Finally, Time for California to Get Real on High-Speed Rail

A full-scale mock-up of a high-speed train is displayed at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on Feb. 26, 2015. Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo

Commentary

Contrary to what one might read on X, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) did not spend $11 billion just to build a single 1600-foot bridge in the Central Valley. But the reality is only marginally better.

Recent HSRA disclosures show that after spending $13.6 billion, it has completed just 38 structures and 39 miles of guideway.

Although many more structures and sections of guideway are under construction, the Authority has a long way to go just to complete the first 119-mile segment it decided to start on. It has yet to break ground along the rest of the Merced to Bakersfield route, let alone begin building links to Los Angeles or the Bay Area.

With the project unlikely to receive any new federal funds from the incoming administration, now is a good time to revisit its scope.

The idea of downsizing the high-speed rail project is not new to Gov. Gavin Newson. In his first State of the State message in February 2019, he said:

“[L]et’s level about High-Speed Rail. I have nothing but respect for Governor Brown’s and Governor Schwarzenegger’s ambitious vision. I share it. And there’s no doubt that our state’s economy and quality of life depend on improving transportation.

“But let’s be real. The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.

“Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA. I wish there were.

“However, we do have the capacity to complete a high-speed rail link between Merced and Bakersfield.

“I know that some critics will say this is a ’train to nowhere.' But that’s wrong and offensive.”

The Cedar viaduct stands during construction of a high-speed rail project through the Central Valley in Fresno, Calif., on Aug. 26, 2021. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

Under pressure from project proponents, Newsom quickly walked back his plan to truncate the project to the Central Valley. But, nearly six years after his address, the facts he stated remain largely unchanged.

Based on previous performance of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) project and experience with public works mega-projects including Boston’s Big Dig, to San Francisco’s Bay Bridge replacement, to Honolulu’s Skyline, there is every reason to believe that HSR costs will escalate well beyond the $128 billion last projected and that the service inception date will slip further.

Aside from escalating costs and construction delays, other factors have weakened the case for California high-speed rail since voters narrowly approved it in 2008. In the run-up to that vote, proponents cited the prospect of California’s growing population exhausting airport and freeway capacity. Without a third mode of intercity travel, they argued, the 59.5 million residents projected to live in California by 2050 would be very hard pressed to get around.

But California population growth decelerated in the 2010s and then declined during the pandemic. Although growth has now resumed, the state Department of Finance’s latest 2050 population projection is just 41.7 million. After the 2050s, demographers expect a very gradual population decline. So, our existing infrastructure is sufficient to support our intrastate intercity travel needs for the foreseeable future.

Another justification for California high-speed rail is the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But California’s lower-than-expected population growth will mean fewer riders and thus fewer car and plane trips replaced. Further, back in 2008, we were not expecting that electric vehicle technology would evolve to the point that state government would be comfortable banning new internal combustion engine car sales by 2035. Looking forward to 2050, it is now reasonable to assume that the vast majority of car trips that high-speed rail would replace will not be carbon emitting.

Given the lack of new federal funding, a schedule in which we can be confident, and a strong justification based on capacity needs or climate change, a full buildout of high-speed rail project no longer makes sense for California. The governor and legislators should absorb the current set of facts and reassess the project, rather than keeping it on autopilot or making it a point of resistance to the incoming Trump administration. While that might feel good, it would be a disservice to California taxpayers who will have to cover the bulk of project costs.

Newsom had it right in 2019. While we can’t simply shut down and leave an unfinished line, we should determine the least costly way of deriving something usable from the $13.6 billion spent thus far and then wind down the project.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.