California’s long-delayed high-speed rail project is now facing renewed scrutiny after state leaders revealed a dramatically higher price tag, now estimated at roughly $231 billion, nearly seven times the original $33 billion projection approved by voters in 2008.

The revised figures have reignited talks in Sacramento over whether the project can realistically be completed, how long it will take, and whether the state can continue to fund it at this scale.

Senator Tony Strickland sharply criticized the updated costs and timeline, pointing to what he described as a major breakdown in public trust.

“What’s been promised is almost like a three-card monte saying this is only going to be $33 billion dollars and now the total amount is $231 billion and it was supposed to be done in 2020," he said.

Strickland added that confidence in the project has eroded significantly among lawmakers and the public.

“Right now, I think the trust of the people of this authority has been I’ll say it, it’s been a major failure," he said.

A key concern among lawmakers is whether there is enough funding to complete the rail line.

Strickland questioned the financial strategy currently being used.

He said, “We’re now at a point where we are supposed to go from Merced to Bakersfield. We don’t have enough money to go from Merced to Bakersfield but we’re also wanting to move some money to L.A. and San Francisco. Can you explain that?”

California High-Speed Rail Authority officials say the project’s future depends on attracting private investors and focusing on a broader, more commercially viable vision, connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco.

Ian Choudri, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said the strategy is designed to make the project more attractive to outside funding.

He said, “What we’re asking is once we have private investors on board, they should be able to look at the full high speed rail system phase 1 is, which is L.A. to S.F."

He added that expanding simultaneous construction efforts could be the best option.

He said, “Can we unlock the private financiers’ ability to look at the schemes of S.F. to San Jose to Gilroy and on the other end, look at L.A. Union Station. That is commercially viable and I can tell you, private sector is telling us that every day.”

Despite those assurances, skepticism remains high among lawmakers about whether private capital will materialize at the scale needed.

Strickland questioned the feasibility of relying on outside investors after years of escalating costs.

“If you’re able to get private sector resources after you continue your project that was supposed to be $33 billion and turned into $231 billion I give you a lot of credit if you’re able to raise a lot of that private capital," Strickland said.

Under current projections, assuming funding and construction proceed as planned, service between San Francisco and Bakersfield could begin around 2033, while the full Los Angeles to San Francisco connection could extend to 2040.

Concerns are not limited to outside critics.

Senator Strickland also pointed to comments from Lou Thompson, former chair of the California High-Speed Rail Authority peer review group, who recently criticized the latest draft business plan.

Thompson wrote that the 2026 draft plan “has reached a dead end,” arguing that the project has drifted far from its original vision due to escalating costs, delays, and unfunded gaps.