California High-Speed Rail

Legislative context High-speed rail in California was first proposed in 1979 by Governor Jerry Brown. In 1982, Brown signed a bill authorizing $1.25 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego. In 1993, the state created the California Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission. In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger championed Proposition 1A (Prop 1A), which authorized $9 billion in bonds to begin the planning and construction of high-speed rail and a further $950 million to upgrade commuter rail systems in Northern and Southern California that would connect with the high-speed rail system. Prop 1A, which passed with about 53 percent of the vote, set several requirements for the high-speed rail system, including that the nonstop travel time from the Salesforce Transit Center (formerly: San Francisco Transbay Terminal) in San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station in Los Angeles should be no more than two hours and 40 minutes. The designation of the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment as "Phase 1," and additional adopted corridors as "Phase 2," was published in the Authority's 2012 Business Plan. Statewide objectives The planned high-speed rail system would reduce travel times between the northern and southern parts of the state. Driving or taking an intercity bus between San Francisco and Los Angeles takes six to eight hours. Since the Coast Daylight was discontinued in 1974, there has been no direct rail connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with the closest Amtrak service now in Oakland. The Amtrak Coast Starlight, the only direct rail service from Oakland to Los Angeles, takes eleven hours and runs once daily. While the Gold Runner takes about nine hours, a bus transfer is required for part of the route. High-speed rail is intended to be competitive with air travel; while the actual station-to-station time would be slower than flying, reduced waiting and boarding times and fewer security checks would make total travel times competitive, with other potential benefits including passenger comfort and greater reliability. The entry of high speed rail into the transportation market typically results in improved on-time flight performance, service quality, and price competition. High-speed rail in California would reduce flight congestion on one of the busiest domestic air routes in the US, with the SF-LA short haul air routes averaging 132 scheduled flights daily. The high-speed rail system may relieve housing pressure in major urban areas, especially the Bay Area, by providing access to cheaper housing in the Central Valley, which would be particularly beneficial for business travelers and hybrid remote workers who commute only a few times a week. While the rail project may incentivize denser housing and job growth around stations, with cities such as Fresno and Bakersfield planning for major real estate investments in their downtowns, the urban policy advocacy group SPUR noted the risk of urban sprawl as a result of increased housing demand in the Central Valley, and that the state should consider mitigating this in its planning approach. In 2023, Caltrans issued the 2023 California State Rail Plan, which is a comprehensive plan to upgrade and modernize the state's intercity passenger and freight rail systems through 2050. Provisions of the plan include increasing the capacity of existing railways, establishing new services, improving service frequencies and train speeds, and integrating ticketing between transit agencies in order for ticketing through all rail systems to be able to be done statewide. The plan outlines the integration of high-speed rail into the statewide system as its primary north-south passenger link. Although the Authority has not indicated completion dates for the full system, the 2023 version of the state rail plan used 2050 for the completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2. == Plans, construction and project status ==

The project is split into two major phases: Phase 1 is to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles via the Central Valley; Phase 2 is an extension of Phase 1 both to the north from Merced to Sacramento and to the south from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire. As of 2024, the Authority is targeting completion of the "Initial Operating Segment" (IOS), a section within the Phase 1 route in the Central Valley, with under active construction. The project has received approximately $23 billion in combined state and federal funding through the end of 2024 (including a disputed $3.3 billion of federal funding), and has spent a total of $13.8 billion. As of February 2024, the entire Phase 1 was projected to cost between $89–128 billion, with allowance for future inflation. Phase 1 Phase 1 of the planned route, about long, The existing 4th and King Caltrain station in San Francisco is expected to be the northern terminus of Phase 1 until the future completion of the Downtown Rail Extension (now known as The Portal) to the Salesforce Transit Center. From San Francisco, the planned route runs south to Gilroy before crossing the Diablo Range eastward over Pacheco Pass into the Central Valley. The route branches north to Merced via a flying wye which is intended to serve as the connection for a future Phase 2 extension to Sacramento. As part of Phase 1, Merced is planned to serve as a transfer point to the Gold Runner and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) trains continuing towards Stockton, Sacramento and other destinations. As of the 2025 Supplemental Project Update, the Authority is considering delaying construction of the Merced extension in order to prioritize an earlier connection to the Bay Area through Gilroy. South of there, Madera through Bakersfield stations are located along the main line in the Central Valley. In the urbanized areas from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim, the Phase 1 route follows existing railroad right-of-ways. In 2012, the Authority adopted a "blended" approach to construction in these segments, which would involve high-speed trains sharing track with Amtrak and local commuter trains, specifically Caltrain in the Bay Area and Metrolink in Southern California. Between Gilroy and Burbank, the planned route will run on dedicated high-speed tracks. Gold Runner passengers continuing to Southern California currently transfer to Amtrak Thruway buses at Bakersfield. This bus connection will remain necessary until the construction of Phase 1 reaches Palmdale, where the high speed rail station will be integrated with the existing Metrolink transportation hub. The remainder of the planned is expected to complete civil construction by the end of 2026. of extensions to Merced and to Bakersfield, which would complete the IOS, are under engineering design. The