Skip to main content

California's high-speed-rail project goes ahead

The California Supreme Court decided last week not to consider an appeal of a case brought by opponents of the state’s $68 billion bullet train project, paving the way for the project to go ahead. Opponents had questioned whether the California High-Speed Rail Authority was complying with the terms of the ballot measure that funded the project. The appellate court agreed there are legitimate legal concerns about whether the “high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority seeks to bui
October 20, 2014 Read time: 2 mins
The California Supreme Court decided last week not to consider an appeal of a case brought by opponents of the state’s $68 billion bullet train project, paving the way for the project to go ahead.

Opponents had questioned whether the California High-Speed Rail Authority was complying with the terms of the ballot measure that funded the project.

The appellate court agreed there are legitimate legal concerns about whether the “high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority seeks to build is the project approved by the voters” but said the arguments were brought too soon.

Dan Richard, chairman of the board that oversees the high-speed rail project, said in a written statement that the state will move aggressively to build the system.

Demolition work and construction testing has already begun around Fresno, one of the hubs on the first 28-mile stretch in the Central Valley.

The decision concerns only one portion of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. In a second phase still before the Sacramento County judge, attorneys will argue that compromises made to cut the price mean the bullet train won’t be able to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes as promised in the ballot measure.

Related Content

  • Real-time bus app gets the Go-Ahead
    March 5, 2024
    Launched in Brighton & Hove, app will be integrated by firm's regional UK bus operators
  • Legalities of in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures
    February 1, 2012
    Paul Laurenza of Dykema Gossett PLLC discusses the paths which lawmakers may go down on the route to making in-vehicle systems and cooperative infrastructures a reality. The question of whether or not to mandate in-vehicle systems for safety and other applications is a vexed one. There is a presumption on some parts that going down the road of forcing systems' fitment is somehow too domineering or restricting. Others would argue that it is the only realistic way of ensuring that systems achieve widespread d
  • ITS & Ethics: yes means yes
    March 4, 2019
    There is an increasing wealth of information available to create personalised transport solutions – and the possibilities are exciting. But, Andrew Bunn warns, ITS companies have a duty to be explicit in explaining what people’s data is going to be used for
  • Regulation time-lag will hit driverless technology hard says leading consultancy BDO
    August 8, 2018
    The legislation surrounding driverless cars is lagging so far behind the technology involved that the industry is unlikely to see a regulatory framework in place any time soon says leading international business, finance and taxation consultancy BDO. And IEEE, "the world’s largest technical professional organisation dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity" can only see problems ahead as the politicians fall further and further behind. BDO has been looking at a report from www.Spectr