Why high-speed rail hasn't tracked in the U.S. | 60 Minutes
In a Nutshell
California's 2008 high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco, initially promised for $33 billion by 2020, has ballooned to $126 billion with only a short Central Valley segment (Bakersfield-Merced) under construction for 2033 opening, plagued by right-of-way disputes, environmental lawsuits, high costs, and funding shortfalls. Private Brightline West aims to deliver the U.S.'s first true high-speed rail (200 mph) from LA to Las Vegas by 2029 using I-15 median tracks, backed by federal loans despite safety and financial concerns. America's struggles stem from political divisions, car culture, and lack of national will, contrasting successes in Morocco, China, Japan, and Europe.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
It's hard to exaggerate the role of the train in the American story or the romance of train travel, those iron horses galloping down tracks of steel. High-speed rail, so common in other countries, has not taken off in the US. An ambitious state-run project connecting LA and San Francisco has lurched, derailed, cost billions, and may never happen. One private company is betting that it can succeed where the public sector has not, but that too has had its bumps. As US high-speed rail remains a mirage, a ghost train, it's become a stand-in for a broader question: Can America get its act together and still build big things?
The very model of modern engineering hums across the fruited plains at a top speed of 200 mph. It's revolutionized travel and is a source of national pride in Morocco. In the US, high-speed rail looks hardly passenger ready.
America's hopes for its first high-speed rail were kindled in 2008 when California voters approved a ballot measure for a train connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than 3 hours. Estimated price tag: $33 billion. Completion date: 2020. It would cut pollution, revitalize local economies, clear gridlock. Status update: Today, the state's high-speed rail authority is preparing to lay its first tracks at roughly the same cost. Instead of LA to San Francisco, it will run 1/3 of that distance, connecting Bakersfield and Merced, population 96,000. Opening: 2033, maybe.
I think that the California high-speed rail nightmare is the probably quintessential example of government waste and mismanagement.
You say this needs to stop. >> Needs to stop.
Congressman Vince Fong, a Republican from Bakersfield, sits on the House Transportation Committee. He says that when California voters first approved high-speed rail, the promise and price tag were more marketing campaign than realistic projection.
We're now in 2026. There are no trains, there's no track laid. It's a complete bait and switch.
If I vote for a mansion in Malibu by next year and someone says, "Actually, you know what? In five years, we're going to have a doghouse in Modesto," how did things go so off the rails?
The business plan that was put out in 2008 was very theoretical. You know, this is what we think is going to happen and it became very clear that they didn't have the specifics worked out.
Management doesn't disagree. Toes Mashakin is California's Secretary of Transportation and Anthony Williams a rail authority board member. Both are relatively new to the job, left to answer for their predecessors.
There were mistakes made. Some of the criticism on this project I think are very fair.
What happened? > I don't think the voters fully understood and neither did we in the public sector what it was going to take to actually get this project delivered > to get the necessary political buy-in from the whole state.
The plan called for the train to run inland, threading the farmland of the Central Valley. Yet, the rail authority hadn't answered basic questions like precisely where it could lay down its tracks, what's known as right-of-way.
3,000 parcels had to be negotiated just for the segments that we're working on today in the Central Valley.
It seems to me one farmer doesn't want high-speed rail going through his field, and you've got a guy that can gum up the works for a long time. > Yeah, that's what happens. Sometimes in these processes.
More snarl: California's exacting environmental regulations which triggered all manner of reviews, lawsuits, and delays. Delay adds to price. So did the high US labor and construction costs, at least compared to many other countries. While the federal government contributed modestly under the Obama and Biden administrations, the burden fell largely on the state.
When construction started, was the financing there to complete this rail? > It wasn't.
Let's be real. We had a lot to learn and we had a lot of growth to do.
By 2019, cost ballooning and the timeline years off schedule, bipartisan political pressure mounted. Newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom said this in his first state of the state:
Right now, there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA.
Under Newsom, who didn't respond to repeated interview requests, California decided to focus on that initial Central Valley segment, a route few clamored for and fewer are likely to ride. Though, the ultimate goal remains connecting Northern and Southern California.
When you have a project like this and when the budget no longer permits you to finish it the way you wanted to, you start cutting off your arms and legs.
Lou Thompson helped found Amtrak in the 1970s and until 2024 sat on California's high-speed rail peer review group.
We've heard people say time to cut bait. We've heard people saying what happened in the past is the past. Failure is not an option. > Failure is always an option. > Is that what's going to happen here? Uh, no, I don't think so. But I think what will happen in the short range is that they will cut back and do the best they can with the money they have available.
Here outside Fresno in California's Central Valley, one of the few signs of concrete progress, literally structures like this. Locals here jokingly refer to it as their own Stonehenge. Ideally, these bridges and viaducts will one day be used to support California high-speed rail. But for now, these are curiosities in a field, monuments to promises that haven't been met and plans that haven't been executed.
