California's High-Speed Rail Needs Another $100 Billion. That's a Great Reason Not To Build It.
The whole project was supposed to cost $33 billion when it was initially proposed.

When Californians were first pitched, in 2008, on the idea of a high-speed rail line connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, the price tag was an estimated $33 billion—and about 75 percent of those costs would come from federal taxpayers or private sources, the Los Angeles Times editorial board assured its readers at the time.
On Tuesday, the project's CEO told state lawmakers in Sacramento that another $100 billion—yes, in addition to what state and federal taxpayers have already contributed—will likely be needed to finish the project. Meanwhile, there's still no timeline for when passengers will be able to take the train due to ongoing environmental reviews, Sacramento-based KCRA reported.
At the state Senate Transportation Committee hearing where High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Brian Kelly delivered the expensive news, at least one lawmaker asked the obvious question: "How do we get the public on board with something," asked state Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R–Murrieta), "that has this much of a downside funding wise?"
Kelly, of course, told lawmakers to just keep throwing money in the hole. "It feels impossible until it's not and then you grind, you do the work, you perform better and you deliver," he said.
Or you give up, walk away, and stop wasting public money—which is what California should have done a long time ago.
In an interview with Reason last year, Kelly effectively admitted that the original $33 billion estimate was unmoored from reality. It was an estimate made "before any work was done. None of the environmental work was done, none of the design work was done," he said. "It was an estimate based on paper."
But isn't that the point of making estimates? What good is an estimate done after the work is completed?
It should be obvious by now that the original low-ball estimates were meant to convince voters and state lawmakers to buy into the idea, so the sunk-cost fallacy could finish the job. If Kelly's updated estimates are correct and the project needs another $100 billion to be complete, lawmakers should pull the plug now.
And is there any good reason to believe these estimates? A New York Times investigation in 2022 found that the project was burning through $1.8 million every single day. Despite that, "according to projections widely used by engineers and project managers, the train could not be completed in this century," the paper reported.
Before advising voters to support the project back in 2008, the Los Angeles Times acknowledged that projections by Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) were probably right. "If voters approve Proposition 1a, it seems close to a lead-pipe cinch that the California High-Speed Rail Authority will ask for many billions more in the coming decades, and the Legislature will have to scrape up many millions of dollars in operating subsidies," the paper's editorial board wrote.
The only part of that prediction that hasn't come true is the bit about the operating subsidies—because the train still isn't close to operating. Magical thinking caused politicians and the media to back this boondoggle in the first place, and more than 15 years later, incredibly, the spell still hasn't broken.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"California's High-Speed Rail Needs Another $100 Billion. That's a Great Reason Not To Build It."
Oh, please.
California's high-speed rail needs another $100 billion because Gruesome Newsom's cronies won't be able to buy their fourth vacation home in Hawaii if another $67 billion isn't added on to the budget.
You don't want that on your conscience, do you?
YOu read that like an unattentive Newsom crony
It was 33 --- now add another 100. It wasn't add 67 to bring it to 100
See, you let almost $33 Billion slip past you. You should run for office, you did that so smoothly
It's hard to say how much the actual total cost would be if the additional $100Bil is counting from whatever they've spent so far. It's virtually impossible to find any actual calculation or accounting of how much has been spent so far.
The $33Bil was the original estimate, but the last "official" estimate I'd seen was around $100Billion total, but that might have been a pre-Pandemic number, and only covered the construction of the Bakersfield-to-Fresno portion of the line (which literally nobody will ride since they'll be running the 220mph capable trains at or below 75mph in order to share tracks with the freight/Amtrack system in several stretches; meaning that with intermediate stops on the route, it'll be faster, and less expensive for people to drive between those two cities on Hwy 99 where they can drive 80-90 mph in many places and only stop for gas if/when they choose to.
"Another $100Billion" could put the final total at anywhere from $130-$175Billion depending on how much has already been spent. By some reports, there was a period of time where they were spending upwards of $1.8Billion per week (or possibly per day?) but the promised accountability that was supposed to be integral to the project has yet to really be made accessible to the public, and it can't be ruled out that nobody inside the government actually knows how much has been spent so far either.
I remember particularly the estimate of ridership which would have required every person in the state take three trips a year, and for 1000 passengers to leave SF and LA every 5 minutes. Or something like that. 100 million passengers a year with 250 work days a year is 400,000 passengers a day, divided by two endpoints, divided by 1000 is 200 trains a day, or 20 an hour in a ten hour day, widened to 5 minute intervals to account for off-peak travel. Yeah, no way. It didn't come close to passing even the fragrance test, let alone the smell or stench tests. It really did astonish me when the ballot measure passed.
