Brightline West’s financial backers are teetering on the brink of pulling the plug on the proposal to build what is planned as the United States’ third and fastest high speed rail system spanning the 228 miles from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas, despite having been planned for over the course of 18 years, its April 2024 groundbreaking ceremony, having been subsidized with a $3 billion federal grant and having been allocated $3.5 billion in federal tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds.
A combination of seven factors, five of which were unanticipated at the time of the groundbreaking, have pushed the current projected cost to 269 percent of its original price tag and 135 percent of a more estimate that the project’s developers intimated would be its actual cost last year.
Preliminary and more advance planning and preparatory work that has taken place in the time since the groundbreaking has been negligible in comparison to the expenditures that are to come if the project is to proceed. If further assistance from the federal government is not forthcoming, corporate officials, who are being backed by New York-based hedge fund, are now resolved to back out of the proposition entirely, abandoning the foundation for the undertaking to prevent the throwing of good money after bad.
Meanwhile, key support in Congress and elsewhere is potentially being eroded as the Justice Department and some federal regulators under the Trump Administration weigh proceeding with probes into public officials of both parties suspected of engaging in investment activity that could ultimately be impacted by the successful establishment of the Southern California-to-Las Vegas fast rail system.
Originally projected in 2006 to cost $8 billion, Brightline West’s Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas project’s price tag increased to $12 billion when enough interest among investors and involved entities crucial to its success coalesced in 2021 into a commitment to proceed. The original cost had doubled to $16 billion at the time the company broke ground in June 2024. the belief was that the project could yet succeed and the debt be serviced through 2037 – its first decade of operation, upon the project being completed in 2027. The most sober assessment at this point has the cost increasing to $21.5 million, with the train not starting service until 2029.
All of the predictions had been predicated on assumptions of the steadily increasing popularity of gambling mecca. Since the project’s groundbreaking, however, tourism in Las Vegas and corresponding spending there has dipped, significantly. It is unknown whether this is a temporary blip or a trend with last implication.
In 2024, 41,676,300 million tourists spent $55.1 billion in Las Vegas, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. That represented a 2.07 percent increase over 2023.
This year, however, the number dropped off, drastically. From January to June, there 1,536,500 fewer visitors to Las Vegas than during the first six months of 2024, a drop of roughly 7.37 percent. In July, the drop-off was an even more radical 12 percent decline over the July 2024 number, as the city had an influx of roughly 3,080,000 people in July of this year as opposed to 3.5 million in 2024, on the order of 420,000 fewer paying customers in a single month.
Of note is that a large factor in the downturn consisted of a reduction in the number foreign visitors to Sin City, which is a partial function of stricter immigration policies by the U.S. government triggering travel advisories from the governments of foreign countries from which large numbers of tourists to the United States originate. This has resulted in fewer foreigners traveling to the United States altogether. Across the board, since March, two months after Donald Trump’s inauguration, until the end of August, there have been 33 percent fewer foreign tourists in Las Vegas than over the comparable six months in 2024.
Foreign visitation, however, is not the only factor at play.
High costs in the city are driving tourists away. Traditionally, the gambling venues in Las Vegas offered very reasonably priced meals and entertainment as a draw to get the adventuresome to try their luck at a roulette wheel, blackjack tables, dice boards, slot machines or other gaming opportunities, where the odds, overall, favor the house by at least 8.943 percent. In recent years, however, the cost of food and entertainment has risen dramatically, to the point that tourists find themselves flocking hundreds of miles to find themselves needing to fork over in excess of $100 for a ticket to see a show in Vegas or pay $26 for a toasted bagel with cream cheese or $22 for a bottle of water. In addition, the price for accommodations and services have escalated, in some cases to astronomical levels, even as the vacancy rates in hotels and hotel casinos climb. This is exacerbated by a bevy of hidden charges that aren’t sprung on the guest until he or she arrives in the form of exorbitant parking fees, resort “excise” fees, and “courtesy” charges for checking-in or basic amenities such as towels. A recurrent complaint from those who have spent time in Las Vegas in recent years is that they experience a feeling of “being had,” and this perception that Las Vegas is overpriced and is no longer a value destination has resulted in many foregoing a return there. The decline in spending has prompted an increase in pricing, which in turn has led to a drop in the tourists’ spending on the city’s most profitable offerings, such as gambling.
That vicious cycle has led to the promotion of the greatest threat to Las Vegas yet, which is the proliferation of Indian gaming venues all over California, which every year, it seems, divert to their own coffer a larger and larger portion of Southern California residents’ disposable incomes which formerly went to the casinos in Las Vegas.
While the compiling of statistics for 2025 are, this far through the year as of the middle of October, incomplete, it appears that visitor numbers and accompanying spending in Las Vegas is precipitously plunging downward. Whether the Fortress Investment Group – the hedge fund supplying the investment capital behind the Brightline West Project – is willing to gamble that this is just a temporary hiccough is now the operative question. Despite expressing all of the confidence in the world, Pete Briger, a managing partner and the executive chairman at Fortress Investment Group, has had second, third and now fourth thoughts about proceeding.
