According to a Los Angeles Times report on the 24th, after investigation and interviews with multiple experts and engineers, the $68 billion budget for the first phase of California's high-speed rail may be significantly exceeded and cause construction delays. The California government has severely underestimated the potential challenges, especially the time required to complete tunnel excavation.
　　The mountains above the Angela National Golf Club are one of the four planned tunnel routes

　　The California high-speed rail held a groundbreaking ceremony in January this year. By the end of September, 35 bidders, including those from China, had submitted letters of intent to participate in the high-speed rail construction. 　　Map of the tunnel route from Burbank to Palmdale

　　Secret Report from Parsons Brinckerhoff

　　The entire California high-speed rail line runs from the state capital Sacramento in the north through San Francisco, San Jose, the Central Valley agricultural region, Los Angeles, and finally to San Diego at the southernmost end, with a total length of about 1,287 kilometers. The first phase, about 820 kilometers, connects San Francisco to Los Angeles, with a total investment of $68 billion; the second phase will extend from Merced in Northern California to Sacramento in the north, and from Los Angeles to San Diego in the south.

　　In 2013, a secret report by Parsons Brinckerhoff, the main project management contractor for California, analyzed that the cost of the first phase had increased by 31% to $40 billion, which would increase the overall project cost by at least 5%.

　　Parsons Brinckerhoff reported this situation to state officials in October 2013, but four months later, when the state government released the 2014 business plan, it used a lower figure.

　　Jeff Morales, the general manager of the rail authority, claimed he was not aware of Parsons Brinckerhoff's plan. A spokesperson for the authority declined to comment on the project budget discrepancy.

　　Parsons Brinckerhoff's budget assessment document was not made public, and the California Rail Authority refused to disclose the information under the Public Records Act. The Los Angeles Times subsequently obtained the document from engineers familiar with the situation.

　　Lisa Marie Alley, a spokesperson for the rail authority, declined to discuss the details of Parsons Brinckerhoff's cost budget, but acknowledged that the record was later replaced by the 2014 business plan, which used the $68 billion budget.

　　Public opinion surveys show that over time, as rail project costs continue to rise, public support for the project has declined—the $68 billion cost has already doubled the $33 billion budget approved by California voters seven years ago.

　　Morales said he believes the final cost can be kept below the $68 billion budget—because the budget includes a 10% contingency. He also said the authority has adopted the world's most advanced engineering and construction methods, and that bids for initial contracts were lower than the original budget, so the project can make up for delays.

　　However, Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor at Oxford University's Saïd Business School and an expert on mega-project risks, believes that issues such as engineering delays, lawsuits, cost increases, and permit delays are also reasons that worsen delays and cause more spending.

　　"For projects like this, you have an 80% to 90% chance of going over budget," Flyvbjerg said. "Once you start over budget, it's likely to continue."

　　Flyvbjerg's research shows that high-speed rail projects around the world have encountered about 45% cost overruns, and in some projects, overruns can reach 100%.

　　Although California hopes to resolve some of the initial delays, the likelihood of delays remains very high, according to Robert Bea, a member of the National Academy of Engineering. "The early cost increases simply cannot be compensated for. It will only get worse. In the past 60 years, I have never seen it otherwise."

　　Tunnel Excavation Challenges

　　The biggest problem facing the high-speed rail project is tunnel excavation. Although tunnels excavated in other areas have not encountered problems, including the 3,399-foot (1,036-meter) Caldecott Tunnel in the San Francisco Bay Area, many have also encountered huge problems, causing additional costs.

　　For example, New York City's 11-mile (18-kilometer) East Side Access tunnel was delayed by 14 years, and its final cost rose from $4.3 billion to $10.8 billion; Boston's Central Artery Tunnel (Big Dig), 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) long, was completed in 2007—delayed by 9 years, and its cost nearly tripled.

　　In December 2013, a drilling machine in Seattle's Alaskan Way Tunnel malfunctioned, causing the project to halt for machine repairs, resulting in years of delay and increased costs.

　　The California high-speed rail project requires excavating nearly 20 miles (32 kilometers) of tunnels through the San Gabriel Mountains between Burbank and Palmdale, including a 13.8-mile (22-kilometer) long tunnel, or completion by connecting multiple smaller tunnels.

　　In addition, an extra 16 miles (26 kilometers) of tunnels will extend through the Tehachapi Mountains between Palmdale and Bakersfield.

　　Construction workers need to cross the complex boundary of the North American and Pacific plates, and even drill near unmapped rock faults and seismic zones.

　　James Monsees, a tunnel expert and one of the authors of the federal high-speed tunnel excavation manual, said: "It doesn't seem realistic to me... Faults are notoriously troublesome."

　　The drilling machine bores holes through a rotating cutter head. This 300-foot to 600-foot (91.44-meter to 183-meter) machine typically requires a team of 20 people to operate, working about 20 hours a day, five days a week—the remaining time is used for maintenance and crew changes.

　　Sometimes the drill bits need to be replaced, which means the machine must stop, and then technicians manually replace 40 to 60 drill bits. The replacement can take up to 8 hours.

　　The time will be partly determined by the number of drilling machines and other small excavators selected by California, each machine and operator adding to the cost. The 36-mile tunnel consists of long and short sections, excavated in different ways.

　　Once drilling begins, the progress largely depends on the types of rock and soil encountered by the engineering team.

　　Silva said the oldest rocks in the San Gabriel Mountains formed 1.7 billion years ago, and due to crustal movement, these rocks have now become faults, pushed northward. Tunnel diggers need to identify the changing rock types, making the environment one of the most challenging factors in tunnel excavation.

　　"If there is a large area of granite, it can be easily penetrated and provide structural support," Silva said. "But everything inside the mountain has been folded, squeezed, stretched, compressed again, and turned into metamorphic rock."

