The Trump administration has launched a review of California’s high-speed rail project, with some officials questioning if it is time to walk away from the project
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy announced recently that the Federal Railroad Administration will conduct the review. Only 119 miles of the planned 776-mile railroad have been completed and $13 billion spent.
“It is the worst-managed project I think I’ve ever seen,” President Trump said at a news conference. The project has also been targeted by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency as wasteful spending.
Proponents of the project say it has already been an important source of economic activity and job creation for California, and it is needed to cut down on congested roads. Some politicians, even inside California, have suggested the high-speed rail will never open.
Question: Is it time to step away from the California High-Speed Rail project?
Economists
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: The California High-Speed Rail Authority reports that we’ve already spent $13 billion on the project, but that it will cost a total of $35 billion just to complete the segment connecting Bakersfield to Merced. That $35 billion estimate assumes implausibly that there won’t be further cost overruns. This spending has been at a time when California has been woefully underinvesting in basic infrastructure, with many of our dams and bridges in dangerous condition and badly needing repair.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
N/A: Probably. It is possible that the acquisition of land is complete enough and that the cost to finish the Central Valley segment is less than the loss to taxpayers if it is shut down or converted to alternative uses, in which case we should finish. It may be that we should consider alternatives such as an autonomous vehicle only highway with advanced in-road charging, but only an objective economic and engineering study will answer these questions. If federal money is pulled, the line will likely never happen.
David Ely, San Diego State University
YES: With its long history of delays and escalating cost estimates, it is doubtful that this project will ever be completed in a way that matches the original vision. Federal funding over the next four years will become far less generous and the state is not in a position to take on the responsibility for a greater share of the construction costs. Spending billions of dollars on high-speed rail means not addressing other priorities.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
NO: It is shameful that the U.S. lags so far behind Asia and Europe in building 21st century infrastructure. Across states, California has the largest gap between federal tax payments and expenditures from the federal government. For every dollar we pay to the federal government, we get about 88 cents back. If this project is canceled, what do we get in exchange? An even lower return on our tax dollar?
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
YES: When the least expensive, easiest part of the project to build — the Merced to Bakersfield segment — has massive cost overruns and completion date yet again delayed, the entire endeavor must be reassessed. If the only consequence of not meeting expectations is to increase funding, more failure will continue. Rather than throwing more money after bad, the entire project should be reengineered if not entirely abandoned. Reviewing the project is not the outrage, misspending performance is.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: The idea was good; high-speed rail is important in terms of an alternative means of moving passengers. It has been successful in other parts of the world, such as China, Japan and Europe. But the California project just seems to have too many problems. These problems include delays in construction and cost overruns, which has put a strain on the financing of the project. Any money already spent should be considered sunk costs and shouldn’t factor in the decision-making process.
Ray Major, economist
YES: California high-speed rail is the poster child for government waste. The current state of the project is a disaster. This rail project is just one of many over budget and mismanaged projects in California. Conflicting, burdensome, and unnecessary state regulations make large infrastructure projects costly and time consuming to build. High-Speed Rail along with many other projects should be paused until the fundamental underlying problem of over regulation, management, and cost overruns are addressed.
Executives
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
YES: California’s high-speed rail project has faced numerous challenges, including delays, cost overruns, and political scrutiny. Progress has been minimal, and the estimated cost has ballooned to over $128 billion. With completion dates pushed well into the 2030s, it is too expensive to finish this project. While it originally had the potential to revolutionize transportation in California, the investment and commitment to overcome the obstacles are way too much. Stop the waste.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
YES: California should consider abandoning or completely reworking the high-speed rail project. With $10-15 billion spent and little built, total cost estimates have ballooned from $30 to $45 billion to $100 to $120 billion, with no clear timeline for completion. Delays, mismanagement, and shifting political priorities have made a complicated project impractical. Redirecting funds to more practical transportation solutions, such as regional rail, highway improvements, and electrified transit. could provide faster, more cost-effective benefits without prolonged uncertainty.
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: While an ambitious goal a decade ago reality has settled in. The cost has mushroomed with no end in sight, the money is needed elsewhere and the demand for the route has never really materialized. Perhaps we can offer it to the for-profit group, Brightline, building the Los Angeles to Las Vegas route.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
YES: I can think of multiple reasons: it’s too expensive at a moment when the priority must be fiscal austerity; the initial route should be along the congested and high demand coastal corridor, not the central valley; and the very idea of high speed rail is questionable and perhaps the wrong solution to improving intrastate mobility. President Trump is right: it has been a badly managed project. He should know.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
YES: I’ve been on the record before saying we should walk away from this project. It’s been far more expensive than originally proposed and initially does not connect important cities in the state. In addition, it is likely California will not continue to get federal support for this and more important initiatives. It’s time to put a pause on costly government projects like this that burden the state and that society can’t afford – at least right now.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
YES: The California high-speed rail project, initially budgeted at $33 billion with a 2020 completion date, continues to face significant delays and cost overruns. Now estimated to be $100 billion short, its completion date remains uncertain. Despite creating jobs and potential environmental benefits, chronic mismanagement and escalating costs have eroded public trust, making continued taxpayer support irresponsible. The project’s persistent delays, massive cost overruns, and lack of clear funding solutions justify reconsidering its viability.
Not participating this week:
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020