Newsom’s high-speed rail humiliation deepens as top aide admits mistakes and $126 billion price tag leaves project dubbed “Stonehenge”
California’s high-speed rail, once sold as a $33 billion Los Angeles–San Francisco lifeline, now carries a roughly $126 billion estimate and limited track in the Central Valley, prompting critics to call it a costly, stalled monument to failed planning.
- Big cost escalation: The full-system estimate has risen from the voter-supported $33 billion to roughly $126 billion, creating an estimated funding gap near $90 billion.
- Limited construction: Visible work is confined to a Central Valley starter segment; no continuous LA–San Francisco route exists and the earliest full opening is now projected for 2033.
- Political fallout: Officials, including Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin, have admitted mistakes while critics call the program a waste and point to federal grant withdrawals.
Background and timeline
Voters approved funding for the rail in 2008 with big promises — a sub-three-hour trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco and a total project cost roughly $33 billion. That was the pitch behind Proposition 1A, which authorized nearly $10 billion in state bonds.
Nearly two decades later, the project has been scaled back. Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019 acknowledged the original plan was not realistic when he said, “Right now, there simply isn’t a path from San Francisco to LA,” and shifted focus to a Central Valley starter segment.
As of 2026 the only stretch with noticeable work runs between Bakersfield and Merced — roughly 171 miles. Federal reviewers and officials say the earliest full opening is now 2033, a projection many find doubtful.
Escalating costs and the funding gap
Cost estimates have ballooned from the $33 billion voters were told to about $126 billion for the full system. That dramatic increase leaves a roughly $90 billion funding gap. Officials insist they can bridge that gap but admit full funding is not in hand.
“The entire amount not there today. But do we believe we can get those funds to get the– the project done? Absolutely,” said California Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin, conceding mistakes and acknowledging criticism.
Republican critics point to federal funding decisions as evidence the project can’t deliver. The Trump administration canceled more than $4 billion in grants, and in 2025 another $4.2 billion was terminated after federal reviewers found the 2033 timeline unlikely. Critics note past federal awards total about $6.8 billion with little to show.
A striking comparison cited by critics: the $126 billion estimate exceeds the total federal funding Amtrak has received since 1971, a point used to underscore spending concerns.
Political fallout and admissions
“It was a complete bait and switch,” Rep. Vince Fong said, arguing the state sold voters a promise it did not deliver. The project has become a political flashpoint and a tool for federal critics.
Inside state government, tone has shifted from boosterism to damage control. Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin told reporters that mistakes had been made and that some criticism was “very fair.”
Former Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called the effort a “humiliating emblem of government waste,” arguing the project failed to produce trains after billions in federal and state money.
Controversies, probes and transparency concerns
The rail authority has faced scrutiny beyond its budget and schedule. Leadership and executives have been subject to state probes, including an investigation linked to former CEO Ian Crabtree’s arrest, a matter Gov. Newsom said the state is watching closely.
Transparency issues have also sparked pushback. In 2026 lawmakers considered a bill that would narrow public access to some inspector general records for the rail authority — coverage by CalMatters documented the debate, and Capital Public Radio reported critics warned it could create a “veil of secrecy.”
Visible signs: Fresno’s “Stonehenge”
Where work is visible, the result has been a mix of concrete supports and unfinished structures. In Fresno, residents mock the rising concrete pillars as “Stonehenge” — a visible reminder of promises that remain unmet. The nickname reflects frustration that years of spending produced tall columns instead of a functioning system.
Video and reporting showing pillars and unfinished work underscore the point: isolated columns do not equal an operational corridor. See reporting and footage from recent video coverage and analysis in the California Globe.
Funding drama in Washington
Federal funding has been volatile. The federal government withdrew key grants after reviews found the state lacked a realistic plan to meet deadlines. Opponents point to those withdrawals and other federal decisions as proof the project cannot be relied on to use taxpayer funds effectively.
Officials, including Omishakin, insist the state can still find money and complete at least parts of the system, but acknowledge the entire amount is not available today and that the path forward requires new federal, state, and private commitments.
Implications for the Inland Empire
Economic impact: The Inland Empire — already home to major freight and logistics operations — was expected to gain from passenger links to Los Angeles and Northern California. A finished high-speed line could have eased congestion and attracted business, but current delays and cost overruns make that payoff uncertain (reported analysis).
Political consequences: The rail saga affects California politics statewide and regionally. Voters and local officials may demand greater oversight and clearer cost-benefit analyses before committing funds (federal critics note past spending).
Practical effects: For now, commuters in the Inland Empire should not expect new high-speed service. Planners may instead prioritize upgrades to existing corridors, bus rapid transit, and road improvements to deliver near-term benefits.
Practical applications and next steps
State and regional leaders face choices: continue pursuing the full corridor with uncertain funding, scale back ambitions and commit to incremental work, or reallocate focus and funds to more immediate transportation improvements. Any path will require clearer budgets, timelines, and oversight to rebuild public trust.
“The entire amount not there today. But do we believe we can get those funds to get the– the project done? Absolutely.” — Toks Omishakin
Sources and further reading
- Californiaglobe: California’s high-speed swindle
- U.S. Department of Transportation op-ed and briefing materials
- U.S. Senate Commerce Committee press release
- YouTube reporting and interviews (2026 overview)
- Report on rail executive probe (video)
- CalMatters coverage of transparency bill
- Capital Public Radio: Critics on records secrecy
Report: Times Media Service — Sacramento, California.