scope of the IOS has changed several times in the project's history. In 2012 it was planned to run from Merced through Bakersfield to Burbank (just north of Los Angeles), a distance of about . This would have closed a major gap in California intercity rail services, as the existing Gold Runner terminates at Bakersfield and does not continue on to Los Angeles. the Authority changed the IOS to a northern segment between San Jose and Bakersfield, the "Silicon Valley to Central Valley line". In 2019 Gavin Newsom chose the current definition of an IOS between Merced and Bakersfield in the Central Valley, a long segment with under active construction. If additional funding becomes available, the Authority still intends to construct the northern Bay Area connection before the southern connection to Los Angeles. The first 119 miles, stretching from Madera south to Shafter, a city about northwest of Bakersfield, are being constructed under four design-build contracts titled "construction packages". In August 2022, the Authority approved design contracts for the remaining of the IOS connecting Madera to Merced and Shafter to Bakersfield, with construction contracts expected in 2025–2026. Planning for the Madera station is occurring under a separate agreement with the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. The construction contract for track and electrical power systems on the IOS is expected in 2024–2025. and was completed in September 2024. The corridor from San Jose to Gilroy will also require electrification; as of February 2024, the Authority was still in negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad over proposed alterations to the tracks. Since many at-grade crossings will remain, other safety improvements such as quad gates are being considered. In Southern California, the Link US project plans to reconfigure Los Angeles Union Station from a terminal to a run-through station and add two dedicated high-speed rail platforms. The shared Amtrak and Metrolink tracks from Burbank to Anaheim will require electrification. Between Los Angeles and Fullerton, the rail corridor is also heavily used by BNSF freight trains coming from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, requiring further separation to prevent congestion. As of November 2023, the Authority proposed to build a fourth track on the existing three-track corridor, with two electrified tracks to be used for passenger trains (including high-speed rail) and two non-electrified tracks for freight, in addition to grade separations and crossing safety improvements. Some freight trains may be allowed to use the passenger tracks during off-peak hours. Remainder of Phase 1 Construction of the remaining Phase 1 route is still on hold due to budget constraints. As of June 2024, the environmental impact statements for of the route had been certified, which specifies the alignment from San Francisco to Los Angeles and clears it for detailed engineering design and construction. The remaining segment to be certified is the Los Angeles–Anaheim section. The Merced to San Jose section would cross the Pacheco Pass roughly along the route of SR 152. Engineering challenges along this section include "poor-quality rock formations, faults and shear zones, and potentially high groundwater inflows that can affect tunnel stability." The Authority expects to start design work on this section in 2024, and begin pre-construction work such as land acquisition in about 2026–2028, funds permitting. The maximum grade through the pass would be 2.8 percent, making it the steepest portion of the Phase 1 route. At a press conference in January 2025 in Kern County, state and CHSRA leaders reiterated the importance of this section and promoted the vision of a combined CAHSR-High Desert Corridor-Brightline West rail corridor. From Palmdale to Burbank the proposed route crosses the San Gabriel Mountains on an alignment roughly along SR 14. It would require the most tunneling of any of the mountain crossings, with four separate tunnels totaling in length. One of the major challenges along this section is the crossing of the San Andreas Fault and several parallel, smaller fault zones, where a large earthquake could significantly deform the tracks. To compensate for this, the rail beds and tunnel diameters will be constructed wider at fault crossings to allow for any needed track realignment in the future. The tracks will cross the San Andreas Fault itself above ground. In total, the southern extension from Bakersfield to Los Angeles may require of tunnels. In 2018, the Authority estimated that the tunneling may cost $26–$45 billion. Operations infrastructure The high-speed rail system is planned to run entirely on renewable energy. and will keep the system operational if the grid suffers a blackout. There are plans for a heavy maintenance facility, serving as the location for major train inspections and repairs, in the Central Valley. It will also serve to receive and test high-speed trainsets along the IOS track currently being constructed. Also planned along the Phase 1 route are three light maintenance facilities for routine train inspections and cleaning, with locations in the Bay Area, Central Valley and greater Los Angeles, as well as four maintenance of way facilities spaced throughout the route. The exact siting for these facilities has yet to be determined. As of 2019, both Fresno and Kern Counties had expressed interest in hosting the heavy maintenance facility. Phase 2 Phase 2 would construct two major extensions to the system. The northern extension would stretch from Merced to Sacramento, with intermediate stops at Modesto and Stockton. It would largely parallel the existing Gold Runner route through the Central Valley. In the south, the system would be extended from Los Angeles to San Diego. Instead of continuing south from Anaheim, it would split off from the Phase 1 route at Los Angeles Union Station and travel east along I-10 before turning south, following an inland route along I-15 or I-215. This would enable high-speed trains to serve the Inland Empire and inland parts of San Diego County, with stops at Ontario International Airport and Escondido. One or more additional stations may be built, in either El Monte, West Covina, Pomona, San Bernardino, Corona, March ARB, or Murrieta. If the entire Phase 2 is completed, it would bring the total length of the high-speed rail system to . == Rolling stock ==

