California
California’s High-Speed Rail Deserves to Be Canceled | Mint
(Bloomberg Opinion) — If President Donald Trump follows through on his recent threats to cut off federal funding for California’s long-troubled high-speed rail project, it would be better for all concerned: For all intents and purposes, this thing went off the rails (sorry) a long time ago.
Escalating costs have made it clear that no money was or ever would be available to realize the vision of a modern bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. What’s under construction is a segment through California’s Central Valley, where costs are cheap compared to other parts of the system but which offers almost no economic value. The whole thing has become a zombie project that nobody with clout in state politics can either rescue or kill. A hated outsider officially ending it would let the state’s Democrats complain while also allowing them to acknowledge the reality that it’s not going to happen.
The tragedy is that the basic concept of high-speed rail for California makes a lot of sense.
Los Angeles and San Francisco are two large metropolitan areas that are about as far apart as Rome and Milan (about 380 miles). Trains between those two Italian cities have a 68% market share relative to airplanes, and the competition puts downward pressure on airfares. At this kind of distance, many passengers prefer the comfort of a train to the speed of a plane, and the convenience of train stations to airports. A train could also provide frequent service to intermediary locations such as Bakersfield, Modesto and Fresno — cities that in the aggregate have a large population, but by themselves aren’t large enough to support a lot of flights to LAX or SFO. And finally, once the core HSR line was built, spurs to San Jose and Sacramento, and an extension to San Diego, would be relatively straightforward.
These are all real benefits. But they depend on connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco with a train that is both fast and cost-effective to build.
The failure to achieve this has become a legendary case study in progressive excess, but the original sin was committed by a Republican — Michael Antonovich, then a member of the LA County Board of Supervisors — in 1999. Planners wanted the train to head north from Los Angeles along the route of Interstate 5, but Antonovich successfully pushed to detour the train through his district. That made the project more expensive and increased travel time.
Unfortunately, this set the template for almost every subsequent decision around the project. To build a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco in a cost-effective way, it is important to prioritize making the train go quickly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. There may be tradeoffs between expense and speed. But it should never cost more to make the train slower. Yet it happened again with another major decision to get from the Central Valley to San Francisco via the Pacheco Pass rather than the more northerly Altamont Pass.
There are many more details, complexities and decisions that went into this fiasco, but the basic story is pretty simple: They couldn’t build a cost-effective fast train between Los Angeles and San Franciso because they kept making choices that deprioritized that goal. It is of course understandable that elected officials who represent places other than LA or San Francisco would have other priorities. But regularly deferring to the wishes of those who weren’t aligned with the core goal of the project undermined it.
The way to do these things is to avoid precommitments. California should have invested a modest amount of money for a cost-effective proposal, and then asked the legislature to support it. If it said yes, great. If it said no, fine. Either way, you wouldn’t end up with a bottomless money pit — and no train.
A new high-speed rail proposal for the East Coast, from the Transit Costs Project at New York University, shows what sound planning looks like. Rather than copying Amtrak’s official proposal — which starts by asking every stakeholder what they want, then rolls it into an impossible $117 billion plan — the NYU study looks for the cheapest way to send trains from Washington to Boston in just under four hours. Its plan involves modest amounts of new construction and significant changes to commuter rail operations. But the whole thing comes in at about $17 billion, which is a very modest cost for a program with large benefits given New York’s constrained airspace, and leaves most train commuters better off.
Yes, some existing riders would lose out, as would some Amtrak customers in less populated cities. The politics of making this plan a reality aren’t simple. But the upside — especially to “in between” cities such as Baltimore, Providence and Philadelphia — would be huge. It’s an idea creative politicians should take up.
More important, politicians throughout the country should pay attention to the enormous price gap between the “do it as cheaply as possible” plan and the “accommodate as many as possible” plan, because the basic point is applicable to all kinds of infrastructure projects in all kinds of places: If something is worth doing, it needs to be made a priority. If it’s not important enough to be prioritized over other considerations, better to give up and do something else instead. Otherwise, like California’s politicians, they may be left with not much more than a lot of wasted time and money.
Elsewhere in Bloomberg Opinion:
For more, subscribe to our newsletter.
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Matthew Yglesias is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A co-founder of and former columnist for Vox, he writes the Slow Boring blog and newsletter. He is author of “One Billion Americans.”
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
A 40-year-old Los Angeles man was charged with murder after allegedly killing his girlfriend and kidnapping their young child before fleeing to Mexico, according to authorities.
Ruben Fregosojuarez has been charged one count of murder and one misdemeanor count of child abuse under circumstance or conditions other than great bodily injury or death, according to a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office news release. Authorities first identified him as Ruben Fregoso but Los Angeles County prosecutors listed him as Ruben Fregosojuarez.
On Monday around 12:39 p.m., the Los Angeles Police Department conducted a welfare check in the 2600 block of South Alsace Avenue in West Adams, police said in a news release.
Officers found a woman dead inside the home “as a result of violence” and the woman’s daughter missing, police said. On Monday night, the California Highway Patrol issued an Amber Alert for the child, Daleza.
Photos obtained by NBC4 appear to show Fregosojuarez in a parking garage in San Ysidro with the girl on Sunday. The California Highway Patrol has listed her age as 4 years old but Los Angeles police say the girl is 5. She is also described as the suspect’s daughter.
