Passenger Trains > Uncleaned Ballast in Recently Refurbished SF Tunnel Now an Issue

**Sigh**

San Francisco Muni may have to spend millions to redo part of tunnel projectJust two years after completing a $52 million tunnel project...

https://www.kqed.org/news/11847897/sfmta-muni-forced-to-redo-portion-of-52-million-twin-peaks-tunnel-project

"contractors discovered the old ballast was contaminated with a higher level of heavy metals than had been anticipated"

So, it isn't a simple matter of cleaning and replacing the ballast.  Now, it is a hazardous waste site inside a confined space.  Once they disturb it, they will have to manage the dust, runoff, waste etc.  All this, on an active passenger line in super-gree SF?  

Wow, just wow. I wonder who signed off on the change order to re-use the existing ballast instead of using new ballast.

The level of competence of public works construction inspectors may be satisfactory for paving, etc.  However I found that within the specialty world of railway engineering a lack of common sense background in what we of the old school Maintenance of Way background had drummed into us by the old heads.
1.  If you are going to the trouble of getting traffic shut down in a tunnel for major work of any kind, that is the time to replace the ballast and re-set the clock on future deterioration.  It will never be this easy or cheap in the future.
2.  Fouled ballast is not a surprise, it is usually in your face: muddy or dusty fines are highly visible.
If it is not a matter of competent inspectors and construction managers, maybe it is worse; could it be the contractor bribed MUNI into accepting something known to be wrong?

San Francisco Muni and competance are not usually used in the same context...

You can probably add BART and VTA to that as well.

JIm B