Train design Proposition 1A sets an explicit requirement for a sustained operating speed of at least . The Authority plans to operate trains at ; with a conventional 10 percent buffer for testing, this requires a top speed of at least . To minimize project risks, the Authority plans to acquire electric multiple units (EMUs) of service-proven design, for which there are no domestic rolling stock manufacturers. Many specifications are hence similar to those of trainsets being operated in Europe, such as: a lifespan of at least 30 years, the ability to operate two coupled trainsets as a single consist ("double heading"), a capacity of at least 450 seats and eight bicycle spots, and a length no longer than about . Some requirements reflect American legislation or standards corresponding to the local environment, including full ADA-compliance, Tier III FRA safety standards, earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting, and a floor height of above the rails to enable level boarding. Acquisition process The Authority intends to procure a first batch of six trainsets for deployment on the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) as well as a "driving simulator". Included will be services for maintenance for 30 years, a mid-life overhaul, and a variety of support services. In January 2024, the Authority chose Alstom and Siemens Mobility as qualified train suppliers. The Authority released a request for proposals (RFP) in mid-April 2024, with a procurement contract planned for summer 2025. The chosen contractor will have to deliver two prototype trainsets for testing by the end of 2028 and four further trainsets by 2030 for revenue service on the IOS. There is also an option for a further 15 trainsets. In 2023, it was projected that for the full Phase 1 system, 66 trainsets would be needed. The Authority was granted a Buy America-waiver by the FRA for the two prototype trainsets, allowing those to be manufactured abroad. == Stations and service ==

Stations and stop patterns Prop 1A specifies up to 24 stations to be constructed on the full network. Its main service is consulting the Authority in matters leading up to passenger operations, such as ridership forecasts, service scheduling, and operations cost forecasting. Ridership estimates for 2040 based on a 2023 forecast would total about 12.2 million riders annually for a Silicon Valley to Bakersfield service. For the entire Phase 1 system it projected 28.4 million riders annually, Connections with other major transit projects Brightline West and High Desert Corridor Brightline West (formerly Desert Xpress and XpressWest) is a project that has been planning to build a high-speed rail line from Las Vegas, Nevada to Victorville, California, about northeast of Los Angeles, since 2007. The line is intended to cross the Mojave Desert using the median of I15 for most of its length. The separate High Desert Corridor rail line has been proposed from Victorville to Palmdale, extending the Las Vegas line to connect with CAHSR and Metrolink. This project is managed by the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Agency (HDC JPA). The HDC JPA signed two labor agreements in July 2024. After Brightline took over the project in 2018, a separate extension was proposed to run from Victorville and terminate in Rancho Cucamonga, California, where it would connect with Metrolink but not CAHSR. In December 2023, the award of $3 billion in federal funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, concurrent with the $3.1 billion funding for CAHSR, enabled the project to advance. Construction of the Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga route began in 2024 and is projected to take approximately four years to construct. Valley Rail Valley Rail is a program to jointly improve rail service on the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and the Amtrak Gold Runner for the Central Valley, Sacramento, and the Bay Area. When the IOS goes into operation, the Amtrak Gold Runner segment currently overlapping with the IOS (Merced to Bakersfield) will be discontinued and replaced by CAHSR service. Passengers will be able to transfer at the future Merced Multi-Modal Transit Station, the northern terminus of the IOS. The remaining service will be expanded under the Valley Rail project, providing passengers with continuing transportation north and west to the Bay Area and north towards/to Sacramento. Valley Rail is currently in implementation and has an estimated completion date of 2030. The ACEforward project is further proposed to improve service in the ACE corridor. Cross Valley Corridor The Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) is a proposed transit line connecting Naval Air Station Lemoore and the cities Hanford, Visalia, and Porterville with the future Kings-Tulare high-speed rail station. Its route runs east–west for a total of about , perpendicular to the high-speed rail alignment and mostly along existing rail tracks. During a first phase of up to ten years within opening of the IOS, the CVC will be implemented as a coordinated bus service by local transit agencies. In later phases, the Corridor is proposed to operate as passenger rail. The plans to activate the rail line are currently unfunded. == Finances and cost estimates ==

Overview of project finances The 2008 California voter approval required the project to be financed with matching funds from other sources, including private and federal. The government of Japan offered long-term, low-interest financing if California employed Shinkansen bullet-train technology. The project is now financed mainly by the state of California, supplemented by federal grants. By the end of 2023, the share of committed funding borne by the state was 76 percent. The Authority has only one source of persistent cash flow: an annual $1 billion dollars from California cap-and-trade auctions set to expire in 2045. All other funding had been granted as a fixed nominal sum. This implies that if expenditures are delayed, funding does not increase to offset inflation. Headline numbers for cost estimates also depend on an assumed schedule due to inflation; compared to initial funding in Q4 2008, by Q4 2023 the national price level had increased by 39.1 percent. By the end of 2023, the Authority had been granted funding of $22.9 billion and expended $11.2 billion. To bring the IOS into revenue service (including trainsets, stations, and maintenance facilities) along with ongoing project development for Phase 1 and statewide connectivity programs (blended corridor investments, such as the Caltrain electrification), it estimates nominal expenditures at around $28.5–$35.3 billion, adjusted for schedule. Except for environmental clearance and investments into the blended corridors, no funding had been obtained for engineering and construction of segments outside the IOS. Current status of funding and expenditure The following table provides a summary over funding granted and expenditure realized by the end of 2023, as well as expected future funding and expenditure: Funding history Proposition 1A, a 2008 state-wide ballot was the authorization by voters for the CAHSR project itself and for the sale of $9.95 billion in state bonds, to be made available to the Authority. Out of this sum, $950 million were earmarked for other passenger rail services, such as the Caltrain Electrification, to