The alert said that the girl was last seen with Fregosojuarez, who allegedly abducted her in a 2019 Land Rover Discovery, on Sunday at about 4 a.m.
The CHP posted in an update that the vehicle was found but that the child and man were still missing. The girl is described as 3 feet tall, 45 pounds, and having black hair and brown eyes.
California’s attorney general is suing the consumer genetics testing company formerly known as 23andMe, alleging the company failed to protect customers’ sensitive personal information in a massive 2023 data breach that exposed the ancestry and genetic data of nearly 7 million people.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit on Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against Chrome Holding Co., formerly known as 23andMe, accusing the company of failing to properly investigate or respond to numerous warnings that its systems had been compromised. The company’s mail-in self-testing kits became synonymous with DNA testing before it filed for bankruptcy in 2025.
In 2023, cybercriminals breached 23andMe’s systems by using a “credential-stuffing attack,” which involves bombarding online accounts with huge sets of user names and passwords stolen in previous unrelated attacks. Over a period of months, the intruders were able to make off with the personal data of more than 6.9 million people.
“23andMe’s security measures were so lax that the threat actor was able to operate undetected within 23andMe’s systems for over five months, and remarkably, 23andMe only began investigating after the threat actor offered the stolen user data for sale on the dark web and reached out to 23andMe to demand a ransom,” Bonta’s office said in the complaint.
The San Francisco-based company, which allowed people to submit genetic materials and get a snapshot of their ancestry, revealed in October 2023 that hackers had accessed customer information in the prolonged data breach that targeted customers with Chinese or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The stolen data of more than 1 million Asian-Pacific Islander and Ashkenazi Jewish users was later posted for sale on the dark web.
“The sale of this data on the dark web took place amidst a period of mounting anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander and antisemitic hate and violence,” Bonta said in a press release. “This is disturbing and incredibly dangerous.”
A January 2024 lawsuit accused the company of not doing enough to protect its customers and not notifying certain customers that their data had been targeted specifically. It later settled the lawsuit for $30 million.
23andMe representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
At its peak, 23andMe became the best-known name in the emerging area of DNA self-testing, with users paying upwards of $99 for kits that gave them insights into their genetic makeup, potential relatives and ancestry. But the company’s momentum slowed down in recent years after its $3.5 billion public offering in 2021.
Last July, TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit led by Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe’s cofounder and former CEO, acquired 23andMe’s assets for $305 million.
Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, signed legislation Wednesday that aims to shield California elections from federal interference, saying he expected Donald Trump’s administration to try to meddle in the midterms this year.
The law, which took effect immediately and came days before next Tuesday’s primary, prohibits any person – including federal agents – from accessing voter rolls or election technology without a court order. Law enforcement officers are restricted from disrupting election workers, except in public safety emergencies.
Trump administration officials so far have said they have no plans to send immigration agents to polling locations across the US, a concern raised this year by several Democratic secretaries of state. But Newsom warned “we have to be prepared for everything” because “there’s no rules any more with the Trump administration”.
Voting is already under way in California’s closely watched primary for governor, where a crowded field of Democrats and two viable Republicans are vying for just two spots on the November ballot. Under the state’s open primary system, only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Newsom, who cannot seek a third term, said the election law is a response to “legitimate anxiety” about Trump’s tactics, primarily in Democratic-led states, where the president has deployed federal agents over the objections of local leaders. The Democratic governor warned against underestimating someone who “doesn’t believe in free and fair elections”.
“I expect the worst with Trump because he’s done the worst,” he said at a news conference.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told the Associated Press later Wednesday that Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections.
“Instead of levying false attacks at the President, Newscum should look in the mirror,” she said in a statement, using Trump’s derogatory nickname for Newsom.
In an interview last year with Vanity Fair, Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, knocked down the idea that Trump would deploy the military to suppress voting, saying it was “categorically false”.
The California law also makes it a crime to knowingly take voted ballots out of the custody of election officials.
Earlier this year, the FBI under Trump seized the 2020 general election ballots from Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and has long been at the center of the president’s false claims that fraud cost him the race. The FBI and justice department also have sought records from previous elections in the largest counties in Arizona and Michigan.
Trump triggered a national redistricting frenzy ahead of the midterms when he urged Republicans in Texas and elsewhere to redraw their US House districts to help the party retain control of the closely divided chamber. Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee also have enacted new maps that could benefit Republicans, and Louisiana is expected to be next.
Republicans so far think they could gain as many as 14 seats from redistricting in November, while Democrats think they could gain six in California and Utah.
-
News2 minutes agoJudge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire
-
Politics8 minutes agoVideo: Trump’s Counterterror Strategy Focuses on the Left
-
Science20 minutes agoVideo: Crowds Flood New York City Streets for First Day of Manhattanhenge
-
Lifestyle44 minutes agoTrump’s name must come off of the Kennedy Center, judge rules
-
Technology56 minutes agoAcer’s launching a Linux handheld for streaming your PC games
-
World1 hour agoPentagon hosts first-ever Israeli–Lebanese military talks aimed at curbing Hezbollah
-
Politics1 hour agoFederal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it
-
Health1 hour agoSingle infusion of controversial drug changed severe depression symptoms within hours, study finds
