An interview with Michael Dukakis, 1988 presidential candidate, now occasional professor, speaks on transportation policy in the US.

Michael Dukakis: Obama Needs To Revive Train Manufacturing Industry » INFRASTRUCTURIST

Posted on Tuesday May 26th by Jebediah Reed


Michael Dukakis
Last week we ran part one of our recent interview with Michael Dukakis, in which he discussed how building transit will lead to healthier cities and how the burden is now on governors to take the lead on building out our passenger rail network.

In part two, the Duke has some advice for Obama on how to jump start what could become a major domestic industry in decades ahead and .

What the most important thing that nobody is discussing with respect to transportation policy?
The thing that nobody is talking about is: how do we revive the transit rail industry? You know, we can’t make a train in this country. If we’re going to commit ourselves to this kind of spending on rail, it seems to me that one the things that the administration should be doing is taking a serious look at how you revive train and transit manufacturing. Maybe you do it in joint ventures with foreign firms. But why shouldn’t we be getting a chunk of these jobs if we’re going to be spending this money?

If you were in Obama’s position, how would you do that?
The first thing you do is give the automobile makers a $5 billion contract to manufacture transit equipment. This would be far more stimulative, plus you’d get something for it. And then you distribute the equipment to transit systems all over the country. Let’s see if we can’t get them to make a streetcar. I mean, if you can make a bus, why not a streetcar? There are 100 cities in this country that want to do light rail–that’s a market for you. Did I ever tell you the story about Jack Welch and me?

No, please do.
This is after the Cold War. GE was closing some plants. I said, “Instead of closing these plants, why not get into the transit business? As governor, I’m spending hundreds of millions on transit equipment and I’m not buying a stick of it in this country.” I’ll never forget it. He said, “I’m a railroad guy”–his father was a conductor on the Boston & Maine railroad–”I love trains, but we go where the money is. As long as this country is spending billions on missiles, we’ll make missiles. When–and if–they decide to spend billions on rail, we’ll start making transit again.” So here we are. We have an administration that seems to want to do it. We have a Congress that’s strongly rail supportive. I think this might well be a time to act. And I’m serious about these bus contracts* for Detroit. Why not?

It does seem like there’s been a lack of imagination on the administration’s part with respect to transforming the car industry.
Yeah. Well, now that we got our $8 billion we can go to work on train manufacturing in the US.

Do you think an expansion of rail would actually allow us to bring down the car ownership rate?
We’ll see!

One of the most important questions around infrastructure investment in this country is whether we can get meaningful funding for an infrastructure bank. During the campaign, Obama promised $80 billion. But at least one very powerful senator–Max Baucus (D, MT.)–seems intent on derailing it.
Our president has great persuasive powers these days and I hope and expect he’ll use them. Max is a smart guy and not anti-train. He just doesn’t want that highway money mixed in. But, at the same time, it seems to me that in the future what highway money we spend in this country is going to be largely for maintenance and reconstruction. The new projects are mostly going to be–at least I hope–inter-city rail and transit.

But isn’t it going to be tough to convince to Congress to hand over a big pot of money with no strings attached?
That’s always a problem. You have folks in Congress who don’t want to be in a situation where they vote the money and then it’s the governors back home who take credit. But most people on the Hill really do favor giving states broad discretion. Now with that $8 billion, it’s not discretionary – it has to be used for rail.

How do we instill the required urgency in our politicians?
For me it was all about jobs. I used to ask, “Why aren’t there 200 people working on these road jobs? What is this six people stuff?” We had skilled construction trade people out of work. I just personally couldn’t tolerate a situation where we had work to be done, money appropriated, folks out there looking for work – and nothing happening. But now is very good time to be doing this stuff. We’ve got a lot of people in planning, engineering, and architecture that need work. There’s lots of excess capacity. Contractors are hungry, and they’re bidding low. Bids are coming in well below estimates on stimulus projects.

Some experts say we should be worried about these low bids–that construction firms are likely to start going broke before they finish the projects they’re working on.
Not if you have smart construction management. The Boston Harbor clean up came in on time and 25 percent below budget. That project and the Big Dig started out with the same estimated costs and had the same level of complexity. The difference was competent, tough construction management. We had the good sense to get contracts out on the harbor projects in the middle of the ‘89-’91 recession. My successor, William Weld, futzed around for two or three years on the Big Dig and that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

So how on earth do we get good construction management?
A lot of it has to come from LaHood. He’s got to convey that. And I think he’s prepared to do so, based on the conversations I’ve had with him. But remember, it’s not the federal DOT that does the construction, with the exception of Amtrak. This is mostly a state thing.