improve connection to the future high-speed rail system. Formally, bond proceeds have to be appropriated to the Authority in the California state budget. By the end of 2023, $8.516 out of $9.95 billion had been appropriated. However, the federal funding agreement entailed a tight schedule, targeting construction start of the Merced-Bakersfield section by 2012 and its completion by 2017. In particular, the Authority had to spend the funds in the Central Valley and expend them by September 2017 for risk of losing them. To adhere to the deadline, the Authority signed construction contracts before design, land acquisition, and utility relocations were completed. This would lead to severe disruptions during construction and delays persisting to date (see ). In 2014, the California State Legislature voted to appropriate $250 million in state cap-and-trade revenue for the Authority, along with 25% of all future revenue until the end of 2030. By December 2023, it had received $11.7 billion through the cap-and-trade appropriation. In June 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration reinstated the funding. In September 2023, the Authority obtained a $202 million FRA grant to design and construct six grade separations in Shafter, California, part of the southward extension from the initial towards Bakersfield. In December 2023, the Biden-Harris administration awarded the CAHSR project $3.1 billion of federal funding under another FRA grant program, making it the largest federal commitment since the ARRA-grant in 2009. The same grant also approved $3 billion for Brightline West, a similar but privately-run high speed rail project aiming to connect Los Angeles with Las Vegas. Both FRA grant programs were funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). In February 2025, the FRA under Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy of the Trump-Vance administration ordered a compliance review of the project. Its goal was to determine whether the Authority has been non-compliant with stipulations in agreements between the FRA and the High-Speed Rail Authority, which were accompanying two major federal grants. In June 2025, the FRA released a report on its compliance review, concluding that the Authority has been non-compliant with the grant agreements and thus recommended the termination of those grants, totaling federal obligations of around $4 billion. The report claimed that minimal progress has been made on the project, ridership forecasts have been sharply reduced, project deadlines missed, and that there was no viable path for the IOS to be in revenue service by 2033 given a $7 billion funding shortfall just for that segment. In its formal response, the Authority rejected the validity of the findings such as on minimal progress, citing 54 completed structures and of completed guideway as well as the completed Caltrain electrification. The rail authority further contended that the FRA under the Biden-Harris administration executed the $3 billion IIJA-grant just eight-months prior when faced with the same factual basis, and that the findings were politically predetermined given a series of prior critical public statements by President Trump and Secretary Duffy. In April 2025, the administration further cancelled $175 million for grade separation, over-crossing and design work. The state of California challenged its legality, calling the decision "illegal". On July 16, 2025, Acting FRA Administrator Drew Feeley issued the final decision to terminate two federal grant agreements under FY10 and IIJA, which had carried a remaining federal commitment of $4 billion, marking the second attempt of an administration under Trump to cancel federal funding awarded to CAHSR. In response, the state of California under Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Sacramento in the Ninth Circuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the move from the federal government was a "petty, political retribution, motivated by President Trump’s personal animus". In December 2025, the state dropped its lawsuit challenging the funding rescission, and opted to move forward with the project independently, without a federal funding partner. Meanwhile in September 2025, the California State Legislature voted to extend the state cap-and-trade program from 2030 to 2045, under the rebranded name "cap-and-invest". The previous appropriation from 2014, which saw 25 percent of revenue given to high-speed rail, was changed into instead prioritizing $1 billion annually for the project ahead of other uses of the fund. According to the CEO of the high-speed rail authority, this guarantees full funding for the initial operating segment from Merced to Bakerfield. The stable funding guarantee allows the Authority to borrow against that future annual income, so that funding flows do not limit the pace of construction. Current cost estimates The table below shows capital cost estimates as of 2026 for the active project scope of the Authority: putting the IOS into revenue service by 2030–2033, investments into blended corridors, and project development such as environmental clearance of Phase 1. Unfunded segments are listed in the next table. The next table displays capital cost estimates for the full Phase 1. Cost uncertainty for unfunded segments remains high, as preparatory work that can inform cost estimates have not yet been undertaken. Major steps for those would be: environmental clearance to determine the final alignment and necessary mitigation measures, preliminary engineering and geotechnical studies, and advanced design. However, the estimated ranges below do not factor in cost revisions that are expected to occur upon environmental clearance for two sections in Southern California (Palmdale to Burbank, and Los Angeles to Anaheim), planned for the end of 2025. Similarly, the extensive tunnels on the Northern and Southern California segments require geotechnical studies and engineering to inform more precise cost estimates, but those have not yet been funded. partially funded and underway Past cost estimates Cost estimates have increased significantly since program inception. In the first business plan of 2008, the cost estimate for civil construction of the Merced-Bakersfield section, now termed the IOS, was $6.2 billion ($ billion in 2025). The same scope of work was projected to be $30.5 billion in 2024. The initial 2008 total cost estimate for Phase 1, developed by consultants WSP USA for the Authority and presented to voters, was $45 billion ($ billion in 2025). No timeline for completion was presented to voters, but the Authority initially anticipated a possible completion date by 2020. At that time, when the project was voted on in Proposition 1A, the alignment was not specified yet and no major engineering had been undertaken to inform those estimates. By 2024, this forecast had risen to $106.2 billion. Regular