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
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.
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.
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.
They make enough “sense” to get Federal subsidies. Roads and airports are used by a lot more people than trains in the US and as such those subsidies make political sense.
People in the US abandoned passenger trains when they could buy cars to get where they were going, that is, door-to-door transportation. Public transportation, including trains, is only used now by a small minority of the population, mostly in big cities.
Speaking of door-to-door transportation, the HSR system would have the same problem with that the airlines have now: how do passengers get home from the terminals?
No, those suits didn’t delay the project at all. It continued while the courts came to a decision. Litigants have to get an injunction to stop the project, and none of them did on this project, probably because the court wouldn’t have granted it.
Where and when? Specifics, please! Unless the litigant asks for and gets an injunction to stop a project until a final court decision, a project is not delayed at all.
A lot of assertions but no evidence for any of them.
70 million passengers for this project? Not likely. The busiest rail line in the country is Amtrak’s Acela line in the densely populated Northeast, and it carries less than 12 million passengers a year:
http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Updated_FY15Ridership_Revenue_Fact_Sheet_7-7-16.pdf
Your claim about “project inflation” versus “costs” is cryptic nonsense.
Both statements are untrue. The only way litigation can stop a project is by getting a court injunction to do that. Please also give us evidence about the “segment” claim.
Most Amtrak services, maybe all, make sense at some level. You can say they’re mismanaged, but you can’t say they aren’t used.
For that matter, if you standard for making sense is not costing taxpayers anything, most roads and airports don’t make any sense.
#1: no, you didn’t specify that, but that sounds somewhat more reasonable. AIUI, most electrification comparisons usually look at the costs of electrifying the ROW. This is not something that should cost more than a million$ or two per mile.
#2: of course, building a new ROW is a much more complex and expensive task.
Anyway, good to know they aren’t spending 7-14x a sane price on electrification, but I asked because I think Amtrak really did something approaching just that in New Jersey!
I really wish Barron would have explained that one, or the New York Times could be arsed to do journalism. In 2014, SCNF’s whole “Voyageurs” unit (the various HSR and perhaps other non-HSR long distance lines) was ~€250M in the black.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d568c935396cb0d1a146d4334bc3262afedc3e70a73a0071871f3d992c44a20.png
In fact, I think intercity operating subsidies are even illegal in Europe. This may not be true for regional services, but my understanding is the intercity routes are either profitable, or they’re paid for by routes that are.
Here‘s the financial report if anyone cares.
Can you explain your comment? Are you saying that $14 million/mile is cheap or expensive?
Your comment doesn’t make any sense for the following reasons:
1) That amount is HSR contribution to the electrification. You should say “HSR is chipping in $14 million/mile towards electrification”, but you probably realize that the budget for electrification also includes new trainsets, right?
2) Why are you comparing HSR construction to electrification of an urban rail line? Building new right of way is a different task than adding overheard catenary to an existing urban right of way.
$14 million/mile just to electrify some track?
Some first world countries get greenfield [electric] HSR for little more than that. Please tell me there is more to that project. :-O
Only if we become a worthless third-world cant-get-it-done country like Indonesia (which has abaonded viaducts because stupid).
Have you ever looked at the population density in San Francisco and Los Angeles (and also in the Central Valley cities)?
I’ll wait. When you have compared them with the numbers on the Northeast Corridor, maybe you’ll be a California HSR supporter like everyone else who has *actually looked at the numbers*.
Amtrak requires subsidies for three reasons:
(1) The competition, the Interstate highways, are MASSIVELY subsidized, about $40 billion a year
(2) Amtrak is trying to fix up decayed 19th century infrastructure which was obsolete and had 50 years of deferred maintenance when they got it in 1971 — that’s the capital subsidy
(3) Amtrak is running infrequent trains such as the Sunset Limited through rural areas with low population — trains which can’t break even — because Congressmen (mostly Republicans) represent those districts and want service for their districts
So, China built a large and extremely popular high-speed rail system, and “some people” think they shouldn’t have.