　　The San Gabriel Mountains are located on a huge crescent-shaped terrain between two major faults. The San Gabriel Fault and the San Andreas Fault separate the Mojave Desert on the North American Plate from the Los Angeles Basin, placing the latter on the Pacific Plate.

　　There are many secondary faults within the two major faults. Some are vertical strike-slip faults that move laterally, while others are reverse faults that move vertically. "Each type of fault will greatly slow down progress," Monsees said.

　　The 2012 Parsons Brinckerhoff report warned the rail authority that "complex seismic structures may occur," in which case the rail line crossing the faults could be rated as "dangerous."

　　Only after the tunnel excavation is completed can the next phase begin: installing tracks and other equipment in the 36-mile underground section. By comparison, Switzerland took more than four years to install all equipment in the 35.4-mile Gotthard Tunnel after completing the tunnel work. The contractor needs an additional nine months to test the system.

　　The section from Palmdale to Bakersfield through the Tehachapi Mountains crosses multiple major faults and is still in an earlier planning stage.

　　The latest official data analysis was published three years ago, and 16 miles of tunnels and nearly 12 viaducts need to be built. The most likely route was eventually found to have problems because it was too steep and conflicted with a huge wind farm. Therefore, the department is conducting a new analysis.

　　Tunnel Excavation to Start No Earlier Than 2019

　　In fact, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has not yet found a definite route through the mountains. Land acquisition, financing, and permit approval processes are also lagging. In addition, there are other serious issues, such as multiple lawsuits currently being faced. The first phase of the Fresno project began on July 21—already two years later than the start plan formulated by the rail authority in early 2012.

　　So, is it possible for the project to be completed on time?

　　"No way," said Leon Silver, a geologist at Caltech and a leading expert on the San Gabriel Mountains. "This area is far more complex than these people know."

　　Herbert Einstein, a civil engineering and tunnel expert at MIT, also believes it is "unlikely."

　　"(I) have studied a series of such long tunnels, and the (California) plan is too aggressive," said Einstein, who advised on the 35-mile Swiss Alpine tunnel. "From a civil engineering perspective, to put it mildly, this is very ambitious."

　　Thomas O'Rourke, a tunnel expert at Cornell University, is also skeptical.

　　"My first reaction is that the project is feasible, but given the complexity of the terrain, it is clearly somewhat optimistic," O'Rourke said. "There are many uncertainties. This needs to be combined with geological complexity and ground conditions."

　　Monsees, who served as senior vice president of tunnel excavation at Parsons Brinckerhoff, added: "They are already behind and need to get moving quickly."

　　The rail authority prohibited its tunnel engineering staff from giving any interviews.

　　The pace of tunnel excavation will bring up factors including when the project will start, how fast excavation will progress, and the time required to install tracks, ventilation shaft equipment, signals, high-voltage cables, and fire suppression devices.

　　Morales said California has not given a specific timetable for these milestones. He said the project will be provided to future contractors.

　　Rail officials said they plan to select a route and secure environmental permits for the Burbank to Merced line in 2017. Bidding for the tunnel will also begin that year.

　　Bidders will then need to prepare cost budgets. The only two project construction contracts so far were awarded more than a year after environmental permits were issued.

　　Once the contract is signed, the contractor can begin ordering huge custom drilling machines to enter the mountains. A spokesperson for the American drilling machine company Robbins said these tunnel boring machines (TBMs) typically take eight months to build and deliver.

　　Therefore, tunnel excavation will start no earlier than 2019.

　　Land and Financing Both Face Difficulties

　　So far, land acquisition is the biggest delay problem. Government-owned land accounts for only a small portion of the 300 miles between Burbank and Merced.

　　Similarly, financing is still proceeding slowly. In 2012, the project faced a funding shortfall until federal officials revised a funding agreement and received additional funds from the California Legislature's carbon emissions charges.

　　The business plan for the rail section shows that the initial operating cost from Burbank to Merced will be $31 billion. Officials have raised $14.7 billion, and another $16.3 billion is needed to complete the project—this does not include Parsons Brinckerhoff's estimated 31% cost overrun.

　　State officials are working without guaranteed funding sources, expecting private investors to eventually fund the system. This month, 36 companies solicited by the state government said they are not ready to invest.

　　As costs increase, the state government's funding needs are also growing.

　　Morales said he is confident that project costs can be reduced, but admitted he is not 100% sure.

　　"No one can sit here and tell you about something that will take 20 years," he said. "Any big project like this has various problems. The day you hear me say I am very sure, I am definitely not telling the truth, or I am fooling myself."

　　When the high-speed rail budget rose to $98 billion in 2011, public outcry and political opposition led rail officials to reassess the data. They ultimately reduced the budget to $68 billion by cutting high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and Anaheim and between San Jose and San Francisco. Morales said these changes are a normal part of such a large project, and he cannot rule out other changes.

　　As early as 1981, California had already proposed a high-speed rail construction plan, but the plan has encountered many obstacles over the past 30 years.

　　According to Xinhua News Agency, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced on September 29 that 35 companies or teams from the United States and other countries, including Chinese enterprises, had submitted letters of intent to participate in the construction of California's high-speed rail before the deadline on the 28th.

　　The Chinese high-speed rail construction team, mainly composed of China Railway International (USA) Co., Ltd., which is formed by China Railway International Co., Ltd., China Railway Group, CRRC Qingdao Sifang Co., Ltd., China State Construction Engineering Corporation America, Tonghao International Holdings Co., Ltd., and China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group Co., Ltd. America, intends to provide a package solution including design, construction, vehicles, system integration, and infrastructure and system maintenance for the initial section that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is currently soliciting construction intentions for.