public controversy about project cost increases is centered around the latter headline number for the total cost of Phase 1. Up until 2016, cost estimates were reported as nominal prices, only subject to overall inflation. Since 2018, these estimates have been reported in terms of years-of-expenditure. This means that total expenditure is calculated as a sum of expense flows, with each expense being inflated forward to the year in which the expense is expected to occur. Hence, since 2018, the commonly discussed increase in headline costs reflects a combination of increases in real costs, overall inflation, and push-backs in the expense schedule. The table below hints at the difference between current-year prices and year-of-expenditure prices by showing the estimates in 2018 for both. The table shows the evolution of cost estimates made by the Authority over a period spanning project inception in 2008 up to 2024. These numbers are reported in biannual business plans, which the Authority is mandated to report to the California legislature. Each row states cost estimates of civil construction for one section. For most years, this includes grade separations, guideway, tracks, and systems. The bottom row sums over all sections and additionally includes program-wide non-construction capital costs, such as trainsets and maintenance facilities. substantially funded and underway Although price levels for projects around the world are not directly comparable due to differing topographies, required mitigations measures, and construction prices, high-speed rail projects in the Western hemisphere with similar timelines have also experienced significant cost increases since those were proposed: A high-speed line in Southern Germany that opened in 2022 saw its budget nearly double, from €2.03 billion in 2009 to €3.99 billion by 2022. High Speed 2, a high-speed line currently under construction in the United Kingdom that will connect London with Birmingham, has seen its headline cost almost quadruple, from £15.8–17.4 billion in 2010 up to possibly £66 billion by January 2024. Construction inflation was cited as the main reason for recent cost increases, with prices for steel, rebar, and concrete having risen by 47, 53, and 48 percent respectively during the period since the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar cost increases have occurred on major California infrastructure projects in the 21st century when faced with similar challenges like the CAHSR project. The Bay Bridge replacement span increased from an initial $1 billion in 1996 to $6.5 billion by 2013, due to initial estimates being made before detailed engineering studies, and due to inflation in the cost of labor and building materials. The cost of widening a section of I-405 in Sepulveda Pass rose from $1 billion in 2010 to $1.6 billion in 2016, due to "repeated changes to the project's design and failure to identify and relocate utilities." The cost of the planned long third phase of the Silicon Valley BART extension rose from $4.7 billion in 2014 to $12.2 billion in 2024, due to years of delays and inflation, and to design changes following complaints from property owners along the route. In 2023, the Authority published a major cost revision for putting the IOS into revenue service, significantly increasing estimates from $23.4 billion in its 2022 business plan to a range of $26.2–33 billion, depending on the degree of confidence. Including past and future expenses outside the IOS, total expenditure of the California High-Speed Rail Authority would increase from $25.7 billion to a range of $28.5–35.3 billion. This increase of potentially up to $9.7 billion, or 37 percent, was explained with the following major factors: $2.1 billion, or 21 percent of the increase, were attributable to delays in schedule combined with inflation; $3.9 billion, or 40 percent of the increase, were supposedly due to changes in scope, such as building stations in downtown Merced and Bakersfield upon stakeholder agreement, rather than stopping trains further outside the city centers; and the remaining $3.7 billion, or 39 percent of the increase, were added as risk contingencies for the higher risk scenario, along with other unspecified elements related to the first two factors. == Setbacks and challenges ==

Land acquisition issues The major factor contributing to delays and cost overruns has been the difficulty in acquiring land parcels necessary for construction. In order for actual construction of structures such as grade separations, trenches, and viaducts to start, land for both the structures themselves and for access and logistics have to be secured; utilities (electric, telecommunications, gas, and wet) moved; and impact on existing traffic mitigated, such as by temporarily or permanently relocating busy roads or freight rail tracks. In 2012, the Authority decided to issue construction contracts, even though design was only 15% complete, partially to comply with spending deadlines for the ARRA funding. However, this implied that the final sizes of bridges, overpasses and track beds were unknown, leading to incomplete identification of land rights to be secured. delaying overall construction start to 2015. By 2019, less than 310 parcels out of 1859 required had been acquired. The number of parcels necessary was underestimated due to the extent of utility conflicts being larger than the Authority anticipated. Land conveyance processes were further complicated due to incomplete records kept by utility companies like PG&E on precise utility locations and easement rights. In hundreds of cases, the Authority was forced to buy entire plots of land, even though only a portion of its right-of-way was required. By 2021, the targeted completion date as communicated by the Authority to the legislature had been pushed back to 2023, but land acquisition issues were still holding up construction. As part of renegotiations about delay-induced costs, the general contractor for Construction Package 1 (CP1), American construction firm Tutor Perini, wrote a letter to the Authority complaining that "[it] is beyond comprehension [...] that the authority has not obtained all of the right of way". That letter cited further problems such as rapid turnover of state officials and the state's failure to secure agreements with outside parties, including utilities and freight railroads – the latter of which were in turn criticized for their “preferential and unreasonable demands”. A similar letter was sent by the main contractor for Construction Package 2–3 (CP2-3), Spanish construction firm Dragados, warning of further delays to at least 2025 due to land conveyance issues. By December 2023, 2,258 out of 2,295 required parcels (98 percent) on the under active construction had been acquired, shifting the major source of hold-up risk to outstanding utility relocations. On CP1, 18 percent of utility relocations had not