What a dumb article.
Liar. The litigation has, in actual fact, delayed the project.
The cost numbers were changed for stupid reasons related to projected inflation *sigh* and have nothing to do with actual changes in cost.
The number of passengers is about right. 70 million is completely normal for an HSR line of this sort. (Note that that’s 70 million trips — many people will travel several times per year, some almost daily)
Yes, the litigation has delayed it. Yes, “segments” are what voters were told in 2008. I can’t help it if you’re ignorant.
Vartabedian is a dishonest hack who should have been taken off the HSR beat a long time ago. Write to Shelby Grad, his editor, and complain about the assignment of a fool with an ax to grind against HSR to this beat.
Well, I see what you mean. But that’s like saying even though we paved a road, it’s not really a road because trucks aren’t allowed to drive on it.
Why is he and others holding HSR to a much higher standard? Simple—they’re setting it up for failure. To some segment of the population all rail is a boondoggle, indeed all public transit is. If you’re not wealthy enough to own a car and fit enough to drive it, you don’t deserve any type of mobility. Of course, we can continue to blow billions on highway widening projects or massive interchanges which benefit relatively few people because those are the “important” people, namely upper class, mostly white suburbanites. Everyone else doesn’t need to get around because, you know, they’re drug addicted human detritus without jobs or ambitions or needs which matter. Or at least this seems to be the prevailing line of thought among his ilk.
Thankfully those who think like this are slowly dying off or otherwise losing political influence.
And much slower, less comfortable, more dangerous, more subject to the vagaries of weather. They’re not even cheaper once you count the costs of highways plus their higher operating costs. For sure, buses fill a niche, but that niche is mostly short distance local travel or as feeders for rail of all types. Occasionally, they may make sense on some longer routes where the density is too low to ever get numbers to make rail feasible. These would be mostly rural areas. In general though they’re a much lower quality alternative to rail. “Let them ride buses” is the modern day equivalent to “let them eat cake”.
Why do you say that federal, state and local money not materializing? If you look at the comments, you’ll see that:
1) Federal funds are helping the Central Valley segment and Caltrain segment.
2) State funds are helping with Central Valley segment.
3) Local funds are helping with Caltrain segment.
Lastly, I mentioned that private funds are typically used for operations and trainsets which don’t get purchased until the project is nearly ready.
It sounds like you’re objecting to not building everything at once and that it’s the huge bummer for you. However, many voters would agree that building in phases is a SMARTER use of money especially since there are multiple uses for each phase.
The ballot didn’t say that portion of Central Valley track can be used by San Joaquins early and that Caltrain gets to share the costs of electrification, but that’s also a benefit.
BART wasn’t built in a single phase, nor was highway systems, nor other large projects, so why you insist holding HSR to a much higher standard is not clear from your comments.
Right. Fantasies. Sure.
Okay, but high-speed rail is not there yet and probably never will be, so you can’t claim that electrifying CalTrain itself is the same as completing part of the high-speed rail project.
Promises by promoters are often different than the reality. I’m skeptical that these systems will be able to pay for themselves once they start operating. When the inevitable happens and the systems don’t make money, fares will be raised and ridership will go down, etc. I guess we’ll see about those projects.
Both rail and bikes have this in common: both are essentially fantasies.
If, as expert opinion says, high-speed rail systems don’t earn a profit, that means that the taxpayers end up subsidizing the system. That’s how every such system in the world has been done: built with taxpayer’s money and then subsidized to operate. That’s explicitly prohibited by the authorizing legislation. The voters were promised that users would pay for the system, not taxpayers.
My complaint is that this project has been misconceived and mischaracterized by its supporters from the beginning. Voters were told in 2008 that the total cost would be $45 billion. Then in 2012 the HSR Authority said it would be $98 billion. When people were stunned by this doubling of the estimate, the authority came back with a $68 billion price tag. The problem with this is not just that it’s hard to get a realistic cost estimate of the project; it’s that no one really knows how much it will cost.
