The Brief

Seventeen years ago, Californians bet on a grand vision of the future. They narrowly approved a $10 billion bond issue to build a high-speed rail line that would zip between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. This technological marvel would slash emissions, revitalize the state’s Central Valley, and, with some financial help from the feds and private sector, provide the fast, efficient, and convenient travel Asia and Europe have long enjoyed.

State officials promised to deliver this transit utopia by 2020. Instead, costs have more than doubled, little track has been laid, and service isn’t expected to begin before 2030 — and only between Bakersfield and Merced, two cities far from the line’s ultimate destinations.

It’s little wonder the project finds itself in a precarious financial position, fighting political headwinds, and deemed a boondoggle by everyone from federal Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to Abundance authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.

“In the time California has spent failing to complete its 500-mile high-speed rail system,” they wrote, “China has built more than 23,000 miles of high-speed rail.”

The reasons for this vary with who’s being asked, but people with expertise often cite three fundamental missteps: creating a new agency to lead the effort, failing to secure adequate funding from the start, and choosing a route through California’s agricultural heartland. The state’s strict environmental review process hasn’t helped, either.

Protestors voice their opposition to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who in February went to Union Station in L.A. to call California’s high-speed rail efforts a “boondoggle” and “failed experiment.”

(

Allen J. Schaben

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Rail's challenges

Such struggles are not unique to the Golden State, where support for the project remains strong. Although the private sector venture Brightline has seen some success, publicly funded high-speed rail efforts in Texas, Ohio, Washington, D.C., and beyond have stalled. Regulatory complexity, a political environment that favors cars and highways, and constant funding challenges stymie America’s aspirations even as other countries have spent big on tens of thousands of miles of track. Gov. Gavin Newsom promises to see the nation’s most ambitious rail project through despite recently losing all federal support, but its troubled path underscores the systemic challenges of building big in America.

California has always been a car-crazy place, and by the early 1990s, transportation studies made clear that its highways would not keep pace with the growth to come.

Policymakers saw an answer in bullet trains.

The Legislature established the California High-Speed Rail Authority in 1996 and gave it the tough job of planning, designing, building, and running the system.

Some consider that a mistake because the agency lacked experience managing so big a project and navigating complex bureaucracy. Even some rail supporters concede it would have been better to let the authority provide oversight and leave the heavy lifting to the state Department of Transportation, or CalTrans.

“It’s building a lot of overpasses and right-of-way, which Caltrans does all the time,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the UC Berkeley climate program in its Center for Law, Energy and the Environment.

Without that experience, the authority’s 10 employees relied heavily on consultants like engineering firm WSP, running up expenses.

“We paid WSP and their predecessor more than $800 million in consulting fees,” said Lou Thompson. He chaired the High Speed Rail Peer Review Group, established in 2008 to provide project oversight, from 2012 until 2024. The authority has in recent years eased its reliance on consultants, who reportedly have gone from 70% of its workforce to 45% over the past seven years.

Funding and politics

Once the High-Speed Rail Authority set up shop, work proceeded in fits and starts. Even as it considered routes and started the myriad bureaucratic tasks the project required, political interest waxed and waned with the state’s fiscal health. Skeptics lamented the cost and questioned whether bullet trains would attract enough riders to be worthwhile. But rail advocates, environmentalists, unions, and others kept pushing forward and in 2008 convinced voters to approve Proposition 1A, securing $10 billion to finance construction.

It was never going to be enough — at the time, the cost was pegged at $45 billion, a figure that did not account for inflation — and funding has been a challenge from the start.

Still, the Obama administration saw an opportunity to show that the economy was bouncing back from the Great Recession. The federal American Reinvestment Recovery Act provided $3.5 billion to help get things started. The authority, which had already mapped a route through the Central Valley, soon began grading land, moving utilities, and taking other steps toward construction of the first leg, a 119-mile stretch from Bakersfield to Madera.

Things chugged along until 2013, when a state judge blocked the use of Prop 1A funds, ruling that some of the work did not meet the rules for bond expenditures.

With federal support contingent upon the state’s cash, the federal grants had to be renegotiated — before they expired in 2017.

“We were literally sitting there saying, ‘Well, if we don’t start going, we could lose $700 [million] or $800 million of the federal money,” said Dan Richard, who was the High-Speed Rail Authority’s board chair from 2011 until 2019.

That prompted the agency to do something no one wanted to do: Move forward without having acquired all of the necessary land. So it did.

