Student Name:
Student ID:
Degree Title:
Name of Seminar Tutor:
Date of Submission: 15th January, 2025
Word Count: 3,503
Please insert your name below to verify the following statement:
By formally submitting this work, I confirm that I have read the University of Lincoln’s regulations,
that I understand them, and that the work I have submitted is my own original work.
(insert your name above to confirm agreement with the above statement)
1. Do you have a disability/medical condition YES NO
(please delete as applicable and, if YES, please answer question 2 below)
2. Are you in receipt of a Learning Support Plan YES NO
(if NO, please contact the University’s Student Wellbeing Centre at
studentwellbeing@lincoln.ac.uk)
Please submit your report as a Word Document. PDF not Accepted.
Comparative Analysis of Two Airports Projects
1
Case Studies of the California High-Speed Rail Project (CHRP) and the London Waterloo
Station Redevelopment Projects (LWSRP)
Project 1: California High-Speed Rail Project (CHRP)
Project 2: London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Projects (LWSRP)
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................4
2. Projects Background....................................................................................................................4
2.1 California High-Speed Rail....................................................................................................4
2.2 Waterloo Station Redevelopment..........................................................................................6
3. Methodology Employed..............................................................................................................7
3.1 California High-Speed Rail....................................................................................................7
3.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project.................................................................8
4. Project Management Knowledge Areas......................................................................................9
4.1 Scope Management..............................................................................................................10
4.2 Cost Management................................................................................................................10
4.3 Risk Management................................................................................................................12
4.4 Stakeholder Management.....................................................................................................14
5. System Structure........................................................................................................................15
5.1 California High-Speed Rail..................................................................................................15
5.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project...............................................................15
6. Recommendations......................................................................................................................16
6.1 California High-Speed Rail Project.....................................................................................16
6.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment...........................................................................17
7. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................17
8. Reference list.............................................................................................................................20
3
1. Introduction
Big and small construction projects often have significant probabilities of success and failure.
The success or failure of these project are also attributed to the degree of planning and
coordination involved during and after the project initiation. In specific construction project such
as rail line construction projects, the execution of project plans often return as challenging for
individuals, group of individual, government, and society who are involved in the project. The
civil construction project such as rail line construction projects require huge budget outlay and
meticulous planning. As cases in points, the California High-Speed Rail Project (CHRP) and the
London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Projects (LWSRP) are typical of two projects whose
overall outcomes can be regarded as failed and successful respectively.
As a result of this, this report compared these two railway construction projects: the CHRP,
which is generally regarded as a failed project, and the LWSRP, which has been generally
regarded as a successful project. Consequently, the objectives of this report are to:
i. Analysed the two projects
ii. Evaluate the key factors that contributed to the outcomes of each project.
iii. Highlight key differences in project management practices, methodologies, and decision-
making processes that led to their success or failure of the project.
iv. Recommend activities, actions, methodologies, etc. that future projects should take into
consideration so as to avoid the challenges leading to failure of the CHRP, as well as
improving conditions leading to the success of LWSRP.
To achieve analysation and comparison of both projects, this report relies on the analysis of
project management methodologies and forms, which consist of the key project management
knowledge areas (scope, cost, and risk, and stakeholder).
2. Projects Background
2.1 California High-Speed Rail
The CHRP project has a relatively long history. The construction of the CHRP began with the
creation of the California High-Speed Rail Authority in 1996. The central goal of with the goals
of the California High-Speed Rail Authority include:
a) The design and implementation of the first high-speed rail system in the United States;
b) Connect the State of California’s major population centres which include the San
Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin; and
c) Contribute to economic development, create a cleaner environment and preserve
agricultural and protected lands.
The Figure 1 below shows the planned of the CHRP project. The phase one rail line in the
project implementation plan are marked by colour blue while phase two rail line in the project
implementation plan are marked by colour yellow. Also, planned stations are shown by the small
circles along the rail lines in phase one and phase two.
Figure 1: Map Showing the California High-Speed Rail Project (California High-Speed Rail
Authority, 2024)
The California High-Speed Rail Authority transformed the general objectives into three
achievable objectives. These refined objectives are contained in its Mission Statement
(California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2024b). These are: “initiate high-speed rail passenger
service as soon as possible; make strategic, concurrent transportation investments that will link
over time and provide mobility, economic and environmental benefits at the earliest possible
time; and position ourselves to construct additional segments as funding becomes available”
(California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2024b, see “Our Objective”).
