The Californian high-speed rail dream, as some might call it, is the center of attention again, this time due to controversial remarks by Katie Porter. As a former representative and unsuccessful 2024 contender for a Senate seat, she is now aiming for the Governor’s chair in the 2026 elections. However, her stance on the rail project, which she once backed solidly, has taken a notable shift. The increasing evidence revealing setbacks in the timeliness and budgeting for the project has caused her to lose faith.
Porter pointed out that we should be straightforward with the people of California. The observation is apparent—the absence of a high-speed rail system despite significant expenditures in its name. Yet, a complete halt to the project didn’t find its way in Porter’s recent remarks. She stated that if the implementation of the rail system is achievable, it should be done, and if otherwise, it should be discontinued. The ambiguity is tantalizing.
Interestingly enough, within a week, she was seen retracting her skepticism while attending a labor event. As reported by Politico, she displayed a seemingly newfound enthusiasm towards the rail project, expressing desire to ‘put people to work, and…to get it done for Californians.’ However, the general consensus suggests that this high-speed rail project is a sunrise no one expects to see.
The project traces its origins back to the twilight of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mediocre tenure. With just over half the voters (52.6%) being swayed by Proposition 1A in 2008, the project came into existence. The widely circulated ballot summary spoke of an efficient 220 MPH transportation system, further bolstered by a bond issue of $9.95 billion. This was supposed to establish high-speed train service crisscrossing Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Even if we were able to suspend disbelief and assume both the $9.95 billion budget and the promised train speed as remotely practical, the imminent concern lies in connecting SoCal to NorCal. The journey, via the high-speed rail, equates to a time-consuming detour through less populated regions— a detour that’s swifter to traverse via an hour-long flight rather than spending more than twice the time on a train.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Business Plan in November 2008 idolized the ‘Shinkansen high-speed trains – Japan’ as a model to emulate. Drawing a comparison, the numbers reveal some intriguing insights. Japan, with a slightly smaller land mass than California, supports a significantly larger population, creating a density about four times greater than California’s. This brings the question, given the sparse distribution, can a high-speed rail system find pertinent footing in California?
In 2007, before Proposition 1A ascended to favor, projections suggested that the Californian population would boom from 36.6 million to nearly 60 million by 2050. However, these numbers floundered with population stagnating around 39 million. These calculations went haywire, influenced strongly, perhaps, by the state’s endemic mismanagement, a legacy also carried forward from Schwarzenegger’s time. The population shrinkage during 2000 to 2003 would further indicate misalignment with original projections.
Contrary to the private sector, where families and businesses adjust plans as per the dynamic circumstances, the government seems to display an innate inertia. The government seems to carry the unwritten motto of leaving no grand scheme without funding, regardless of feasibility or return on investment. This approach is rarely beneficial, as is visible in the case of this rail project.
Initially, the project was estimated to cost $33 billion with the $9.95 billion seed fund channelized from Proposition 1A bonds and the rest sourced federally or privately. However, fast forward to now, the HSRA’s 2025 Project Update Report quotes the total expenses as crossing $135 billion, inflating about four times the initial budget. Strikingly, the project hasn’t resulted in any progress yet, not even the intended first segment from Merced to Bakersfield, expected to complete not sooner than 2033.
It did not pass unnoticed when President Trump, in February, launched a review of the $3.1 billion federal grant allocated for this project. He expressed his dissatisfaction outright in the Oval Office, describing the train project as ‘the worst cost overrun I’ve ever seen,’ and implying a cutoff in federal funding.
Disregarding the awry circumstances, Governor Newsom’s May Revision to the 2025-26 fiscal year budget, outlined an annual provision of ‘at least $1 billion’ for the continuation of the project. Porter, in contrast to her earlier remarks, seems to be playing it safe, rather than taking a firm stand against Schwarzenegger’s ill-conceived venture.
Instances of mismanagement are glaring, especially with the state deficit of $12 billion. Republican candidates, such as Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, have been rather vocal in advocating for the project’s termination. In contrast, other Democratic hopefuls seem to be shying away from expressing clear views, possibly fearing backlash from unions supporting the project.
As the June 2 primary election approaches next year, candidates campaigning based on economic prudence would be favored more than those endorsing lavish spending sprees. Coinciding with the election, the California Legislature will be deliberating on Newsom’s final budget proposal. If another deficit materializes, which is likely, the call for frugality will reemerge stronger.
The high-speed rail project is one that’s been stained with controversy since its inception. Its proposed benefit is being questioned not only based on feasibility but also in light of the state’s existing economic burden. Yet, it appears to enjoy unwarranted support, especially from those who should prioritize fiscal responsibility over impractical dreams.
As we navigate these troubled waters, one can’t help but wonder: are we merely feeding the boondoggle beast with the Californian high-speed rail project or are we nurturing a lifeline that could indeed revolutionize Californian commuting in the future? Only time will determine whether this grandiose gamble will pay off or fall flat on its face.