[PRCo] Fw: [Weyrich_Transit] FW: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers, Geneva, Heidelberg, Copenhagen, UK

Harold G. transitmgr2 at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 3 13:32:36 EST 2005


News from Ostrava.   Harold Geissenheimer
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Weyrich <paulwey at freecongress.org>
To: elehrer at gmail.com <elehrer at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: [Weyrich_Transit] FW: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers,
Geneva, Heidelberg, Copenhagen, UK




-----Original Message-----
From: Nawdry [mailto:nawdry at realtime.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:13 PM
To: nawdry at austin.rr.com
Subject: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers, Geneva, Heidelberg,
Copenhagen, UK



PTP Digest 2005/02/27-B = CONTENTS

* Bratislava: Bush-Putin summit shines limelight on LRT tramway network
    Light Rail Now! NewsLog 25 February 2005

* Bratislava 'busily preparing a fast-track tram system'
    The Slovak Spectator 2/21/2005  [2005/02/21]

* Nancy's  bus system, with guided-bus 'tramway', is slowest in France
    Republican East  Saturday December 11, 2004

* Angers choose steel-wheel tramway over guided-bus 'BRT'
    URBAN TRANSIT NEWS 11 February 2005

* Geneva: Latest light rail tramway extension opens
    Light Rail Now! NewsLog 16 December 2004

* Heidelberg: Light rail tramway extension project under way
    Light Rail Now! NewsLog 15 November 2004

* Copenhagen plans light rail by 2012
    Light Rail Now! NewsLog 11 November 2004

* UK: Tramways 'clean, efficient, popular' ... help economies grow
    Supply Management Features, 17 February 2005



=PTP===============================================

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog002.htm#BRA_20050225

Light Rail Now! NewsLog
25 February 2005

Bratislava: Bush-Putin summit shines limelight on city's light rail tramway
network

Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team


Recent attention has been focused on the Slovakian capital city of
Bratislava for hosting the "summit" meeting between US President
George W. Bush and Russian President Valdimir Putin. "With huge
numbers of journalists coming to Slovakia for the Bush-Putin summit,
Bratislava city officials will take the opportunity to inform the world's
media
about planned developments and upgrades to essential infrastructure of
the city" declares a news report from The Slovak Spectator (2005/02/21).
Among these infrastructure upgrades, massive improvements are planned
to Bratislava's already extensive light rail tramway network, totalling some
243.8 km (151.2 miles).

"For over 25 years Bratislava has cherished the idea of a subway system"
relates the Spectator. "Estimated at a cost of Sk100 billion (€2.5 billion)
[US$3.2 billion], nobody could be found to pay for it."

"But since 2003, the town council has been busily preparing a fast-track
tram system that would run above as well as under ground" reports the
Spectator article, noting that "The tramway would use modern, low-deck,
aerodynamic trams that hold up to 500 people." (Presumably this refers to
lowfloor tram or streetcar vehicles, which have become the standard in
most major European light rail tramway systems.) As models, the article
refers to the new light rail tramway systems in Dublin and Strasbourg,
both of which use lowfloor vehicles.

The article relates that the tramway upgrade is included in a massive
investment program along the Danube over the next five years with "new
projects worth up to €1 billion" (US$1.3 billion) targeted for completion in
Bratislava. It also notes that the upgraded tramway system would be
developed "between 2006 and 2008."

Bratislava currently has 12 tramway routes using meter-gauge (1000-mm)
tracks, and running about 225 tramcars. According to Jane's Urban
Transport Systems (1999-2000), by the late 1990s the tramway network
was carrying approximately 94 million annual passenger-trips, out of a
systemwide total of more than 300 million (including motor buses and
electric trolleybuses).

Bratislava, whose current population is about 450,000, is a medium-sized
city with an area of 367.6 sq. km (141.6 sq. miles). This calculates to a
population density of about 1,200/sq. km or 3,200/sq. mi. Bratislava thus
represents a case in point that, even in Europe, neither extremely high
population nor staggering density is essential for the operation of a
successful, high-quality urban rail transit system.

In addition to the news item quoted, this report has relied on information
from Jane's Urban Transport Systems, the iMHD.sk Bratislava website,
and the public-transport.net website.

