are of any help.

1) KEEP YOUR COMMISSIONER: Jim Redeker has been CDOT Commissioner since 2011 and nobody knows better what’s working and what isn’t. He’s clearly the smartest guy in the room and you need his experience and talents. Let’s not lose him to another state.

2) FIX THE TRAINS FIRST: You can’t keep high wage earners (and tax payers) living in Connecticut if Metro-North continues its downward slide. Getting trains back up to speed and on-time is crucial to the state’s economy.

3) THEN IMPROVE BUS SERVICE: I hope you realize that the CTFastrak bus rapid-transit system is hugely important and not the “waste of money” your opponent claimed. Not everyone in this state owns a car. For the 15 million riders of that busway since it opened, those buses mean being able to get to their jobs. That is what we want, right… people working?

4) RIDE MASS TRANSIT: You campaigned at train and bus stations, now why not get onboard? Set an example by taking the train from Greenwich to Hartford and riding the bus with your constituents. See the conditions first hand.

5) GET GOING WITH TOLLS: We both know they’re inevitable, despite your opponents’ “tolls are a tax” lie during the campaign. Let’s stop losing revenue to out-of-staters and truckers and make them pay for driving on our roads. Start with tolling trucks, though I doubt that’s legal.

6) HONOR THE LOCKBOX: Voters have spoken loudly! The Special Transportation Fund is now padlocked. Don’t you dare think about picking that lock or letting the Legislature touch those funds for anything but transportation.

7) PLEASE BE HONEST: You and your opponents glossed over the tough issues in the campaign, making vague, general comments about improving our lives. You got the job, so now don’t give us any BS. Tell us about the hard choices to come. Embrace the FOI act. Be open and transparent … and honest. We’re adults. We can take it.

8) DON’T ABUSE THE MAJORITY: Once again the Democrats are in full control in Hartford. That’s a lot of power in a few hands and your party’s record on “reaching across the aisle” isn’t great. Our problems can only be solved with bi-partisan cooperation, so please set the best example.

That’s enough for now. Get some rest, maybe even a vacation, and we’ll talk again in the coming months.

Best wishes,

Jim Cameron
“The Train Guy”

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media

Jim Cameron

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: ‘Getting There’ – China’s Transportation Strategy

October 21, 2018 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Quiz question #1: What country has the largest interstate highway system in the world? Hint: It’s not the United States.

Quiz question #2: What country has the most miles of high-speed rail? Hint: It’s not France or Japan.

The answer to both questions is … China!

China’s superhighways, most of them built since 1984, now cover almost twice as many miles as the US interstates. And on the rail side, China’s 15,000 miles of high speed rail represents nearly two-thirds of all such rail in the world.

China’s fast trains travel up to 217 mph, linking Beijing to Shanghai (the distance of New York City to Chicago) in a five-hour run. Trains carrying 1000 passengers each depart at 10 to 15 minute intervals. Compare that to Amtrak’s Acela, once an hour, carrying 300 passengers at an average of 70 mph.

Sure, China is big. Though measured in square miles, the US is slightly larger. But with a population of 1.34 billion, China is huge compared to the US’s 325 million residents. That means China has a lot more people to move, and they’re investing accordingly.

China spends over $300 billion annually on transportation. Compare that to the US Department of Transportation’s $80 billion annual spending on highways, rail and air transport. No wonder we feel like we’re living in a third world country with crumbling roads and obsolete railroads.

But more importantly, China is also investing abroad. Chinese money is being invested in 68 countries to build highways, ports and railroads to take its exports to market on what it sees as a 21st century Silk Road.

The country’s “Belt & Road Initiative” has pledged $8 trillion in projects for under-developed countries’ projects where it will be able to conduct trade. These destinations account for 70 percent of the world’s population, 55 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy reserves.

There is already a rail link from China to Europe with daily trains carrying electronics and manufactured goods to Europe. After unloading, those trains return to China filled with food. A trip that can take a month by sea now links 35 Chinese cities with a like number of European cities in just 15 days by rail.

