California High Speed Rail Is Not The Way Forward

A high-speed train in Taiwan that is similar to the fleet of vehicles planned for California’s high-speed rail.

For years, progressives and environmentalists have understandably promoted California’s massive $40 billion high-speed rail proposal as the most transformative transportation development in America and a long-overdue project that will help to reduce the disparity between the United States and other developed countries in terms of miles of high-speed track. While California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) would undoubtedly increase the prestige value and aesthetics of the US rail network, many of the assumptions that the project’s proponents make overlook larger structural problems. 

One of the primary benefits of CAHSR is its ability to run fast service without emitting gases through fuel burn. Those environmental benefits are evidently achievable, but those optimistic predictions fail to consider the carbon intensity of what could be endless construction. The project is designed to run on fully renewable energy sources for the electricity generation, leveraging existing technologies in solar and wind energy, but the construction of high-speed rail is extremely carbon-intensive, with upwards of 10 million metric tons required for construction. For reference, using the broad estimate range of the project, removing 0.6 to three million metric tons of CO₂ per year, it could take 15 years of operation to become carbon neutral. Moreover, by the time trains finally pull out of stations, which could be decades away, high-speed rail could be replacing trips that produce minimal greenhouse gas emissions anyway if our electricity indeed comes from renewable sources. The same logic applies to air travel, where airlines are deploying more fuel-efficient planes and potentially transitioning to biofuels. While controversial, California’s car-centric culture allows for ease of access to major roadways and multitudes of trip possibilities; in turn, cleaner cars might allow for easier and more accessible trips for most of the population. All told, until we consider the carbon cost of inputs, we risk gaslighting ourselves about the net environmental impact while yielding minimal positive environmental results. 

My primary point of concern with the construction of CAHSR is the potential exacerbation of economic inequality within one of the most economically segregated states in the country. California already has some of the highest housing costs in the US, as well as some of the highest salaries among residents of its major cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Francisco. Confirmed insights on high-speed rail fares are limited, but estimates for the privately-operated Las Vegas to Los Angeles line range between $119 and $133 per person—fares that often exceed the lowest prices offered by budget airlines on the same route. The air routes between Southern California and Northern California are among the most well-used in the nation, with a November 2023 article noting the approximate 132 daily flights between these areas. 

For working families—who comprise 76% of the state’s population—these excessively high fares are an alarming problem. Trips on high-speed rail are generally more accessible and useful to those traveling between California’s major urban centers, a population that typically skews more affluent. While the proposed line makes several stops in the lower-income, majority-Hispanic Central Valley, these high fares make access effectively non-existent. The reality is that high-speed rail, marketed as a democratic transportation solution, risks becoming another amenity primarily accessible to California's professional class while bypassing the needs of lower-income residents who require affordable transportation options the most.

A larger concern surrounding the construction of the line is topographic barriers potentially posing insurmountable environmental harm. As proposed, the project must navigate through either Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass to reach the San Francisco Bay Area and merge with existing electrified tracks in San Jose. Current plans call for a tunnel through the mountains, with an addendum that these tunnels could drain already scarce water and electric resources from nearby communities. Furthermore, California’s potential inability to procure and deliver on said ambitious mountain crossings is likely to push the already ballooning budget to unsustainable levels. 

The uncomfortable truth is that CAHSR, despite its environmentalist branding and forward-looking rhetoric, may ultimately serve to deepen rather than bridge the state's economic divides. The project no doubt accelerates trips for many who travel between major urban centers in the state—there is absolutely demand to travel between Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco at high speed. That said, with the project costing, at a minimum, $40 billion and the potential for cost increases up to an estimated $128 billion, the benefits do not stack up with the enormous cost to state residents. With sunk construction costs lasting decades, fares rivaling or exceeding budget airline tickets, and the state’s nation-leading poverty rate being the highest in the nation, we must seriously question whether this multibillion-dollar investment represents the best use of limited public resources. 

Perhaps the conversation we should be having isn't about high-speed rail at all, but about transportation solutions that actually serve all Californians, not just those who can afford premium transit options. 

Image Credit

sanbeiji, CC BY-SA 2.0, via OpenVerse