WES Financial Woes


In the Open Thread comments, Erik quotes from this Oregonian article about cost overruns and the messy financial entanglements between TriMet and Colorado Railcar.

There’s a lot of details and history in the article — give it a read and discuss it here.

Westside Express deal cost TriMet millions


15 responses to “WES Financial Woes”

  1. I have every confidence that when history is written, by Trimet, this project will be on time and on budget, just like all the other cost over runs.

    See PortlandFacts.com

    Thanks
    JK

  2. So they focused on the cars, but it should be noted that the cars are not the biggest piece of the overruns, either in dollars or as a percentage of the original estimate:

    http://blog.oregonlive.com/special_impact/2008/12/wes.jpg

    And now what? Do we own CRM? While running a rail car manufacturer in Colorado is hardly TriMet’s job, I could see it becoming a very valuable asset in a few years, so more power to them. (But we should move them up to Oregon.)

  3. “Rader’s operation that there was a “fine line between stupidity and dishonesty and I think we’re right on it.”
    ,,,, $28 million train had become a $70 million train,,,, stopped the project, ordering Rader to cut the unfinished train into scrap”.

    “TriMet officials said they knew of Rader’s past and it was not a “major concern”

    ???

    TriMet’s operation is a fine line between stupidity and dishonesty and I think we’re right on it.

    FYI,, the costs in this story do not include millions in related station improvements by the municipalities.

    The whole story of WES will probably never be told. Just like the no-bid Bechtel Airport MAX and Cascade Station.

    Essentially every single aspect of the WES has been misrepresented at on time or another by our public officials and their tax funded agencies.

    And what do you know,,, here we are with yet another boondoggle that will NEVER amount to the wholy contrived vision that ushered it forward.

  4. I don’t see what TriMet should have done. After all, CRM was the only option for obtaining new FRA-compliant vehicles. The real problem is that the FRA will not allow vehicles like they commonly use in Europe. Though it should be noted that I’ve read that Europe doesn’t have the big, long freight trains that we have either.

  5. If there wasn’t a proven vehicle out there from a known manufacturer such as Bombardier or Simens then they should have looked at other options. It’s bad policy to risk taxpayer money on an experiment like this. Bombardier commuter rail coaches combined with a smaller, lower power locomotive is the only other solution that I can see.

    What are the plans for additional railcars if WES proves popular?

  6. Matthew wrote: And now what? Do we own CRM? While running a rail car manufacturer in Colorado is hardly TriMet’s job, I could see it becoming a very valuable asset in a few years, so more power to them. (But we should move them up to Oregon.)

    Actually, a Rader Railcar (a Colorado Railcar predecessor) affiliate used to operate in Oregon, a little company called Tillamook Railcar that operated out of one of the blimp hangars at the Tillamook Industrial Park.

    After the infamous Blimp Hanger A fire of 1992, the business moved to Forest Grove where work continued on several cars, before the business was shut down and auctioned off.

    Tillamook Railcar had done some subcontract work for Rader, and I believe Rader picked up much of what was left of Tillamook Railcar at auction (mostly tools and a supply of old passenger cars).

  7. Jason McHuff wrote: After all, CRM was the only option for obtaining new FRA-compliant vehicles. The real problem is that the FRA will not allow vehicles like they commonly use in Europe. Though it should be noted that I’ve read that Europe doesn’t have the big, long freight trains that we have either.

    That’s mostly true. Part of the issue was that the WES route is still a working freight line, with four to six freight train movements a day (if not more) operated by the Portland & Western.

    For the FRA to have granted a waiver using vehicles that didn’t meet 49 CFR 229.141, there would have had to been some time of separation between freight and passenger operations. This is what allowed non-FRA compliant equipment to be used on the Sprinter line in San Diego County, and on the New Jersey Transit RiverLine. On those two routes, the freight traffic was one train a day, easily accommodated at night hours.