That makes it a bad investment, since it makes it impossible to judge whether it will provide a reasonable public benefit for the amount of money spent. The project was passed by only 2% of the vote because of what voters were told about costs and benefits.
The number of future passengers, for example, was estimated at a ridiculous 70 million!
More importantly, the source of all that money was never plausibly identified. Instead there was airy talk about federal, state, and local contributions in the billions. And, least plausibly of all, there was talk of private investment, which of course has not happened.
If the project was sold to voters based on your “sections” idea, it might have passed, but that’s not how it happened. Instead, it looks like a bait-and-switch with a growing and unknowable price tag at the end. Some responsible critics say the project will end up costing more than $200 billion!
The state needs to stop this project completely or go back to the ballot with a realistic proposal on costs.
Rob, what is your complaint? I don’t think you have made a single rational argument. At high level the vote was for HSR in California. Something that will take time and money.
I think you understand that $10 billion is not enough for a whole system. I think you understand it’s hard to estimate precise cost and time.
Are you against it because it was decided to build system as money came along instead of waiting for whole budget be available?
I think most people would agree that for such a complex system to be completed and at a lower cost, you need to start building sections as money comes along. Inflation is the enemy of constructions, so waiting 5 years for an extra $10 billion will mean the extra $10 billion will go to inflation and will waste tax dollars. However, you don’t seem to understand either the political climate or that inflation will spend money faster than anything else.
It’s also better to build sections in partnerships that have additional uses. Using HSR money for Caltrain and Central Valley means taxpayers get multiple uses for their dollars. However, you seem to be against that as well.
At the moment, it sounds like all you’re for is wasting taxpayers dollars be complaining that we don’t delay project further or that money will be leveraged by other projects as well.
Rob, private money in passenger train systems usually occurs at operational level. For example, private money will be used to finance new trainsets in exchange for collecting ticket revenue. Similarly like you wouldn’t fund a mortgage 2-3 years prior to your house being finished, you don’t begin to fund and build trainsets until project is closer to completion. HSR had an extra $100 billion, they wouldn’t start purchasing trains until line is closer to completion. Consider Amtrak’s new trainsets. Deal signed in 2016, first test trains arrive in 2019 and fully rolled out in 2021. That means a deal will be signed no later than roughly 5 years before track will be operational.
I think we seen a completion date of 2026. That means you might not seen private money until 2021, 4 years from now.
Rob, I think we have a different definition of infrastructure. Here’s how I say it: once Caltrain is electrified, there won’t be a single technical issue preventing a HSR trainset from going under its own power from SJ to SF using Caltrain track.
I think you consider ticket counters, signs also infrastructure, and which case you might have a point, but those aren’t necessarily hard to setup.
Well, you can’t say that it’s bad money because cost went up, and then when it’s pointed out that it’s still useful for Central Valley, then make a different claim that project was sold as something for So Cal.
I think you understand the situation that since project was scoped in 2008, it has also been delayed by numerous lawsuits designed to stop it causing the cost to go up.
I wish there was a way to factor in the increased costs due to lawsuits. For example:
This was a 30 billion dollar project. Then 3 cities sued which caused $10 billion worth of delays caused by these three cities. etc…
You probably have never seen a rail or bike project you approve of. False flag….
Citing Randal O’Toole is not helping your argument. He never meet a highway or low-density development he didn’t like.
…and because of the frequency and speed of service. There are several other corridors that would come close to or even completely cover their costs through ticket revenues if better and faster service were offered.
If—as you agree—Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC) makes sense, why doesn’t California’s HSR also make sense?
Look at what makes the NEC different from the rest of Amtrak (but similar to California’s HSR):
• Speed—The NEC (150 mph top speed) is Amtrak’s only route where trains exceed 110 mph. CaHSR will exceed 200 mph.