On the high seas China is also expanding its reach, building a modern fleet of vessels and investing heavily in port operations in Europe and South America. Containers filled with cell-phones sail out from Chinese ports and much-needed oil sails back. And where Chinese merchant vessels go, so too will its Navy. While the US fancies itself as policeman to the world, there’s no way we can keep up.

The US merchant marine has only 175 American-owned vessels flying the US flag while 800 others are registered abroad. The Chinese government-owned COSCO shipping conglomerate owns 1114 vessels, the fourth largest fleet in the world. And that’s just one company.

President Trump seems headed to an all-out trade war with China, matching them tariff for tariff and Tweeting regularly about how “unfair” the Beijing government has been to us.

Meanwhile, Washington can’t even pass a domestic infrastructure spending bill to patch up our decrepit roads and rails. To my thinking, we’re not only getting outspent by China, but clearly out-smarted. Transportation is about trade and China is clearly planning for the future while we wallow in the past.

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Jim Cameron

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story

Talking Transportation: What Does ‘On Time’ Really Mean?

October 1, 2018 by Jim Cameron Leave a Comment

Last spring, Japanese railroad officials apologized for a huge mistake: one of their trains left a station 25 seconds early! This was the second time such an egregious error had been made and I imagine that the offenders were severely disciplined.

Meanwhile back on Metro-North’s New Haven line, the railroad’s latest OTP (On Time Performance) statistics stand at about 82 percent ... a new low.

To make matters worse, what the Japanese railroads and Metro North Rail Road (MNRR) consider “on time” are two different things. “On time” in Japan means the 7:12 a.m. train departs at 7:12, not 7:11 (as in this horrendous incident which prompted the apology) nor at 7:13. “On time” means on time.

Metro-North, however, defines a train is being on time if it arrives or departs within five minutes and 59 seconds of the scheduled time. So the train due in Grand Central at 8:45 a.m. is still “on time” in its record keeping if it pulls in just before 8:51 a.m.

On a train run averaging an hour from Connecticut to Grand Central Station, that’s about a 10 percent margin of error, so their 82 percent “on time” record could really be much, much lower. What the exact “on time” stats are, they will not say.

But Metro-North is not alone in such squishy record keeping. Most commuter railroads in the US also observe this 5:59 standard. And on Amtrak, it’s even worse. On a short run (less than 250 miles), a train is on time if its 10 minutes late. Long distance trains (over 550 miles) are given a 31-minute leeway.

When trains are late, there is usually a good reason. For Metro-North it could be switch problems, overhead power lines (catenaries), track conditions and, of course, weather. And when one train is late, delays can cascade, just like a fender-bender on I-95 can create a huge back-up.

But all of this is OK with me. I’d rather be safe than on-time.

We used to be able to always count on MNRR to be on time and would schedule our travel accordingly, assuming no delays. And yes, the trains were on time something like 98 percent of all runs. But they were also unsafe and we didn’t know it.

So if my train now is five or 10 minutes late, that’s OK. Because I took an earlier train just to be safe, I can handle the delay and still keep to my personal schedule.

Over the years I’ve found that when service on MNRR is messed up, there’s usually a valid explanation. While commuters’ Tweets are quick to assume it’s stupidity or incompetence on the part of the railroad, it usually isn’t. It’s aging equipment or things beyond their control.

The men and women who work at Metro-North may not be rocket scientists, but I honestly believe most of them are trying their best.

While OTP on the railroad has been slipping, there is one area where we have seen a huge improvement: communications.

A small army of railroad people now work 24/7 to Tweet and e-mail every problem on every line. And they update the information, keeping us posted on delays. That’s valuable information riders can use to make decisions, find alternatives and alert colleagues they may be late.

Let’s give the railroad credit for doing this much right.

Jim Cameron

About the author:

Jim Cameron is founder of The Commuter Action Group, and a member of the Darien RTM. The opinions expressed in this column are only his own. You can reach him at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com

For a full collection of “Talking Transportation” columns, visit www.talkingtransportation.blogspot.com

Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media.

Filed Under: Talking Transportation, Top Story