5
However these objectives and billions of dollars in funding for achieving these objectives, the
project has been delayed, spanned extensive period, recorded huge cost overruns, and reduction
in scope, while only segments were partially under construction or constructed.
2.2 Waterloo Station Redevelopment
The London Waterloo is the busiest railway station in the UK, and it handles more than 500,000
rail passengers daily (Skanska, 2024). The Waterloo Station redevelopment was a significant
infrastructure project undertaken to modernise and expand the busiest railway station in the UK.
The key objectives included increasing passenger capacity, improving accessibility, and
refurbishing unused infrastructure, particularly the former Eurostar Terminal (Waterloo
International).
Figure 2: London Waterloo (Network Rail, n.d.)
From the background of these projects, the CHRP and the LWSRP are large scale public
projects, targeting improvement of transportation. CHSR has been assessed as a failed project
while LWSRP is a successful project. These projects focused on different methodology and
structure. The projects faced different challenges and employed different approaches to tackle
these challenges. Finally, research showed that there are available resources needed for the
comparison of the two projects.
6
3. Methodology Employed
3.1 California High-Speed Rail
The project employed the waterfall approach and incremental delivery— linear stages although
lacks flexibility – that rely on Initial Operating Segment (IOS). The waterfall approach relies on
a linear approach to project management. The approach “emphasises the sequential dependability
on the previous deliverable” projects, detailing stakeholder and project requirements and
designing the sequential project plan that to accommodate these identified requirements
(Casteren, 2017; Hoory and Bottorff, 2024). In this model, “each phase of the project cascades
into the next, following steadily down like a waterfall” (ProjectManager, 2022, para. 1).
Figure 3: Waterfall Model (Casteren, 2017)
According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the project followed Staged Project
Delivery method in its operation. The Staged Project Delivery model has seven stages; these
stages are project initiation, identify preferred alternative and design preliminary design,
environmental clearance, prepare for pre-construction; early works and right-of-way;
procurement for construction; construction, testing and commissioning; and project close out.
This is shown in Figure 4 below.
7
Figure 4: Staged Project Delivery
The Staged Project Delivery which looks perfect for the big project like CHRP project, however,
the method created the very condition for the failure of the project to be delivered as planned.
3.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project
The project used phased and agile approach. The agile approach mirrors the waterfall model. It
however allows for simultaneous progression of project phases in no order. This marks a great
departure from the rigid waterfall model employed by CHRP project.
Figure 5: Waterfall Model Compared to Agile Model
8
4. Project Management Knowledge Areas
Every project has key areas called the project management knowledge areas. These have been
defined “as the key aspects of project management that should be overseen by project managers
so they can plan, schedule, track and deliver projects successfully with the help of the project
team and project stakeholders” (Landau, 2023, para. 2). In project management, Figure 6 show
10 knowledge areas, from which scope, cost, risk, and stakeholder management were selected for
analyses in this report.
Figure 6: Project Management Knowledge Areas
This report focuses on five PM Knowledge Areas: scope management; cost management; risk
management; and stakeholder management.
These project management knowledge areas are contained in Table 1.
Table 1: Project Management Knowledge Areas for California High-Speed Rail project and
Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project
Project California High-Speed Rail (Failed) Waterloo Station Redevelopment
Management (Succeeded)
Knowledge Area
Scope Scope creep, changes to project Well-defined project scope,
Management scope without proper management effective management of changes
leading to increased costs and with clear communication and
delays. reviews.
9
Cost Management Frequent cost overruns, initial Rigorous cost control, regular
budget insufficient, and inconsistent budget reviews, and stayed within
financial forecasting. financial limits.
Risk Management Inadequate risk management failed Proactive risk identification,
to anticipate political, financial, and continuous monitoring, and effective
environmental risks. mitigation strategies.
Stakeholder Poor management of diverse Clear communication and strong
Management stakeholders, with conflicting collaboration with local authorities,
priorities and political instability. businesses, and the community.
Source: Author’s, Compilation, 2025.
