Will L.A. Times’ Irresponsible Coverage of High Speed Rail Doom the Project?

Times' Big Scoop on CAHSR Was Overblown Coverage of a Routine Report

A rendering of the project. Image: CaHSRA
A rendering of the project. Image: CaHSRA

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times published a bombshell article, outlining the details of a “confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis,” in an attack on the competence and ethics of the California High Speed Rail Authority. Reporter Ralph Vartabedian claims the report shows cost overruns and delays, although the Times does not provide readers a chance to read the report for themselves.

The California High Speed Rail Authority is given little space in the story to defend itself. Much more is given to critics who have been seeking to kill the project for years.

Jerry Brown has shown unwavering support for the High Speed Rail Project. But if the federal government turns its back, will that support be enough? Photo: NPR
Jerry Brown has shown unwavering support for the High Speed Rail Project. But if the federal government turns its back, will that support be enough? Photo: NPR

The story went viral with conservative news websites that are read by decision makers in Washington, D.C. Breitbart, the news website that was once edited by incoming senior adviser to President-Elect Donald Trump, summarized the article with the headline “CA High-Speed Rail: Over Budget, Behind Schedule.” Even less-reputable website PJ Media took a harder swing in “Train Wreck: California High-Speed Rail in Worse Shape Than Anyone Thought” charging corruption and incompetence at the highest levels.

With today’s report at The Hill that the administration plans massive cuts to the Department of Transportation for unnamed programs, the timing of the piece couldn’t have come at a worse time for the High Speed Rail Authority. In a critique of the article at the pro-High Speed Rail website CAHSR Blog, Robert Cruickshank writes. “I will bet money that the Trump FRA finds a way to claim that the Authority missed this deadline and must repay that $220 million. I would not be surprised if they also make a play to try and clawback much more of that stimulus money, though I doubt it can go very far.

Of all the obstacles I described above that the Authority has weathered, they may be about to encounter the largest one yet: Donald Trump.”

Of course, if the article is true, that there are cost over-runs and major delays and the FRA did publish a secret report slamming the project, the Authority deserves whatever is coming next.

And that’s where things start to fall apart. The Times’ critique isn’t a fair one, using partial truths to create doubt. While it is factually true to state that the report is “confidential,” Vartabedian uses the term without providing any context, leaving readers to imagine why the report’s findings would be withheld from the public.

First, the FRA conducts risk assessments of every project that receives federal funding. In response to an email asking why the FRA completed this study, Deputy Director of Public Affairs Marc Willis responded somewhat cheekily, “Risk analysis is a standard oversight tool used on major capital projects—not just California.”

So why is the report marked “confidential?” Simply put, because the FRA and its local and regional partners want to be able to have a frank conversation about the status of the project without fear of the report being misunderstood by political opponents and the local press. The High Speed Rail Authority, in its response to the article in the legislature, outlines many complaints with the article, but seems especially exasperated about the characterization of the report.

“Risk analysis is an ongoing iterative process; factors are discussed, assessed for their potential impact, and determinations are made as to whether they are applicable and to what degree,” the letter states. “It was marked deliberative because it is just that – part of that ongoing work among staff to determine what risks might be applicable and how to manage them.”

So how about the damning critique Vartabedian outlines from the routine deliberative report draft? Turns out their are plenty of holes in the report as well.

First claim : The project could cost $3.6 billion more than the budget announced to the public. The Authority announced a $6.4 billion budget. It could now cost $10 billion.

The key word here is could. There are a lot of things that could increase the budget of the project. But at the moment, the budget for the project is $7.8 billion, not $6.4 billion. Why is that number higher than the $6.4 billion estimate? $900 million of the $1.4 billion difference is contingency funds should other parts of the project go over budget.

Currently, only the route through the Central Valley is under construction. Construction should be completed by 2025.
Currently, only the route through the Central Valley is under construction. Construction should be completed by 2025.

Second claim : The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally anticipated completing the Central Valley track by this year, but the federal risk analysis estimates that that won’t happen until 2024, placing the project seven years behind schedule.