Then President Donald Trump took office. He seemed interested in what California was attempting to build, having lamented that China and Japan “have fast trains all over the place” while the U.S. relies upon “obsolete technology.” His opinion soured when Gavin Newsom became governor in 2019 and the two sparred over the president’s policies. Trump later canceled nearly $1 billion in federal funds for the rail project.

The Biden administration restored it and provided another $3.1 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The infusion was to help build a station in Fresno and acquire trains for testing. Even with the windfall, California remained at least $7 billion short of what it needed for the first short run through the Central Valley. The situation grew worse in July when Trump rescinded the entire amount after the Federal Railroad Administration said it saw no way of covering that shortfall and no path to completion by 2033.

Newsom said the move “reeks of politics," and the state is suing. But the impact goes beyond California by establishing a precedent to cancel projects at will.

“How do you go to your voters and say, ‘Put up the money. We expect 50% federal share,’ without knowing that the next administration could turn around and say, ‘I don’t like that project,’” Richard said.

The High-Speed Rail Authority initially planned to rely upon state, federal, and private sector funding in equal measure, but California has provided 75% of the $14.6 billion spent so far. The authority wrote in a letter to the Railroad Administration that Newsom’s plan to allocate $1 billion, pulled from the state’s cap-and-trade program, toward the project each year for 20 years will be enough to finish the Central Valley segment. The governor also recently signed a bill requiring the authority to update its estimate on the funding gap for that leg of the journey.

With California seemingly on its own, Thompson said the project needs an income stream approaching $5 billion a year to build everything. That is one reason the authority in June asked the private sector and financial institutions to weigh in on the chance of public-private partnerships. Its chief executive, Ian Choudri, said private investors have shown “extreme interest.”

Thompson isn’t buying it.

“My opinion is that that is hot air,” he said. The way he sees it, no one’s going to invest until they can see that there is demand for the rail line.

Politics and permitting

One of the reasons Brightline is held up as an example of how to bring high-speed rail to the United States is its strategy includes building on public land. Part of its 235-mile line between Miami and Orlando stands on land owned by Florida East Coast Railway. The company’s planned run between Las Vegas and L.A. will largely follow Interstate 15.

California could have done the same and built along the 5 Freeway, which bisects the Central Valley, but chose to go through major population centers 20 to 50 miles to the east. That pivotal decision increased the project’s cost and complexity. Following the freeway would have been straighter and flatter, without the elevated track, tunnels, and other infrastructure needed to traverse cities. The route also turned a state effort into a regional development project beset by local politics.

The High-Speed Rail Authority had good intentions, however. It hopes that bringing rail to places like Merced and Bakersfield might entice Silicon Valley and Los Angeles firms to open offices in the Central Valley, which would be a 90-minute ride from their headquarters. It also would boost local economies left behind by the state’s boom — and it has, to some extent. The project has added 11,000 construction jobs to the region. But that exacted its own toll.

“Those economic benefits have been really substantial, so that sort of worked, but it came at potentially the cost of not being able to build the system at all, because by starting it in the Central Valley they’ve basically blown all the money there,” said Elkind of the UC Berkeley Climate Program.

Should the state once again ask voters for money, it would have had a stronger case if initial construction had occurred in major population centers, he said.

The route also created additional hurdles as the project navigated California’s environmental oversight rules. Going through several cities and all that farmland increased the number of stakeholders who had to be consulted, ballooning the environmental review process.

To be fair, the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, has long protected the state’s rich biodiversity. But some rail proponents argue it has been used to stymie progress. High-Speed Rail Authority data shows it has spent more than $765 million on environmental review. Lawsuits stemming from CEQA can be particularly expensive.

“If you have a $100 billion project, and let’s say that interest rates are 3% a year, every year’s delay costs you $3 billion,” Thompson said. “A $50,000 lawsuit can delay you for a year, and so there’s an enormous pressure on you to try to bargain your way out of these kinds of situations.”

California recently loosened CEQA requirements for the rail system’s maintenance facilities and stations, a move Newsom cheered.

“These are very targeted exemptions that will help cut red tape and deliver on California’s vision of high-speed rail without compromising environmental protections,” gubernatorial spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor wrote in an email.

Whether that reform has an impact remains to be seen, because most of the environmental review is already completed.

And regulation was never the project’s biggest problem.

“It just seems like the easy, obvious answer,” said Hana Creger, associate director of climate equity at the Greenlining Institute. “But I think these things are a lot more complex.”

