Amtrak: Dan Zukowski

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...

"that all men are created equal."

(And women of course.)

The promise of the Founding Fathers has been realized.

The Electric Election

They told me the line was four hours long when I finally found the beginning of it this morning in Norwalk, Calif. The Los Angeles County Recorder's office is the only location for early voting for all 4.1 million registered voters in L.A. County. I had arrived at 8:30 a.m., just 30 minutes after the scheduled openinf, but the line already stretched around the building to the makeshift voting tents. Luckily, I soon found out that, since I had already filled out my absentee ballot, I could just go ahead and drop it in the box.

I was almost disappointed not to stand on line with the others who were casting their ballot. The feeling was electric. Whole families waited on line. Everyone was smiling, or seemed to, happy to be a part of something monumental. We have for too long had too low a voter turnout, which has enabled a vocal minority to control the nation's agenda. Not this year.

To see Los Angeles turn out in such numbers early on a Saturday morning, when we're usually sleeping in, was to see America's second largest city come together as a community; a community determined to make its voice heard. To me, it was also that point on a long journey when you come around the final bend in the road to see the destination you have looked forward to.

Forty years ago, I was a high school freshman in the Bronx, swimming in a politically charged pool of hope and tragedy. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy had been assassinated. America's cities - New York among them - were seething with racial tension. A war raged in Southeast Asia and buildings crumbled in our own urban centers.

Political discussions were commonplace at our dinner table, and at those of my aunts, uncles and cousins. My father was a union man. He led strikes, helped organize and fought for better wages and working conditions, all to make a better life for our family.

So it was in that atmosphere that during high school, and later in college, I joined demonstrations in support of civil rights and the stillborn Equal Rights Amendment. It was a mystical time, a spiritual time, a cosmic time. It was a time not long after the big bang of Brown vs. Board of Education and the fundamental justice of the Civil Rights Act. It was also the beginning of our nation's inevitable and necessary journey to a new globally-informed, inclusive universe.

The destination is in sight, but we are not there yet. Not until we can wake up on Wednesday morning to the redeeming words, "President-elect Barack Obama."

California High Speed Rail: Wrong Plan at the Wrong Time

Amid market upheaval and an uncertain economic future, California voters will be asked to authorize almost $10 billion in state borrowing next month for a poorly-designed and financially risky high-speed rail network. That's equal to the $10 billion in borrowing from future lottery revenue needed to reduce further budget shortfalls starting next year. More perspective: the California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) projects the annual cost of servicing the debt on the high-speed rail bond at $647 million. That's more than the $510 million Gov. Schwarzenegger had to cut from this year's budget to make ends meet. Those cuts impacted programs to lower prescription drug costs and provide financial aid to elderly renters and homeowners. The money has to come from somewhere, folks.

I've surprised some with my opposition to the California high-speed rail plan, but there's a simple explanation: I can read a business plan. And this one is full of holes. We are supposed to believe that an 800-mile rail system through densely populated urban and suburban areas, national forests, mountain passes and high deserts can be built in 20 years for $40 billion. Heck, we've been trying to get the L.A. subway completed for 15 years, and that's only eight miles. The reality is that the high-speed rail project will take twice as long to build and cost two to three times as much as we're told. Proposition 1A will turn out to be a subprime mortgage on a sprawling, unfinished state-owned toy-train McMansion.

As the Pasadena Star-News wrote earlier this week:

We don't buy into the utter nonsense of the knee-jerk opponents who would be against this proposal no matter what. They call Proposition 1A "pork on a train" - but that's what they call any government expenditure whatsoever. A state that can't in good times invest in itself is a dying state.

But, the newspaper goes on to say:

Right now, though, when we need to find ways to simply balance our budget in order to pay teachers, keep health clinics open and operate other essential services, we're going to have to wait to get aboard this train.

I've been a leading advocate of passenger rail and public transportation, but this is the wrong plan at the wrong time for California. According to the state's LAO, "Over the past 12 years, the authority has spent about $60 million for pre-construction activities." What we've gotten from that, mostly, is a fancy Web site.

