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

  • Swedish drivers support speed cameras
    March 17, 2014
    In sharp contrast to many other countries drivers in Sweden support speed cameras and the planned expansion of the automated enforcement network. Sweden is embarking on a massive expansion of its speed camera network and is doing so with both a very high level of public acceptance and without its drivers feeling persecuted; a feat the administrations in many other countries would like to emulate. So how did this envious state of affairs come about? Magnus Ferlander director of business development and ma
  • California aims to generate electric power from traffic congestion
    April 20, 2017
    California is planning a US$2.3 million initiative that will generate electrical power from traffic, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The California Energy Commission recently voted to fund two piezoelectricity projects, which convert pressure into power. One pilot will test a 200-foot-long piece of asphalt on UC-Merced’s campus, which is designing a 200-foot stretch of asphalt that will be sowed with inch-wide piezoelectric generators, which will be stacked within arrays below the road where it is
  • US braces itself for congestion pain
    February 6, 2020
    Mary Scott Nabers, author of Inside the Infrastructure Revolution: A Roadmap for Building America, looks at how different US states are embracing the need for public transport investment
  • Drunk driver can sue power company for accident
    August 16, 2013
    The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a drunk driver and her passenger can sue the county and a utility company for a 2005 car crash, overturning a lower court's decision in a case involving a 2005 crash. The Supreme Court ruled that government entities have a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, even if the driver is at fault. The controversial decision means cities, counties and utility companies can be held liable when faulty road designs lead to injuries in car crashes