    So, TriMet essentially had not one, but THREE options:

    1. The Colorado Railcar DMU.
    2. Purchasing Budd RDCs and having them rebuilt (these vehicles are grandfathered from the FRA regulation, and are used by the Trinity Railway Express, and formerly used in commuter rail service in New England)
    3. Using conventional trains with locomotives and passenger cars.

    TriMet chose against #2 because of reliability concerns expressed by TRE. However, TRE has, and continues to, use these cars, primarily in off-peak hours (due more to capacity concerns than reliability concerns).

    TriMet chose against #3 because ridership projections didn’t warrant longer trains and the equipment would simply cost more (the cost of TriMet’s four cars, which can provide three separate trains, would cover the cost of just one trainset with locomotive and cars). Nevertheless it was still a viable option, and if TriMet (or other agencies) expect to extend service to Salem, it would almost certainly be necessary to use locomotive/car trainsets (and due to TriMet’s DMU specific design for WES, will be difficult to implement without building new stations, new signal systems, and an entirely new station at Beaverton).

    The issue wasn’t whether there weren’t options. The issue is that TriMet designed itself into only one option. Just as TriMet has an insistence that the only form of high capacity transit above and beyond a 40′ bus is light rail.

  8. In the past, Tri-Met has always been in favor of off-the shelf technology, even when spec bidding equipment. However, the evolving political climate in the last few years with politicians, environmentalists and the handicapped community all making their own demands, the spec bidding has become more like developing specialty products to meet those specs, and thereby excessively costing taxpayers more and more in transit subsidies. Sustainability must start with financial self-sustainability. These higher costs need to be reflected in higher fares passed on the passengers just like any private business would do.

  9. Erik Halstead Says: So, TriMet essentially had not one, but THREE options:
    JK: Actually there was a fourth option. No build.
    In view of the fact that it took an act of congress to get the money for this line because it failed the cost effectiveness criteria, no-build was and is the logical choice.

    Thanks
    JK

  10. There was another option. Electrification of the freight line and use of off-the-shelf FRA-compliant EMUs. (The freight trains can run on diesel under the wire.)

    Signifiantly more expensive up front — but also allows for a faster trip, and has lower running costs, plus being proven technology. Was it seriously considered?

    A fifth, truly expensive option was to start their own railcar company (which as someone commented would have been a far-seeing move, as an American railcar supplier is likely to be a highly profitable business in the near future).

  11. In view of the fact that it took an act of congress to get the money for this line because it failed the cost effectiveness criteria,

    Well apparently the congress disagreed with you.

  12. al m Says: Well apparently the congress disagreed with you.
    JK: NO, the congress wasted your money on pork barrel because of the power of our very own Bloominidiot and our other congress critters. You will recall him as the transit & bike advocate that drives a SUV (see: portlandfacts.com/Earl/EarlInSUV.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Nathaniel Nerode wrote: There was another option. Electrification of the freight line and use of off-the-shelf FRA-compliant EMUs.

    I don’t think there are any “off-the-shelf” EMUs that meet the crashworthiness reg.

    All of the ones currently in service (in Chicago and in New Jersey) are grandfathered in. I can’t find anything on Bombardier’s or Siemens’ website showing an FRA compliant EMU.

    Al M. wrote: Well apparently the congress disagreed with you.

    Congress has the power to “earmark” a project outside of any requirements that would otherwise be demanded of by the Executive (in this case, the Federal Transit Administration).

    Happens all the time, and not just with transit projects. Yes, it happens with road projects (remember the “Bridge to Nowhere”? It wouldn’t have met any FHWA requirements, thus the “earmark” to use Congress to fund it) and even airports too.

  14. Erik,
    Don’t forget the M7 used by the MTA’s LIRR and Metro-North or the Silverliner V, currently being manufactured by Rotem for SEPTA.

    Of course, the most sensible thing that could happen would be for CFR 49 to be thrown out and written anew. There is absolutely no reason why electric and diesel multiple unit rail vehicles (not to mention other passenger equipment) used the world over are not allowed on the U.S. rail system without ridiculous conditions being met.

Leave a Reply to John E. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *