Economists have two favorite expressions: First, the phrase “Sunk costs are sunk costs” means that costs expended thus far are water over the dam and should not themselves constitute a rationale to proceed with an effort that may have had persistent cost overruns or delays with no clear end in sight. Second, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” is self-explanatory and known by its acronym TANSTAAFL. This means that every action incurs some opportunity cost and someone will pay for it even as it may appear to be “free” to others.

Both of these principles apply to the California bullet train—originally authorized by voters in 2008—struggling for several years with its first 171-mile segment between Merced and Bakersfield in the state’s Central Valley, ultimately destined to become one segment of a longer bullet train route from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

About $14 billion has been spent on this phase of the bullet train project—82 percent of that from the state and the remaining 18 percent from federal grants. Reports reveal a $7 billion funding gap for completion of the Merced-Bakersfield segment by 2033. The US Transportation Department is investigating and a bill in Congress could entirely end further federal funding for the project.

To halt a large, failing, sunk-cost project like a monorail or bullet train requires strong leaders who can convince voters when it is time to cancel a project despite claims that doing so wastes the sunk costs. Both Seattle and California voters today share a tendency to continue voting for the same politicians who have previously mismanaged their respective states.

One can foresee a future time when the California bullet train’s concrete pylons—once intended to support train tracks in the Central Valley—may someday be unearthed by archeologists who will wonder what the project was intended for and what happened to it.