This is true, but hardly news. The route for the Merced to Bakersfield wasn’t approved by the Board until last October. In fact, when the plan for the Initial Operating Segment was approved last year, the estimate for the opening date was 2025.

Third claim : The Federal Railroad Administration is tracking the project because it has extended $3.5 billion in two grants to help build the Central Valley segment. The administration has an obligation to ensure that the state complies with the terms, including a requirement that the state has the funding to match the federal grants. 

This is true. This routine report is put together because the state received a federal grant. And good news, the Authority is on track to meet its goal, including the matching funds and the requirement that all funds be spent in the grant timeline. A statement released by the FRA, and quoted in the CAHSR article, clearly states, “Is California on track to spend the Recovery Act Funds at this moment? Yes. Will it? With continued focus and hard work, yes.”

Fourth claim : Staff morale is low.

I wonder why that is? Probably because the project is a political hot potato and is often pilloried in the local press, including the nation’s fourth largest newspaper?

Vartabedian clearly has an ax to grind with the Authority. Roger Rudick, now editor of Streetsblog SF, wrote a scathing takedown of his coverage in 2014. Perhaps that explains the many pieces of good news left out of his article, news that is outlined in the Authority’s response. Or maybe it explains why much of the background for Vartabedian’s article is from anonymous sources, without any context for who is providing the information and why anonymity was granted.

But the sad reality is that even though the Times’ article is sloppy and unprofessional, it could have negative consequences for the California High Speed Rail project. A hilariously terrible article by the Reason Foundation on the then newly-opened Phase I of the Expo Line, lamented that ridership for the completed Expo Line hadn’t reached it’s 30-year ridership projections–in its second week of being half-open. That terrible article was cited in private meetings between transit advocates and capitol hill staff about rail funding in Southern California.***

Let’s hope Vartabedian’s article has even less impact than Reason’s. But in these uncertain times, it seems likely High Speed Rail will remain a partisan issue.

*** – Anonymity was granted because said activist doesn’t want to burn bridges in Washington, D.C. Even though these meetings took place five years ago.

156 thoughts on Will L.A. Times’ Irresponsible Coverage of High Speed Rail Doom the Project?

  1. The Feds were the one who required it to be left usable by Amtrak, but you’re still using that ridiculous assumption that the project will be “bad” just because it’s costing money. Even if–and that’s a very big if–the project never makes it to San Jose, it will still be extremely useful for the Central Valley. It will cut the Bakersfield-Fresno trip down from 2+ hours to around an hour. That alone will mean volumes for mobility in the Central Valley, to say nothing of the connections to destinations farther up the line that will also benefit, albeit not quite as much.

  5. It’s shared infrastructure since both Caltrain and HSR will use electric trainsets using the 25Kv AC catenary being installed, so makes sense that both share the costs.

  6. Down payment is my term. i was referring to this aspect: “Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.”

  13. Please cite an “analysis” that shows that route will be profitable. Here’s what a real expert on the subject had to say:
    “High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/business/energy-environment/30trains.html

    If tickets are too “pricey,” ridership will go down and reduce the “revenue stream.” The system won’t make a profit, and the problem with the California project is that the legislation implementing Prop. 1A explicitly prohibits any government subsidy if/when it’s ever built:
    http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.pdf (pages 8 and 9)

  17. That’s all very true provided you completely ignore any rail projects in California that come in under budget or ahead of schedule, and like Mr. O’Toole, you view literally every rail project as an unnecessary waste of money

  18. The book I linked is by people who studied big projects all over the world, and their conclusion is that big project supporters routinely lie in the beginning to get projects started. None of the HSR litigation has delayed this project at all.

  19. I disagree that costs are lying. Costs are simply impossible to predict more than a few years in advance. (Copying from another comment). Consider this:

    Suppose for a minute that you’re building a tunnel. It will take 10 years to finish. Now try to budget how much it will cost to hire an electrician in 2027 to install a single light in a ceiling. You have no idea what inflation will be, what rates will be, and whether we’ll move on from LED bulbs to some exotic OLED lights. What would you guess, $200, $300? If you guessed $200 and it’s $400, LA Times will write an article in 2027 how you lied and your project cost twice as much.

