Passenger Trains > SF Gate -- How the HSR Project Went Off The Rails

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Train-to-nowhere-Here-s-how-high-speed-project-13621347.php?t=8453b5f481

Good historical article from online San Francisco paper SFgate; pretty much factual without grinding any axes.
Don't know if above link will work but if not, try the title from the link on Google.

This makes an interesting comparison with first post today (below) where we're all celebrating getting a mere $50M for the SW Chief....and we should be. 
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/19 13:27 by hazegray.

What an embarrassment we are as a country.  It isn't just rail projects that have gone off of the rails, but any type of large project.  In America, we simply don't build or create anything great anymore.  This article can be shortened down to a single sentence.  High-speed rail has failed in California due to unreasonable environmental impact studies, contractor favoritism, and corrupt politicians.  The whole project smells like the Pacific Railroad Act in the 1860s.  I'm sure money is being siphoned off at every step of the process, just like with the credit moblier.

Did anyone else notice the part about the 14 mile tunnel through the Diablo mountains, still being held up by environmental impact studies? Thinking logically, what is honestly going to be the environmental impact of a tunnel, and how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on this ridiculous study?  How hard is it really to take a few core samples and present the results?  In the grand scheme of things, 14 miles is insignificant when compared to foreign projects such as the English Channel Tunnel (31 miles) or the Gotthard Base Tunnel (35 miles) under the Swiss Alps in Europe.  Building tunnels is not terribly complicated anymore.   Other countries have it down.  What is our problem?   Even in the good ol' USA we have accomplished some amazing feats of engineering.  What about the 24 mile Lake Ponchetrain Causeway?  These projects make the California High Speed rail line look almost routine in scope.  Bottom line, regardless of whether the project was a good idea or not, we have shown our utter incompetence as a nation in our blunderous failure to even open one single segment, and my guess is that we never will actually complete a single segment.

We were once capable though.  The interstate highway system was much larger in scope and more demanding in construction methods. Entire mountains were moved, requiring monolithic cuts, fills and tunnels, and yet it was built.  Thousands of miles of shimmering concrete and asphalt were built through some of the most challenging and demanding stretches of terrain in the world.  In only 35 years we built a 48,191 system through some of most difficult terrain in the world!  Let's take the section through Glenwood Canyon, parallel to the old Rio Grande for example.  This 12 mile section of Interstate was monolithic in scope and far more intrusive than any railroad, high speed or not.  Inflation-adjusted, this project cost over 2 Billion to complete 12 miles!  If the interstate system had been required to undergo the environmental impact studies of today however.....it never would have been built.  Environmental impact studies would have prevented nearly all of our great projects, such as the Hoover Dam, or the Panama Canal, or any of our rail lines which traverse the edges of rivers.  

Eventually, we will be forced to confront the fact that Infrastructure does not last forever.  Eventually, our freeways will become unserviceable and whether we have a high-speed rail system or not, we will not be able to reconstruct them due to lack of funds and/or environmental impact hurtles.  If we don't start to bring some sanity back to the table, America will eventually lag behind the entire world when it comes to the transportation of goods and passengers alike.  Imagine a country where no passenger rail exists, freight rail is still antiquated and single tracked, and half of all interstate bridges are either closed down to 1 lane due to weight restrictions or bypassed indefinitely until proper funding can be acquired to replace it.  That is our future in 30 years or so when we pass the serviceable life of our interstate system.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/19 15:37 by HogheadMike.

I used to be a consultant for Parsons Transportation Group (Pasadena).

"The longer it takes, the more we make" was a semi-joke.

I don't even care anymore, it's too late.  If I want to ride on-time trains & safe, clean urban rail transit, I go to Europe. Eastern Europe, esp.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/19 18:49 by Duna.

HogheadMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did anyone else notice the part about the 14 mile
> tunnel through the Diablo mountains, still being
> held up by environmental impact studies?
> Thinking logically, what is honestly going to be
> the environmental impact of a tunnel, and how many
> hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on
> this ridiculous study?  How hard is it really to
> take a few core samples and present the results?
>  In the grand scheme of things, 14 miles is
> insignificant when compared to foreign projects
> such as the English Channel Tunnel (31 miles) or
> the Gotthard Base Tunnel (35 miles) under the
> Swiss Alps in Europe.  Building tunnels is not
> terribly complicated anymore.   Other countries
> have it down.  What is our problem?

building tunnels is certainly not new, but their planning, engineering and construction continues to be complex.

Looking at the two examples you cited:

Prior to the construction of the English Channel tunnel, there were major political obstacles to overcome.  Environmental studies were performed.  There was an 80% cost overrun.