4.1 Scope Management
Project scope management is one of the most important project management knowledge areas. It
consists of managing your project scope, which refers to the work that needs to be executed in a
project (Landau, 2023). In terms of the scope, CHRP had frequent changes to project scope
without proper scope management. This leads to increased costs and project delays. Comparing
this to LWSRP, it has a well-defined project scope, leading to an effective management of
changes, clear communication, and reviews of project progress.
4.2 Cost Management
The cost management of CHRP and LWSRP are shown in the Table 2. The cost management
involves estimating project costs to create a project budget that meet the requirement and
objectives set for the projects. As shown in the Table 1 below, the CHRP is largely unsuccessful
in meeting the cost target. The initial project cost was estimated at $33b in 2008. It however
increased to about $106.2b in 2024, an outstanding 68.93% increase in the estimated cost. As
compared to Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project, the estimated cost stood at about £800
million (Network Rail, 2016; Solace Global, 2017) and recorded a £900 million as cost after the
completion, representing only 11.11% cost increase over the period the project lasted.
10
Table 2: The Table of Cost Management of California High-Speed Rail Project and Waterloo
Station Redevelopment Project
Aspect California High-Speed Rail Waterloo Station Redevelopment
Project
Budget Initial budget of $33billion ballooned Estimated cost of £800million with
management to over $106billion. £900 million completion cost.
Sources of Disproportionately relied on federal Funded by the UK Government
funding and state funds. through the Network Rail, with
contributions from private contractors
and operational stakeholders
Project Revised continuously with no clear It has fixed construction period which
timeline completion date. lasted between 2016 and 2017, with
refurbishment completed in 2019.
Governance Suffered from poor coordination Managed by Network Rail, the UK's
Structure between state agencies and rail infrastructure authority.
contractors.
Contract Contracts were awarded without clear Contracts awarded to multiple
management deliveries, leading to inefficiencies. construction and engineering firms,
such as Skanska and AECOM.
Source: Author’s, Compilation, 2025.
The cost overrun recorded by California High-Speed Rail project are associated with four key
factors: the sources of funding; the project timeline; the project governance structure; and the
contract management. The cost overrun, as indicated in Table 2 is associated with reliance on
federal budget funding which is affected by changes in leadership at the Federal level
(Vartabedian, 2022). Conversely, the LWSRP was largely funded by Network Rail, a UK
Government agency. Although small contributions came from private contractors and other
stakeholders, the largest proportion of the project was funded by the UK Government. The
difference in the funding is a strong reason for the failure of CHRP (Vartabedian, 2022) and
success of Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project.
11
Cost Trend of CHR (Billion $)
120
Cost Estimate (Billion $) 106.2
100
80 77.3
60
40
33
20
0
2008 2018 2024
Year
Figure 7: Cost Trend of CHRP 2008-2024 (Billion $).
Also, “despite being aware of risks associated with beginning construction before completing
critical planning tasks, the Authority began construction in 2013 – a decision that has led to
contract changes, project delays and cost overruns,” (Sheehan, 2018, see para. 4) contributed to
massive cost overrun. A critical analysis of the decision by the California High-Speed Rail
Authority indicates that poor planning and inefficient delineation of project requirements are
critical issues leading to the overall project failure. Hence, these issues culminated into lapse in
schedule and project management (Bastasch, 2019).
4.3 Risk Management
Overall, the risk management focuses on identification, categorisation, quantification, and risk
prioritisation. This involves identifying risks that might occur during the execution of the project
by making a risk register (Landau, 2023).
An analysis of the risk management of CHRP showed that The California High-Speed Rail
Authority developed seven key risk management process areas (The California High-Speed Rail
Authority, 2025). Through its meticulous risk identification, the Authority identified thirteen
risks shown in Figure 8 (The California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2025, see Figure 8).
12
Figure 8: Top Strategic Risks
These risks were operationalised, monitored and controlled through the six steps contained in
Figure 9; that is, plan, identify, assess, review and prioritise, respond, and report and
communicate (The California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2025).
Figure 9: The Authority’s Enterprise Risk Management Process Framework
Comparing this to the LWSRP, the LWSRP managed risk in five main ways; safety planning
with BIM technologies, mobile app for safety concerns, stakeholder engagement and
communication, phased construction approach, and the use of temporary infrastructure. The use
of Building Information Modelling (BIM) enhanced worker safety, the use of mobile app
facilitated the reporting of safety issues during the redevelopment, the use of phase construction
approach reduced the complexities of project delivery, and the use of temporary infrastructure
allows for continuous operation during redevelopment.
