The price tag for what voters in 2008 were told would build a high speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles has now mushroomed 700 percent to $231 billion.

The new cost estimate contained in state documents released this week dwarfs the $33.5 billion cost dangled in front of voters when they approved a $9.95 billion bond.

Voters were also told at the time by architects of the bond measure that private sector funding would cover the balance.

Not one private sector investor in the past 18 years has put a cent into the project.

Instead, fees consumers indirectly pay that is collapsed into the price of gasoline that oil companies are required to pay for pollution they create refining gasoline have fueled much of the construction to date.

The California High‑Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has countered the $231 billion figure doesn’t reflect current plans.

They say it is based on a high‑end, un-optimized scenario based on the older design and delivery assumptions Californians were told would happen if enough people voted yes.

The CHSRA now says “right-sizing” the project will mean a cost of $126.3 billion, just a 300 percent or so cost overrun.

The state has spent $15 billion so far without laying a single foot of track.

The 177-mile initial segment between Merced and Bakersfield will now cost at least $34 billion — some $15 billion more than an estimate made four years ago.

It is not likely start passenger service until 2033.

Voters were told in 2008 if they approved a $9.95 billion bond measure that they’d be zipping between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2.5 hours by the year 2020 at a reasonable cost of $50 for a one-way ticket.

Now the LA to SF connection isn’t expected to be completed by 2040, the travel time will be longer and ticket costs are expected to exceed $110.

The San Joaquin Valley segment was started because it was viewed as the least expensive and easiest to get off the ground by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his appointees running the rail authority.

The most litigious segments were expected to be dealing property owners and residents in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area.

But that, from the perspective of engineers that worked on the Chunnel under the English Channel between France and England, will be overshadowed.

They believe the segment passing through the San Andreas Fault to go from Merced to San Jose via Pacheco Pass is grossly underestimated when it comes to difficulty and cost.

Two years ago, CHSRA revised ridership projections for the Merced to Bakersfield segment.

They slashed the ridership outlook by two thirds.

Overall ridership projections have also fallen sharply — from roughly 95 million annual passengers by 2030 cited in early planning documents to long‑term Authority estimates of about 36 million by 2060.

At the same time, the projected annual revenue went from $156 million down to $55.6 million,

State Senator Tony Strickland of Los Angeles said the latest revision reflects a breakdown in trust.

"What’s been promised is almost like a three‑card monte saying this is only going to be $33 billion and now the total amount is $231 billion," he said, adding that lawmakers are being asked to accept constant scope and cost changes without a credible financing plan.

Strickland also questioned how the Authority plans to advance construction when current funding is insufficient even to complete the Merced‑to‑Bakersfield segment.

"Our country has never seen a fiscal disaster of this magnitude," independent Congressman Kevin Kiley of Roseville wrote on X on Monday, as debate reopened in Sacramento over whether the project can realistically be finished.