    Is this lying? Is it bad prediction? Bond was passed in 2008 – about 9 years ago. How accurate do you think planners can be that far in the future? Furthermore, since costs go up with time, you’d have to predict every single lawsuit designed to delay the project and budget for that.

    Calling someone a liar is easy. But predicting costs 10+ years in advance is not.

  20. This project is like all big rail projects: it starts with lies by its supporters to get it started. See Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition
    by Bent Flyvbjerg (Author), Nils Bruzelius (Author), Werner Rothengatter (Author)

    The authors studied a lot of similar infrastructure projects and came to this conclusion:
    “Cost underestimation and overrun cannot be explained by error and seem to be best explained by strategic misrepresentation, namely lying, with a view to getting projects started” (page 16).

    Once a project is started, it’s hard to stop, and good money has to be thrown after bad. Besides, even dumb projects create jobs for powerful construction unions, a major part of the Democratic Party’s base here in California. And for Streetsblog’s readers the great thing about trains is they aren’t cars and are therefore morally superior. Only bicycles rank higher in their estimation.

    Randal O’Toole nailed this delusion: “All you have to do is mention the words ‘public transit,’ and progressives will fall over themselves to support you no matter how expensive and ridiculous your plans.”
    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?m=20160328

  21. Keep checking, as that status is not assured, despite your momentum argument. House of cards…

  25. The existing Central Valley work can be used by San Joaquin trains at 125mph. Caltrans already purchased Siemens Charger locomotives for that purpose back in 2015.

    Another $700 million of HSR funds went to electrify 50 miles of Caltrain corridor which was matched by $500 million federal funds. I would argue that current money is being spent rather efficiently.

  26. Don’t forget that they dropped $700 million to electrify 50 miles of Caltrain, so technically they have 170 miles under construction.

  27. When you talk about deficits, are those same as operating subsidies that California pays today for Capital Corridor, Surfliners and San Joaquins service? Do you think California should spend less on transportation?

  30. It sqeaked by in 2008 by 3%, and what was presented for ballot approval is not what is being done in 2017.

    It passed with stipulations, deadlines and requirements that are no longer being adhered to. Thus, public approval is not in effect. The HSR proponents fear the change in public sentiment, are trying to avoid further public votes, and are busy trying to keep the con in play. They’re failing.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco

  31. The majority of Californians voted for HSR. Where can you cite a verifiable source that they do not support it? If so, why did it pass?

  35. Considering that the State already has ~120 miles under construction, just barely started to touch the Prop. 1A bonds, and continues to direct GGRF monies to the project, I’d say that there’s certainly enough money to get the first segment, i.e. what’s currently under construction, completed. Next concern.

  38. Yes, a lot of people forget that the bond was aiming to be matched. Thus far, it’s attracted an additional investment of ~40% from the Feds and another ~25% from the GGRF.

  40. Well well another media producing FAKE NEWS. All one needs to do is go to the Times article, end of story.

    Plus the acronym CAHSR equates to one outcome – deficits approaching that were estimated by experts beginning in late 2011 to be a low of $150 to a high of $500 billion CALIFORNIA taxpayer dollars $$$$. It is now readjusted to $350 to $500 billion.

    As this is a fractured legacy project that most likely it will not be completed by the end of this century.

  41. I will agree that this might not have been as clear, but I don’t think it was all the way dishonest. At the time of the bond, it was said that this is a down payment, that money from the bond will be used to match federal and local dollars and that eventually private investors will join.

    The bond money is being used to leverage federal dollars. Private investors have not materialized yet.

    With the current funding scheme we’re getting 130 miles in Central Valley and 50 miles between SJ and SF leveraging Caltrain project. 180 miles of right of way is a good start given it’s funded from the same original $9.95 billion bond.

    Highways weren’t built in a year or a decade either, and I think some people don’t realize how hard such planning is.

    Suppose for a minute that you’re building a tunnel. It will take 10 years to finish. Now try to budget how much it will cost to hire an electrician to in 2027 to install a single light in a ceiling without. You have no idea what inflation will be, what rates will be, and whether we’ll move on from LED bulbs to some exotic OLED lights. What would you guess, $200, $300? If you guessed $200 and it’s $400, LA Times will write an article in 2017 how you lied and your project cost twice as much.