13
Comparatively, the two project used proactive mechanisms in risk management. However, it
could be observed that P is unable to mitigate the funding risk, the legislative impact and
policymaker support risk, and the litigation risk (Sheehan, 2018). The failure considerably
impacted the project delay and cost overrun it experienced. A personal experience of how these
risks can derail project indicate that the greatest risk to a huge project as CHRP is the funding
uncertainty. In Nigeria, for instance, road projects are often abandoned as a result of funding and
lack of supports of policy makers orchestrated by changes in political leadership. The London
Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project faced neither funding uncertainty nor adverse impact of
policymaker support. This allows it to focus on operational risk which were under the control
project team.
4.4 Stakeholder Management
The stakeholder analysis provide a basis for understanding the interests of critical stakeholders
and how these interests intersect with the project goals and its achievement. Ideally, an effective
and efficient management of all project management knowledge areas are important for a
successful project, the position of stakeholder management through clear communication
management takes an important position in non-operation related management of a project.
Undoubtedly, clearer communication influences the success of a project team (Landau, 2023).
Therefore, there is a need for a careful stakeholder and communications management for a
project whose entire activities are geared toward success.
CHR failed to properly manage its diverse stakeholders who have conflicting priorities. It also
failed to fully manager the impact of political instability and policy directions in Washington and
California. The failure of this project has earned it a tag ‘Train To Nowhere’ (Bastasch, 2019,
see the headline).
The Network Rail and South West Train clearly communicate and strongly collaborate with local
authorities, businesses, and the community, leading to a successful project delivery. These clear
communication and collaboration are reflected in the manner in which planned disruptions were
communicated during the redevelopment.
14
5. System Structure
5.1 California High-Speed Rail
The CAHSRA determined that a dynamic institutional structure for governing the project was
necessary, given the large number of experts and specialised staff needed for varying lengths of
time and which is depicted in Figure 10. Based on experience from recent successful rail
projects, the use of private sector consulting engineers and construction contractors managed by
a core staff of experts was determined to be the best approach. Although there were suggestions
made that the private sector ought to have full responsibility for implementation for CAHSR;
that was decided to not be feasible due to the project being financially more than the private
sector’s ability to obtain bonding (CAHRSA, Business Plan, 2008).
Figure 10. High-Speed Rail Authority Organisational Structure (CAHSRA, 2009)
The figure 10 shows that it relies on centralised structure with the integrated project structure.
5.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment Project
The LWSRP relied on hybrid structure. Therefore, it relies on three layers of structure: project
leadership provided by Network Rail and South West Trains; the contractor and subcontractors
with Skanska leading; and stakeholders that include local authorities, transport agencies, and
other interest groups.
15
6. Recommendations
From the analyse conducted on the two projects based on project management methodologies,
the project management knowledge areas and system structure, the analyses indicate that the two
rail line projects differ in outcomes while similar in approach to project implementation.
Therefore, on this basis, the following recommendations are push forward, and each set of these
recommendation can be apply to each project for improvement.
6.1 California High-Speed Rail Project
a) The project can benefit more from focus on comprehensive initial planning and ensure
that cost estimates are realistic and well-supported with current macroeconomic trends.
The project focused on rail engineering more than other important areas such as
economic factors driving cost, and the political issues that shape the funding of the
project.
b) However ambitious a project is, the influence of the stakeholders, especially
environmental-conscious stakeholders must be recognised and incorporated into the risk
management. Therefore, the project must specifically identify the risk of environmental-
conscious stakeholders, incorporate the risk, mitigate the risk, and ensure it does not
constitute a challenge to the achievement of the project goal (Cleland, 1977).
c) The CHR project can benefit more from strengthening of political alignment and
governance to avoid shifts in direction and leadership. This is important because of the
need to align political terrain with the infrastructural projects.
d) The CHR project should emphasise proactive risk management, with contingency plans
in place for financial, environmental, and logistical challenges.
e) The project should maintain a centralised project management structure to enhance
coordination and communication across stakeholders.
f) The project would benefit more from a clear, open communication with the public and
stakeholders to ensure that the project remains aligned with community needs.
