Fools, Villains Bum a Ride in the Green Line Dispute : Transit: It’s simplistic to say that removing automation will give a revised contract to an American company.

Since 1973, I have led the effort to build a rapid transit system in Los Angeles. I want our people to ride the most modern, cost-effective rail systems in the world. And I want these systems to be built by American workers and American businesses.

I support awarding our rail contracts to American companies. I voted to award the Green Line car contract to the Morrison-Knudsen Corp. of Boise, Ida. I did this despite a staff report that insisted on the other final bidder, Sumitomo Corp.

I voted for Morrison-Knudsen because it offered precisely the automated system we had asked for, with more local, domestic and minority jobs, a lower price and a full performance bond. I did this because the American economy and workers need this boost, this show of support. I want there to be an American company with experience in building an advanced rail system--one that international customers will be willing to buy.

My vote for Morrison-Knudsen did not carry the day, but I am still hopeful. In the best of all worlds, my fellow commissioners will change their votes. While I am also supportive of the current negotiations between Morrison-Knudsen and Sumitomo to enter into a joint venture to construct the Green Line vehicles, Morrison-Knudsen would need a sizable percentage of the contract for any such venture to be meaningful to the American pocketbook.

I do not support an outcome that would put all procurements on hold for a year while we restudy the Green Line technology. Such an outcome means no jobs for Americans and no rail line for Los Angeles. The call to restudy the technology is the device of clever politicians who want to obscure their votes to send American jobs to Japan. Four times since 1987, the county Transportation Commission reviewed the most appropriate technology for the Green Line and concluded that an automated system will be uniquely capable of providing the service we need at an operating cost we can afford.

Opponents of automation only tell half-truths. For example, when they argue that the automated train is an untried or risky technology, they fail to mention the outstanding success of such systems in France, England and Canada. (In fact, an automated system has operated in Lille, France, since 1983, and now six other French cities are building the same system.) When they criticize the compatibility of the various rail systems that will serve Los Angeles in the 21st Century, they ignore the unique needs of each line and our ability to utilize state-of-the-art technology that will improve service. They do not mention that, no matter the technology, each rail line will meet up with every other line at joint stations with the same ease of passenger transfer and convenience.

When they complain about cost, we must remind them that we can’t afford not to automate. An automated system will be markedly cheaper to operate and maintain, and it will enable our workers to sell their skills in automation around the globe. The world is choosing automation.

The fools and the villains in this debate claim that if we simply remove automation, a revised car contract will someday go to an American company. I call them fools because Sumitomo is the acknowledged master of non-automated systems. Sumitomo designed and built the Blue Line, and that experience would give Sumitomo the upper hand in any bid relying on a non-automated, Blue Line technology. I call them villains because explicit in their suggestion to remove automation is an admission of defeat for America, now and in the future--a resignation that our companies can’t measure up if the task is a sophisticated rail system. I do not share this pessimism, and I will not limit us to yesterday’s technology.

The current debate highlights my next task to ensure that taxpayer transportation dollars are buying maximum value, including jobs for American workers. In December, the Transportation Commission adopted a preference for local businesses in awarding contracts. This is the right first step. But because state law requires the commission to award most contracts to the lowest bidder, thus forbidding preferences of any kind, a second step is critical.

I have, therefore, asked the commission to draft legislation to eliminate the current state barrier and permit us to extend a local-business preference to all contracts. In the coming days, I will be fighting for this legislation in Sacramento. We must demand, not only today but also in the future, the legal tools to exercise the clout that our transportation dollars rightfully offer.