Posts
2015-2019: The Great Scaling Back
When California officially abandoned the LA-SF dream and pivoted to the Central Valley—the moment the vision died but nobody admitted it
1. February 12, 2019: The Speech That Killed the Dream
Governor Gavin Newsom stood before a joint session of the California Legislature on February 12, 2019—just six weeks into his governorship. This was his first State of the State address, the moment to set his vision for California's future.
And with a single sentence, he killed California High-Speed Rail as voters had approved it in 2008.
"Let's be real..."
"Let's be real. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, 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 L.A. I wish there were."
— Governor Gavin Newsom, State of the State Address, February 12, 2019
With those words, Newsom acknowledged what everyone already knew but no official would admit: the original vision—San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours 40 minutes for $33 billion—was dead. Not delayed. Not facing challenges. Dead.
Instead, Newsom proposed scaling back to what the project had already been building: a 171-mile segment from Merced to Bakersfield in California's Central Valley. Not a connection between California's two largest cities. Not even a connection to one major city. Just a segment through agricultural land, connecting two towns most Californians couldn't find on a map.
Critics immediately dubbed it the "train to nowhere." Newsom bristled: "I know that some critics are going to say, 'Well, that's a train to nowhere.' But I think that's wrong and I think that's offensive."
But the criticism stuck—because it was accurate.
2. How We Got Here: 2012-2016
Newsom's 2019 speech didn't kill a thriving project—it acknowledged a death that had occurred years earlier, through a series of quiet retreats that nobody wanted to frame as failure.
2012: The First Retreat
The original "Initial Operating Segment" (IOS) was supposed to run from Merced through Bakersfield to Burbank (just north of Los Angeles)—about 300 miles. This would have closed a major gap in California rail service, as the existing San Joaquin service terminates at Bakersfield without continuing to LA.
But by 2012, it was clear this was unaffordable. So the IOS was scaled back.
2016: The Second Retreat
Due to "changes in funding and financing plans"—bureaucratic language for "we don't have enough money"—the Authority changed the IOS again. Now it would run from San Jose to Bakersfield: the "Silicon Valley to Central Valley line."
This at least had logic: connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley could serve commuters, relieve Bay Area housing pressure, and potentially generate revenue. It was still a retreat from the original vision, but it served major populations.
2019: The Final Retreat
Newsom's speech formalized the final retreat: Merced to Bakersfield. Not San Jose to Bakersfield (which included a major metro area). Just the Central Valley segment, connecting to nothing.
In seven years, the "Initial Operating Segment" had shrunk from 300 miles connecting to LA, to 171 miles connecting to nothing.
3. Why Newsom Did It
Newsom's decision wasn't capricious—it was facing reality. Several factors forced his hand:
The Federal Deadline
California risked losing $3.5 billion in federal funds if it didn't complete the Central Valley portion by December 2022. That deadline was approaching, and nothing beyond the Central Valley had even begun construction. Focus had to narrow to protect federal money already committed.
The Cost Explosion
By 2018, cost estimates had reached $77 billion (later $105-128 billion). The cap-and-trade funding—California's only reliable revenue stream—provided maybe $1-2 billion annually. At that rate, completing the full system would take 50+ years. The math didn't work.
Political Reality
Newsom had watched Jerry Brown defend the project for eight years, absorbing criticism and mockery as costs exploded and completion dates receded. Newsom wasn't willing to spend his political capital on an unwinnable fight. Better to scale back, claim fiscal responsibility, and focus on achievable goals.
The Sunk Cost Trap
But Newsom also couldn't kill the project entirely. California had already spent $5+ billion by 2019. Cancellation would mean: "We wasted billions with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it"—Newsom's own words describing the consequences of abandonment.
So he chose the middle path: abandon the full vision but complete the Central Valley segment. This satisfied nobody but avoided the worst outcomes: total cancellation (wasting billions) or continuing to promise the impossible (losing all credibility).
4. The Immediate Reaction
Responses to Newsom's speech split predictably:
Republicans: "We Told You So"
Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy, representing Bakersfield, celebrated: Newsom made "the right move," and the larger LA-SF project was indeed "the train to nowhere."
Republicans had opposed the project from the start, viewing it as Democratic wasteful spending. Newsom's admission of failure vindicated their skepticism.
Rail Advocates: "He Didn't Kill It!"
State Senator Scott Wiener insisted Newsom hadn't killed the statewide plan: "He said we must focus on completing [the] Central Valley segment and then move forward from there. The Bay Area and Los Angeles must be—and will be—part of California's high speed rail network."
Advocates clung to Newsom's statement that environmental work would continue statewide and that California would seek federal and private funding for extensions. The dream wasn't dead—just deferred.
Experts: "This Is Backwards"
Transportation experts were blunt: building the Central Valley first was exactly wrong.
Bent Flyvbjerg, professor at Oxford and IT University of Copenhagen: "They're building the easiest part first, and that's exactly what you don't do. If you think about it tactically, you would build the most difficult parts first because, once they are there, it would be meaningless not to finish."
The logic: build Bay Area or LA segments first. These are harder (tunnels, urban property, density) but serve millions and generate revenue. Once built, political and economic pressure to complete connections becomes overwhelming.
Building Central Valley first creates the opposite dynamic: expensive infrastructure serving few, losing money, easy to attack, hard to defend.
5. What Newsom Killed Funding For
Newsom's decision had immediate consequences beyond rhetoric. He cut funding for critical work needed to extend beyond the Central Valley:
Geological Surveys Cancelled
The full LA-SF route requires tunneling through mountain ranges: the Diablo Range south of San Francisco, the Tehachapi Mountains, and the San Gabriel Mountains north of LA. These tunnels are the most expensive and technically challenging parts of the project.
Newsom cut funding for geological surveys needed to design these tunnels. Without surveys, no design. Without design, no cost estimates. Without cost estimates, no financing. By cutting survey funding, Newsom ensured the extensions couldn't proceed even if money somehow materialized.
Critics argue this was self-fulfilling prophecy: claim there's "no path forward," then eliminate funding for the work that would create that path.
Bond Funds Left Unallocated
For Newsom's first few years as governor, $4.1 billion in Proposition 1A bond funds—approved by voters in 2008—remained unallocated by the legislature. This money existed, was legally committed to high-speed rail, but wasn't being used.
Why? Because allocating it implied commitment to the full project. Leaving it unallocated signaled that the state wasn't serious about extending beyond Central Valley.
Conclusion: The Honest Admission Nobody Wanted
Newsom's 2019 speech was remarkable for its honesty: "Let's be real." For eleven years, officials had insisted the project was on track, just needing more time and money. Newsom was the first to admit what critics had been saying: the original vision was impossible.
But honesty doesn't make success. Scaling back to Merced-Bakersfield avoided total failure while guaranteeing the project would never deliver on its promises. California committed to building expensive infrastructure serving tiny populations, generating no revenue, connecting to nothing—infrastructure that would become a permanent political liability rather than transformative achievement.
The 2015-2019 period represents the moment California chose between admitting complete failure (and wasting billions) or partial failure (and spending billions more on a "train to nowhere"). Newsom chose partial failure, betting that completing something—anything—would vindicate the investment and create momentum for extensions.
Six years later, with guideway nearing completion but extensions unfunded and Trump threatening to rescind federal money, that bet looks increasingly questionable.
In our next paper, we'll examine 2010-2014: When Reality Hit—the years when cost estimates exploded, lawsuits mounted, and the optimism of 2008 collided with the brutal facts of California construction.