yet been started, and 20 percent for CP2-3. Both construction packages have a scheduled completion date at the end of 2026. The southernmost active segment, Construction Package 4 (CP4) under Spanish infrastructure firm Ferrovial as main contractor, has almost finished civil construction, barring a single outstanding canal relocation. For the remaining segments of the IOS not yet under construction then, which are of extensions into Merced and Bakersfield, the Authority plans to initiate construction only after fully completing design and land acquisition. By 2012, one year before planned groundbreaking in 2013, later delayed to January 2015, construction cost estimates for the IOS had been revised from $8.6 billion in 2008 to $16.1 billion (in 2024 dollars). As land acquisition progressed during construction, it emerged that the Authority had underestimated the quantity of parcels needed for its right-of-way and associated utility relocations, as well as their prices. The Tutor Perini bid was initially eliminated as it received the lowest technical score from Authority staff for safety, design, engineering, and scheduling. A mid-evaluation rule change allowed the bid to proceed. Concerns about the contract award prompted a congressional hearing. As of December 2023, the CP1 contract had $2.4 billion in approved invoices, those being 67% of total expected expenses. In 2014, the contract for Construction Package 2–3 (CP2-3), a section leading from south of Fresno to near the Kings and Tulare county border, was awarded to a joint venture between Spanish construction firm Dragados and Hochtief subsidiary Flatiron Construction with a winning bid of $1.2 billion. This number came significantly below the $1.5–2 billion as expected by Authority staff and the second-lowest bid by Tutor Perini with $1.7 billion. A 2021 report by Ralph Vartabedian for the Los Angeles Times documented severe underestimation on the part of the contractor: Authority staff and their consultants had prepared environmental reports prior to contract award, noting challenges with a complicated landscape of creek beds and wildlife habitats in Kings County. They proposed solutions such as an elevated platform for the future Hanford station or a viaduct over several Kings River waterways crossing the alignment. By December 2023, the CP2-3 contract had $2.4 billion in approved invoices, those being expected to be 72 percent of total expenditure. Freight railway companies are further able to order construction stops at or near their railroads during peak shipping season in the fourth quarter of each year, thus narrowing the window for construction. In places where the CAHSR alignment runs close to freight rail lines, such as in downtown Fresno for substantial lengths, safety measures are mandated to protect both lines from a derailment in the other. This resulted in a requirement for the Authority to construct costly intrusion protection barriers – thick walls made out of steel reinforced concrete – to separate its guideway from freight lines. According to the Authority, a final agreement with the FRA and the affected freight rail companies BNSF and Union Pacific on technical specifications for such barriers was reached only in December 2016, well after construction contracts had been issued. The Authority is required to pay all costs for intrusion protection barriers, causing 20 change orders totaling about 500 million dollars in additional costs. They oppose the rail project because the alignment would run through their fields, requiring them to sell some of their land for construction and causing a lengthy detour to access other parts. According to Fukuda, “it's not about the money, it's about the crops and the land that are our livelihood.” City officials and residents from the nearby city of Visalia on the other hand were welcoming of the high-speed rail project, seeing it as a much needed economic opportunity. In 2013, the group achieved temporary success, when Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kinney ruled partially in favor of one of their lawsuits that was trying to block the Authority from accessing bond funds authorized via Prop 1A. The Authority's funding plan was deemed flawed due to insufficiently identifying funding needed for construction, thus violating requirements set in the ballot measure. Stuart Flashman, the lawyer who would represent this group in their series of lawsuits against the Authority, stated that “the point of this [lawsuit] was to prevent the state from moving forward and starting construction on a project they couldn't finish”. All these would eventually be dropped or settled, with Kings County being the last one in 2019. In July 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the 2013 decision of the Sacramento County Superior Court. In 2016, the remaining part of the lawsuit that argued via Prop 1A requirements was dismissed. Kings County Supervisor Doug Verboon, one of the plaintiffs, stated that "it's all about making them accountable, and not being a waste of taxpayer dollars." In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled in another case that federal regulations of the Surface Transportation Board do not categorically preempt projects such as CAHSR from compliance with stricter state environmental laws. This decision meant that the Authority is not exempt from having legal injunctions filed against it based on CEQA; these could force a halt to construction while such CEQA claims are being resolved. In 2018, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi issued a ruling dismissing another lawsuit by the group. It had asserted that Assembly Bill 1889, passed in 2016 to further specify requirements previously laid out in Prop 1A, was an unconstitutional modification of a voter-approved act. In 2021, a state appeals court affirmed the prior ruling. In 2022, the State Supreme Court denied hearing an appeal, ending John Tos' decade-long series of lawsuits. In February 2022, Hollywood Burbank Airport sued the Authority over its then upcoming environmental statement for the unfunded Burbank to Los Angeles segment. Those plans called for an underground high-speed rail station connecting to the airport. Airport officials were worried about impacts on their operations and safety during construction, arguing that the report did not analyze these potential impacts and hence violated CEQA. The lawsuit delayed environmental clearance, and if successful could have required a costly new environmental process to determine a different rail alignment. In November 2023, both parties reached a settlement that included dismissal of the lawsuit and compensation to the airport for its legal expenses. Other The Central Valley with its agricultural focus relies on irrigation canals. These are usually dry from March to September, providing the Authority with a time window of six months per year to conduct work on canal relocations or bridging structures. In the spring of 2023, the Central Valley around the city of Corcoran was flooded due to unusual amounts of rain and melting snow. Some major work sites were completely flooded and unreachable, causing work to halt. The structures themselves are designed to withstand 100-year floods. Further delays were caused due to emergency measures to support affected communities: A road that had been dug up to be replaced with an overcrossing was repaved to provide access to cut-off residents. == Political perspectives ==