Ironic, because American rail was once the world's envy. In the 1800s, the US government oversaw the birth of the transcontinental railroad, stitching the country together as it expanded westward. In the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration decided that the transportation vanguard was off the tracks, creating and critically continuously funding the interstate highway system, fueling the world's proudest car culture.
Meanwhile, Japan's famous bullet train opened in 1964, and today more than 20 countries have high-speed rail, generally defined as cruising at 150 mph or more: Germany, France, China, but also Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt has broken ground.
The obvious question there is like, how can it be that we can't get it done and they can get it done, right? We know we can do this. It's an economic engine, right?
Mike Reininger is managing director of Brightline West, a private company that believes it can achieve what California hasn't.
This train, which opened in 2018 and runs between Miami and Orlando, hits top speeds of around 125 mph. Not quite high speed, but close. It's akin to a beta test for Brightline's next project, a bullet train connecting LA and Las Vegas in just over 2 hours. A trip that can take 5 hours by car. Brightline West will be true high-speed rail, first time in the country, and will operate at speeds of about 200 mph maximum.
Out west, Brightline is solving the right-of-way issue by running on the median of the I-15 highway. Construction has already begun on some of the station structures. The plan is to start service in 2029.
What are you telling people to get them out of their cars or getting them to avoid the airport? It's more enjoyable. It's safer. It's reliable. This really is all about changing people's behavior.
You don't think we're just This car culture is intractable. It's so hardened and it's so much a part of the American psyche, it just can't be cracked. I don't think so at all.
Cultural questions aside, Brightline's Florida trains run at street level through crowded neighborhoods. According to numbers compiled by the Miami Herald and local public radio, more than 200 people have been hit and killed by the trains in the near decade since operations began. Brightline says that running rail in the desert out west, where track crossings won't be at street level, will be a safer proposition.
Then there are the finances. The stratospheric costs of building and running a rail line vastly outstrip revenues. Analysts have downgraded Brightline's debt to junk, raising questions about private rail as a business.
To what extent big picture, do you worry about the future financial viability of Brightline? > The business has built slower than we originally expected it to build. We thought we would be carrying more passengers today than we are. The business is in fact growing month over month, year over year. That's a great thing that solidifies in our mind the viability of the business.
Brightline's West Coast project has already received some federal funding and is hoping for a $6 billion loan from the Trump administration.
If you look around the world, for the most part, the infrastructure systems are funded by the public sector. You do see a role for government here. > Absolutely. We welcome it.
Back in California, the rail authority insists state funds can cover the cost of the Central Valley leg. As for the rest:
Just to be clear as we speak right now, are the funds there to complete LA to San Francisco? > The entire amount of money we need, not there today. But do we believe we can get those funds to get the project done? Absolutely.
How much do you estimate it's going to cost to connect high-speed rail San Francisco to LA? > Today, we estimate with the right optimization just over $125 billion. I think $126 billion is the current estimate for that.
That's more funding than Amtrak has received in its history and still leaves a shortfall of roughly $90 billion.
That's a big gap to fill. > It is a big gap to fill. But again, we have an understanding of how to get there and to fill that gap.
A gap the authority hopes to fill with a new plan to cut costs, lure private investment, and connect to bigger cities much sooner.
But there's another challenge to building anything today: the swirling winds of a political climate in which one party pushes and the other reflexively pulls. Remember Gavin Newsom's pessimism? In recent months, he's championed the project.
This is not just a transportation project. This is about reimagining the future of this region.
Meanwhile, in 2025, President Trump canceled $4 billion in federal grants for the train, swiping at a political nemesis in the process.
Did you ever hear of Gavin Newsom? He has got that train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen.
In a statement to 60 Minutes, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the administration is in favor of high-speed rail, but this project has "wasted billions in taxpayer dollars yet delivered nothing."
Can this be done without help from the federal government? > This initial segment, we believe so. The ultimate 494 miles of building this out without the federal government's help will be challenging. There's no doubt about that.
Is this a non-starter to build a project like this without federal funding? > Well, not only can't it be done, it shouldn't be done. Because a lot of the benefits of the project, the reason why you build the project is public: pollution reduction, congestion reduction, improved safety, comfort, reliability, all of those things are public benefits.
There are other ideas for US high-speed rail, say Dallas to Houston, but nothing else in the building stage, leaving that uneasy overarching question. Morocco has high-speed rail and Serbia and China and Japan and Western Europe.
Why don't we? What's your simple answer? Well, the simple answer is they've decided they want to do it and pay for it and we haven't.
You think we will in our lifetimes? > I don't know. I'm dubious. I'm dubious. Absent a national political will to work with the states to create some of these systems. I think it's going to be in of course my lifetime almost certainly not, but maybe yours. I don't know.
Keep 60 Minutes in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