Progress on high-speed rail

Given all of this, it can be easy to lose sight of what progress has been made. The authority is quick to note that 463 miles of the 494-mile system has cleared the environmental review process and is “construction ready.” It also boasts of having laid 70 miles of guideway — meaning track, elevated structures, or other riding surface — and erected 57 structures. All told, the project has created more than 15,500 jobs since its inception.

Despite the challenges, Newsom remains steadfast in his determination to see Californians one day riding the trains they were promised so many years ago. “I want to get it done,” he said in May. “That’s our commitment.”

That will surely resonate with his constituents; recent polling shows 62% of voters believe the state should continue financing the project, though opinions split sharply along partisan lines. Still, experts caution that support isn’t enough. Tangible progress and credible funding streams are essential to maintain momentum.

The High-Speed Rail Authority seems to understand this and is pressing ahead to connect Bakersfield to either Merced or Gilroy.

There’s a lot to do before crews start laying track, but the goal is to finish that run by 2032 and the authority recently opened the bidding process to begin installing track next year.

Looking further ahead, its latest plan, released late last month, calls for extending the line south to Palmdale by 2038, putting it within 80 miles of San Francisco and 40 miles of L.A. at a cost of $87 billion.

“While challenges remain, so too does the potential to deliver a modern transportation system worthy of the state’s ambitions — one that reflects the scale, complexity and promise of California itself,” Choudri wrote in the plan. “Let’s go build it.”

Assuming the project retains its $4 billion federal grants, the project has $29 billion available, with an additional $15 billion from Newsom’s proposal, according to the CHSRA. Thompson said the governor’s proposal, which would set aside $1 billion every year for the project, should keep it alive for the next four years.

Beyond that, it will need an infusion of cash, likely from voters but possibly from a future presidential administration.

“I think the path forward is that they could show some first segment success and then go back to the voters,” Elkind said. “You just got to get through this first era here, and get something built that they can show to the voters.”

Ultimately, California’s high-speed rail is more than a train line; it is a test of the nation’s ability to deliver transformative infrastructure. Its path forward remains uncertain, but every mile of track laid could lead to a turning point — not just for the state, but for the broader goal of building the kind of transportation network other countries take for granted.

The Trump administration has abandoned the legal defense of its campaign to strip federal funding from schools and colleges that promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The administration formally dropped its appeal Wednesday in a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, leaving in place an August ruling from U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland.

A coalition of groups, including the American Federation of Teachers, challenged a “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the U.S. Department of Education in February, which targeted practices the administration said “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’”

Gallagher said the federal government ran afoul of procedural requirements and violated the First Amendment with its letter, online portal to report discrimination, and other federal guidance.

“The government did not merely remind educators that discrimination is illegal,” Gallagher wrote in her August order, “it initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished.”

The latest legal development is “a victory for California students and families,” said Christopher Nellum, executive director of EdTrust-West, a nonprofit advocacy group that aims to dismantle racial and economic barriers in California’s education systems.

“The evidence is clear: diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies expand access and help close opportunity gaps,” Nellum said in a statement to EdSource. “Federal funding threats aimed at dismantling these efforts undermine public education and harm the students who need support most.”

Educators and advocates said that over the last year, the Trump administration’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives had a major effect on the landscape of both TK-12 schools and higher education, even in California.

“The damage has already been done across the nation and even in California, where people think we’re impervious to the conservative backlash or right-wing movement,” said Royel Johnson, who leads the Race and Equity Center’s National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates at USC.

Back in February, Johnson and other advocates for DEI policies said the federal government’s guidance was not law and warned institutions from overreacting to the February 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter. Johnson has seen schools cut funding or staff to departments and programs focused on underserved groups. Some institutions have also scrubbed references to race, ethnicity, the LGBTQ community, diversity or equity in favor of something more general like community, Johnson noted, including his own employer, USC.

Some educational institutions in California made subtle changes over the last year. EdSource found that California State University institutions scrubbed some diversity buzzwords from their programs and websites. At Stanislaus State, for instance, “diversity” was dropped from events once called the Presidential Diversity Celebration Series. At CSU Monterey Bay, the Office of Inclusive Excellence became the Office of Community and Belonging.

Johnson says something is lost when schools drop “identity safety clues” from spaces and organizations that serve as a beacon to students who “have a tough time seeing themselves on campus.”