The Gotthard Base Tunnel took 16 years to construct and its costs were 50% higher than expected.  I have no familiarity with environmental requirements for Swiss transportation projects, but through a few minutes of research, I learned that environmental considerations were incorporated into the development of theproject.  Read the following to learn some of the environmental issues addressed during development of this project:

https://houseofswitzerland.org/swissstories/environment/construction-worlds-longest-environmentally-friendly-tunnel

  Even in
> the good ol' USA we have accomplished some amazing
> feats of engineering.  What about the 24 mile
> Lake Ponchetrain Causeway?  These projects make
> the California High Speed rail line look almost
> routine in scope.  Bottom line, regardless of
> whether the project was a good idea or not, we
> have shown our utter incompetence as a nation in
> our blunderous failure to even open one single
> segment, and my guess is that we never will
> actually complete a single segment.
>
> We were once capable though.  The interstate
> highway system was much larger in scope and more
> demanding in construction methods. Entire
> mountains were moved, requiring monolithic cuts,
> fills and tunnels, and yet it was built.
>  Thousands of miles of shimmering concrete and
> asphalt were built through some of the most
> challenging and demanding stretches of terrain in
> the world.  In only 35 years we built a 48,191
> system through some of most difficult terrain in
> the world!  Let's take the section through
> Glenwood Canyon, parallel to the old Rio Grande
> for example.  This 12 mile section of Interstate
> was monolithic in scope and far more intrusive
> than any railroad, high speed or not.
>  Inflation-adjusted, this project cost over 2
> Billion to complete 12 miles!  If the
> interstate system had been required to undergo
> the environmental impact studies of today
> however.....it never would have been built.
>  Environmental impact studies would have
> prevented nearly all of our great projects, such
> as the Hoover Dam, or the Panama Canal, or any of
> our rail lines which traverse the edges of rivers.

When the Golden Gate Bridge was first proposed, there was substantial opposition to it based on concerns that it would ruin the area's beauty.  I am not familiar with how (or if) those concerns were considered, but it shows that environmental issues are not a recent concern with regard to transportation projects.

Here's one example of why environmental impact studies are needed: Consider the case of I99 in Central Pennsylvania.  Congressman Bud Shuster inserted language into highway legislation specifically exempting this project from further environmental review.  During the construction of the highway in Centre County, a huge amount of pyrite was encountered risking contamination of nearby streams and local communities' water supplies.  The final cost of cleaning all of this up was $100 million.  A more thorough environmental assessment during the engineering phase would have identified this formation and engineers and environmental specialists could have come up with a less costly solution.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/19 19:35 by RuleG.

Lawyers and legal action impede all public work projects from the get-go.  Enviro impact reports are costly and time-consuming.  We're stymied by agendas that want to get in the way of accomplishing big things.  The transcontinental railroad could not be done in this day and age.  I am sad that new railroad construction is impacted but that is the name of the game nowadays.  Until legislation is passed that crushes most of these impediments, we can't do much that is affordable and time sensitive. 

As in the case of LA-Las Vegas rail expansion, prioritizing the habitat of the kangaroo rat and the desert tortoise over the need to transport human beings is idiotic.  I know others disagree on the basis of emotion and concerns for these little creatures, but when emotion influences one's decision-making, my expereince has been that those decisons aren't good ones.

-John

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used to be a consultant for Parsons
> Transportation Group (Pasadena).
>
> "The longer it takes, the more we make" was a
> semi-joke.
Way back when all if this started and I saw the name Parsons I knew it was just another trough for the usual consultants and lawyers to belly up to and suck us taxpayers dry—- and BTW, whether it is federal or state tax money, it still came out of MY pocket!  I  just  love  it when people say “ the gummint is paying for it”—- jeez. 
C


> I don't even care anymore, it's too late.  If I
> want to ride on-time trains & safe, clean urban
> rail transit, I go to Europe. Eastern Europe, esp.

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

You are absolutely correct in your discussion. Some of the recent USA world of complaints boggle the mind of rational, sensible and experienced persons.

Don Allender

HogheadMike Wrote:

 Did anyone else notice the part about the 14 mile
> tunnel through the Diablo mountains, still being
> held up by environmental impact studies?
> Thinking logically, what is honestly going to be
> the environmental impact of a tunnel, 

Impacts from tunneling in the mountains of the Bay Area include at least: 1) the unstable, earthquake prone nature of the Bay Area's geology, 2) the possible toxicity of the  tunnel spoil, 3) where to put the tunnel spoil, and 4) possibly other issues like protection of underground water resources. We don't live in a void, we and the earth are connected in countless ways because we are of the earth.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/19 13:16 by RRBaron.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Gotthard Base Tunnel took 16 years to
> construct and its costs were 50% higher than
> expected. 