    Most voters aren’t used to thinking in such mindset, and with newspapers vying for the most spectacular headline, it’s easy to see why big projects are always vilified for bad projections.

  42. Thank you for being rational. People do not realize we fail to fund most transportation projects in the US, and take for granted the freeway system for instance. Highways and bridges are built in phases and segments much the same way and projects go into the deep end quite frequently because large construction projects have issues, incur lawsuits, get delayed by politics, and much more. OH and do not forget that roadway maintenance is underfunded, bridges are structurally deficient, and gas taxes and car registration fees do not even come close to providing adequate funding.

    If groups stopped the frivolous lawsuits the alignment wouldn’t have been delayed, which caused construction to be delayed. They should have come to the table to provide useful commentary to make this a better project instead of a costly bump in the road. Your commentary increases the cost of the project, your tax money is spent in the courts, and construction materials keep getting more expensive.

    Realize you cant build your way out of traffic. You’re not going to build more airports. You’re not getting flying cars. But there will be more people in CA, and luckily the sun will come up tomorrow.

  43. I’ll agree in that they knew the reality, that a total HSR package would never be approved, so they mis-represented, mis-calculated and used deceitful and dishonest tactics to get the minimum public buy in, and then changed the rules. Tried and true Sacramento con-game.

  45. Look, Jerry Brown has been over-selling and performing legislative sleight-of-hand with HSR long before Trump was on the political radar. The majority of Californians do not support HSR, currently, and he is lucky the courts have not yet shut things down. This could be A Blessing.

  46. I think the planners understood that asking for all $69 billion from one source will be politically impossible. To mitigate that, the bond they are building in “operating segments” that can serve a purpose alone even if full line is not funded. The part being built from Merced to Bakersfield can be used by San Joaquin trains at about 110 or 125 mph until rest of the system is up.

    So the thinking was that given we’ll never get full money at once, let’s build segments, get momentum and show public what they’re getting. In 5 years, sentiments can change, millennials will form a bigger voice and money will follow. If not, we’ll have faster San Joaquins.

  47. High Speed Rail has never had a really solid funding plan. I see that as the major problem. Way back in 2008 the proposal should have been for an ongoing tax to pay for the construction and operations and maintenance (just in case it doesn’t turn out to be profitable in the US).

    Instead we got a bond that was insufficient to build the system and the initial cost estimate was way too low. The cap and trade funds are a good idea but being challenged in court as a tax without the required 2/3 vote.

    In that context I understand the scrutiny. We should be honest about what it takes to do this or not do it at all.

  48. Private investment. President Trump has repeatedly talked about infrastructure investment, particularly tax-credit based incentives to build new public works. That type of plan has been heavily panned in progressive circles because most infrastructure doesn’t turn a profit and requires a subsidy to operate/hence no profit for a private corporation. HSR tickets are pricey though and that provides a large revenue stream for a concessionaire to go after with those tax credits. Most analysis shows the HSR route from LA to SF turning a tidy profit once completed, that profit was one the state hoped to use to build out the system to Sacramento and other parts of the central valley. If things get back though the state can basically sell the HSR rights to a private concern who will use the profit to pay back their loans and turn themselves a profit.

  49. Well, every year the project receives funding from Cap and Trade and the associated Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is set to expire in 2020. The intent is to continue that program. Those funds will then be used as match funding for Federal Rail Administration grants. Not that I trust his judgement or word, Trump did compare the United States transportation infrastructure to China’s High Speed Rail system and did seem approving of increasing Federal rail transportation funding. This project would clearly be a top priority, considering its long-term benefits.

Comments are closed.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

By Melanie Curry |
October 5 is Clean Air Day which means free rides on LA Metro (The Source) and free rides for the whole week on SacRT (Fox40) EV good, e-bike better, e-cargo bike best (Clean Technica) It’s time to prioritize moving people over moving cars (Earth Island) Roseville Transit gets grant to electrify its fleet (City of […]