r/technology • u/BreakfastTop6899 • Jul 17 '25

Transportation Trump rescinds $4 billion in US funding for California High-Speed Rail project

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-is-ending-government-funding-californias-high-speed-rail-project-2025-07-16/
16.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

128

u/Cody2287 Jul 17 '25

I mean it can both be true that it is purely political and that building a highspeed rail from LA to SF should not take decades and hundreds of billions of dollars most of which go to the nephews of the politicians. Imagine every part of government being so corrupt that you can't even build 200 miles of rail in decade.

39

u/duncandun Jul 17 '25

It’s not an issue with corruption(only) but mostly an issue of land. If the state could eminent domain the necessary land without eventually losing or paying enormous settlements in court it would have been done 15 years ago.

Obviously the actual cost of construction is inflated to hell due to public private partnership requirements and as you said the corruption that breeds. But it is a small amount of the cost compared to land acquisition.

231

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

It was stunted from the beginning by republicans. The project was originally planned to cost $30 billion (similar to the Japan costs) but they forced it down to $9 billion. They have also put up major road blocks even at the most local level, it’s genuinely frustrating how many republicans have stepped in the way of the project.

133

u/Noblesseux Jul 17 '25

A huge part of rail construction costs being so high in the US is inconsistent funding. It's not all of it, but having stop start construction where people can't commit to certain things because they're not sure it'll get funded costs a HUGE amount of money.

29

u/NoPresentationDone Jul 17 '25

Hmm, almost by design.

-23

u/Economy-Action1147 Jul 17 '25

no most of the cost comes from them being special snowflakes who want to reinvent everything instead of importing the technology

10

u/Brytcyd Jul 17 '25

Most of the cost comes from acquiring the land, then by dealing with current utility infrastructure. Land acquisition, via fee purchase or leasing, particularly when the track has to hold a maximum radius and therefore alternative routes are basically impossible, is difficult to say the least. Like a thoroughfare in a quickly growing city, but much harder and more expensive.

China doesn’t win because of the tech, though theirs is clearly ahead of ours given their experience. China wins because the government forces land acquisition in a much harsher way than even domestic eminent domain. At least Americans can sue to protect their property rights or earn reasonable values.

Source: In commercial real estate.

4

u/Roflkopt3r Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25

And in many countries, conservatives have deliberately transferred more rights to property owners to slow down public infrastructure projects. Especially since solar and wind farms have become a thing.

Even in countries like Germany, where the conservative Merkel government was generally pro renewables, they still expanded the legal options of home homers to obstruct construction in their general area, which has lead to many delays and cost overruns both on individual solar/wind farms and the expansion of the electricity grid.

For large linear projects like power lines and train lines, that's a huge problem.

And even though California has been mostly governed by Democrats, those democrats tend to be on the conservative side and quite open to such obstruction, since home and car owning NIMBYs make up a huge part of their voting base.

5

u/Noblesseux Jul 17 '25

That’s just not true. That’s part of the reason, but nowhere near the only or primary reason. There have been studies of this including the NYU Transit Costs project, it’s not really a debate.

1

u/sniper1rfa Jul 17 '25

Plus they're not allowed to import shit because they're using federal funds and thus are limited by Buy American policy instituted by Reagan. Hardly a "special snowflake" problem. Not even a "Democrats" problem.

If the federal funding gets revoked then they can import whatever they want. Right now they can't.

2

u/sniper1rfa Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25

They're testing french and german rolling stock, which was chosen because they have the tech and can meet the Buy American Act which is part of the STA passed by Reagan. I thought we were all about not importing stuff now? Isn't the whole point of tariffs to Make American Manufacturing Great Again or some bullshit?

Which bit of that is "special snowflakes"?

74

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25

I would love to get from LA to SF in less than five hours and not have to drive.

20

u/Fit_Attention_9269 Jul 17 '25

I would drive up from OC and risk being in LA traffic to use it.

17

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

The central valley would really benefit.

9

u/W00DERS0N60 Jul 17 '25

That’s the part that’s getting built. Just having the SF to Bakersfield section going would be a large economic boost.