...and the Loetschberg Base Tunnel ran out of cash, had to be completed 2/3 double track and 1/3 single track. It is an operating problem, but folks in Switzerland are really good at dealing with operating problems that can't be overcome here.


> During the construction of
> the highway in Centre County, a huge amount of
> pyrite was encountered risking contamination of
> nearby streams and local communities' water
> supplies.  The final cost of cleaning all of this
> up was $100 million.

How many home remodeling projects look easy until demolition of the existing reveals the ugly unknowns?

>  A more thorough
> environmental assessment during the engineering
> phase would have identified this formation and
> engineers and environmental specialists could have
> come up with a less costly solution.

I work on environmental documentation for projects, some kind of locally and unreasonably unpopular (look up the tirades of the Lakewood WA mayor against passenger trains) and some that are Really Unpopular and have the chance of bringing about a Really Bad result (bringing unit oil trains to places that if one goes in the ditch, the result will look like the Exxon Valdez leakage, even if it doesn't result in an impressive sound and light show). The choice is do it correctly and honestly or spend years in court (NEC electrification). The environmental regulations are necessary since without them, the private sector will do the minimum of what is needed to make money (since Fiduciary Responsibility is virtually the only legal requirement for a corporation). The need is so obvious that a Very Republican RMN signed it into law. Self-policing corporations could have prevented that, just as self-policing railroads could have limited the extent of today's federal regulations.

Do some folks doing this work milk it? Yeah, just as train crews that begin the day in the locker room discussing how and where they will arrange to be dogcaught before the trip starts. One reason for dehorning off of Assistant Chief work decades ago, actually several of us at once, was that we were tired of setting up a well-running railroad every day from scratch, day after day after day because of colleagues who did the minimum to get by for the ensuing 16 hours instead of continuing our work on into the future. Engineering companies don't have a corner on the job milking market, nor does everyone in such a company work that way.The ones who do that make a bigger impression than the ones that don't, however.

There is a lot wrong with CA HSR, but the environmental regulations are not a primary problem.

TAW
 

The California HSR project is no doubt plagued by all of the obnoxious corruption and waste that goes with any massive, taxpayer-funded pork barrel project, but its two biggest failings, were a ) it was a stupid idea to start with and b ) it would only provide services to a relatively small segment of the population.  Now, the highway pork barrel is far more wasteful and corrupt than any rail transit project could ever hope to be, but its proponents figured out long ago (nearly a century ago) that one can build a massively corrupt and wasteful project IF you build it EXTENSIVELY enough that a large plurality of the public gets at least some benefit from it, and nearly every politician can let his/her district feed off of some of the pork.

Study the American highway system and you will see that most of it was pretty shoddily built, leading to steep long-term maintenance costs.  None of it was  built for high, autobahn-type speeds, either.  But, it was built with an eye to extending its tentacles to every community in America, thus assuring--notwithstanding all of its waste, inefficiency, and political corruption--that it would (and has) maintained unassailable political and voter support.  After a century of being beaten to death by the socialized highway juggernaut, passenger rail advocates--from HSR to Amtrak--still can't figure out that a POLITICALLY viable passenger rail system has to be EXTENSIVE, assuring that the maximum number of the public has nearby access to service, not just some  "shiny" services to a few corridors.  Look at any other country that has a robust passenger rail system, and one will see that the common denominator is that the system is extensive, providing service to the maximum number of people.
 

WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  After
> a century of being beaten to death by the
> socialized highway juggernaut, passenger rail
> advocates--from HSR to Amtrak--still can't figure
> out that a POLITICALLY viable passenger rail
> system has to be EXTENSIVE, assuring that the
> maximum number of the public has nearby access to
> service, not just some  "shiny" services to a few
> corridors.  Look at any other country that has a
> robust passenger rail system, and one will see
> that the common denominator is that the system is
> extensive, providing service to the maximum number
> of people.
>  

It is good to know that just once in a while, maybe I'm not shouting into a vacuum.

TAW

WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The California HSR project is no doubt plagued by
> all of the obnoxious corruption and waste that
> goes with any massive, taxpayer-funded pork barrel
> project, but its two biggest failings, were a ) it
> was a stupid idea to start with and b ) it would
> only provide services to a relatively small
> segment of the population. ...
> ...  After
> a century of being beaten to death by the
> socialized highway juggernaut, passenger rail
> advocates--from HSR to Amtrak--still can't figure
> out that a POLITICALLY viable passenger rail
> system has to be EXTENSIVE, assuring that the
> maximum number of the public has nearby access to
> service, not just some  "shiny" services to a few
> corridors.  Look at any other country that has a
> robust passenger rail system, and one will see
> that the common denominator is that the system is
> extensive, providing service to the maximum number
> of people.