Support Since the project's inception, multiple California governors have supported the project. Jerry Brown stated in 2012: "During the 1930's , the Central Valley Water Project was called a 'fantastic dream' that 'will not work.' The Master Plan for the Interstate Highway System in 1939 was derided as 'New Deal jitterbug economics... The critics were wrong then and they're wrong now." In a 2022 interview, Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized the "political provincialism" affecting the project, "You look at the world and very rarely is any system very profitable... When we build schools, we don't look like, 'How do we make a big buck out of this whole thing?" While Newsom said he supported completing the IOS between Merced and Bakersfield and continuing planning for the rest of the route, work beyond that scope would be put on hold until funding issues could be resolved. He then stated, "The project can still be achieved... But let's be honest about the trade-offs and let's be honest about the cost." Ray LaHood, former United States Secretary of Transportation and Republican Congressman who oversaw federal grants to CAHSR under the Obama administration, stated that "When California is finished, it will end up being a good investment. People will use it... For politicians to turn a blind eye to what the people want, it's just not right." Congressman Jim Costa, one of the original authors of Prop 1A and who continues to seek project funding, wrote: "High-speed rail is a modern solution to California's transportation needs, and dismissing it as a pipe dream, or as a romantic concept, will only lead to continued congestion on our roads and delays in our skies." Jeremy Smith, of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, said, "We should not forget that this type of project is exactly what workers in the construction industry need from their government in times of recession, like times we find ourselves in now." Opposition California Republicans have generally opposed the project. Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), a native of Bakersfield, stated that he would "do whatever I can to ensure that not one dollar of federal funds is directed to this project", In the wake of economic difficulties brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, State Senator Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) remarked, "The project is way underfunded and we're never going to be able to finish it... Sometimes you've got to cut your losses, and it's time to cut our losses." A number of California Democrats have also expressed doubts about the project. In 2012, State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) asked, "Is there additional commitment of federal funds? There is not. Is there additional commitment of private funding? There is not. Is there a dedicated funding source that we can look to in the coming years? There is not." In 2020, Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) stated, "I want to see high-speed rail move forward only in a way that is responsible and in keeping with what we told the voters we would do." Many advocacy groups have also opposed the project or criticized its management and implementation. The libertarian Reason Foundation wrote in 2008: "It is possible that HSR can serve legitimate public and environmental purposes and be a financial success in California. However, the current CHSRA proposal cannot achieve such objectives," calling attention to issues such as "questionable ridership projections and cost assumptions" and "virtually no objective analysis about risks and uncertainties." In 2015, the Train Riders Association of California described the high-speed rail project as "throwing good money after bad" and argued that upgrading the existing Pacific Surfliner and Gold Runner services would provide more benefits per dollar. While the environmentalist organization Sierra Club initially supported the project, they shifted to opposing it in 2014, arguing that California should prioritize spending on other efforts to fight climate change, as high-speed rail's benefits would take decades to realize. In February 2025, President Donald Trump stated he would investigate California's High-Speed Rail Authority, suggesting possible issues in its management and oversight. In response, state officials dismissed his comments as unhelpful, labeling them as 'noise'. Legislative oversight In 2011 the California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) published a report regarding management issues with the project, citing that plans to obtain future funding were inadequate and were a risk to the project's future viability. As part of its 2012 funding package, Senate Bill 1029 required the California High-Speed Rail Authority to submit biennial reports to the Legislature detailing the project's financial status, construction progress, and operational plans. The mandate was intended to increase legislative oversight and ensure greater accountability in the project's long-term planning and spending. In 2012, the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group – an independent panel established by the California Legislature to provide oversight of the high-speed rail project – advised the state not to sell bonds funding the project unless funding issues were addressed. The group wrote that continuing the high-speed rail project without a solid plan to secure future funding represented a financial risk to California. The peer review group published an updated analysis in 2022, noting that the project had made significant progress on environmental clearance and addressed many of its management issues; however, "overall project funding remains inadequate and unstable making effective management extremely difficult". The peer group said the target two hour 40 min trip time will not be achieved. In 2022, in order to improve legislative oversight, Governor Newsom and the California legislature agreed to appoint an inspector general to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, a position equipped with its own staffing and endowed with more extensive authorities such as full access to project records and contracts, as well as the ability to issue subpoenas for witnesses and records. However, the inspector general will not be able to directly control spending. In 2023, the governor