[[]]



=PTP===============================================

The Slovak Spectator
2/21/2005  [2005/02/21]

SPECIAL FOCUS - Bush-Putin summit

Welcome to the future


WITH huge numbers of journalists coming to Slovakia for the Bush-Putin
summit, Bratislava city officials will take the opportunity to inform the
world's media about planned developments and upgrades to essential
infrastructure of the city.

Investments on the Danube: Over the next five years new projects worth
up to €1 billion will be completed in Bratislava.

The main aim is to extend the city centre along the Danube embankment.
A seven-kilometre boulevard with shops, apartments, congress and
administrative facilities is planned. Both the bus station and the train
station will be rebuilt- something that will be very welcome to visitors.

Modern tramway: For over 25 years Bratislava has cherished the idea of a
subway system. Estimated at a cost of Sk100 billion (€2.5 billion),, nobody
could be found to pay for it.

But since 2003, the town council has been busily preparing a fast-track
tram system that would run above as well as under ground.
The tramway would use modern, low-deck, aerodynamic trams that hold
up to 500 people. Such trams can now be found in Dublin and Strasbourg.
The idea should be brought to life between 2006 and 2008.


Twin Cities - Vienna and Bratislava: The two capitals realize the
advantages of connecting and last year started to work on strengthening
cooperation.
The Twin Cities project is a chance to create an economic and cultural hot
spot in Central Europe.

[[]]




=PTP=================================================

------------------------------------------------
PTP NOTE: Thanks to Mike Harrington and Bill Bolton for rendering a
translation of the original French article.  Nancy's "tramway sur pneu"
(rubber-tired tramway) is actually a "guided-bus" or "BRT" system, using
modified dual-mode electric trolleybuses.  For more information, see:
"Misguided Bus"? Nancy's BRT Debacle Exposes Pitfalls of "Half-Price
Tramway"
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm
------------------------------------------------

www.estrepublicain.fr

Republican East
Saturday December 11, 2004

Nancy page

Nancy Bus-Tram network: the slowest in France


The Palm Award [comes from La Palme d'Or, the Cannes equivalent of
the Oscar for best film] of Slowness

With an average operating speed of 12.7 km/h, Nancy snatches The Palm
of 2003 for the slowest tram-bus system in France.  It's 16 in Lyon and
17.5 in Orleans.  Explanations.  Connex promises, after some progress
already effected in 2004, "a noticeably improved speed in 2005."

Almost paradoxical.  Bus speed issues sometimes attract attention in
areas where there are particular safety  concerns..  At the same time, the
trams and buses of Nancy hold the national record for slowness!  This is
at least the result of the annual study that was just published by the
Public
Transport Union (professional union comprising 160 undertakings).  This
reference document has put under the microscope the 2003 operations of
140 systems.  And with an average operating speed of 12.7 km/h, STAN
[Service de transport de l'agglomération Nancéienne] is the red flag of the
first category (metropolitan areas of more than 250,000 souls).  And even
all categories!

Of course, this speed - for as much as this situation has improved in 2004
- isn't quite that of which the passengers are aware.  Since this includes
stopping times but also at termini.  The duchy city does not show up any
less far behind Strasbourg (18.2), Nantes (17.1 km/h), Rennes (19.1) or
still Rouen (16.3).  This is grist for the mill of bicycling or walking
advocates!  Without mentioning automobiles.

In Greater Nancy, this shocking number is rationalized.  First because the
tram line is under (almost 40% of the traffic) speed limits imposed by the
State (15 km/h on sharp turns, 5 in the République area), limits that were
even more restrictive in 2003.

In Traffic

Next "because the change of the traffic plan, which implies a delay in the
adaptation of motorists, difficulties have arisen with which buses put into
traffic are also confronted,"  stresses Pascal Gaire, the traffic manager.
"We have called on the research bureau to work line by line, to look for or
arrange new corridors, to improve the travel time of buses.  It's also about
avoiding important variations in running times."

Otherwise, the study also targets the famous "relation study" (adapting
schedules and speeds depending on the periods of the day).  "The
operator sometimes calculates long travel durations to take into account
the unpredictability of traffic."  Simply, the real speed on the asphalt
would
be better than that "established by the relation study of the Public
Transport Union."  But with one consequence: the bus is sometimes
ahead of schedule.  That's what the users regularly complain about.