It's time to go back to the drawing board. Here is a way to move forward:

1. Start small. Plan for a route such as San Francisco - Sacramento or Los Angeles - San Diego (and not via Riverside) which has a ready market of intercity travelers and can be built at far lower cost. Show success, then build out a statewide system if it makes sense.
2. Engage private enterprise. The proven model in our country's history is for government to assist or undertake transportation infrastructure development and then allow private industry to operate it. California, with whatever federal assistance can be obtained, should fund the infrastructure and then contract with an operator to own, run and maintain the trains. The state should charge a fee to cover ongoing capital needs, and should enter into a long-term contract to encourage the operator to make investments in rolling stock, services and personnel.
3. No work should be undertaken on the project until a preliminary contract is signed with an operator. California taxpayers shouldn't be left holding the bag.

In the 19th century, we saw eager entrepreneurs ready to build railroads, spurred on by federal land grants. In the 20th century, we saw fledgling airlines and young trucking companies jumping at the chance to build transportation businesses as airports and Interstate highways were built. Here in the 21st century, we need to see private enterprise raise its hand. Unless there's a business case to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to build the California high-speed rail network, we should stick to Southwest Airlines.

The California High Speed Pipe Dream

I'm glad somebody said it. The proposed California high speed rail system is a "fairy tale," states the Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore, releasing a study debunking proponents' claims of construction cost and potential ridership.

I first questioned the high speed rail plan in April (see "The Cost of Dreaming"). I've read the California High Speed Rail Authority's proposal and it is deeply flawed. The Authority claims it can build an 800-mile system for $40 billion and that it will carry 100 million passengers a year by 2030. Common sense and experience from every other major civil engineering project in the United States tells us that it will cost two to three times that number and take at least twice as long to complete. Ask Boston if you don't believe me.

The Reason Foundation's study pegs the number at closer to $81 billion, and I believe they are being conservative even at that figure. The $10 billion bond, if passed in November, will be little more than a small down payment on a project that could spin wildly out of control.

The route map is a nightmare, taking San Diego to Los Angeles passengers through Riverside, and with no direct route between San Francisco and Sacramento, at least in the initial phase. The Authority's ridership projections are highly suspect. They use numbers for market share and load factors that far exceed the experience of high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan, both of which have more mature systems and operate in markets with substantially higher driving costs. The Authority asserts that the high speed rail network will divert 56 percent of intercity air travel, an unsupportable assumption that fails to account for competitive response by airlines to protect their market through discounted pricing and enhanced service options.

According to the Reason Foundation's study, "The CHSRA’s anticipated average speeds are not being achieved anywhere in the world, including on the most advanced systems ... As a result, HSR will be less attractive as an alternative to airline travel and is likely to attract fewer passengers than projected."

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is also taking the state down the same dangerous track that Congress and the Nixon Administration did when they forecast that Amtrak would become profitable. Making that promise has set the national passenger railroad up as a disappointment for 37 years, and today no one believes that passenger rail can be self-sustaining. It's clear from the Authority's proposal that its P&L projections do not include the cost of capital construction or replacement. The Reason Foundation states, "The CHSRA’s claims of profitability could not conceivably be credible under even the most optimistic assumptions, unless some or all capital and debt costs are ignored."

The most dangerous aspect of the California high speed rail proposal is the likely diversion of funds from existing passenger rail projects to the new toy, and the eventual disillusionment of California taxpayers resulting from the inevitable construction delays and cost overruns of the HSR project.

Californians are indeed riding trains, in greater numbers every year, as evidenced by increasing ridership on Amtrak, commuter and light rail systems throughout the state. As I wrote back in April, "Adding to the current passenger rail network, increasing connections and train frequency on existing lines, adding track capacity, modernizing equipment and improving service will bring more passengers to trains -- thus reducing highway and airline congestion along with greenhouse gas emissions -- at a far lower cost than pipe-dream high-speed rail projects."

Rail Riders for Obama

On June 4, 2008, this blog officially endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States. I have formed "Rail Riders for Obama" and invite you to join.

Barack Obama is a strong supporter of Amtrak and understands the need for a balanced transportation network that includes passenger rail. He has laid out his plan for revitalizing America's transportation infrastructure, which includes "a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments." The bank will fund transportation projects, including rail, creating up to two million new jobs a year.

On Amtrak, Obama states, "As president, Barack Obama will continue to fight for Amtrak funding and reform so that individuals, families and businesses throughout the country have safe and reliable transportation options."

The alternative: Sen. McCain has long been an Amtrak foe. His election will lead to four more years of neglect and hostility toward our transportation needs.