Following along with your thoughts, it went of the rails by not providing real benefits from the start (i.e. timely completion of a first segment that would have had significant ridership).
 

Instituting HSR via referendum was a costly blunder. The authority spent years wrangling in court over the restrictive language in the referendum--and what turned out to be unattainable metrics: trip times, no operating subsidy, etc. If it were simple legislation passed in the legislature, it could have been amended to reflect reality.

Voter propositions are often "Dear Santa" letters where voters are asked to approve wishes and dreams. Coupled with unidentified funding mechanisms, it's a dangerous delusion. Only a third of the original $33 billion estimate was covered in the bond measure--the rest was a "hope" for federal and private investment. To say nothing of how to fund the ultimate $77 billion (and counting?) price tag. Hope is not a strategy.
 

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/19 08:50 by Dcmcrider.

In the article there was a nice picture of Gov. Jerry Brown with Joe Szabo signing a portion of a rail at the 2015 groundbreaking event in Fresno.  Joe sure knows High Speed Rail!!!

Here's more info on Joe's visit in 2015 to California..  Hey Joe, how fast will the train go?

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011921

---

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Instituting HSR via referendum was a costly
> blunder. The authority spent years wrangling in
> court over the restrictive language in the
> referendum--and what turned out to be unattainable
> metrics: trip times, no operating subsidy, etc. If
> it were simple legislation passed in the
> legislature, it could have been amended to reflect
> reality...

An interesting point.

Has HSR anywhere else in the world depended upon a referendum? I can't remember whether HS2 for trains to Scotland went up for a vote, but it seems to be pretty mired in politics, too.

Great discussion!
Another (positive) aspect of highway or airport capacity expansions is that they are incremental; each part is of value as soon as it is done.
CAHSR was of little value (except to electrify San Francisco-San Jose) until it was all built.
I worked on a portion of it in Southern California.  Parsons ran the show and anything that questioned their design wisdom was a heresy. (Examples on request)
CAHSR went after what may be California's best public transportation system, the frequent, fast, cheap bundle of air corridors from north to south.

Even one tenth of that money, invested in a widely distributed set of local and regional passenger rail (and connecting bus) services would have served a lot of the population and relieved congestion on and reduced fuel consumed on the highway system.

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >  After
> > a century of being beaten to death by the
> > socialized highway juggernaut, passenger rail
> > advocates--from HSR to Amtrak--still can't
> figure
> > out that a POLITICALLY viable passenger rail
> > system has to be EXTENSIVE, assuring that the
> > maximum number of the public has nearby access
> to
> > service, not just some  "shiny" services to a
> few
> > corridors.  Look at any other country that has
> a
> > robust passenger rail system, and one will see
> > that the common denominator is that the system
> is
> > extensive, providing service to the maximum
> number
> > of people.
> >  
>
> It is good to know that just once in a while,
> maybe I'm not shouting into a vacuum.
>
> TAW

The problem with (both) of your logic is the failure to recognize who the highway lobby is. It is not just automakers,oil companies and concrete producers. It is corporate America, school grandma's and the multitudes of people that use roads. As one example, I went to a packed meeting about a bridge renewal on a secondary state road last fall. As part of my job at a Fortune 500, I have lobbied for roads, exits and and various improvements. Roads have an impact on many. Railroad do not. A single market HSR is not going to change that, to WW's point. However thinking only a few are lobbying for roads is a mistake.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/19 09:45 by NYSWSD70M.

Florida conducts much of its government business via initiative (an item goes on the ballot because enough people signed a petition), or referendum ( because the ballot commission put it there). We had 13 ballot questions this past go around.

The legislature does only what big agriculture, the NRA, or the mega park companies want.

Posted from Android

"Impacts from tunneling in the mountains of the Bay Area include at least: 1) the unstable, earthquake prone nature of the Bay Area's geology, 2) the possible toxicity of the  tunnel spoil, 3) where to put the tunnel spoil, and 4) possibly other issues like protection of underground water resources. We don't like in a void, we and the earth are connected in countless ways because we are of the earth."

Sorry can not buy into the earthquake reasoning. Japan has been building for years. They have long tunnels also, some under the ocean. Where to put the spoils, you build the ROW with them. You find a old gravel pit that needs to be filled in. And if the soil is contaminated under the mountains between the Great Valley and San Jose that deep, then something is majorly wrong with that area.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem with (both) of your logic is the
> failure to recognize who the highway lobby is. It
> is not just automakers,oil companies and concrete
> producers. It is corporate America, school
> grandma's and the multitudes of people that use
> roads.

Since my point is encouraging rail service that is a viable alternative to highway transportation where that can be done, I can't see how it can be interpreted in that way.

TAW