With the administration led by the Felon, there are mass layoffs across the federal government, unconstitutional executive orders, and threats to funding for seemingly secured infrastructure projects. The Secretary of Transportation recently ordered a review of the California High Speed Rail project, hopefully to find some “waste and fraud”, with the possibility of cutting off funding previously granted by past administrations.
The California High Speed Rail project is in a difficult spot. The cost to complete the full project from Los Angeles to San Francisco far exceeds the original estimate from 20 years ago. Since voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008, progress has been far too slow. Although the project recently completed all environmental documents for the entire corridor, there is no funding available to finish it. The project is opposed by the state’s Republican Party, who see this as an opportunity to end it, similar to how the Felon and Elon Musk ended USAID. Could it happen that way? Should it happen that way? I am not so sure, even though I have many doubts about the direction the California HSR is going, especially compared to the Brightline West project connecting Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga.
The slow progress of CAHSR was set in motion 20 years ago. The state aimed for a single high-speed rail backbone, connecting downtown to downtown, serving the Silicon Valley, Central Valley cities, and the High Desert, with trains faster than typical high-speed trains in Europe, as set by the 2 hour and 40 minute requirement under Proposition 1A. These political requirements and lofty goals explain the alignment on the east side of Central Valley, near State Route 99. Although Union Pacific and BNSF freight railroads serve this corridor (with Amtrak San Joaquins trains running on the latter), these railroads, for operational and business reasons, could not and did not want to share tracks or right of way with the HSR. Additionally, due to the high speeds, very large curve radii are required, far exceeding those of current railroads. Consequently, HSR needed a new right of way, even if adjacent to existing freight rail or freeways, necessitating the purchase of land from farmers and homeowners. The process of acquiring land had been slow and costly.
On the other hand, Brightline West will be built on the freeway median of Interstate 15, primarily using a single track with passing tracks at various points. Choosing the freeway alignment resolved most right-of-way issues, as it is already publicly owned. This alignment also addresses street crossings, as streets are grade-separated from the freeway. Additionally, the project will not have to deal with freight railroads or interfere with their operations.
If CAHSR had followed the path taken by Brightline West, the rail line would have used the Interstate 5 alignment, crossing over the Grapevine and Altamont Pass. The final stop might not have been in Downtown San Francisco or Downtown Los Angeles, but it would be close enough to the region—far better than Bakersfield and Merced, the endpoints of the current phase of the project. It might have been led and partially funded by private investors, similar to Brightline West. Originally, the CAHSR Authority anticipated private investments as part of the funding plan under Proposition 1A, but this never came to fruition.
The Obama administration approved the strategy of building the Central Valley first to showcase true high-speed rail (surpassing the Northeast Corridor) in the United States. However, I believe they made cost and construction progress projections during an economic downturn when construction companies and unions, eager for work, underbid for such projects. Since then, the economy has recovered, and unemployment has hit a record low. Inflation is now a major concern, and with high inflation, interest rates are also high. Even without waste and fraud, the current economic conditions work against CAHSR and other agencies pursuing major infrastructure projects.
Some critics of the CAHSRA may still support HSR but want a complete reset. However, I don’t see any benefit in killing the project now. Despite challenges, the agency has largely secured the right of way, and many bridges and structures have been built. A sudden course change, like shifting alignment to I-5, won’t save money now. Even pausing the project, assuming funding resumes after the current administration, won’t save money due to inflation. At best, the agency could save by deferring certain elements like electrification. I believe the best course is to complete the initial segment to the point where trains can operate, and then determine the next step forward, free of political constraints from past decisions by CAHSRA and Prop 1A.
For a long time, I have been wary of large capital projects. I prefer a series of smaller projects that can be completed faster with less funding. These smaller projects bring benefits sooner, and successful completions help build momentum for further improvements. Caltrain is a good example. It launched the “Baby Bullet” project after then-state senator Jackie Speier successfully secured funding from the state surplus in 2000. The agency started construction in 2002 and completed it in 2004. The new express trains reduced travel time to less than an hour, and ridership increased every year until 2020 when COVID hit and stay-at-home orders were issued. Caltrain’s success with the Baby Bullet helped build support for electrification, as it would be the next step to increase corridor capacity.
When the decision was made to build the Central Valley segment first, there were concerns that urbanized regions in the Bay Area and Los Angeles wouldn’t see any benefits for many years. Consequently, decisions were made to fund projects like Caltrain electrification, which could be built sooner, improve regional transit in the meantime, and eventually become part of HSR. It’s important to note that because most of the HSR funding is spent in the Central Valley, the project remains largely unseen by those in the Bay Area and Los Angeles unless they visit one of the Central Valley cities. It is also invisible to I-5 travelers, the primary driving route between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
This regime likes to create chaos everywhere, and it will likely do the same for HSR and other transit projects in California. Since so much has already been built, it would be unfortunate for the state to abandon high-speed rail. Changing course now would only make the program more expensive and take longer to complete. Hard decisions may need to be made on how to keep the project going while federal funding is withheld. We can’t afford to leave those structures unfinished and unused, allowing them to become symbols of government ineffectiveness.