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

  • Danish study shows higher speed limits are safer
    February 25, 2014
    A two-year experiment by the Danish road directorate shows accidents have fallen on single-carriageway rural roads and motorways where the speed limit was raised. Since the speed limit on some stretches of two-way rural roads was increased from 80 to 90 km/h, accidents have decreased due to a reduction in the speed differential between the slowest and fastest cars, resulting in less overtaking. The slowest drivers have increased their speeds, but the fastest 15 per cent drive one km/h slower on average
  • Los Angeles drivers may face congestion charge following study
    March 6, 2019
    After a century as the city of the automobile, Los Angeles is taking a major step on the road towards congestion charging. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMetro) is to explore road pricing and is also thinking about levying fees on ride-share companies for their part in creating gridlock. The moves are part of LAMetro’s ‘Re-imagining of Los Angeles County: Mobility, Equity and the Environment’ plan, which seeks policies to make transport sustainable in the famously-cong
  • MoceanLab discovers new Covid car-share use
    October 20, 2020
    The coronavirus pandemic has prompted some radical re-thinking of mobility services. Ben Spencer hears how MoceanLab car-share vehicles are delivering care to LA's homeless
  • FTA says any speed limit must be properly enforced
    July 30, 2013
    In response to the announcement that average speed cameras are to be introduced on a stretch of the A9 in Scotland, the Freight Transport Association (FTA) has said that any speed limit must be properly enforced. The decision to install the new average speed camera system which will run from Dunblane to Inverness follows an on-going review of evidence as well as careful consideration of the views of the A9 Safety Group – to which FTA has contributed on behalf of its members over the last year.