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

  • Report on the impact of recession on infrastructure funding worldwide
    May 10, 2012
    A new report examines how aggressive government belt-tightening and financial market deleveraging restrained worldwide infrastructure investments for 2012 and probably for the next five years. In the US, for instance, Infrastructure2012: Spotlight on Leadership, released by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Ernst & Young, says that constrained public budgets and a growing recognition at the local level of the importance of infrastructure, combined with lack of action at the federal level, are causing state
  • Kistler’s smooth ride on Caltrans info highway
    December 16, 2022
    Caltrans needed a solution to boost its outmoded traffic monitoring capability. Kistler’s KiTraffic Statistics met the California agency’s stringent requirements. And then came Covid…
  • Buttigieg 'to put $150bn' into public transit
    January 20, 2021
    Cash part of proposed $1 trillion infrastructure package from new US administration
  • Dutch survey shows drivers are in favour of road user charging
    January 16, 2012
    'Keep it simple, stupid' is an oft-forgotten axiom but in terms of road user charging it is entirely appropriate. So says the ANWB's Ferry Smith. A couple of decades ago, it might have been largely true that the technology aspects of advanced road infrastructure were the main obstacles to deployment. However, 20 years or more of development have led to a situation where such 'obstacles' are often no more than a political fig-leaf. Area-wide Road User Charging (RUC) is a case in point; speak candidly to syst