16
6.2 London Waterloo Station Redevelopment
a) A careful look at the project and its outcomes indicate that the project will benefit more
by continue to prioritise detailed planning, risk management, and stakeholder engagement
to ensure the success of such a large-scale projects. This is important because of the
indirect impact the failure of such project will have on the society and the commuting
general public. In fact, the project cannot afford to fail because of the central role it plays
in the transportation in the city of London and surrounding areas.
b) The project will benefit more through reduction in cost that could exceed the estimated
cost if the budgets and timelines are rigorously managed to avoid cost overruns and
delays.
c) The project did well in its stakeholder management. However, it will benefit more from
improved emphasise on a clearer and more transparent communication with all
stakeholders, including the public, contractors, and governmental agencies.
7. Conclusion
This report focused on four objectives. The overall objective is the analysed the two projects
under consideration. To achieve this overall objective, the analyses focused on the evaluation of
the key factors that contributed to the outcomes of each project, key differences in project
management practices, methodologies, and decision-making processes that led to their success or
failure of the project, and on the basis of the analyse recommend activities, actions,
methodologies, etc. that future projects should take into consideration so as to avoid the
challenges leading to failure of the CHRP, as well as improving conditions leading to the success
of LWSRP.
The analyses indicate existence of are key factors that determine the success or failure of these
projects. Indicatively, the two projects compared fared differently in terms of success and failure
because of many factors. CHRP failed because of the following factors: unclear scope and
requirements; weak project planning; unrealistic cost estimates, required resources, and time;
lack/uncertain funding; ineffective change management; ineffective procurement/supply chain;
unmanaged risks; and poor stakeholder management as shown through poor communication.
These challenges could be surmounted by ensuring effective governance, clear and agreed
17
objectives, and commitment to project success, ensuring certainty in project funding through
securing of funding and effective budget control, project planning, and project monitoring.
LWSRP succeeded because of the following factors: clear scope and requirements; strong project
planning; realistic cost estimates, required resources, and time; certainty in funding; effective
change management; effective procurement/supply chain; better risk management; and better
stakeholder management as shown through clear and informed communication. However, the
success recorded by LWSRP could have achieved the same success with minimal cost by
ensuring effective governance, clear and agreed objectives, commitment to project success,
ensuring certainty in project funding through securing of funding and effective budget control,
project planning, and project monitoring.
Key recommendations were put forward for the two projects for best practices. CHRP can
benefit more from focus on comprehensive initial planning and ensure that cost estimates are
realistic and well-supported with current macroeconomic trends. The project should have
identify the risk of environmental-conscious stakeholders, incorporate the risk, mitigate the risk,
and ensure it does not constitute a challenge to the achievement of the project goal. Modern
projects no longer rely on conventional risk management because of the existential issues of
environmental protection. Also, the CHRP project should have strengthened how the project
align to political undertone of the California and the US to avoid shifts in direction and
leadership required to see the project through to completion as planned. Further, CHRP should
have emphasise proactive risk management, with contingency plans in place for financial,
environmental, and logistical challenges, maintain a centralised project management structure to
enhance coordination and communication across stakeholders.
The LWSRP achieved considerable success in both time management, scope management, cost
management, risk management, and stakeholder management. These, it does, happened owing to
successful achievement of the project goals. However these successes, the best practice
recommendations put forward include: the project will benefit more by continue to prioritise
detailed planning, risk management, and stakeholder engagement; the project will benefit more
through reduction in cost that could exceed the estimated cost if the budgets and timelines are
rigorously managed to avoid cost overruns and delays; the project should have improved on it
18
communication and more transparent communication with all stakeholders, especially to the
public, contractors, and governmental agencies.
19
8. Reference list
Bastasch, M. (2019). Here are 5 big reasons California’s High-Speed Rail Project became
the ‘Train To Nowhere’. [online] dailycaller. Available at:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/14/california-high-speed-train-energy/ [Accessed 14 Jan.
2025].
California High-Speed Rail Authority (2024a). 2024 business plan. [online] HSR, pp.1–162.
Available at: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-Business-Plan-FINAL.pdf
[Accessed 1 Jan. 2025].