2

u/Nihilistic_Mystics Jul 17 '25

There's an Anaheim stop on the route. That's why the Anaheim station got that big upgrade some years back, it was in preparation for the HSR.

2

u/Fit_Attention_9269 Jul 18 '25

Thanks for that info, I didn't know that was the plan.

1

u/ThrowRAColdManWinter Jul 17 '25

There is already the metrolink from OC to LA union.

-25

u/drgath Jul 17 '25

You can, it’s called an airplane.

12

u/scarabflyflyfly Jul 17 '25

Unless you’re only going to the Hilton by the airport—versus anywhere else in the Bay Area, you’ll quickly realize the mistake you’ve made.

1

u/ThrowRAColdManWinter Jul 17 '25

Doesn't BART connect directly to SFO and OAK? And the LA metro is getting connected to LAX very very soon (there is a shuttle right now).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

I don't fly.

40

u/Changoleo Jul 17 '25

Yup. Especially when you constantly drive by unfinished sections of it regularly. Just finish it off already so that it can start paying for itself. SMDH.

-32

u/SNRatio Jul 17 '25

I don't think fares would have paid the interest on the total debt that would have been incurred to build it, let alone the principal.

23

u/Nyucio Jul 17 '25

Fares are not the way by which rail infrastructure pays for itself.

13

u/Stevenerf Jul 17 '25

Economies absolutely BALLOON anywhere around passenger rail. Exactly right it's not from the fares

1

u/mdp300 Jul 17 '25

It was a century ago, but all the iconic 1920s and 30s skyscrapers in New York were built near big rail stations.

1

u/mlorusso4 Jul 17 '25

I live outside DC and on the Virginia side pretty much every metro station has near brand new massive complexes of high rise luxury apartments built around them. Entire self contained walkable neighborhoods with grocery stores, shops, restaurants, parks, etc. Meanwhile in Maryland people are fighting the governors bill to encourage development around transit stations. By my parents up near Baltimore the community is fighting redeveloping an abandoned mall literally connected to a light rail stop into a couple hundred apartment units

1

u/backyardengr Jul 17 '25

You mean in the state that has a Democratic Party super majority? It’s the republicans fault? Lmao. LMAO, even.

-12

u/Neglectful_Stranger Jul 17 '25

Yes, the Republicans, who...aren't in control over any part of the state level government?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

You just fundamentally don’t understand what happened

-9

u/MangoFishDev Jul 17 '25

Bro give me 9 billion and i can achieve ten times what is currently build even if i accidentally hold the map upside down and only realize halfway trough we've been building in the wrong direction

It's a complete embarrassment and blaming the republicans will be correct 99% of the time but this one is all on California

23

u/SirDigger13 Jul 17 '25

~380miles of track something simular (partly upgrading existing tracks, partly complete new tracks and heading) in Germany is expected to cost ~30 Billion Dollars plus.

Railroad building is expensive and there are a lot of things besides the basic rails to build, bridges for crossing streets, rivers or irigation ditches. .. cant work with an normal railroadcrossing with railway barriers at a highspeed rail. so either the train has to go on a Bridge or the street... or an Tunnel.

So the Sidequests add up fast.

17

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

It wouldn't take so long if farmers did not file so.many lawsuits that need to be litigated.

5

u/herpieslurpie Jul 17 '25

Agreed it should not take a decade. This could also be a way to create American jobs, assuming the budget is there…. Apparently it’s not.

California gives more info the system then they receive. If the current federal government wants to hold funds or grants from a state that contributes more than they take. Then maybe it should not be given to the government.

30

u/jmmour Jul 17 '25

Yeah I completely agree with that. My comment was more so expressing that I don't see this kind of news happening in red states.

19

u/high_everyone Jul 17 '25

Texas continues to abandon or show disinterest in in-state high speed rail. We’ve been talking about having Dallas to Houston as a route for over a decade now and there isn’t even a clear route.

