Tuesday, December 2, 2025

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 4 OF 12 2010-2014: When Reality Hit

2010-2014: When Reality Hit | California HSR Chronicles

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 4 OF 12

2010-2014: When Reality Hit

The years when costs exploded, lawsuits mounted, judges blocked funds, and the optimism of 2008 collided with brutal facts

1. November 2011: The Cost Bomb Drops

In November 2011, the California High-Speed Rail Authority released a revised business plan that shattered the 2008 optimism. The new cost estimate: $98.5 billion for the full SF-LA system—nearly triple the $33 billion voters approved just three years earlier.

Completion date? No longer 2020. Now 2033—thirteen years later than promised.

The reaction was explosive. State Senator Joe Simitian: "The numbers are so far off from what was promised to voters that I think it raises serious questions about the project's viability." Republicans called for cancellation. Even Democratic supporters expressed alarm.

How did costs triple in three years? Several brutal realities emerged:

Land acquisition: Acquiring property through eminent domain was far more expensive than estimated
Engineering requirements: Seismic safety, grade separations, and tunnel specifications all cost more than projected
Route changes: Political pressure added the "Palmdale detour" and other modifications
Honest accounting: The 2008 estimates were always fantasy—2011 faced reality

```

2. November 2011: Judge Kenny Blocks the Bonds

The same month costs tripled, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny delivered a devastating blow: he blocked California from selling $2.7 billion in voter-approved bonds until the Authority proved the project met Proposition 1A's requirements.

Prop 1A hadn't just authorized spending—it included specific promises:

SF to LA in 2 hours 40 minutes
No operating subsidies required
Connections to existing rail systems
Completion of a usable segment before bonds were used

Judge Kenny ruled the Authority hadn't demonstrated it could meet these requirements. Without bond funding, the project faced immediate crisis—federal grants required state matching funds, and bonds were the only source available.

The Authority appealed. Jerry Brown, who became governor in 2011, made saving high-speed rail a priority. For Brown, this was personal—he'd championed the project during his previous governorship (1975-1983) and saw it as his infrastructure legacy.

3. 2012: Jerry Brown Goes to War

In 2012, Brown fought for high-speed rail with the intensity of someone defending his legacy. He lobbied legislators personally, twisted arms, made deals, and ultimately secured a narrow victory: the legislature approved $4.7 billion in initial funding and authorized bond sales.

The July 2012 vote was razor-thin: 21-16 in the Senate, 51-26 in the Assembly—bare majorities, no Republican support, and several Democrats defecting. Senator Mark DeSaulnier, who voted yes, admitted: "This is the least bad choice I could make." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But Brown had his win. Construction could begin—if the lawsuits could be defeated.

4. The Lawsuit Avalanche

Multiple groups sued to block the project:

Property owners: Fighting eminent domain takings
Environmental groups: Challenging environmental impact reports
Kings County: Suing over route changes through agricultural land
Peninsula cities: Fighting the route through their communities

Each lawsuit delayed construction, increased costs (legal fees and inflation), and created uncertainty that scared off private investors. By 2013, the project faced over a dozen major lawsuits simultaneously.

The Authority won most of them—eventually. But "eventually" meant years of delays and hundreds of millions in additional costs.

5. 2014: The Revised Business Plan

By 2014, the Authority released yet another revised business plan. New cost estimate: $68 billion—down from 2011's $98.5B but still double the original promise.

How did costs drop? Not through efficiency—through scaling back:

Delayed some segments to later phases
Reduced early specifications (to be upgraded later)
Assumed optimistic financing and ridership
Shifted costs into future phases

Critics called it "creative accounting." Supporters called it "realistic planning." Either way, it showed the project couldn't meet 2008 promises at anything close to 2008 costs.

Conclusion: The Dream Dies, the Project Survives

The 2010-2014 period was when California High-Speed Rail transformed from ambitious dream to political zombie—officially alive but functionally dead. Costs tripled. Lawsuits multiplied. Promises evaporated. Yet construction would eventually begin because:

Jerry Brown staked his legacy on it
Federal money was committed and would be lost if returned
Cancellation meant admitting total failure
Sunk costs made stopping psychologically impossible

So California chose the worst option: continue building something that would never deliver on its promises, burning billions while pretending success was still possible. This is how infrastructure dreams become infrastructure disasters—not through honest cancellation but through zombie projects that can't succeed but won't die.

These four papers document California High-Speed Rail from 2010-2025—the complete story of how $15.7 billion bought zero passenger miles and why 2026's promises ring as hollow as every promise before them.

```

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 3 OF 12 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

2015-2019: The Great Scaling Back | California HSR Chronicles ```

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 3 OF 12

```

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.

```

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 2 OF 12 2020-2024: Building Through a Pandemic

