HOW THE CALIF BULLET TRAIN MISSED ITS MARK - No matter what lay people or Congressional or transit “experts” like to talk about, the way to get a transportation project built with public funds (regardless of whether it’s a road, rail project or a freeway), requires three critical elements: Planning, Consensus and Funding. Every truly honest political leader or transportation official will acknowledge that.
Which means that lots of studies and plans need to be evaluated before a general (or even rudimentary) consensus can be achieved, and only THEN can a governmental agency push for public funding that makes the grade without acrimony or controversy. Any other way of doing things is pork-barrel politics that end up with the blowback that the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” dealt to our federal transportation funding process.
Other than the bean-counters and those wishing to make political points (as irrational or even successful as they might be), taxpayers WILL pay more for a better product:
EXAMPLE #1: No one in their right mind is thrilled that the Expo Line will costing $2.4 billion from Downtown L.A. to the beach (instead of the $1.2 billion figure once thrown about 10-20 years ago), but enough of us are familiar with our own homebuilding and other efforts to be aware that unexpected costs and unavoidable human error can make things double in costs…and forcing an overly-constrained budget results in a second- or third-rate finished product that no one wants.
RESULT: The Expo Line will cost about double as was predicted, but will have more grade separations and betterments to help its goal of creating an alternative to the hideously-congested I-10 freeway from the Westside to Downtown, and it will be one of the most heavily-ridden light rail lines in the nation. Lessons will have been learned for future rail projects.
EXAMPLE #2: Measure R is a half-cent sales tax that still enjoys roughly 70% support by the taxpayers because it will pay for projects that should have been built decades ago, but we know that it’s not enough to get all of our necessary rail projects built fast enough—in particular, a north-south rail project to connect the Valley, the Westside, LAX and the South Bay, a north-south rail project to connect the Wilshire Subway to LAX, and a Gold Line extension to connect eastern L.A. County to Ontario Airport.
Furthermore, talks and plans are afoot to include an alternative Green Line to LAX, or other MetroRail/LAX connections, including a more expensive (we’re talking $1 billion) underground alternative that would connect the Green and Crenshaw Lines to get commuters and LAX workers directly to the center of LAX. I suspect the Mayor and other high-ranking officials are behind this effort, which despite its expense is an alternative many (perhaps most?) support for further study…because it’s probably the airport link that the taxpayers ultimately wanted and expected from Metro.
(After all, as with the Expo Line, a LAX/MetroRail link that lasts a century or longer makes these extra costs easier to swallow.)
RESULT: An extension of Measure R, if presented the right way to the taxpayers, will be approved by the voters as much as did the original Measure R—provided the budget and the results are transparently and properly presented.
Unfortunately, no one can say the same about the California High-Speed Rail Project (CAHSR), or any bullet train plan from California to Las Vegas:
BAD EXAMPLE #1: A $30-40 billion project approved by the voters suddenly skyrocketed to $98 billion with a very delayed construction completion date. Former Governor Schwarzeneggar, the previous Legislatures and/or CAHSR Authority either deliberately fudged the details in a dreadful bait-and-switch, and/or our state’s collective learning curve went up only after we approved the project.
RESULT: Instead of pursuing an alternative to the automobile to either Las Vegas, or from L.A. to San Diego, or from Central California to/from either the Bay Area or Southern California (which are all very much needed), we were promised an alternative to air travel from L.A. to/from San Francisco that was neither needed, realistic nor cost-effective.
BAD EXAMPLE #2: Despite Governor Brown’s pragmatic cost-cutting alternatives to the aforementioned $98 billion CAHSR alternative, it may run afoul of election law because it has significant differences from what the voters approved. A Congressional Committee has launched an examination of the CAHSR project for conflicts of interest and whether federal funds should go towards this project (LINK).
Aggravating this situation is the possibility that those providing the passenger and revenue estimates for the CAHSR project had conflicts of interest with private consulting firms hired to evaluate the project (LINK).
RESULT: There will likely be no federal funds provided for this project any time soon, and there will also likely be a voter referendum to kill the CAHSR project.
Which is unfortunate, because our learning curve HAS gone up (it should have gone up this far years ago!), and we DO need improvements to Metrolink, Caltrain, Amtrak and other commuter rail networks as much as we need MetroRail and Interstate Highway improvements. The blended approach promoted by Governor Brown and the current CAHSR Authority leadership should have been presented to the voters in the first place.
It may be “too little, too late”, but if legal and/or political reality forces Governor Brown’s hands to do so, then a voter proposition is indicated to amend the previous CAHSR proposition. It’s not hard to state that the current plan builds on our current infrastructure, is much more cost-effective, and can be built decades faster than the $98 billion monstrosity that was previously proposed by the CAHSR Authority.
But the case has to be made by the voters, who have to pay the tax bill and face either the benefits or consequences of this CAHSR project while they’re already paying for initiatives such as Measure R—which actually WAS presented in a fair, transparent and politically-appropriate manner.
The taxpayers already HAVE been duped and tricked (or so it appears) by lying, fudging consultants who had no problem deceiving the taxpayers for their own personal gain or ego, and the only way out is for Governor Brown to APOLOGIZE to the voters for what happened under his predecessors watch, and to stake his own credibility for a true statewide high-speed rail that really IS transparent, honest, and acceptable to the voters.
Because the taxpayers won’t be taken for another high-speed, consultant-rewarding Ride to Nowhere.
(Ken Alpern is a former Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Vice Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
Tags: Ken Alpern, California, Transportation, Bullet Train, Expo Line, Measure R, Los Angeles, Wilshire Subway, LAX
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 30
Pub: Apr 13, 2012