While Brightline in September began construction on its Las Vegas station and last night, October 23, began the removal of the center median along Las Vegas Boulevard in preparation for upcoming traffic lane shifts to accommodate the track to be built in the approach to and exit from the Las Vegas station, the actual construction of the track is not slated to begin, according to information contained in the nine separate construction projects for the project, until February 2026. At that point, according to construction management documentation, Brightline, or more accurately Fortress, will spend $17,188,165 per day, six days per week, 313 days per year until late May 2029 to complete the train line.
On September 26, Brightline West, backed by Fortress Investment Group, applied for a $6 million no-interest loan from the federal government’s Build America Bureau Credit Assistance Pipeline. The Sentinel is informed that the fate of the Brightline West project hinges at this point on the Trump Administration’s prompt response to that request. If the administration is forthcoming with the loan by the end of the year, Briger will signal to Brightline Chief Executive Officer P. Mike Reininger, Brightline West President Sarah Watterson, Brightline Chief Financial Officer Jeff Swiatek and Brightline Executive Vice President for Engineering and Planning Adrian Share to proceed.
The Sentinel is informed that while the Brightline’s draft letter of interest in the Build America Bureau Credit Assistance loan has been received and logged, it remains in the queue behind no fewer than 27 other such requests. There is no set timeline for evaluating the applications, but a positive recommendation of the evaluating committee would not cinch the deal.
While Brightline West and Fortress representatives came through their initial consultation with designees of the Build America Bureau in discussing their project and convincing them of Brightline’s bona fides in establishing the feasibility of the Rancho Cucamonga-to-Las Vegas rail system, and the letter of interest was spot on in terms of meeting all proforma requirements, the train wheels have yet to meet the track in that the Build America Bureau has not yet had an opportunity to evaluate the creditworthiness of the project, as the bureau’s auditors and lending officers are yet engaged in evaluating a host of credit applications of other projects around the country. According to the bureau, Brightline West has submitted what appears to be the necessary documents and financial information, but no one with the bureau has progressed to evaluating the application, let alone making a determination as to whether Brightline West meets all of the current criteria for credit assistance. It is only after that evaluation and a positive finding that Brightline West and its Fortress Investment Group backers will be in a position to execute a credit agreement, which will outline the terms and conditions of the credit assistance the Build America Bureau will provide. The funds will not be disbursed to Brightline West to defray the project costs until that agreement is executed.
Somewhat ironically, the outcome of the evaluation is likely to bog down over the same details and considerations that pertain to the steep rise in the cost of the project itself, and the diminishing prospect that upon completion, the train system will be able to deliver the revenue needed to service the debt Brightline West will be taking on, let alone generate a profit for Fortress and its investors.
The Brightline West tracks would run on the median between northbound and southbound lanes of Interstate 15, reaching a top speed of at least 186 miles per hour and approaching or exceeding 200 mph, with a potential top speed of 220 miles per hour in certain stretches. This would exceed the 125 miles per hour top speed of the Brightline train that is currently in place in Florida and the 160 miles per hour to speed of Amtrak’s Accela, which operates between Washington, D.C. and Boston.
The claims as to what the Brightline West system’s ridership will be are somewhat contradictory. In literature put out by both Brightline West and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, it is stated that it is anticipated 11 million passengers will use Brightline West per year. Separately, Brightline has stated it anticipated 9 million “one-way passengers” per year.
Brightline West in 2024 stated that it intends to charge a one-way fare of $119 and offer premium cabin service for $133.
A round-trip, presumably will run double that of a one-way trip.
Assuming that the lion’s share of riders will be traveling back and forth from Rancho Cucamonga, hence $238 per passenger, at 11 million passengers per year, Brightline West, on ticket sales only and not counting any revenue it might realize through the sale of added amenities to travelers during their trip, would generate $2.618 billion per year. It would thus take roughly a decade for Brightline to generate income through the operation of the high-speed train system equal to the cost of the project. This does not include financing costs, the need to pay dividends to the investors in Fortress nor the cost of running the trains, purchasing the electricity to run them, maintain them, servicing them, replacing them or paying Brightline employees – engineers, conductors, on-board service crews, pointsmen, porters, trainmaster, chief mechanical engineer, station masters and assistant station masters, station agents, guards, ticket sellers, ticket inspectors, train dispatchers, train safety officers, signalmen and line maintenance crew.
A critical consideration in ascertaining the viability of the Brightline West project reduces itself to the simple question of what travel alternatives those who would ride the train to Las Vegas will have, along with the relative advantages using the train presents.
Given the approximate three-hour-and-41-minute drive to cover the 231 mile driving distance from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas, Brightline’s one-hour-and-45-minute jaunt, including stops in Hesperia and Apple Valley, represents a substantial incentive to travel by rail. Further, the physical toll 460-miles plus of road travel through the inhospitable desert takes on driver and vehicle alike provides a strong reason to board the train.