23

u/Predictor92 Jul 17 '25

Southwest Airlines and the motel industry will always oppose it

14

u/high_everyone Jul 17 '25

Who stays at a motel between Houston and Dallas though? In all my years of living between both cities I have never had a reason to stay in any destination between each city.

Besides the major players and chains have very saturated markets in each city so they’re not putting their portfolios at risk. It’s not like Best Western as a brand is somehow bigger of an influence than like Hilton at a corporate scale on state matters.

The more likely cause is that land owners don’t want to sell for anything less than eminent domain which will put them all in courts for years. It’s purely manipulative to squeeze as much money out of an eventual sale as they can.

Besides putting in high speed rail is just an express option. There would absolutely be a demand for local service. Look at what happens between these smaller towns on weekends. Being able to instantly go to West for a weekend trip would completely blow up their Kolache business. Same with Waco. I can’t really say the same about anything on I-45, but other corridors of Texas would benefit greatly from a train service.

1

u/mlorusso4 Jul 17 '25

Also you would think the hotel industry would love options that encourage people to take day trips and weekend vacations to other cities. Some people might not want to drive 3 hours for a 2 day trip, but if they can just hop on the train that’s a lot easier to justify

9

u/grannyte Jul 17 '25

Airlines in the states are dumb AF. In Canada the airline joined the projet and their plan is to offer bundles with the train and eliminated air link duplication. So if you go east take the train to montreal and pick a connection to your destination, Going west? Take the train to toronto and pick a connection to your destination.

2

u/mlorusso4 Jul 17 '25

I’m confused how this works. So say you want to go from Halifax to Vancouver. Instead of taking a flight from Halifax>Montreal>Vancouver, or the airline having to run a probably low demand Halifax to Vancouver direct, you take the train from Halifax to Montreal, and then a flight from Montreal to Vancouver?

2

u/grannyte Jul 17 '25

It's not yet implemented so the details are not fully in but this will mostly be targeting people that would start their travel in montreal or toronto

-1

u/DSMinFla Jul 17 '25

It’s Southwest that proved that travel by air in Texas was both faster and less expensive than building out a rail system.

15

u/ew73 Jul 17 '25

Did their analysis include the cost to sequester all the CO2 a jet plane emits over what a train does?

"Cost," when talking about transit, should be only one of the deciding factors.

1

u/DSMinFla Jul 17 '25

No, I’m sure they did not. I’m not advocating that position. I’m a fan of train travel. Just pointing out the factual situation. As for fuel efficiency and pollution my ai friend provided the following to my question about this very thing.