At Connex they recognize having perhaps allowed for a somewhat wide
maneuvering room.  In the name of caution.

Cost

"We've had no negative impact as a result of the change of traffic plan
and the restructuring of the system," claims Yves Schenker, recalling that,
since then, things have been fine-tuned.  And promising still "for 2005 a
noticeably improved speed."

Another striking number of the Public Transport Union investigation:
expenditure by trip.  Stated plainly, how much it costs on the average to
provide the transportation for a rider.  It is 2.21 € in Nancy against only
1.06 in Montpellier, 1.88 in Bordeaux, 1 € even in Strasbourg.

Is the culprit the maintenance cost of trams?  Not really if one believes
the
transport operators.  Rather the lack of use.  "[...] Which has however
followed its regular progression throughout 2004," insists Christian Parra,
vice president of Greater Nancy.

In 2003, each Nancy resident has in any case had on the average 69 trips
on the system.  There is evidently an evolving margin since Orleans was
101,  St. Etienne 138.  And Strasbourg was 177!

But there, the history of transportation - and of trams - is otherwise
longer.
But the speed is faster also ...

Ghislain UTARD

[[]]



=PTP==================================================

http://www.lrta.org/news/news0505.html

URBAN TRANSIT NEWS
11 February 2005

Light Rail Transit Association

Trams for Angers

The French city of Angers (population of the agglomeration 226 900) has
decided in favour of a steel wheel tramway for a 12-km north/south line to
be built by 2009, and estimated to carry 35 000 passengers/day by 2010.
The line will run within 400m of 57 000 residents and 21 000 jobs, and
enjoy a six-minute service 19 hrs/day. Tenders are being invited for 15 32-
m trams. The project is estimated to cost EUR 180 million. A second.
east/west, line is being evaluated.




=PTP==================================================

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#GEN_20041216

Light Rail Now! NewsLog
16 December 2004

Geneva: Latest light rail tramway extension opens

Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team


Europe's amazing light rail transit (LRT) tramway expansion boom just
keeps booming. On Wednesday, 15 December, Geneva's Transports
Publics Genèvois (TPG) transit agency opened a 2.1-km (1.3-mile)
extension of its Acacias line between Plainpalais and Pont Rouge. It's
served by a new route, No. 15, running to Nations.
[Associated Press, 16 Dec. 2004; Tramways & Urban Transit, August
2002, October 2004]

"Passengers will be able to hop on a streetcar in the suburbs and arrive at
the main train station 10 minutes later" reports an Associated Press article
by writer Sam Cage. "A journey from one side of the city to the other will
be almost halved to just 20 minutes."
[Associated Press, 16 Dec. 2004]

The new extension adds to a Geneva urban and suburban light rail
network totalling more than 25 km (16 miles). As the AP article notes, the
latest line is "part of an ambitious project to rebuild a network that only
nine years ago had dwindled to just one route."

This remarkable turn-around in fortunes for the urban surface light railway
– particularly electric streetcar (tramway) and interurban light rail
systems
– is not just happening in Geneva. As the AP article reports, "The old-
fashioned streetcar, which had nearly clanged into oblivion by the end of
the 20th century, has been making a sleek comeback with new lines
opening from Sydney to Paris, Buenos Aires to Houston." Thus, Geneva
is merely "laying the latest tracks in the trend."

"It's very symptomatic of a general trend to introduce more sustainable
modes of transport" Laurent Dauby, light-rail chief for the Brussels-based
public transport association UITP, told the AP. "I think that increasingly
cities are challenged to provide quality of living in urban areas." The UITP
estimates that the extent of LRT track around the world will increase 40
percent by 2020.

In the European Union alone, the AP article notes, no less than 35 cities
are expanding their tramway networks – including Brussels, London,
Madrid and Paris – while an additional 18 cities are introducing entirely
new systems. And, despite tough political struggles against public
transport opponents, led by highway-industry interests, North America has
long been part of the trend. "Cities across the United States – such as
Houston, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City – have also built from scratch,
while Washington, D.C., has just started construction on a light-rail
system" notes the AP article.

