California’s Train to Nowhere
by Brent E. Zepke, Esq.
This month the Trump administration announced its intention to terminate $4 billion in federal funding for the California High-Speed rail project.
This is based on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), under Secretary Sean Duffy, concluding that there is “no viable path” to complete the project, citing issues with missed deadlines, budget overruns, and questionable ridership.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal includes a continued commitment of at least a $1 billion annually through 2045 sourced from the state’s cap-and-trade program that is set to expire in 2030 (those dates are not a typo).
The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) disputes the charges of the Trump DOT.
Who is correct?
The events that led to the phrase “California’s Train to Nowhere” began in 2008 when voters approved Proposition 1A on a ballot proposal written by Attorney General Jerry Brown to fund the first stages of a high-speed rail line connecting L.A. to San Francisco.
Under President Barack Obama, the Democrat Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), aka the federal stimulus package. The Act provided $841 billion in “stimulus” money to be used for, in President Obama’s words, “Shovel ready” projects.
In 2010, California received $2.5 billion from ARRA to complete an environmental review for the Phase 1 system and begin construction of the rail line in the Central Valley.
The estimated total cost of the rail from L.A. to San Francisco was $33 billion and scheduled to be completed by 2020.
As reported in a February 2011, Sunday edition of the L.A. Times, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist criticized the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, for declining the offer of stimulus funds for a rail line for the 99 miles between Orlando and Tampa.
The writer’s theory was that President Obama’s “shovel ready” projects would create jobs, so the only reason the Republican Rick Scott refused the funds was political. The writer raised the same criticisms against Republican Governors Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Rick Perry of Texas.
I dashed off an email to the writer suggesting that the reasons to decline the funds were not political, as indicated by te Democrat Governors Ted Strickland of Ohio, and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, also declining the funds. There were business reasons to decline the funds.
To my surprise, and his credit, twelve minutes later I received a response. The writer not only dismissed my business reasons but also included so many factual inaccuracies that I felt compelled to respond.
Shovel Ready Communications
Me: “Even President Obama admitted there were no shovel-ready jobs.”
Writer: “The administration has never said this. There are plenty of shovel-ready jobs, and plenty are under construction today.”
Me: “Please see CBS News, October 13, 2010, for the headline ‘Obama says there is no such thing as shovel-ready projects’.”
Four months later President Obama said, “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected,” (USA Today, June 13, 2011).
The California Project
State Assemblyman Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said “Before we put a shovel in the ground…a lot of questions have to (be) asked and answered,” (S.B. News Press, July 11, 2011), and he urged Governor Brown “to ease up on the deadlines” to spend the money by 2017.
Lowenthal admitted that even seven years was insufficient to complete an environmental review and be “shovel ready” in California.
Employment
Me: “Another reason is that after more than a trillion dollars in stimulus, unemployment increased from 8.2% when stimulus was passed to 8.9% now.”
The writer: “In fact, the stimulus has reduced unemployment measurable from what it would have been otherwise.’
Me: “The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that ‘employers’ reported the stimulus created 670,000 jobs, which, based on the $841B stimulus, is $1.2 million per job. The CBO expressed concern for the accuracy of the Obama administration’s requiring that the direct reports from employers be ignored and their stimulus be given credit for every job created by stating “One pitfall of this approach is the causation between policies and the economy is not always clear.”
Unfortunately, studies indicated that between 60% and 77% of new jobs are part-time.
Support
Me: “Another reason is a railroad needs support for the travelers to get to and from stations, which costs will fall on cities and states.”
Writer: “You mean a state needs to build and maintain roads? Sure, unless you think that not having this rail line will justify letting the existing transportation infrastructure in Florida go to hell.
A CHSRA Spokesman said, “We need an advocate for more funding, we’ve talked about structural issues and the need for more staff,” (Jeffrey Barker, AP).
The AP reported that “A panel charged with reviewing plans for California’s “high-speed rail project says planners need to answer serious questions about the cost, business model, and expected ridership…before…construction“ (AP). The estimated costs kept increasing from $68.4bbillion in 2011 to $91.4billion in the 2012 business plan.
2014
In 2014, a court has held that the changes made by Governor Jerry Brown were not consistent with the proposal, written by then Attorney General Brown, which were approved by the voters.
2019
President Donald Trump halted federal funds for the project. The Secretary of the DOT was Elaine Chao.
2023
President Joe Biden, through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, provided $3.1 billion funding for the project. The Secretary of the DOT was Pete Buttigieg.
2025
In the 17 years since the voters passed Proposition 1A, California has received $6.9 billion from the federal government.
The ever-increasing estimate for the San Francisco to Los Angeles rail line has increased from $33 billion to $128 billion.
This is only an estimate since construction so far has been limited work on the roadbed, but not laying any track for the 119 miles between Merced and Bakersfield.
No construction has begun on the 131 miles from Merced to San Francisco, or the 113 miles from Bakersfield to L.A.
The business reasons for not beginning the High-Speed rail project were evident as early as 2011.
Would you, as a taxpayer, prefer to cut your losses, or continue funding a “Train to Nowhere” until at least 2045?
It would really make my weekend if just one of the anti-Trump commenters here on SB Current would explain why they're so incensed Trump hasn't come through on every promise he made since taking office in January, but they're going to vote in all the CA Democrats who haven't come through with the High Speed Rail in years and years and billions and billions.
We have a transportation crisis. We have a climate emergency. We have a health disaster. There is a housing crisis, don't ya know. When you hear crisis, emergency, disaster or other dire warnings from politicians, hold on to your wallet cause the government is coming to help. Face it, the government wants your money and the best way to get it is to instill fear of an imaginary demon so fierce that it can only be tempered through government spending. Notice that the bugbear is never defeated but significant progress is being made and only through continued spending will we be saved. Now we all must notice that despite all this wealth redistribution from those who produce value to those who consume value, the problems are never solved. If I were a conspiracy theorist I might imagine that the raison d'être for crises is just an excuse for the government to spend.