Some institutions were undeterred by federal and political pressure. Johnson points to Sacramento State as an institution that “doubled down” on its commitment to Black students and was among three colleges designated a California Black-Serving Institution. The Los Angeles Unified School District put more money into its Black Student Achievement Plan, despite being sued by a conservative group that called the program discriminatory.

The latest development is a legal victory that establishes support for the values of equity and inclusion, said John Rogers, a professor at UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies. But he says the Trump administration’s tactics were successful in disrupting education over the last year.

“One of my concerns is that the strategy of the Trump administration is to disrupt and instigate a sense of conflict within local communities,” Rogers said.

He points to other actions taken by the Trump administration that have also been disruptive, such as canceling protections for schools against immigration enforcement or targeting policies that are aimed at supporting LGBTQ students, especially transgender students.

Johnson said that he hopes that schools and colleges can capitalize on this legal victory and stop self-censoring work under the banner of DEI that supports students and addresses the harms of the past. But he warns there will be more fights ahead.

“I hope folks can feel more emboldened today,” said Johnson. “It doesn’t mean more isn’t coming.”

Along busy streets in Long Beach’s Washington neighborhood, longtime resident Jesus Esparza says locals will consider just about anything to keep themselves safe from speeding drivers.

The latest idea: leaving reflective vests on the worst street corners so pedestrians can don them while crossing and leave them for the next passerby.

It’s a grassroots tactic that illustrates their frustration with Long Beach’s increasingly deadly streets. In 2025, the city recorded 53 fatal traffic collisions, a sharp increase from 2024 and the most in more than 10 years.

Long Beach has been striving for years to make its roads safer. In 2016, the City Council said it hoped to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2026. It was their version of a Vision Zero plan that many municipalities have adopted.

But in the ensuing decade, Esparza, who leads the local neighborhood association, says he’s seen little progress. He’s regularly passed along residents’ requests for traffic-calming measures — things like adding more lighting or delaying green lights so pedestrians get a head start in a crosswalk. But, he said, he’s yet to see any effective measures installed.

“We would always ask for speed bumps or speed tables,” Esparza said in Spanish, “but they don’t put them [on our streets.]”

Despite a rise in deadly crashes, a spokesperson for Long Beach’s Public Works Department, which manages streets, said the city is still confident in its strategy.

Its “core principles” include protecting pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists by slowing down drivers, Public Works spokesperson Jocelin Padilla wrote in an email. Those plans “remain unchanged.”

She said speeding is a primary factor in the city’s most serious crashes. Bad driver behavior, such as impairment and distraction, is also to blame.

Their greatest toll has been on people outside of cars. Last year, 32 people were killed while walking, biking or riding an e-scooter. That eclipses the number of people murdered here last year: 29.

Other residents have also pressed for faster action.

On another dangerous section of roadway along Orange Avenue, resident Kelsey Wise said she’s seen countless near misses. In response, she spent hours putting together a PowerPoint presentation to convince the city to install speed humps on Orange Avenue between Seventh Street and Hellman Avenue.

Wise estimated that roughly half of the drivers on her street travel above the posted 25 mph speed limit — a habit she finds increasingly troubling when teenagers from the nearby school zip through her neighborhood on electric scooters and e-bikes.

Last month, Wise presented the information to Councilmember Mary Zendejas’ office, who told her they would refer the presentation to Public Works. She’s yet to hear anything back.

“I think the system right now is designed to respond once something catastrophic happens, not when residents are signaling that something catastrophic is likely to happen,” Wise said.

Public Works told the Long Beach Post that seemingly simple fixes like the speed bumps Esparza and Wise asked for aren’t feasible. Its engineers prefer other “traffic calming treatments.” Speed humps slow down emergency response vehicles and the department has received “objections to noise” caused by drivers hitting them, Padilla wrote in an email.

Padilla said they instead favor “bulb outs” that extend curbs into the street at a crosswalk and “diverters” — islands that separate bicyclists from regular traffic and prevent cars from turning into neighborhoods or where it’s unsafe.

Over the past few years, the city has “made meaningful investments” to redesign major corridors with those principles in mind, Padilla wrote. Last May, Long Beach celebrated the completion of a $44.2 million project that installed protected bike lanes, new crosswalks and other traffic safety features on Artesia Boulevard.

On Tuesday, the City Council voted to approve reducing speed limits on dozens of streets.