In Canada, Toronto has been expanding and upgrading its amazingly
successful and attractive streetcar network, while Edmonton and Calgary
have installed entirely new LRT systems. Ottawa has been operating a
diesel-propelled light railway since 2001, and is planning expansion and
installation of an electric LRT system. And now other cities, especially
Waterloo-Kitchener, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, are either planning or
strongly considering LRT.


The elimination of urban surface electric railways – the pre-eminent
feature of the Transit Holocaust of the 1930s-1960s – represented the
triumph of a highway industry-political campaign to reshape cities and
establish the supremacy of the private motor vehicle. "Trams began to
disappear from the world's streets with the advent of cars because their
tracks clogged roads" relates the AP. "The United States led the way in
dismantling its networks, and Europe soon followed suit."

The UITP's Laurent Dauby notes that "After World War II virtually all (mid-
sized) and large European cities had extensive tram networks, and they
destroyed them. Thirty years later they have to rebuild. It's much more
expensive."

Nevertheless, despite the expense, cities and their transit agencies are
more and more starting to perceive it's worth it. As the AP article reports,
"trams carry more people than buses and are about 10 times cheaper to
build than conventional metro systems – making light rail an ideal solution
for medium- sized cities such as Geneva." The article notes that the Swiss
public transport group LITRA estimates that "one multi-car tram" (i.e.,
multi-section articulated light rail car) can carry as many passengers as
200 cars – "the equivalent of a .75-mile long traffic jam."

"And because light rail runs on electricity – unlike most buses – there are
no fumes to pollute the city streets" the AP points out. "It's energy
efficient" says the UITP's Dauby. "It doesn't necessarily rely on fossil
fuels. It has zero emissions on the spot."

While, like most cities, Geneva had scrapped almost all its tramways by
1969, improvements in LRT technology plus a new recognition of urban
public transport inspired a complete reversal in attitude. The AP relates
that, "as light-rail technology advanced, making rides smoother and
quieter, Geneva decided to reconstruct at least part of its network to take
the pressure off the buses."

"With almost one car for every two inhabitants," concludes the AP article,
"Geneva's streets are clogged with traffic, and city authorities are trying
to
tempt traffic off the roads by rebuilding the light-rail network – possibly
all
the way to nearby towns in France"

[[]]



=PTP================================================

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#HEI_20041115

Light Rail Now! NewsLog
15 November 2004

Heidelberg: Light rail tramway extension project under way

Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team


The small German city of Heidelberg has started work on a 4.4-km (2.7-
mile) extension of its light rail transit (LRT) tramway system, according to
the November issue of Tramways & Urban Transit. The extension, linking
the system with the community of Kirchheim, is targeted for completion in
late 2006, although the first 800 meters (half-mile) should be finished by
May 2005.

At a cost of EUR 30 million (about US$39 million), the extension is costing
about $9 million/km, or $14 million/mile – once again, suggesting the
bargain price of LRT in delivering quality urban public transport. The
extension will augment Heidelberg's existing 19.7-km (12.2-mile) tramway
system.

[[]]




=PTP=================================================

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#COP_20041111

Light Rail Now! NewsLog
11 November 2004

Copenhagen plans light rail by 2012

Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team


The light rail transit (LRT) boom in Europe continues with the
announcement that Copenhagen is planning for a 19.6-km (12.2-mi) LRT
line, to be operational by 2012. As reported in Tramways and Urban
Transit (Nov. 2004), "The finishing touches are being put to an agreement
between the city and an Arriva-led consortium for a public/private project"
to construct the line."

As T&UT reports, the LRT line would extend "between Lundtofte and
Glostrup via Lyngby." The total cost is estimated at DKK2.2 billion, or
about US$557 million – calculating to about $28 million/km, or $46
million/mile.

The LRT line is projected to carry ridership of 52,000 rider-trips per day
on
18 light rail vehicles (LRVs). Planners hope the service will attract
motorists from 8,000 to 9,000 private cars off the city's Ring 3 highway
every day.

