PD Editorial: California tests two approaches to high-speed rail

High-speed rail in California received an early holiday gift from the Biden administration. Two ambitious projects will split $6 billion. How well they put that money to use will provide an excellent test of two approaches to building transportation systems of the future.

The first project is the long-delayed and increasingly expensive high-speed rail line originally envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco, with a 2½-hour ride. Gov. Gavin Newsom scaled back the project when he took office. Now it’s focused on connecting Bakersfield to Merced in the Central Valley.

The publicly managed project desperately needs the federal cash infusion. Current cost estimates for the shortened length already exceed $33 billion, which is how much proponents suggested to voters the entire Los Angeles to San Francisco line would cost before a 2008 bond measure. Current estimates for that entire length exceed $125 billion, most of which has no identified source.

The project has had more than its share of problems. Construction costs have increased, and acquiring right of way for the tracks has proved challenging through areas with communities and farmland. Environmental concerns and legal constraints also have been obstacles. Newsom might have been better off ending the project entirely four years ago and cutting the public’s losses.

The second project will connect suburban Los Angeles to Las Vegas. A company called Brightline will build the line. The project is estimated to cost $12 billion, including the $3 billion federal grant. Brightline already operates the nation’s only high-speed rail line in Florida, between Orlando and Miami.

Brightline plans to have the new bullet trains running in time for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. Critical to meeting that deadline, the company says it already has secured land for stations and tracks in the median of Interstate 15.

The route appeals to private investors because it will connect the nation’s second largest metropolis to a gambling mecca and adult playground. Plenty of people make the drive for the weekend now, so there’s a huge potential customer base, especially among those who want to start partying on the way out and not have to drive back with a hangover.

Comparing the two rail lines and their success will come with a lot of caveats. The projects and their goals aren’t identical. But that doesn’t mean the public won’t be able to draw some fair conclusions.

If a private venture is able to get trains rolling in just a few years at a fraction of the cost, it will stand in stark contrast to the state’s escalating costs and delays. If the private venture is a financial success, it could point to an important element of choosing future routes. Connect people to places they want to go, not just arbitrary population centers.

Proponents tout high-speed rail’s potential to reduce congestion and pollution by removing cars from the roads and getting people where they want to be faster. But benefits must be balanced against cost and feasibility, especially when taxpayers are footing a lot of the bill. Lessons learned here will shape the future of high-speed rail throughout the country.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.