• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The California Conundrum: New, Costly High-Speed Rail vs. Massive Budget Deficit

    What do $16 billion and $68.4 billion have in common, other than the fact that each of these figures dwarfs JPMorgan Chase’s recent loss? The former is how deep in the red the California state budget sits currently. The latter is the latest in a series of roller-coasting cost estimates for the state’s controversial high-speed rail (HSR) project, which is funded in part by the federal government.

    Governor Jerry Brown (D) has been hard pressed to come up with a prescription to close California’s sizeable budget deficit. While pension reform and old-fashioned frugality may be what the doctor ordered, Governor Brown also wants to persuade Californians to stomach “temporary” tax increases to narrow the budget gap. If these tax hikes go into effect, California taxpayers of all income levels will see their pocketbooks shrink. Unfortunately, if the HSR project pans out, painful tax increases to pay for it could become the norm.

    The federal-state transit courtship ritual is by now a well-rehearsed dance. Washington’s alluring checkbook tempts states enough that they commit matching funds to projects they otherwise would not even dream of pursuing on their own. Take high-speed rail and other passenger rail projects—they are expensive to build and maintain, and states are faced with many other pressing infrastructure needs but limited resources to pay for them. So, “free” money from Washington seems too good to be true. Then come project delays and construction cost overruns. Federal grants also have strings attached, such as union wage requirements, which send costs skyward. Soon, the price tag of an HSR project is substantially more than what states signed up for.

    Once the HSR line is built, another pesky fact materializes: Actual rail ridership rates do not necessarily equal capacity estimates. Poor ridership translates into large funding gaps, and befuddled states then have trouble covering operating expenses, let alone capital costs. Taxpayers are on the hook subsidizing the rail line long after the federal money train has left the station.

    For example, passenger rail lines in Japan and the United Kingdom required significant government subsidies, which prompted these countries to begin privatizing the rail systems. In the United States, new Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio rejected federal funds for HSR projects once it became clear that HSR’s up-front costs and long-term financial liabilities far outweighed any potential benefits.

    A glaring flaw in the prevailing approach to transportation is that it is increasingly Washington-centered; bureaucrats make decisions about projects hundreds of miles away, in which they have little or no vested interest. This trend is based on the belief that Washington knows best, and therefore every cent of every transportation dollar must flow through Washington.

    By this logic, President Obama’s so-called livability proposals, such as building street cars and forcing high-density living arrangements, can be cast as a wise use of transportation dollars. In reality, such transportation technology is 19th century nostalgia wrapped in 21st century packaging. This approach also generates misleading incentives for states to commit limited resources to costly projects like HSR, which do not deliver on promises to mitigate road congestion and improve air quality. Instead, they threaten to stain state budget ledgers with unsightly amounts of red ink.

    Rather than hoarding transportation funds and keeping decision-making in Washington, Congress should give states more control over how to spend the transportation dollars their motorists pay in federal gas taxes. Doing so will pave the way for turning over responsibility for transportation to the states, who know their transportation priorities much better than Washington. With full devolution, states would no longer see funds diverted to transit and enhancement projects they may not find useful. Instead, they would be able to identify and meet their unique infrastructure needs efficiently and cost-effectively.

    When in a hole, sometimes it is hard to put the shovel down and quit digging. Governor Brown’s recent statement, “I am a buoyant optimist…We’re going to build high-speed rail,” is a case in point. If the Governor’s words ring true, the unfortunate California taxpayers will have to pay for a transit boondoggle they can ill afford. The only consolation will be that California serves as lesson for other states—in what not to do in budgeting and transportation.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to The California Conundrum: New, Costly High-Speed Rail vs. Massive Budget Deficit

    1. MD comments says:

      or…. HSR will serve as a lesson for other states that rail is faster, more efficient, safer, and more comfortable than crowded highways and airports

    2. California’s $22 Trillion Dollar High Speed Train.

      Just three years ago, November 2008, the California High Speed Rail Authority promised voters they would build a completed HSR train system from SF to LA, including lines to San Diego and Sacramento, for $33 billion, and that California would only be liable for $9 billion in bonds, the rest coming from Feds and private investors. But, in November 2011, CAHSRA’s new business plan estimates $98.5 – 118 billion to build, not including SD or Sacramento. That is a 150% cost increase in three years. If that same 150% increase occurs every three years, from now until 2032 (the revised completion date) then HSR will ultimately cost: $100, $243, $497 (billion), $1.47, $3.62, $8.92, $21.96 Trillion dollars. Yes, it’s ridiculous to expect 150% increases every three years, but it’s also ridiculous to take needed books and school supplies, art classes, music programs, etc. from K-12 children in exchange for an out of control HSR spending boondoggle. Democrats must kill the Train now.

    3. Blaine Peterson says:

      Strange how the opponents to HSR don't discuss the alternatives. The costs associated with expanding current highways and airports are estimated to be higher than the costs to construct a HSR to complement the mass transportation network. A bigger burden for the tax payer. And while the opponents talk about "operating subsidies" to keep HSR lines moving, not a single one addresses the concern related to maintenance and operation of existing roads and airports; while HSR promises to recover a majority of its Operations and Maintenance costs through user farebox return, neither of the existing options promise one red cent! Perhaps, contrary to common perception, the development of a HSR system should be pursued when money is tight and as the least cost option to an already overburdened taxpayer!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×