Where it’s an uneven situation at best.
When we were out in Denver visiting our daughter last January, we drove along a local road that was under construction. We were out there again last weekend–and it’s still under construction. It’s almost June! We’ve got a problem in this country.

Is it that the state DOTs are simply dysfunctional organizations?
I don’t know that they’re dysfunctional. But for reasons I don’t quite understand. Kenmore Square in Boston still under construction five years after it began. It should be about a six month job. Actually, here it’s because the folks at the MBTA who are responsible for construction just don’t have what it takes. With Fred Salvucci, I had a transportation secretary who knew who the good people were.

Most governors don’t know amount about transportation policy–how do they get it right?
I nearly flunked physics at Swarthmore College. [Laughs] I’m serious though – that’s why I went into politics. But I’ve always had this interest in transportation. Salvucci and I started working together when we were trying to kill the Master Highway Plan here in Boston, which took ten years, and I got to know him. How do you find a guy who’s the son of an immigrant bricklayer and has two degrees from MIT and has political smarts coming out his ears? I was very fortunate. But it really depends on state and local elected executives picking top notch people to do this stuff. Even Fred though–I’d come back from the field and would call him up and say, “Nobody’s working on Route 2, Fred! Traffic’s backed up! What’s going on?” That’s one thing a governor can do – ask questions.

Looking around the country, are you seeing governors who seem to have that urgency you’re talking about?
When Kitty and I were driving back from LA recently, we stopped off at Zion National Park in Utah. On local TV there was Jon Huntsman, announcing stimulus construction projects, surrounded by twenty construction companies, and saying, “We’re moving on these and moving fast.” He probably doesn’t know any more about construction than I do, but he’s got that impatience and commitment to doing the stuff and putting good people to work doing it. It’s not complicated.

Photo

(*Dukakis credits his UCLA colleague Daniel J.B. Mitchell with this idea.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 8:15 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “Michael Dukakis: Obama Needs To Revive Train Manufacturing Industry”

1. Snowflake Seven Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Oregon Iron Works are now building street cars for the Portland Streetcar Line and they are bidding on projects in other cities.
2. Bill Nelson Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

I can answer Mr. Dukakis’ questions:

But why shouldn’t we be getting a chunk of these jobs if we’re going to be spending this money?

Who is “we”? Why are “we” more entitled than “them”? Anyway, the reason “we” don’t get these jobs is because “we” are not as efficient at doing those jobs as “they” are.

I mean, if you can make a bus, why not a streetcar?

The US auto manufacturers are pretty incapable of building buses, just as they are unable to build a decent automobile. There is no reason to believe that their quality control would extend to streetcars.

I used to ask, “Why aren’t there 200 people working on these road jobs? What is this six people stuff?”

Why do a job with six people when 200 could do the same job? Why not 2000 people doing the job of six? When public works project consume resources (like labor), then there is less to go around for other things. Ideally, the road jobs would be done entirely by robots.

But for reasons I don’t quite understand. Kenmore Square in Boston still under construction five years after it began. It should be about a six month job.

Perhaps the contractors are guaranteed a “chunk of the money”, are using bloated workforces, and are working for unaccountable bureaucracies that even ex-governors do not understand?

It’s not complicated.

No, it’s enormously complicated to identify worthy construction projects and to do them correctly, on time, while not fleecing the taxpayers. It only seems easy when you make decisions with other people’s money — as politicians always, always, always do.
3. Don K Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

The reason the Detroit Three won’t get into transit manufacturing are the same as the reason GM (the only one to have built transit buses) sold off its transit bus division years ago and the reason Ford Sold off its over-the-road truck operations. The corporate skills necessary for building a few thousand semi-customized units a year are totally different than the skills required for building 100,000-500,000 more-or-less standard (with limited option availability) units. One is mass production, the other is more akin to a craft shop. Kind of like the difference between manufacturing mainframe computers (which IBM owned) and manufacturing PCs (at which IBM struck out after originating).

If every transit agency could agree on a standard unit, then it would be more like auto production. As it is, I have no doubt Charlotte would want motor A with axle B and brake C, while Denver would want motor D with axle E and brake F, and Portland would want yet another combination.

The production model that would be most like what’s required for transit would be over-the-road trucks (think Kenworth/Peterbilt) or airliner manufacturing (Boeing), and I would expect any of these manufacturers to be competent.
4. David N Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:06 am

I had actually figured that giving time for an American train building industry to develop was one of the main reasons why Obama wanted to start relatively small when it came to intercity rail. Unlike the Chinese, for example, who pay enormous sums to foreign companies.
5. Streetsblog » State, National, and World Headlines from the Past Five Days Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 am

[...] Dukakis: Obama Should Give Detroit $5B to Make Transit Vehicles (Infrastructurist) [...]