Added to that is the consideration that for some, though not all, Las Vegas tourists, a car, having been of such utility and convenience and therefore an asset in getting them to their destination, in Las Vegas becomes something of a liability, inconvenience and distraction after their arrival and for the duration of the time they are present in Sin City. Parking can prove not only expensive but difficult, as there is a premium on parking space. Indeed, at some venues, one must find a space blocks away, pay for it and then hike to his or her destination. Negotiating traffic, particularly at certain times, become a nightmare.
Doubtless, for well over ten percent of the population and approaching 20 percent of those in Southern California who consider Las Vegas to be for them an appropriate weekend playground, money is no object and therefore not a consideration.
For a large percentage of those traveling to Las Vegas from the various communities in Southern California, however, the cost of travel is an issue. Whether the numbers will pencil for them within their budgets becomes, for Brightline West and Fortress Investment Group, an issue.
According to the best available statistics, vehicles running between Southern California and Las Vegas on the I-15 Freeway average 1.4 passengers. This, however, includes commercial vehicles, consisting primarily of tractor-trailer rigs, typically driven by a single driver. While an individual driving alone from Southern California to Las Vegas is not unheard of and is a common, everyday occurrence, Friday evening/weekend travelers to Las Vegas and then back to Southern California typically travel in pairs or in even greater numbers per vehicle, such that the cars carrying tourists between Southern California and Las Vegas average closer to 2 passengers. Looking at gas mileage and fuel costs for that portion of the Las Vegas tourist demographic, whether travelers to Las Vegas will opt to use the high-speed train in lieu of traveling by car in sufficient numbers to meet Brightline West’s projected ridership goals is, at best, touch-and-go.
A car, with average fuel efficiency of 20 miles to the gallon would burn 11.55 gallons of gasoline to go the 231 miles from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas, entailing a cost, assuming $5 per gallon of regular unleaded, of $57.75 or as much as $68 for a car utilizing premium gasoline.
A two-way trip would thus run $115.50 to $136. The question becomes: Would a typical couple traveling to Las Vegas purchase two round trip tickets at a minimum price of $476, reducing their overall travel time to 3 hours and 30 minutes or instead spend less than one third of that – no more than $140 – to drive the I-15 and spend roughly 7 hours and 20 minutes on the road? In the vast majority of cases, it would seem, typical visitors from Southern California to Las Vegas would likely forego the added $280 expense and drive.
Another consideration is that despite the expense of parking in Las Vegas, for many visitors, particularly ones who are intent on not having their trip confined to a single venue or staying or gambling exclusively in one casino, having a car so they can travel the 4.2 miles of the entire strip or beyond that, is a necessity. For them, riding the train would entail the added expense of renting a car or the inconvenience of relying upon taxis or ride-hailing services.
Even assuming that Brightline West meets or even exceeds all of the performance criteria in terms of ridership it has projected for itself, at least initially, that carries with it the danger that it could fall a victim of its own success. This extends, potentially, to the validity of its own business model.
Assuming the company’s projection of 11 million passengers per year is correct, on average 211,538 passengers would travel on Brightline West per week. A safe assumption would be that at least 80 percent of those weekly travelers – 169,231 – would be headed to Las Vegas on Fridays and Saturdays. Based on yet another assumption that follows from Brightline West’s announcement that it is purchasing ten Siemens American Pioneer 220 electrical locomotives to pull its trains, it would appear that Brightline West would be capable of ten, or perhaps more, runs between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas in a given 24-hour period. While many travelers would, perhaps, take traveling on a train with approaching 1,700 passengers in stride, many, particularly the claustrophobic and the enochlophobic, might find the experience unpleasant and thereafter be unwilling to utilize Brightline West during peak usage hours. Moreover, having that many riders on its Rancho Cucamonga-to-Las Vegas or the return Las Vegas-to-Rancho Cucamonga runs could render the luxury accommodations the company is touting as a feature of the trip less than luxurious.
Complicating the matter are recurrent reports that local and federal officials or members of their families have sought to profit from the federal money that is facilitating the Brightline West project. Just after the 2024 groundbreaking for the project there were reports that family members of San Bernardino County municipal officials who serve on the county transportation agency – the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority – as well as members of Congress representing California, were investing in land related to the I-15 Freeway right of way near where the median’s width is insufficient to accommodate railway lines. There were parallel accounts of inducements being provided to members of Congress who had voted to expedite the rail project. In particular, it was rumored, the FBI had interested itself in Fontana having hired the son of Congresswoman Norma Torres at the recommendation of Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren. Both Congresswoman Torres, who had obtained federal money for Fontana, and Warren, as a member of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, participated in the decision-making processes that have promoted and expedited the rail project thus far. Included in the FBI’s spection, it was said, were some of the politicians who had traveled across state lines to attend the April 2024 groundbreaking who then spent time at the dice tables in Las Vegas. Their participation in those games of chance, it was thought, provided an ideal opportunity to launder money provided as an inducement to support the high-speed rail project.
Further publicity about the questionable relationship between public officials whose votes could further the high speed rail project and the proponents of the project or its financial backers would not be welcomed by the projects proponents, particularly before the Build America Bureau makes a decision on whether to provide Brightline West and Fortress Investment Group with the Build America Bureau Credit Assistance loan they have applied for.