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 California bill would let insurers monitor customers’ driving data in exchange for discounted premiums.
Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, the author of AB 311, said the digital monitoring, known as telematics, rewards good driving and would improve safety. In real time, telematics technology would track data such as speed, location and how a vehicle is being driven.
“We have to slow people down,” McKinnor said. “That is the whole purpose for this bill, is driver safety.”
A voter-approved law from 1988, Prop 103, required insurance rates to be based mainly on driving record, miles driven and experience. It made California the only state in the country to prohibit telematics.
McKinnor believes the law is outdated. She argued that her bill would also help good drivers who pay higher rates because of where they live.
“Where I live definitely brings my insurance up,” McKinnor said. “If we both drive the same way, we’ll get charged the same way, instead of by our ZIP code.”
California’s Department of Insurance and consumer groups oppose the bill, citing privacy concerns.
“We can’t look behind the algorithm and see what weight it’s giving to different criteria, which is a big problem,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. “Auto insurance, otherwise, is transparent. This is why the Department of Insurance is opposed, because of the lack of transparency in the algorithm.”
The proposed savings in exchange for good driving might not be guaranteed. Telematics data from the Maryland Insurance Administration showed that 31% of drivers who opted into the program saw a drop in rates, 24% saw an increase and 45% saw no change to their premiums.
“This collects an awful lot of data about people, more than they know, and it’s like having Big Brother in your back seat,” Court said.
McKinnor insisted that drivers will not be forced to enroll in the program.
“It’s still opt-in in the other 49 states,” she said. “We’re not going to make this mandatory. It’ll be a per-volunteer situation.”
McKinnor’s bill passed through the legislature’s insurance committee. It’s expected to be presented to the full Senate in August.
Huntington Beach police are vowing to prevent a potential “takeover” event being promoted across social media that they believe could get out of control.
Police said they became aware of the event from a flyer online advertising an “end of summer beach bash” in the city.
“Dear ‘Beach Bash’ organizers…” police said in an Instagram post Thursday. “Thanks for the flyer. We’ve seen it too.”
They continued, “We have no intention of allowing that to happen here.”
No further details were provided about when the event was planned to take place or the exact location.
Police and the city of Huntington Beach said they’re working to prevent the event following similar events in Southern California that resulted in violence, vandalism and other criminal activity.
One chaotic event that was held in Newport Beach on the Fourth of July ended with more than 400 people being arrested, according to police. Some partygoers were seen fist fighting, while others allegedly vandalized property and local businesses, including a Pavilions grocery store.
Newport Beach police said social media posts drew a large influx of people to Newport Pier in a short amount of time, and the event got out of control.
Huntington Beach PD warned that anyone who organizes, promotes or participates in criminal activity associated with a takeover event may be arrested or prosecuted. Charges may include incitement to riot, vandalism, theft, assault, reckless driving, unlawful assembly, conspiracy or other applicable offenses.
They also warned that juveniles would not be exempt from punishment, and parents or guardians may also be liable for damages caused by their child’s actions.
The HBPD Special Investigations Bureau has already identified individuals believed to be involved in organizing and promoting the event, according to police.
If you have information regarding this event, you are urged to contact Huntington PD’s Special Investigations Bureau at 714-536-5991.
California
Popular California Fast-Casual Chain Mendocino Farms Opens 100th Location in Santa Barbara – edhat
Santa Barbara has become home to a milestone location for a popular sandwich and salad chain.
Mendocino Farms has officially opened its doors at La Cumbre Plaza, marking the company’s 100th location.
Located at 3851 State Street, the restaurant is Mendocino Farms’ first location in Santa Barbara.
Announcing its new store in a social media post, Mendocino Farms said the restaurant offers chef-curated sandwiches and fresh salads using seasonal ingredients.
“Whether you’re fueling your next adventure or settling in for a sunny lunch with friends, we can’t wait to be part of your community. Here’s to our next chapter, together!” the business wrote on Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
The restaurant features a custom mural by local artist DJ Javier, as shared by Mendocino Farms in an Instagram post.
The store opened on June 30 and marked its first day with a host of activities to celebrate its launch.
The opening day featured a live DJ, activities such as ‘Rodeo Riviera’, a hat bar, live sandwich-making sessions with the chefs, and a postcard station.
The location is open daily between 10:30 a.m. and 9 p.m., according to its website.
Diners can enjoy a special summer menu along with the regular options of sandwiches and salads that Mendocino Farms is known for.
View this post on Instagram
In addition to its menu options, the restaurant also offers catering services with deliveries available from 10 a.m. onwards.
The space occupied by Mendocino Farms earlier housed Panera Bread, which closed in 2025, per the Restaurant Guy.
About Mendocino Farms
The Los Angeles-based fast-casual chain is known for its selection of freshly made sandwiches, salads, wraps, and soups.
Founded in 2005, Mendocino Farms offers classic as well as limited signature items.
The company opened its first location below the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles and has since expanded into a regional brand, according to the Restaurant Guy.
In addition to California, Mendocino Farms has locations in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and Washington, the company’s website shows.
The restaurants feature a rotating menu of items, along with a range of kids’ menu items that are served with a beverage and a choice of side.
Additionally, the chain offers a variety of dessert options, packaged chips, and packaged beverages.
The company is known for sourcing all its ingredients from ethical local farms and small producers.
All meat and poultry items served are antibiotic-free and humanely raised, while eggs are sourced from cage-free farms, according to its website. Fruits and vegetables are hand-picked, and bread is locally and freshly sourced.
The menu includes a range of items to accommodate all types of diets, such as flexitarian, vegan, and gluten-free.
-
Washington3 minutes ago
Bengals 2026 Opponent Preview: Washington Commanders
-
Vermont4 minutes agoBeau Welling’s Stowe Country Club Revamp Signals New Vermont Golf Era
-
Virginia11 minutes agoRabid cat, bat, raccoons and skunks reported in these 4 Virginia counties
-
Wisconsin19 minutes agoShipwreck Coast sanctuary council to meet July 16 in Sheboygan
-
West Virginia26 minutes agoHelicopter crashes in Pocahontas County
-
Wyoming28 minutes agoWyoming officials say Meta’s 715,000-square-foot data center is responsible for contaminating its water system with a rare bacterium | Fortune
-
Crypto33 minutes agoWhat Are KOLs Discussing About the Cryptocurrency Market Today?
-
Finance40 minutes agoFrom Love Island to Precious Metals, Prediction Markets Are Changing Finance | PYMNTS.com