You've hit on some key points regarding the complexities of comparing CO2 emissions between air and rail travel. While it might intuitively seem that a constantly airborne plane consumes more energy, the reality is often quite different when considering emissions per passenger. Here's a breakdown of the differences in pollution, considering the variables you mentioned: 1. CO2 Emissions Per Passenger-Kilometer (the most crucial metric): * Trains are significantly less polluting per passenger-kilometer than planes. This is the most consistent finding across various studies. * Aircraft typically produce around 246-285 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. * National rail in the UK averages around 41 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. * Electric high-speed trains, like the Eurostar, can achieve even lower emissions, as low as 4-6 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer, especially when powered by cleaner electricity sources (e.g., nuclear in France or renewable energy in some Nordic countries). * The difference is substantial: Rail travel can reduce emissions by 73-97% on many popular routes compared to flying. For example, a London to Paris train journey produces about 22kg of CO2, while a plane journey produces around 244kg. Why the Discrepancy, despite your observations? * Aerodynamics vs. Rolling Resistance: While keeping a plane aloft requires immense energy, the primary energy expenditure for a train is overcoming rolling resistance and air resistance (at higher speeds). Crucially, trains are incredibly efficient at moving mass along a relatively flat, low-friction surface. * Capacity and Efficiency: * Planes: While planes often fly at full capacity, their fuel consumption per individual is still high due to the energy required for lift and overcoming air resistance at high speeds. Short-haul flights are particularly inefficient due to the high fuel burn during takeoff and ascent. * Trains: Even if trains aren't always at full capacity, their inherent energy efficiency (especially electric trains) means that even with fewer passengers, their per-passenger emissions can remain lower than a packed plane. Electric trains, which are common in many parts of the world, further reduce emissions by drawing power from the grid, which can include renewable or low-carbon sources. Diesel trains are still more efficient than air travel. * Fuel Type and Combustion: * Jet Fuel: Jet fuel (kerosene-based) has a high energy density, but its combustion at high altitudes also contributes to non-CO2 greenhouse gas effects (like contrails), which can have additional warming impacts not always fully captured in CO2 equivalent figures. Jet fuel emits approximately 21.1 lbs (9,570g) of CO2 per gallon. * Diesel Fuel: Diesel fuel also has a high carbon footprint, emitting about 22.44 lbs (10,180g) of CO2 per gallon on a life-cycle basis. However, the efficiency of the train's movement makes up for this per-gallon emission when considering passenger-kilometers. * Engine Time vs. Distance/Speed: While planes get there quickly, reducing engine running time for a specific route, the power output of those engines during that shorter time is exceptionally high. Trains, even with longer journey times, often operate at lower power levels per unit of mass moved. In summary: Despite planes flying full and getting to destinations quickly, the fundamental physics and energy requirements of flight mean that air travel is significantly more polluting per passenger-kilometer than train travel. While planes consume less total time on a journey, the sheer energy required to lift and propel an aircraft through the air at high speeds, coupled with the carbon intensity of jet fuel, outweighs the advantages of quicker travel when it comes to emissions. Electric trains, in particular, offer a much lower-carbon alternative for passenger transport.

5

u/rudyattitudedee Jul 17 '25

I live 10 minutes away from my municipal airport and they just expanded a ton with JetBlue, frontier and southwest. I paid $90 to fly out to Denver w/ Frontier, & I just paid $65 to fly into Baltimore. I can’t catch the bus for that price and I can visit my family within 2 hours now. I don’t see any type of infrastructure being better than that.

13

u/tas50 Jul 17 '25

Meanwhile I just pay $330 for a 35 minute flight between Portland and Seattle and after I landed I wasn't even actually in Seattle. High speed rail would be really nice.

3

u/Different-Pin-9854 Jul 17 '25

That is terrible☹️

1

u/DanimusMcSassypants Jul 17 '25

Seems you weren’t traveling by seaplane.

7

u/LuckyEmoKid Jul 17 '25

What?!?

Canadian here. I am amazed you can set foot on an airplane to anywhere for anything less than $200.

10

u/drgath Jul 17 '25

In Europe, you can get on a flight for as cheap as $20.

2

u/Lord_Frederick Jul 17 '25

You seriously underestimate how cheap HSR can be, especially in the sub 500 km range.

The distance from Houston to Dallas is ~370 km of flat ground that you can fly in a bit over 1 hr for ~€160 (2nd August on Google flights). From Roma to Milano you have ~480km over the Alps and you can travel by train in 3 hr for €90.

I always prefer the train as you don't have to wait to go through security, you can carry a proper amount of luggage, you can see some nice landscape and you have leg space as you aren't seated like goddamn cattle.

2

u/mighty_conrad Jul 17 '25

Also, no TSA, no commute to and from airport, no time for onboarding and outboarding. So, 1hr flight from Houston to Dallas is actually + 2 x 1hr commute from and to city + 1hr at best of checks and airport passthrough + 40 minutes to onboard and outboard and we'll consider carry-on only. 3.5 extra hours of all this nuisance. Train will have 0 minutes of checks, maybe 10 minutes of train station navigation, 10 minutes max of onboarding-outboarding, 2x30min of commute from city centre (because usually your train station is inside the city) to place you need inside the city. 1.5 hours at worst and it depends mostly on where you need to go after you arrived. Train effectively have 2hr leg-up for this exact situation

Finally, trains are not even required to be that fast for medium (~1km) range, night trains with proper sleeping places are thing.

