California
California high-speed rail federal funding targeted by House Republican
A Republican lawmaker has set his sights on federal funding for California’s high-speed rail, driven by the ambitious initiative’s escalating costs and significant delays.
On Wednesday, California Representative Kevin Kiley announced that he would be proposing a bill to halt federal funding for the “failed California High-Speed Rail Project.”
“California’s high-speed rail project has failed because of political ineptitude, and there is no plausible scenario where the cost to federal or state taxpayers can be justified,” Kiley said on Wednesday. “Our share of federal transportation funding should go towards real infrastructure needs, such as improving roads that rank among the worst in the country.”
Newsweek reached out to the California High-Speed Rail Authority via phone and email for comment.
When contacted for comment, Kiley’s office said that the bill would be introduced at the beginning of the 119th Congress, set to commence on January 3.
Kiley’s office added that the bill aims to terminate the project entirely, after which proposals will be introduced advocating for federal funding to be directed toward California’s roads and existing infrastructure.
While Kiley’s bill will need to go through the customary legislative procedures of House, Senate and Executive approval before becoming law, it is only the latest example of opposition to the ballooning costs and minimal returns associated with the massive infrastructure project.
Angelina Katsanis/POLITICO via AP Images
What is California’s high-speed rail project?
The project, funding for which was first authorized in 2008, is a planned high-speed rail route connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, with second-phase plans incorporating routes to San Diego and Sacramento.
It was initially expected to be operational by 2020. However, in its 2024 business plan, the California High-Speed Rail Authority set a target to launch service in the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) connecting Merced and Bakersfield between 2030 and 2033.
The purpose of the project, which would be the United States’ first high-speed rail network, is to create an efficient and environmentally friendly transportation system, reducing traffic congestion, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and offering Californians an alternative to air and car travel.
“California’s high-speed rail project plays an important role as part of the broader climate solution in our state,” the California State Transportation Agency has said. “It will provide the backbone of our statewide rail service that will increase connectivity between communities, statewide, regional and urban areas.”
Funding for the project comes from the state and federal level, $3.1 billion of which was recently allocated as part of the Biden Administration’s 2023 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Why is the project facing pushback?
The project has been heavily criticized for escalating costs and numerous setbacks in its construction. Opponents argue that state and federal funds would be better spent on alternative transportation projects to connect Californians.
The project was initially expected to cost taxpayers $33 billion. As of February, however, the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimates that completing the route will cost between $89 and $128 billion. It justified this figure by stating that constructing “equivalent highway and air passenger capacity” would require between $179 to $253 billion in funds.
In recent remarks on the House floor, Kiley called the project “perhaps the single greatest example of government waste in United States history.”
In the Wednesday announcement, Kiley cited recent criticisms of the project from the Department of Government Efficiency, the new advisory body announced by President-elect Donald Trump. Led by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the unofficial department has been tasked with devising strategies to curb excessive federal spending and eliminate unnecessary government regulations.
“This is a wasteful vanity project, burning billions in taxpayer cash, with little prospect for completion in the next decade,” Ramaswamy wrote of the California project in late November.
Kiley, who also sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has instead advocated for federal funds to go “towards real infrastructure needs” of Californians, such as improvements to existing roads.
Do you have a story we should be covering? Do you have any questions about this article? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
California
California wants Verizon to compromise more on DEI
California
California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) As the race for California’s next governor intensifies, uncertainty looms with the primary election just six months away.
A recent Emerson College poll shows Republican Chad Bianco leading by a narrow margin of one point, while 31% of voters remain undecided.
“The field remains wide open,” said Tal Eslick, owner of Vista Consulting. “There’s a half dozen credible Democrats in the race. There’s really a couple – two – namely Republicans.”
Eslick noted that Bianco’s lead is more reflective of the crowded Democratic field than a shift toward Republicans statewide.
California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises (Photo: AdobeStock)
He suggested a “black horse candidate” could still emerge, possibly from Hollywood or outside politics.
