High-speed rail is an expensive fantasy, not a climate solution | Baruch Feigenbaum

Gov. Gavin Newsom and leaders in the California Legislature have generally agreed to provide long-term funding for a high-speed rail line. The funding would come from revenue the state collects for greenhouse gas emissions.

But this train isn't back on track just yet. Cost increases for the first section of the line could double from $26 billion to $51 billion, according to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Additionally, the Trump administration plans to recoup $4.1 billion in federal funding that the Biden administration previously awarded.

As a result, the rail authority needs to close a large budget hole. Unfortunately, it lacks a clear plan. Instead, it is being creative with arithmetic.

The state proposes closing the gap by extending the charges for greenhouse gases from 2030 to 2045. But this would cause construction delays. So the state is attempting to identify profitable routes that can be added to the rail plan.

The authority is examining expanding the train service to the north, south and east. The most profitable route it could find is a San Francisco-to-Palmdale line, which could generate millions more in profit over a 40-year period. But that route would cost tens of billions to build. So the exercise is an accounting shell game.

Even without the questionable finances, California's reasons for building the high-speed rail line are less than compelling. 

High-speed rail isn’t a big win for the environment. In theory, trains operating at capacity between Los Angeles and San Francisco will produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than half-full airplanes flying between the two regions. But those trains won’t reach the big cities until at least 2050, and it's not clear they will be full.

Meanwhile, airplanes on that popular route are now operating near capacity, with aircraft engines becoming increasingly efficient. Several electric airplane engines are being tested.

High-speed rail lines also require a lot more energy to build than an airplane does. 

It’s not clear why California needs high-speed rail. Airplanes are just as fast and don’t require taxpayer subsidies. Intercity buses are the budget option. Driving is more flexible for those traveling outside city centers or who need to stop between central cities.

Other countries built high-speed rail networks for two reasons. First, they wanted to relieve crowding on conventional rail. Second, they sought to stimulate development before they had a limited-access highway network.

Traditional rail doesn't directly connect Los Angeles and San Francisco now, so there's no crowding. And California already has a robust freeway network connecting the southern and northern parts of the state.

Using fees charged for greenhouse gas emissions to build high-speed rail is a wealth transfer from the working class to the business class. Trains often offer roomier seating and better food options, but these perks come at a cost. On most lines, high-speed rail requires significant operating subsidies from general taxes.

Contrast high-speed rail with local transit funding, particularly local bus systems, which are used most by lower-income residents. With local transit, governments are supporting lower-income residents who might not be able to access employment without the service.

The high cost is not just a California problem. It also applies to other high-speed rail projects in the Midwest, South and West. Capital costs range from $20 million to $200 million per mile, depending on the required right of way, topography and permitting requirements, according to the Cato Institute. High-speed rail is expensive even in low-cost states such as Texas, where the Dallas-Houston project’s cost ballooned, making it infeasible and causing a private sponsor to abandon it.

If the costs in Texas are too high, high-speed rail will not be cost-effective anywhere.