The LRT line will add to Copenhagen's growing network of rail transit,
which includes an extensive regional rail system (the S-Tog) and a light
metro. The metro, using standard rail technology with totally automated
operation, opened in 2002 with a line running from east to west. According
to UrbanRail.net, "This construction project was combined with a major
city development called Ørestad in the south of the city. The line has two
branches on the eastern side, one south to Ørestad and the other south-
east to Copenhagen's Airport (Lufthavn)."

The first phase of the metro project (placed in service on 19 Oct. 2002)
includes the route segments connecting Nørreport-Ørestad-Vestamager
via Copenhagen's city center; in addition, there's a south-eastern branch
which extends as far as Lergravsparken. Two more stations, Forum and
Frederiksberg, were added in May 2003. On 12 Oct. 2003, the metro
reached Vanløse, and a Flintholm station opened in early 2004.

An additional City Ring line is also proposed. This would be a 16 km (10
mi) route in subway with 16 stations, estmated to cost €1.7 billion. At
current conversion rates, that calculates to about US$2.0 billion, or about
$206 billion per route-mile.

With a total length of 11 km (about 7 miles), the metro line runs
underground for 9 km (5.6 mi), with 9 relatively small underground stations
(61 m long, 20 m wide, or about 200 ft X 12 ft). The remainder of the route
is either elevated or on the surface. All stations have elevators and
escalators and platforms are separated from the tracks by a glass wall
and automatic screen doors – a growing feature of automated systems.

The Copenhagen metro has a fleet of 34 trains, each with 3 walk-through
cars, 6 doors on each side, 100 seats in a total capacity of aproximately
300 passengers a train. The system is designed for maximum train
speeds of 80 kilometers/hour (c. 50 mph) with an average speed of 40
kilometers/hour (24 mph) with one to two minutes between stations. A
total ridership of 250,000 boardings per day is projected to use the system
regularly after the third phase begins operation, and the full system is
placed in service.
[UrbanRail.net, 2004/11/11; Union Switch & Signal Inc., 22 November
2002]

[[]]



=PTP============================================

http://www.supplymanagement.co.uk/EDIT/SM_featuredarticles_item.asp?id=12449

Supply Management
Features, 17 February 2005

Trams get a fare deal

Escalating costs threatened to derail three systems in England. But
inventive procurement has put two back on track, says Mark Smulian

It is clean, efficient, popular, fits with the government’s sustainability
policies and helps local economies to grow. And it costs a fortune. Light
rail has had a fitful history in the UK, but two major public-private
projects
now have a serious chance of going ahead after radical adjustments in
their procurement and funding.

In short, the changes mean local authorities will underwrite an agreed
value of fare income, allowing the private contractors’ costs to be cut
dramatically.

This new lease of life has actually been forced on the local authorities by
transport secretary Alistair Darling, who last summer looked at the
spiralling, and apparently open-ended, costs of Manchester’s Metrolink
extensions, the Leeds Supertram and the South Hampshire Rapid Transit
project, and called a halt.

He said “no government could accept” such a perilous commitment. But
he left the door open for revised, cheaper schemes. The fare guarantee
idea has been developed to fill the gap.

The Leeds and Hampshire schemes have cut costs by guaranteeing the
local authority part of the fare revenue – a curious, but seemingly
effective
inversion of the private finance initiative (PFI) idea, which transfers risk
to
the private sector. Manchester continues to negotiate the terms of its deal.

Leeds City Council, and the joint venture of Hampshire County Council
and Portsmouth City Council, were required by government policy to use
PFI for schemes both argue are essential to their local economies.

But problems arose with the way the private sector sees the multiple risks
of running an urban light rail system for 30 years: the prospect of
construction delays; the possibility of defective rolling stock or
engineering; unexpected hikes in electricity costs; or a change in the
demographics of the areas served by the tram. And, unlike buses, tram
routes cannot easily be altered.

Such uncertainty induces caution in lenders, and the Leeds Supertram
team found to its alarm that bids were far higher than expected.

Potential concessionaires (private-sector partners) wanted £660 mil­lion to
design, build, operate and maintain the system for its initial lifespan, but
the government had limited its contribution to £355 million.

Even with an additional £120 million available, mainly from the city
council, the gap was unbridgeable and provoked Darling’s refusal of
further funds.

