Future plans: High-speed rail is
supposed to link San Diego to Sacramento, with a stop at San Francisco’s
Transbay Terminal.
Overpromising
and under-delivering have become the hallmark of California’s public works
projects, and the latest plan to engage in this dubious practice is the state’s
high-speed rail system.
Originally
estimated to cost $25 billion, the price tag for high-speed rail has now
swelled to $98 billion, an explosion that has been assailed by critics and
generated calls for the plan to be abandoned. Making that projection even more
worrisome is that the original $25 billion estimate entailed the entire
high-speed rail route from San Diego to Sacramento, while the newly revised $98
billion projection only details the costs from San Francisco to Anaheim.
(505 miles between San
Diego and Sacrameno. 407 miles between San Francisco and Anaheim – closer to
$200 million per mile)
The
final tally of the state’s high-speed rail project will go well past $100
billion.
Still,
the story of high-speed rail is little different than the wildly vacillating
cost estimates that have plagued other major projects.
When the
BART system was finally completed in the early 1970s, the total cost of the
project was $1.6 billion — $624 million more than originally projected. BART’s
project was so disappointing that it constitutes a chapter in Peter Hall’s 1980
book, “Great Planning Disasters.” It’s not alone.
The
rebuild of the Bay Bridge’s eastern span will cost $6.3 billion — more than
four times the original projection of $1.5 billion, and more than 30 times an
earlier $200 million estimate to retrofit the span.
When the
idea to connect Marin and San Francisco counties was first developed, the
public was told that a bridge would cost $17 million. The Golden Gate Bridge
ended up costing $35 million to complete.
The BART
extension to San Francisco International Airport, Muni’s Central Subway and
T-Third Street expansion plans, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Agency’s light-rail system are just some of many examples of public works
projects that exceeded their original price tags.
According
to a report by Caltrans, the state’s transportation department, a public works
project with a value of more than $100 million is likely to have cost overruns
ranging from 40 percent to 60 percent.
Rod
Diridon, executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute and former
member of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said there are a number of
reasons that contribute to this scenario.
Federal
mandates require that project backers release a cost estimate at the end of a
plan’s concept study — a very rough sketch that often changes greatly as the
undertaking is developed.
As
details emerge, the public often demands changes to the plan’s design, fearful
that the project will interfere with their daily lives. That forces engineers
and architects to come back with costlier versions of the original project.
Redesigns
create delays, which further drive up the overall cost of the project.
“I
compare public works projects to those hurricane forecasts that have these
‘cones of uncertainty’ where damage may be felt,” said Tom Radulovich, a BART
board member. “Well, the further a project is from being completed, the bigger
its ‘cone of uncertainty’ is.”
John
Knox White, a program director at TransForm, a regional transit advocacy group,
said policymakers become enamored with an idea for a project, and then put the
rosiest possible projections before the public to garner support for the plan.
“If
there is an idea, no one wants to overestimate the cost, because the more
expensive it becomes, the less likely there will be support,” Knox White said.
Golden Gate Bridge a historic example of cost overrun
Although
it’s routinely lauded as one of the world’s most notable engineering feats, the
Golden Gate Bridge is also a prime example of how the price tag of a public
works project can increase exponentially as it becomes more fully developed.
In 1921,
engineer Joseph Strauss announced plans to build a symmetrical cantilever
bridge connecting Marin and San Francisco counties. He said the span could be
built for $17 million, but the design of the unseemly bridge was unimpressive
to many Bay Area residents.
“It was
ugly, no doubt,” said bridge spokeswoman Mary Currie.
Strauss
refined the idea over the next decade, and in 1929, he came back with an idea
to build a suspension bridge for $27 million, a 58 percent increase from the
original cost. However, various administrative expenses — from engineering and
inspection fees to financing charges — increased the final cost of the bridge
to $35 million, which was paid for by a state bond measure approved by voters
in 1930.
In a
decade, the cost of the bridge increased by 105 percent — from $17 million to
$35 million.
Source: San Francisco Examiner, by Will Reisman | 01/08/12
SF Examiner Staff Writer wreisman@sfexaminer.com
SF Examiner Staff Writer wreisman@sfexaminer.com
Comments:
Like
Spain and much of Europe, the U.S. federal government is bribing states and
municipalities into bankruptcy. This is
U.N. driven and the goal is to crash what’s left of the U.S. economy. The bribe
money is currently being printed at the rate of $44 billion per month. We are already paying the price for this
reckless spending in higher prices for everything. The global warming hoax is the basis for pushing
passenger rail. Global warming isn’t
happening, but the so called mitigation plan, UN Agenda 21, continues to be
aggressively implemented. Ridership on passenger trains continues to be low and
highly tax subsidized. State Reps and
Senators need to hear from you to refuse the federal bribes. They will become believers if citizens
continue to oppose this level of spending on low use, public infrastructure. All transportation should be private. Otherwise, it becomes an unsustainable jobs
program.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment