More talk ... and, maybe, more action (Pat Foran, Context, July 2008)

By Pat Foran, Editor

In our May issue, we detailed the regional transportation re-think under way in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, with Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Trinity Railway Express and the Denton County Transportation Authority serving as the key stakeholders. This month, through the prism of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), we examine a big-picture approach that’s unfolding in the Atlanta region.

Atlanta needs to expand its transit system ASAP — particularly the rail component. The 48-mile MARTA, the largest transit agency in the United States that doesn’t receive state funding, is about half the size it was originally intended to be. Meanwhile, metro Atlanta is the U.S.’s second-fastest growing region (behind Dallas-Fort Worth). The resulting gridlock on Atlanta’s sprawling highways — and the malaise that’s gummed up the transportation planning process — is taking a toll on the region’s quality of life and, ultimately, its future. As MARTA General Manager and CEO Beverly Scott told Associate Editor Angela Cotey: “As a region, we have a penchant to do quite a bit of planning and talking, but we have yet to pull it together and move forward with a real action plan.”

They’ll still plan and talk, but Scott and Transit Planning Board (TPB) Staff Director Cheryl King say they’re also ready to roll, in part because Atlantans are ready, too.

“Before, people didn’t even think of driving 60 miles to and from work,” King told Cotey. “Now, they’re spending all this time and money to do it and it doesn’t make sense.”

The 19-member TPB board believes Concept 3, a regional transportation plan, fills the “sense” bill. TPB hopes to sign off on the plan — which calls for adding light- and commuter-rail service, and boosting MARTA’s existing rail and bus services — by August. Next, the hard part: convincing stakeholders to think “regional” and the public to pony up. Expect to hear similar regional mobility planning tales in the months ahead as “transportation” continues to register with resonance on the “urgency” meter.

The remaking (or unmaking) of an asociación

More growing pains to report in post-privatization Mexico: Two of the country’s three largest freight railroads — Ferrocarril Mexicano S.A. de C.V. (Ferromex) and Ferrosur S.A. de C.V. — have pulled out of the Asociación Mexicana de Empresas Ferrocarrileras A.C. (AMF), citing “very big differences” with Mexico’s other big freight railroad, Kansas City Southern de México S.A. de C.V. (KCSM). The pull-out was effective June 20.

“They feel that they cannot belong to an association where they have very big differences with the other [large] party, especially after another recent dispute regarding trackage rights on the KCS,” says AMF General Director Emilio Sacristán Roy. “As a result, the association’s future is very uncertain.”

Rivals Ferromex and KCSM (née TFM) have been haggling over trackage rights and a host of other competitive issues for the past 10 years. Ferromex-Ferrosur directed inquiries to Sacristán; in an email, a KCS spokesperson said the railroad “is not prepared to comment on this situation at this time.”

For Sacristán, who has headed AMF since it was founded in 2004, rectifying the situation is Priority No. 1: “The remaining [dues-paying] members have asked me to look at some restructuring alternatives, based on suppliers and other additional members.”

Sacristán’s suggestion to the remaining four member railroads — KCSM, short line Linea Coahuila Durango S.A. de C.V., terminal railroad Ferrocarril y Terminal del Valle de México and government-owned Ferrocarril del Istmo de Tehuantepec S.A. de C.V. — is to divide AMF into three chapters: freight railroads, passenger railroads and rail industry suppliers. Currently, AMF comprises freight railroads and a non-voting supplier contingent.

“I think the departure of Ferromex and Ferrosur could be compensated for if we restructure the organization this way,” Sacristán says, adding that he could boost the supplier member total from 23 to 40 by making them full members. “Before, we followed the AAR example that suppliers had a voice but no vote. Now, they would have a vote.”

The key, though, might be convincing the potential new passenger-rail members — Ferrocarril Suburbano de la Zona Metropolitana de México, and the Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey metro systems — to sign on. On June 30, Sacristán said he hoped to resolve the issue sometime in July.

I hope he can. There’s something to be said for this community of railroads continuing to work together to address common interests and promote the use of rail. Besides, it’s possible that the fractious parties will return to the fold. They’ve come to terms on far more contentious matters in the past.