Newsom’s high-speed rail humiliation deepens as transport chief admits blunders and $126 billion price tag — unfinished pillars mocked as “Stonehenge”
California’s high-speed rail, approved in 2008 to link San Francisco and Los Angeles, has ballooned to an estimated $126 billion with no trains operating; officials now focus on a Merced–Bakersfield segment amid funding shortfalls and mounting political backlash.
Key takeaways
- Price tag: The full San Francisco–Los Angeles system is now estimated at roughly $126 billion, up from the $33 billion figure in 2008.
- Scope narrowed: Officials are concentrating on a 171-mile Merced–Bakersfield segment with an earliest projected opening of 2033.
- Funding gap: Roughly $90 billion remains unfunded; about $15 billion has already been spent with no trains in service.
- Federal pullback: Federal grants of roughly $4 billion–$4.2 billion were rescinded in 2025 amid missed deadlines and legal fights.
Main content
Sacramento, California (Times Media Service) — California’s ambitious high-speed rail project, approved in 2008 to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, has spiraled into an estimated $126 billion boondoggle with no tracks laid after nearly two decades. Critics decry it as “government waste”, nicknaming unfinished Central Valley structures “Stonehenge.”
From big promise to central-valley focus
Voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008 under a promise of a sub-three-hour train between San Francisco and Los Angeles for about $33 billion. That vision helped carry the ballot measure. Two decades later, that promise has been dramatically reduced; officials now say the practical route forward is a 171-mile Merced-to-Bakersfield line through the Central Valley, scaled back from the initial statewide system. Sources include YouTube and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Cost overruns and missing pieces
The projected price to finish the full system has swelled to roughly $126 billion, dwarfing the 2008 estimate. A recent Senate Commerce review highlighted that this figure even exceeds the total federal funding Amtrak has received since 1971. The shortfall to reach that target is about $90 billion, leaving officials to promise they will find the cash. (See Senate Commerce.)
Despite roughly $15 billion spent over many years, there are no operational trains and significant construction is limited to concrete guideway segments in the Central Valley. In cities such as Fresno, concrete pillars and half-built structures stand out on the landscape and are often mocked as a “modern-day Stonehenge.” (CalMatters.)
Official admissions and internal missteps
“I don’t think the voters fully understood and neither did we what it was gonna take to actually get this project delivered,” California Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin said, calling criticism “very fair.” (YouTube.)
Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged in 2019 the original statewide route lacked a clear path, calling the project “years and years behind” and “wildly over budget.” His administration shifted focus to the Central Valley to salvage a portion that could be built and funded more reasonably. (See the U.S. Department of Transportation op-ed.)
Political backlash and mockery
Republicans and some watchdogs have used the stalled work as a symbol of “California government waste.” Rep. Vince Fong described the project as a “complete bait and switch,” arguing the public received neither the trains nor the tracks promised. Senate critics pointed to years of federal subsidies and limited results in committee materials. (Senate Commerce.)
Local residents in Fresno and other Central Valley communities have branded exposed columns and empty worksites “Stonehenge”, a nickname that has stuck as shorthand for visible, unfinished work many feel was imposed without clear benefit. (CalMatters.)
Federal funding cut and legal fights
In 2025 federal officials moved to rescind roughly $4 billion–$4.2 billion in grant money, citing missed deadlines and an inability to demonstrate a realistic path to completion. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy called the stalled work a “humiliating emblem of government waste” and likened the halted funding to refusing to invest in “a train to nowhere.” (See the U.S. Department of Transportation.)
California sued in response but later withdrew the lawsuit, with state officials calling the federal government “not a reliable, constructive, or trustworthy partner.” (YouTube.)
Transparency battles and investigations
The project has faced scrutiny over transparency. In 2026 the Newsom administration backed a bill that would exempt some inspector general records from public disclosure; critics warned the move would create a “veil of secrecy” around a multibillion-dollar public program. Reporters, Republican lawmakers and oversight groups argued full public access is essential. (See CalMatters and CapRadio.)
Separately, the High-Speed Rail Authority’s CEO faced an investigation after an arrest, a matter Gov. Newsom confirmed was under review, adding to concerns about oversight and procurement practices. (YouTube.)
Why the Central Valley matters — and why critics care
Project leaders argue the Central Valley segment is the most feasible near-term option: the Merced-to-Bakersfield corridor could serve as a backbone for future expansion and prove the system’s value. Critics counter that a Central Valley-only approach leaves the promise of a state-spanning system empty, pointing to the stark rise in the estimated price tag, decades of delay, and visible, unused infrastructure as evidence of mismanagement. (YouTube; Senate Commerce.)
Implications for San Diego, California
Economic impact: San Diego stands to see limited direct benefit from a Merced–Bakersfield line. The originally promised SF–LA link would have connected Southern California to the Bay Area and created travel options to ease airport congestion and shift travel patterns. With the project scaled back, local businesses and transit planners may lose potential riders and regional development opportunities tied to a statewide high-speed network. (Senate Commerce; U.S. Department of Transportation.)
Political consequences: The project’s visibility as a perceived example of California government waste could influence voter sentiment in San Diego ahead of local and state elections. Moderates who favor pragmatic infrastructure investments may be skeptical of multi-decade projects that lack realistic funding and delivery plans. Local politicians may face pressure for greater transparency or to prioritize immediate transportation needs like transit upgrades, road repairs and regional rail links that directly affect San Diego commuters. (CalMatters; CapRadio.)
Social effects and regional mobility: For San Diegans, the scaled-back project means fewer long-distance rail options that could be affordable or convenient. The Central Valley focus does little to improve daily commuting or Southern California regional transit. If state resources are diverted to cover cost overruns or plug the $90 billion gap, funding for local transit projects could be constrained. (U.S. Department of Transportation; Senate Commerce.)
Practical applications: Local leaders and planners in San Diego should watch how Sacramento handles transparency, funding, and inspector-general access. If the state tightens public access while seeking more money, local officials and taxpayers may demand stricter oversight of future statewide projects. San Diego transit agencies may accelerate near-term improvements that directly affect riders rather than banking on a statewide high-speed rail network. (CalMatters; CapRadio.)
Reporting notes and sources
This story draws on public statements, federal reviews and local reporting, including:
- YouTube reporting and interviews with California officials
- YouTube reporting (CEO investigation coverage)
- U.S. Department of Transportation op-ed and briefings
- Senate Commerce Committee review and materials
- CalMatters reporting on public records and local reaction
- CapRadio coverage on the public-records bill
End of article