It was back to the drawing board for Steve Hemingway, the project’s
manager. “The risks caused uneasiness among bidders as some other
light rail schemes had not done quite as well as expected,” he says.

Leeds remained confident in its analysis that the community and
economic benefits the tram would bring could not be matched by buses,
and that the regeneration benefits of the system would be substantial.

The city council forecasts the creation of 32,000 jobs by 2014, with 70 per
cent of workers travelling from outside the city to fill them.

There is not the road capacity for them to arrive by car and the Supertram
is expected to carry about 19 million passengers a year – a quarter of
them former car users.

“The prices came in very high and the sums did not add up,” Hemingway
says.

His solution was to simplify part of the project by deferring – he insists
that
does not mean “abandoning” – a spur track off the southern line.

Other savings came from eschewing the extremely costly process of
diverting all utility cables and pipes.

Instead, some would be left in place and alternative connections built, and
others removed and replaced elsewhere.

But even after these cost reductions, a funding gap remained. Another
pool was required to make the project’s finances reach the required total.

Hence the idea that the council and the government will jointly guarantee
fare revenue for the early years to soothe bidders’ jitters. He is currently
unwilling to specify the sums involved.

Their hope is that the funds will never be called on, and so will not be a
real cost, but that the guarantee’s presence will enable the bidder to
remove this element of risk.

Leeds is waiting to hear whether the Department for Transport will accept
the revised bid, but it is unclear when that decision will be handed down.

South Hampshire faced a similar problem with high-risk pricing, says
project director Steve Nicholson, but had far less scope to make savings
from technical changes.

The proposed line would link Gosport, the UK’s largest stationless town,
with Portsmouth. The towns face each other across Portsmouth Harbour,
beneath which a 1 kilometre tunnel would be dug.

Tunnelling carries a high proportion of the cost but there would be no
point in building any of the line without it. With the rest of the cost
comparatively small, the only possible saving was to remove a short loop
proposed for Fareham.

Nicholson says: “Market appetite is well down for light rail, as operating
costs seem to always go up.”

South Hampshire’s market proposition was a 30-year design, build,
finance and operate concession. The revenue was to come from fares
and the bidding competition looked for the minimum claim on public
subsidy for the service delivery payment.

As in Leeds, the market “put in large elements to cover risk if fare revenue
was not as large as expected”, Nicholson says.

Original bids came in at £270 million, but government PFI and grant
support was only £170 million.

The reduction in Fareham and some technical changes shaved off £70
mil­lion, and the rest is “de-risking” of the fare income through a revenue
guarantee similar to the one in Leeds, Nicholson says.

The councils feel they have some advantages over Leeds in that it is
difficult for buses or cars to compete with a system that links two sides of
a waterway.

“Leeds has a city centre system and people can run buses to compete,
but our trams will run across a harbour between two congested peninsulas
and we have journey times of five minutes against 45 minutes, so that is a
pretty strong factor in our favour,” he says.

The two councils can also promote tram ridership by, for example,
designing parking and traffic policies to encourage its use and
discouraging car commuting.

Local government has its own consultancy for public-private partnerships,
called 4Ps. Senior executive Andrew Hugill is familiar with the gripes
about PFI appearing to involve huge contingencies for risk that would not
arise were the project wholly funded from the public purse.

But he points out that financing infrastructure from public money does not
somehow make risks vanish: rather, there is a tendency to ignore them.

As he explains: “Whatever option a local authority takes, it is clear that
risk is a vital element and pricing it is an important factor, preferably
one
that is costed from the start.

“PFI has led to a perception that it brings about higher risk, but risk is
fundamental and inherent and has to be considered even if other options
are pursued.”

Light rail’s selling point is that its clean, comfortable and modern style
appeals to people who would not otherwise be seen dead on public
transport, and so cuts car use in line with government environmental
policy.

But another government policy demands the use of PFI to gather in
private funding for public works, and with many of light rail’s benefits,
including urban regeneration, being only indirect, the two do not always sit
happily together.

It remains possible that the government will scupper these plans, and if it
does, the projects will again have to be rethought.


Mark Smulian is a freelance business journalist

[[]]


••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links











------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weyrich_Transit/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Weyrich_Transit-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






More information about the Pittsburgh-railways mailing list