I wonder how deep they will have to get before the plug gets pulled. This has to be one of the all-time biggest boondoggles in the history of blowing other people's money and they aren't even close to being done. Annual operation costs would cause a sucking sound we could hear from the midwest if they ever get that far.
As I recall, someone figured out that the taxpayers would come out ahead if they just bought a ticket on Southwest Airlines for everyone in the projected ridership.
I'm reminded of Barbara Tuchman's intro to The March of Folly, in which she avoids labeling ventures in hindsight, and restricts her scope to ventures that were widely known *at the time* to be foolish.
Well, the numbers would work fine if the 2nd part of the plan banning private ownership of cars comes about.
Lies. It will cost at least another 10 trillion to finish.
This is precisely the sort of prediction for which politicians could offer lottery prizes. Putting someone else's money where their mouths are, on record, with public betting as to outcome, just might transfer tax money back to the people robbed of it in the first place!
Oh, bullshit. It's not going to cost 10 trillion to finish.
The real truth is, it'll NEVER actually be finished. There's no way in hell to bring that train over the Tehachapis to Los Angeles proper.
I'm assuming they will keep this project alive and funded untill 2150 at least. That will be the price to finally finish it in 100 years. I'm assuming complete collapse of the dollar, establishing a new currency, and inflation taking off again.
Through the Tehachapis, or it will terminate with a bus route.
"In an interview with Reason last year, Kelly effectively admitted that the original $33 billion estimate was unmoored from reality. It was an estimate made "before any work was done. None of the environmental work was done, none of the design work was done," he said. "It was an estimate based on paper."
But isn't that the point of making estimates? What good is an estimate done after the work is completed?"
Something we have been pushing pretty heavily in my industry is "the study". You have a project that could cost 60M-100M. (there are so many factors, having bad soil alone could cost millions) So you pay 500K for a study to narrow that number down. Then decide if you want to build it. Thing is you pay 500K upfront for the study and you just have to write off that loss if you don't move forward.
You also write the 500K off as a loss if you do build the project, because the study is wrong anyway.
Since the Orly plane crash, back when Reason was mimeographed, airlines mostly forced passengers to breathe each others' exhalations. Southwest Airlines has discarded that policy (now that hardly anyone smokes cigarettes), so SWA is no longer a good way to catch a deadly Chinese virus infection. I recently traveled from Tampa to Miami and it cost a fortune.
The video is good, but I still think Peter Bagge cartoons on rail robbery are more convincing and memorable.
I recall when the HSRA revised their estimates during one of their recurring hallucinations. They decided they needed more per passenger in fares to offset more of the operational costs. This, of course, resulted in a reduction in expected ridership (after all, there are these things called "cars", "buses", and "planes" which haven't yet been outlawed which HSR must compete with) which the HSRA acknowledged and accepted and produced new estimate with these changes.
Somewhere along the line the HSRA abandoned the charade about the main points of HSR being
by deciding that reduced ridership was the answer to their problems. Of course, their real goals of providing union jobs in exchange for union support at the polls was carefully retained.
Sorry about the extra null point '7'. Damned Reason comment "feature" deters editing a post with an 'ordered list' by completely stripping the list contents out (not just the HTML tags) in the 'edit' function.
Wonder if it’ll improve once it costs $25/year for the privilege of posting here. (He said facetiously)
That is only to ensure that those who are not full groupie supporters of Libertarianism are not heard from anymore.
Whether it costs 35 billion, or 100 billion, or 135 billion, or 351 billion, it would be nice if there was someday some amount of track to show for it, maybe with a station at each end.
There are 3 main goals:
1. Secure federal taxpayer dollars to give to the politicians' cronies.
2. Employ a lot more state workers and sign them up for CALPERS.
3. Make progressives feel good about living in a state with a high speed rail option they will use maybe once before going back to driving and flying.
But.....but.....I wanna ride the Choo Choo!!!
Maybe Reason could have an actual impact if they identified the SPECIFIC lawmakers outside CA who are assisting CA in trying to shift costs to the feds? That way people outside CA could become aware and know a way to stop it via THEIR reps.
I know it's easier to just be lazy and generically pee on your shoes about CA. But WTF. Is this an actual philosophy re govt spending or is it all just completely irrelevant posing?
Wow. You seem butthurt.