2020-2024: Building Through a Pandemic | California HSR Chronicles ```

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL CHRONICLES • PAPER 2 OF 12

```

2020-2024: Building Through a Pandemic

When the world shut down, California high-speed rail kept building—proving it could deliver construction progress while simultaneously demonstrating why construction progress isn't enough

1. March 2020: The World Stops, Construction Doesn't

When COVID-19 shut down California in March 2020, most expected California High-Speed Rail construction to halt. The project was already struggling with delays and cost overruns. A pandemic seemed like it would deliver the fatal blow.

Instead, something unexpected happened: construction accelerated.

The Pandemic Paradox

In November 2020—eight months into the pandemic—the project hit an all-time high of 1,208 daily workers across 35 job sites in the Central Valley. This was nearly double the workforce at the pandemic's start.

How? Construction was deemed "essential work" in California. While millions worked from home or lost jobs entirely, high-speed rail workers reported to job sites daily. Safety protocols changed—smaller group meetings, social distancing, PPE—but work continued.

Toni Tinoco, Central Valley Deputy Regional Director, noted that the biggest challenge wasn't COVID—it was weather, as with any construction project. The pandemic was managed; the project's fundamental problems were not.

2. What Actually Got Built (2020-2024)

Between 2020 and 2024, California High-Speed Rail made visible progress in the Central Valley. Not passenger service. Not operational track. But concrete structures began rising from agricultural fields—proof that something was actually happening.

The Construction Scorecard (2020-2024)

Guideway structures: 50+ completed out of 119 miles planned
Right-of-way delivery: 96% of parcels acquired by 2022
Utility relocations: 71% complete by end of 2022, 83% by 2023
Design packages: All 163 completed for Central Valley structures
Jobs created: 15,000+ construction jobs total
Money spent: $13.8 billion by August 2025 (up from ~$5B in 2020)
Passenger miles delivered: Still zero

The Hanford Viaduct—the project's longest structure in the Central Valley—began construction in 2020. Located about an hour south of Fresno, it's expected to be completed by 2026. When finished, it will be part of the testing track where trains will undergo 2-3 years of dynamic testing before any operations begin.

This is real progress. Concrete structures exist where none did before. Thousands of workers earned good wages. The Central Valley's landscape was visibly altered. But it's also progress toward a goal that keeps receding: operational service.

3. The Federal Drama: Trump vs Biden

The pandemic years coincided with a political drama that threatened the project's survival: the transition from Trump to Biden and back to Trump.

May 2019: Trump Cancels $929 Million

Even before COVID, the Trump administration had terminated $929 million in federal funding, citing lack of progress and California's abandonment of the SF-LA goal. California sued to stop the action.

June 2021: Biden Reinstates Funding

The Biden administration's first transportation actions included reinstating the $929 million and signaling openness to high-speed rail. Acting FRA Administrator Amit Bose spoke of "innovation in infrastructure" and connecting communities.

Then in December 2023, the Biden administration awarded $3.1 billion in new federal funding—the largest federal commitment since the original 2009 ARRA grant. This was a lifeline, suggesting the project had federal partnership for completion.

December 2024: Trump Returns, Funding Threatened Again

Trump's 2024 election victory immediately jeopardized federal funding. In December 2024, his incoming administration announced plans to rescind the $4 billion in grants. The cycle repeated: federal money promised, then threatened, creating uncertainty that makes long-term planning nearly impossible.

CEO Ian Choudri acknowledged the challenge but insisted the Authority would continue seeking funds: "77% of the money came from California taxpayers. We do want to continue to look for opportunities to work with the federal government."

Translation: California will build this with or without federal help—though "without" means it will take far longer and cost even more.

4. The Cost Crisis Deepens

The Escalating Price Tag (2020-2024)

2020 estimate: Central Valley segment $12.4 billion
2021 revised: Central Valley segment $13.8 billion
2022 estimate: Full SF-LA system $105-128 billion (up from $100B)
Actual spent by 2025: $13.8 billion total (mostly Central Valley)
Remaining need for just Central Valley: $16-20 billion
Remaining need for full system: $100+ billion unfunded

Construction inflation explains some increases—COVID-era supply chain disruptions sent steel, rebar, and concrete prices soaring 47-53%. But other high-speed rail projects globally experienced similar inflation without California's catastrophic cost growth.

The 2022 Inspector General audit found the project "unlikely to finish on time and facing a budget shortfall"—the most diplomatically devastating assessment possible. Not "might face challenges." Not "requires additional funding." But bluntly: won't finish on time, doesn't have enough money.

5. What 2020-2024 Revealed

The pandemic years demonstrated three crucial things about California High-Speed Rail:

1. It Can Build Things

The project proved it can actually deliver construction. Structures rose. Workers were employed. Progress was visible. Critics who claimed "nothing will ever be built" were proven wrong. Something is being built.

But this raises a harder question: is building the wrong thing in the wrong place actually progress?

2. Money Is the Real Problem

Engineering challenges, permafrost issues, seismic requirements—these are all manageable with enough funding. The fundamental constraint isn't technical capability. It's money.

California has spent $13.8 billion over 17 years. That sounds enormous until you realize it needs $100+ billion more for the full system, or $16-20 billion more just to finish the Central Valley segment. At current funding levels ($1-2 billion annually), completion is decades away.

3. Political Will Is Insufficient

Governor Newsom supports the project. State legislators keep allocating cap-and-trade funds. The Authority persists. But support without resources is meaningless. California had nearly $100 billion in budget surplus in 2022—yet didn't allocate meaningful additional funding to high-speed rail.

Why? Because spending tens of billions on a "train to nowhere" in the Central Valley is politically toxic when schools need funding, homelessness persists, and infrastructure throughout the state crumbles.

Conclusion: Progress Without Purpose

The pandemic years proved California High-Speed Rail can build infrastructure despite extraordinary challenges. Construction continued when much of society shut down. Workers adapted. Progress was visible. By that measure, 2020-2024 was a success.

But success at construction isn't success at the project's actual goal: providing high-speed rail service between California's major cities. What got built serves no one yet and may never serve anyone if extensions aren't funded. Spending $13.8 billion to build guideway in agricultural land while cities remain unconnected isn't success—it's expensive proof that political will and construction capability without proper funding and planning produces expensive monuments to ambition rather than functional infrastructure.

The pandemic years demonstrated that California can build. What they couldn't demonstrate is whether California should build—or whether what's being built will ever matter.

In our next paper, we'll examine 2015-2019: The Great Scaling Back—when California officially abandoned the LA-SF vision and pivoted to the Central Valley-only plan that has defined the project's troubled trajectory ever since.

```

Subscribe To