According to the latest data released by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), after spending $13.6 billion, the authority has only completed 38 structures and 39 miles of track.
Despite more construction and track laying in progress, the task of completing the first segment of 119 miles of track remains daunting for the authority. As of now, the Merced to Bakersfield line has not even started, let alone constructing the high-speed rail routes to Los Angeles or the Bay Area.
Given that the California high-speed rail project is unlikely to receive any new federal funding from the incoming Trump administration, now is a good time to re-examine this project.
The idea of scaling back the high-speed rail construction is not new to Governor Newsom. In his first State of the State address in February 2019, Newsom stated, “Let’s talk high-speed rail. I respect the ambitious vision of Governors Brown and Schwarzenegger, I share it. But let’s be real. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s not a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were.”
“However, we do have the capacity to complete the high-speed rail connection between Merced and Bakersfield.”
However, under pressure from project supporters, Newsom quickly rescinded the plan to reduce the high-speed rail project to the Central Valley. But almost six years after his speech, the facts he laid out have hardly changed.
Based on the past performance of the High-Speed Rail Project (HSR), and the experiences of other major public works projects such as the Boston “Big Dig,” San Francisco Bay Bridge replacement, and the Honolulu skyline, there are ample reasons to believe that the current cost of the California high-speed rail project will far exceed the last estimated $128 billion, and the service launch date will be further delayed.
Apart from the rising costs and construction delays, other factors have weakened the case for supporting the construction of the California high-speed rail since voters narrowly approved the project in 2008.
Before that vote, one argument made by supporters was that California’s growing population would strain airport and highway capacities. They argued that without a third mode of intercity travel, it would be difficult for the projected 59.5 million residents to travel in California by 2050.
However, California’s population growth slowed in the 2010s and experienced a population decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the current population has somewhat recovered, the state’s Department of Finance’s latest 2050 population forecast is only 41.7 million. Demographers predict that after 2050, California’s population will begin to decrease slowly. This means that existing transportation infrastructure is sufficient to support the travel needs of future California residents.
Another reason for supporting the construction of the California high-speed rail was the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, with lower-than-expected population growth in California, there will be fewer passengers, leading to a decrease in corresponding car and airplane trips. Additionally, looking back to 2008, it was not foreseen that electric vehicle technology would advance to the point where the state could ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Looking ahead to 2050, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of car trips that were expected to be replaced by high-speed rail will no longer emit carbon.
Given the lack of new federal funding, a reliable timetable, and strong reasons based on demand or climate change, comprehensive construction of the high-speed rail project is no longer viable for California. The governor and lawmakers should face the current reality and reassess the high-speed rail project, rather than letting it proceed or making it a point of contention against the incoming Trump administration. While it may feel good, it is unfair to California taxpayers who would bear most of the project costs.
Newsom’s view in 2019 was correct. While we cannot simply shut down and abandon an unfinished line, we should decide to extract something useful from the $13.6 billion spent so far in the least costly way, and then terminate the project. ◇
(The above opinions represent only the author’s perspective)