California High-Speed Rail Authority (2024b). About California High-Speed Rail. [online]
California High Speed Rail. Available at: https://hsr.ca.gov/about/high-speed-rail-authority/
[Accessed 13 Jan. 2025].
Casteren, W.V. (2017). ThWaterfall model and agile methodologies: a comparison by project
characteristics. Open University of The Netherlands, pp.1–3.
Cleland, D.I. (1977). Defining a project management system. Project Management Quarterly,
8(4), pp.37–40.
Coalition for Clean Air (2018). As California’s High Speed Rail Project Barrels Down the
Tracks of Uncertainty, Could the Money Be Put to Better Use? - Coalition for Clean Air.
[online] Coalition for Clean Air. Available at: https://www.ccair.org/californias-high-speed-
rail-project-barrels-tracks-uncertainty-money-put-better-use/ [Accessed 16 Nov. 2024].
Construction Review Online. (2021, August 2). California High-Speed Rail (CHSR)
project. https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/california-high-speed-rail-chsr-project/
Gerrard, N. (2023). 7 of the world’s biggest rail megaprojects under construction. [online]
Construction Briefing. Available at: https://www.constructionbriefing.com/news/7-of-the-
worlds-biggest-rail-megaprojects-under-construction/8031504.article [Accessed 17 Nov.
2024].
Hoory, L. and Bottorff, C. (2024). What Is Waterfall Methodology And How Do I Use It?
[online] Forbes Advisor. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/what-is-
waterfall-methodology/.
20
Kumar, B.R. (2022). Case 7: California High Speed Rail Project. Management for
Professionals, pp.123–129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96725-3_11.
Lambeth Council (2024). Long-term plan for Waterloo Station revealed. [online] Love
Lambeth. Available at: https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/waterloo-station-vision-launched/.
Landau, P. (2023). The 10 Project Management Knowledge Areas. [online] ProjectManager.
Available at: https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/10-project-management-knowledge-
areas [Accessed 3 Jan. 2025].
Lotz, M. (2018). Waterfall vs. Agile: Which Methodology Is Right for Your Project? [online]
Segue Technologies. Available at: https://www.seguetech.com/waterfall-vs-agile-
methodology/.
M, P. (2022). California High Speed Rail (CHSR) Project. [online] Constructionreview.
Available at: https://constructionreviewonline.com/biggest-projects/california-high-speed-
rail-chsr-project-updates/ [Accessed 16 Nov. 2024].
Network Rail (n.d.). London Waterloo - Facilities, Shops and Parking Information. [online]
www.networkrail.co.uk. Available at:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/passengers/our-stations/london-waterloo/.
Network Rail (2016). Network Rail to invest £800m in London Waterloo station development.
[online] Railway Technology. Available at:
https://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsnetwork-rail-800m-london-waterloo-station-
development-4850077/ [Accessed 13 Jan. 2025].
Press (n.d.). Case Study V: California High-Speed Rail. uta.pressbooks.pub. [online]
Available at: https://uta.pressbooks.pub/oertgreentransport/chapter/chapter-7-case-study-v-
california-high-speed-rail/.
ProjectManager (2022). Waterfall Methodology. [online] ProjectManager. Available at:
https://www.projectmanager.com/guides/waterfall-methodology.
Sheehan, T. (2018). Flawed bullet train planning adds billions to cost, years to schedule,
says audit. [online] Sacramento Bee. Available at:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article221707095.html [Accessed 14 Jan. 2025].
21
Skanska (2024). Planning for safety: Waterloo station. [online] www.skanska.co.uk.
Available at: https://www.skanska.co.uk/about-skanska/innovation-and-digital-engineering/
digital-engineering-and-bim/safe-from-the-start/planning-for-safety-waterloo/?
utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed 13 Jan. 2025].
Solace Global (2017). London Waterloo upgrade and travel disruption. [online] Solace
Global. Available at: https://www.solaceglobal.com/report/london-waterloo-upgrade-travel-
disruption/?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed 13 Jan. 2025].
The California High-Speed Rail Authority (2025). Building confidence through risk
management. [online] Ca.gov. Available at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/about/project-update-reports/2023-project-update-report/chapter-6/?
utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed 13 Jan. 2025].
Vartabedian, R. (2022). How California’s bullet train went off the rails. The New York Times.
[online] 9 Oct. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-
rail-politics.html.
22