Kurt Canfield, an organizer with local street safety group Car-Lite LB, said he was skeptical that speed limit reductions would slow down drivers unless it ramps up enforcement. Cops have been writing fewer speeding tickets since the pandemic.

The city has pivoted to relying on automated enforcement. Officials plan to install speed cameras at 18 locations throughout the city, but they’re not scheduled to be installed until the summer. They’ll then start issuing warnings to drivers until fines begin in the fall.

Canfield said he hopes last year’s high death toll will be an outlier.

“I think people are wanting to get back out and bike and walk, but as more people start doing that, now we have what essentially amounts to more targets to be victimized,” Canfield said.

The high death toll, he said, doesn’t mean the city’s approach is wrong, Canfield said.

“It just means that we need to try more, we need to continue building safer streets and changing behaviors because it does work,” he said.

It was short lived, but the wintry spell that graced Southern California is leaving the area. We're in for dry, sunnier weather this weekend and warmer weather early next week.

Today's highs will again be mostly in the mid-60s along the coast, topping out around 67 degrees in the valleys and Inland Empire.

Coachella Valley will see highs from 67 to 72 degrees. Meanwhile, in the Antelope Valley, cooler conditions will continue with highs from 54 to 64 degrees.

This weekend will be fairly windy across SoCal starting Saturday evening. The National Weather Service forecasts winds from 15 to 25 mph across L.A. County mountains and hills. Come Sunday, winds will be strongest in Inland Empire and inland Orange County, where gusts could range from 30 to 40 mph.

The Los Angeles City Council has approved plans to hire more police officers this year, ending a months-long struggle over the city budget with the mayor's office.

The vote this week will allow LAPD to hire 410 officers, up from the 240 included in the city's original budget for this fiscal year.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass had pushed for the additional hires, citing the coming World Cup and Olympic Games, while some councilmembers questioned where the money would come from.

In December, the City Council voted to allow for an additional 40 officers to be added to the force, using the city's general fund.

This week's vote got Bass the rest of the way there. It will bring LAPD's ranks to around 8,500 sworn officers. At its height in 2009, the police force had more than 10,000.

It's a victory for Bass' office, but she said in a statement that hiring still is not keeping up with attrition.

"Although this is an important step, there is more work to do to invest in the safety of Angelenos,” Bass said.

The council approved the additional hires only after City Administrative Officer Matthew Szabo found that the funds could come from the police department rather than the city's general fund.

In a report submitted to the council last week, Szabo identified around $3 million in funds from LAPD savings and a projected surplus in an account used to pay officers their accumulated overtime when they retire.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez called the move "robbing Peter to pay Paul." Councilmember Tim McOsker called it "robbing Peter to pay Peter." They both supported the motion.

But the funds identified by the city administrative officer will only cover the new hires this fiscal year. In his report, Szabo estimated that adding 170 more recruits to LAPD and resources in the personnel department to support them would cost around $25 million in the next fiscal year. He suggested his office could identify potential police department budget reductions or general fund revenues in next year's budget cycle to continue funding the new officers.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who heads the budget and finance committee, voted for the plan to add new hires. She said Wednesday that most councilmembers were supportive of increasing the ranks of sworn officers but expressed dissatisfaction with the process that led to this move.

"I would have preferred that this issue of these additional officers that weren't in the budget that was adopted and signed by the mayor was addressed in the next budget," Yaroslavsky said. "But that being said, here we are."

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez was not convinced. He told the council he thought the ongoing cost of additional hires likely would lead to cuts elsewhere.

"A budget is a document of our priorities," Soto-Martinez said. "And it just feels like every single time, LAPD gets what they want. Every single time. And the conversations that are not happening in the public is about how that affects other things that the city does."

He voted against the extra hires, along with councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado and Nithya Raman.

Soto-Martinez, who sits on the public safety committee, also said he wanted more transparency on police spending on costs like overtime. He said every quarter the city spends $50 million on police overtime.

Soto-Martinez and Raman introduced a motion instructing the city administrative officer and legislative analyst to transfer some LAPD auditing and accounting into a new bureau of police oversight within the city controller's office. That motion was referred to the personnel and hiring committee.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell pushed back against that idea Wednesday, saying it would take additional personnel away from the department.

"We're working on a skeleton crew," he said. "We're two years out from the Olympics, five months out from the World Cup, and we've got a deficit [of officers]."

The vote came after LAPD requested nearly $100 million in its proposed budget for next fiscal year for new vehicles and equipment to police the Olympic Games.