You’re right though. It’s up to flyover country to stop the CA stupidity. Lol.
If a guy can be fined a humungous amount for overstating the value of something that, nonetheless, didn't cost anyone any money, then shouldn't the L.A. Times be fined into oblivion by grossly understating the cost of something that is raping taxpayers of a shit ton of money?
Is the LA Times guilty of anything but credulously reporting what the officials claimed? Should we prosecute news media that report on political campaigns without fact-checking each sentence uttered by the candidates?
OTOH, it appears that Kelly admitted that the original $33 billion estimate was "unmoored" from reality. It was a gross underestimate for the purpose of getting the project started, which gave Kelley a very good job and enriched many others. In other words, it was FRAUD, but we all know none of those who benefited from it will spend a day in jail.
Still not a single mile of track laid. And when they do get around to it someday, they’re going from Bakersfield to Merced. Which makes sense, since Southwest Airlines doesn’t have dozens of low-cost non-stops between those cities like they do between LA and SF.
Meanwhile, the much less corrupt country of Mexico already has the Tren Maya running 966 miles from the Yucatan Peninsula to some Mayan archaelogical tourist sites, built in 5 years and reaching 100 miles per hour, at a cost of 28 billion USD (originally estimated at 7.5B USD).
Sure it's not a "bullet" train, but the average speed for the California Billion Dollar Burner Train won't be much higher, closer to 150 mph than the advertised 220.
Does anyone know of a government project that was completed on time and within budget? Let’s narrow it down to the US since the ratification of the Constitution.
The USS Monitor was built on budget and only one day late. OTOH, that one day late wasn't trivial. It gave the CSS Virginia (nee Merrimack) a day to shoot up the wooden warships guarding Hampton Roads before the Monitor arrived.
I can't think of any major land construction projects. There were thousands of one or two room schoolhouses built by volunteer labor, mostly with local materials, and I would not be surprised if such a project was under time and under budget - the workers were building the school for their kids, and they voted for and paid much of the taxes that paid for the materials, so they wasted no time or money.
When this rail project was first put on the ballot, I regarded it as a classic boondoggle and voted against it. Even if it were fully funded, it would never reach its originally-proposed northern and southern terminus points. None of the costly aspects of it has surprised me; I expected it all upon reading the original ballot measure. It's a worthless money sink and needs to be terminated now or earlier.
Okay, all you MBA's and CMA's ...how often in the real world does a 300% cost overrun go unheeded. LIKE NEVER
"the project needs another $100 billion to be complete"
I won't put words in Joel Kotkins mouth but I believe he would trace this all back to the asshole stupid Transportation bill from Biden
What a godawful stupid and lazy man, transparently so
"The states receiving the most funding might not be surprising. California, Texas and New York are at the top of the list in terms of total dollars; each is getting more than $25 billion."
The Browndoggle Train to Nowhere is the biggest grift public work of all time and Gavin "The Joker" Newsom and Democrats keep filling the pockets of their donors on the backs of California taxpayers! Jerry Brown, Newsom and everyone involved with this travesty should be charged, prosecuted, convicted, drawn and quartered!
No one is going to mention that Trump pulled the funding for this boondoggle?
And then Biden restored it?
Old news I guess.
If Europe can build cost-effective high-speed rail, why can't our state and fed governments do so? Incompetence.
No, the main problem is population density. Even the European passenger trains running along dense urban corridors need subsidies, but the economics of passenger rail are far worse when most of the mileage is through farmlands and even the cities are far more spread out.
A secondary problem is that the densest areas where passenger rail would work best are inevitably the most built-over areas – and in the USA it takes much time and money for the litigation required to seize and clear the routes. I suspect that in the countries that have high-speed rail running into city centers, property rights are even less protected than in the USA. Thus a proposed high-speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco turns into one from Bakersfield to Merced, starting and ending in a 2 hour drive from the city centers, all to avoid the expense and delays of seizing and bulldozing the most important parts of the route.
Your dream train trip, European style, is you walk to a station in the center of your city, board a train and ride faster than you can drive even in a powerful sports car on a no-speed-limit autobahn, debark from the train in another city center, and walk to your destination. Your dream train trip, American style, begins with driving your car for two hours and parking it. Then you ride the train in comfort and at high speed, but not inexpensively. At the end of the ride, you have to rent a car and drive another two hours.
Only an idiot or a leftist (but I repeat myself) can wonder why the European train runs crowded and the American train will run almost empty. Incompetence does play a role - but only in choosing to continue with a project as clearly doomed