With rising energy and gas prices, affordability is expected to be a key issue for voters.
California governor race heats up with uncertainty and potential surprises (AP Photo/Juliana Yamada, File)
“I think that you could also see voters vote with their pockets,” Eslick said, highlighting the potential for a non-traditional candidate to gain traction.
California
California threatens Tesla with 30-day suspension of sales license for deceptive self-driving claims
SAN FRANCISCO — California regulators are threatening to suspend Tesla’s license to sell its electric cars in the state early next year unless the automaker tones down its marketing tactics for its self-driving features after a judge concluded the Elon Musk-led company has been misleading consumers about the technology’s capabilities.
The potential 30-day blackout of Tesla’s California sales is the primary punishment being recommended to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles in a decision released late Tuesday. The ruling by Administrative Law Judge Juliet Cox determined that Tesla had for years engaged in deceptive marketing practices by using the terms “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” to promote the autonomous technology available in many of its cars.
After presiding over five days of hearings held in Oakland, California in July, Cox also recommended suspending Tesla’s license to manufacture cars at its plant in Fremont, California. But California regulators aren’t going to impose that part of the judge’s proposed penalty.
Tesla will have a 90-day window to make changes that more clearly convey the limits of its self-driving technology to avoid having its California sales license suspended. After California regulators filed its action against Tesla in 2023, the Austin, Texas, company already made one significant change by putting in wording that made it clear its Full Self-Driving package still required supervision by a human driver while it’s deployed.
“Tesla can take simple steps to pause this decision and permanently resolve this issue — steps autonomous vehicle companies and other automakers have been able to achieve,” said Steve Gordon, the director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The automaker has already been plagued by a global downturn in demand that began during a backlash to Musk’s high-profile role overseeing cuts in the U.S. government budget overseeing the Department of Government that President Donald Trump created in his administration. Increased competition and an older lineup of vehicles also weighed on Tesla sales, although the company did revamp its Model Y, the world’s bestselling vehicle, and unveil less-expensive versions of the Model Y and Model X.
Although Musk left Washington after a falling out with Trump, the fallout has continued to weigh on Tesla’s auto sales, which had decreased by 9% from 2024 through the first nine months of this year.
Despite the slump and the threatened sales suspension in California, Tesla’s stock price touched an all-time high $495.28 during Wednesday’s early trading before backtracking later to fall below $470. Despite that reversal, Tesla’s shares are still worth slightly more than they were before Musk’s ill-fated stint in the Trump administration — a “somewhat successful” assignment he recently said he wouldn’t take on again.
The performance of Tesla’s stock against the backdrop of eroding auto sales reflects the increasing emphasis that investors are placing on Musk’s efforts to develop artificial intelligence technology to implant into humanoid robots and a fleet of self-driving Teslas that will operate as robotaxis across the U.S.
Musk has been promising Tesla’s self-driving technology would fulfill his robotaxi vision for years without delivering on the promise, but the company finally began testing the concept in Austin earlier this year, albeit with a human supervisor in the car to take over if something went awry. Just a few days ago, Musk disclosed Tesla had started tests of its robotaxis without a safety monitor in the vehicle.
California regulators are far from the first critic to accuse Tesla of exaggerating the capabilities of its self-driving technology in a potentially dangerous manner. The company has steadfastly insisted that information contained in its vehicle’s owner’s manual on its website have made it clear that its self-driving technology still requires human supervision, even while releasing a 2020 video depicting one of its cars purportedly driving on its own. The video, cited as evidence against Tesla in the decision recommending a suspension of the company’s California sales license, remained on its website for nearly four years.
Tesla has been targeted in a variety of lawsuits alleging its mischaracterizations about self-driving technology have lulled humans into a false of security that have resulted in lethal accidents. The company has settled or prevailed in several cases, but earlier this year a Miami jury held Tesla partly responsible for a lethal crash in Florida that occurred while Autopilot was deployed and ordered the automaker to pay more than $240 million in damages.
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine2 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota4 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class