• Frequency—While many Amtrak routes have only one (or even fewer) train(s)/day, the NEC typically has 1 train/HOUR (and twice per hour between NYC and DC). This increases ridership without increasing fixed costs (like station upkeep). CaHSR will have similar frequencies.
• No freight train interference—While the NEC has freight trains, Amtrak dispatches them so that passengers never get stuck behind one. On virtually all other Amtrak lines, freight railroads dispatch trains and regularly delay passenger trains so freights can pass. CaHSR will host no freight trains.
• Electric power—Diesel fuel (used on other Amtrak routes) costs more, and electric trains accelerate faster than diesels. CaHSR will be all electric.
In the very competitive NYC-DC market, Amtrak carries 3X more passengers than all airlines combined. There is every reason to believe that CaHSR will be similarly successful.
Finally, while Warren Buffet isn’t investing in passenger rail yet, others are. In Florida, construction continues on track that will carry “Brightline” passenger trains between Miami and Orlando. It is expected to fully open next year (with diesel trains hitting 125 mph). Service on the first part, between Miami and West Palm Beach (with a somewhat lower top speed), is expected by this summer.
A Texas startup, the “Texas Central Railway,” plans to run passenger trains between Dallas/Ft Worth and Houston. Compared to Florida’s Brightline, the Texas Central is more like CaHSR in that it will run electric Japanese bullet trains over a built-from-scratch right-of-way without freight train interference. Texas Central has already raised $75 million from the private sector and is currently fighting for eminent domain rights to begin acquiring the land they need.
Doesn’t look good for any more Federal money for this dumb project. As a Democrat, for once I agree with the Repugs. This is probably the only issue they’re right about.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/State-s-high-speed-rail-project-comes-under-10873467.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result
The Northeast corridor is the only Amtrak line that pays for itself only because of the population density there.
If anything, the NEC shows the potential of Amtrak when operating at (near) optimal conditions. I’d imagine that if better service and upgrades to NEC-like speeds were provided on the rest of the Amtrak routes nationwide, then ridership and revenues would increase. Several states have already adopted the same approach and have taken the initiative on their own to upgrade Amtrak corridors within their borders to 110 MPH, which is a good starting point on the way to true HSR. Of course, CA opted to just skip the “higher-speed rail” part entirely, at least for the Bay-to-Basin.
Wrong! There is no HSR rail “infrastructure” on the Peninsula and there never will be.
One line of Amtrak overall that makes sense. The rest of the system costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year. Passenger rail hasn’t been a profitable business for almost 50 years, which is why Warren Buffett invested in freight rail, not passenger rail.
If true that’s good for the Central Valley. But the project was sold as a quicker, cheaper way to get to Southern California. On the money: The money spent on a project must be in proportion to the benefit to the public. This project is already much more expensive than advertised to voters in 2008, and it will be more expensive than driving or flying to LA. Poorly conceived and unfunded.
Most of them are. Buses are much cheaper.
That’s not about a “down payment.” That’s supposedly how the project will be paid for. But where’s the “private monies”?
No, “If the federal office determines the project is not making adequate progress, it can terminate the grant, according to the agreement.”
One major US route: Amtrak’s NEC (“Northeast Corridor”—457 miles from Boston to Washington, top speed 150 mph), also breaks even. Actually, it more than breaks even.
in FY 2015, NEC ticket revenue was $1,199 million and NEC operating cost was $755 million.
From Legislative Analysis:
“Of the total amount, $9 billion would be used, together with any available federal monies, private monies, and funds from other sources, to develop and construct a high-speed train system…”
From summary of Official Voter Guide (search under text of proposed law:)
“…with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds…”
No, the Federal law says that it has to be left usable by Amtrak.
Keep checking on what? Are you saying that what’s under construction actually isn’t under construction or…?