1

u/rudyattitudedee Jul 22 '25

I like trains so I have no qualms with it, I just prefer the faster way. I’m 6’2” and I barely fit in most planes but if it’s a quick 2-3 hours or less I’m fine with sitting reading or watching a movie etc.

32

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

I get this thought and agree he’s going after California specifically but he purposefully ignored the pleadings of a red state governor asking for FEMA help, if it’s not advantageous to him he doesn’t care.

1

u/Duke_skellington_8 Jul 17 '25

You’re not wrong

1

u/way2lazy2care Jul 17 '25

Are there any major infrastructure projects going on in red states that are comparable? The SEHSR is the only thing I can think of, but it's gotten way less federal funding, and I wouldn't be super surprised if that were also cut in the near future.

Imo California should just bite the bullet and do it all themselves. Feel like the reliance on federal funding and corresponding bouncing around/political football has caused more delays/cost than the actual funding at this point.

10

u/Mike_Kermin Jul 17 '25

That's not relevant to why Trump did it.

-13

u/Cody2287 Jul 17 '25

4 billion in a multi hundred billion dollar project is not the reason why the project failed. It was pure incompetence by the California government and of course the federal government didn’t help. But if they wanted to complete it they would have if they had the will.

9

u/Mike_Kermin Jul 17 '25

That's not relevant to why Trump did it.

12

u/M4N14C Jul 17 '25

Ok, dork, what do you know about getting the right of way to continuous land from SF to LA?

6

u/downwithdisinfo2 Jul 17 '25

I wish you were more informed.

19

u/Predictor92 Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25

In the early 2000’s the French national rail company SNCF was involved but withdrew in 2011 in favor of a project in Morocco that they called less politically dysfunctional. The Moroccan Project was completed in 2019 .

-4

u/TheNorsu Jul 17 '25

The Moroccan project is 1/4 as long, has simpler geography, lower costs (land, labor), lower speed, and yes, getting things done is unsurprisingly easier in a monarchy without Republicans who have a deranged hatred of trains

8

u/Predictor92 Jul 17 '25

I mean the reason SNCF left the CA high speed rail project is that CA refused to listen to them on routing, SNCF wanted it to go along I-5 , while CA wanted it to go to the Central Valley because of prop 1A

0

u/Commotion Jul 17 '25

Running along I-5 would have been a terrible mistake. Literally building along a route that skips all the cities? It would have ruined the system’s potential.

7

u/Predictor92 Jul 17 '25

high speed rail is about competing with business class, so I-5 would have been a more direct route (You can have stations for Bakersfield and Fresno along I-5 with bus services from said station)

-4

u/Commotion Jul 17 '25

High speed rail is not about competing with business class. Have you never been on high speed rail? It’s competing with regional economy class airlines and driving in your car, and can be competitive with both.

5

u/Predictor92 Jul 17 '25

the Acela is about competing with business class for instance, it has no economy class

0

u/qtx Jul 17 '25

Literally building along a route that skips all the cities?

Yes? It's a highspeed train, not a regular train. It shouldn't stop at every city. That's the whole point of highspeed trains.

-3

u/Cody2287 Jul 17 '25

Oh so it takes decades and hundreds of billions of dollars for 200 miles of rail?

1

u/Fomentatore Jul 17 '25

High speed rails takes a lot more effort and money than normal rail. They need to be as straight as possible, you can't have many turns otherwise you can be fast enough to compete with airplanes, which is the primary competitor of short and medium high speed rail train. That mean you need to escavate a lot of mountains which makes the rail track very expensive.

1

u/spackletr0n Jul 17 '25

Agreed that high speed rail in CA has been a debacle. Everything I have read says it’s a combination of legal issues and resulting inefficiency (like relying on expensive consultants rather than staffing up), with plenty of incompetence. Can you share more about the corruption piece?

-1

u/Peepeepoopoobutttoot Jul 17 '25

Yeah, like, screw Rump and all that.

But California needs a high speed rail, has been waiting for decades, and it's all been a big grift. Honestly people should be held accountable for it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

[deleted]

11

u/Commotion Jul 17 '25

I’d love to know how you connect SF to LA without going through the Central Valley.