appointed Benjamin Belnap to the position. The California Legislative Analyst's Office has expressed concerns about the California High-Speed Rail Authority's reliance on cap-and-trade revenues as a primary funding source. In a 2023 report, the LAO highlighted that while the cap-and-trade program is authorized through 2030, the future of the program beyond that date remains uncertain. The LAO recommended that the Legislature consider more stable funding sources to ensure the project's continuation. Additionally, In 2023 the LAO provided an additional report on cap-and-trade revenues, which highlighted the volatile nature of the Cap and Trade Programs Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The report noted that the Cap and Trade Program is heavily dependent on market health, highlighting that the program generated significantly less revenue in 2020. The LAO emphasized that such revenue volatility could cause funding shortages for state projects relying on Cap and Trade funds. Approval varied by political affiliation, with 73 percent of Democrats backing the project versus 25% of Republicans. A poll commissioned by KTLA parent company Nexstar and conducted by Emerson College Polling was published in February 2025, which found that among a sample of 1,000 Californians, 56 percent of respondents deemed the high-speed rail project a good use of state funds. The margin of error of the poll was given at three percentage points. An older statewide survey, conducted in March 2016 by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), indicated that 52 percent of Californians supported the project, while 63 percent of Californians thought the project is either "very important" or "somewhat important" for California's economy and quality of life. Support varied by location, with the San Francisco Bay Area the highest at 63 percent, and the lowest in the Orange/San Diego region at 47 percent. It also varied by race, with 66 percent of Asians, 58 percent of Latin Americans, 44 percent of Whites, and 42 percent of African Americans supporting the project. The survey also concluded that mostly younger Californians supported the project, with a lower support rate as the age increased. Politically, mostly Democrats supported the project with a support rate of 59 percent, compared to 29 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of Independent Californians. == Economic, environmental and community debates ==

Construction sequencing Concerns have been raised with the plan to start service on only the IOS in the Central Valley. As The Guardian wrote in 2022, because the IOS would not reach the major urban centers of the Bay Area and Los Angeles, initial ridership potential could be severely limited. While previous iterations of the IOS would have connected to at least one of these metro areas, they were scaled back due to lack of funding. While Gavin Newsom has supported completing the line from Merced to Bakersfield, other California lawmakers such as Anthony Rendon have argued that the limited funds should be directed to other segments of the line, such as Burbank to Anaheim, which run through more densely populated areas and could see higher initial ridership even without the rest of the system being complete. Rendon described the approach as "not the end of high-speed rail, but a way to save it." The Authority countered that the Central Valley was the easiest location to start due to the flat terrain, and was the most suitable location for a test track once the first trainsets are delivered. In addition, federal funding granted in 2010–11 was required to be used in the Central Valley segment. However, the Lowy Institute notes that the Indonesian corridor is short (less than half of the California IOS The Los Angeles Times wrote: "fares will be one of the most important factors in the decisions that millions of travelers will make when choosing to fly, drive or ride the bullet train." Transport mode and ridership The sections from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim are intended to be operated as "blended" sections, in which high-speed trains would share the rail corridor and tracks with slower commuter rail and possibly freight trains, in order to avoid a costly dedicated right-of-way in dense urban areas. This has been the subject of criticism, as it would limit both train speeds and frequencies on the shared corridors. A 2015 report prepared by Eric Eidlin of the U.S Department of Transportation noted that while these were downsides of blended operation (as is the case for high-speed rail in Germany), there were also potential benefits, such as improved transit connectivity from sharing existing stations, and reduced noise and environmental impacts. Some Bay Area residents have questioned the safety of allowing high-speed trains to use grade crossings, and pushed for more grade separations along the route. City governments such as Palo Alto have expressed concern that future rail operations would cause traffic congestion at grade crossings, due to the high frequency of combined high-speed rail and Caltrain service. Because most California cities have less public transit coverage compared to cities abroad served by high-speed rail, some critics have expressed concern that a lack of local transit connectivity may discourage potential riders. Assemblywoman Laura Friedman asked: "How (do) we turn California car culture into a California culture of transit of all sorts? ... That is the big question — and how does high-speed rail interact with that?" The urban policy think tank SPUR highlighted that to improve the usability of high-speed rail, cities should focus future development and density around stations, integrate them into surrounding communities and public spaces, prevent displacement through gentrification, and provide robust alternatives for station access besides driving. while Los Angeles is spending $120 billion through Measure M to build out its Metro Rail and bus network. In a 2013 analysis, the libertarian Reason Foundation argued that California's ridership projections could be overly optimistic. They noted that California expected 73 percent of its total ridership to be captured from existing highway travel, while in Europe, high-speed rail ridership was mostly captured from airlines and conventional rail, with only 11–16 percent from highways. High-speed rail tends to capture significantly more riders from airlines and conventional rail than from highways, due to the comparable nature of the trips requiring travel to a station or airport. In comparison, the Authority projected 28.4 million high-speed rail riders on Phase 1 by 2040. In the early 2000s, forecasters expected California's population to hit 59 million by 2040, but updated forecasts in 2023 expect it to remain around 40 million, only a slight increase from the population at that time. The Authority has revised its Phase 1 ridership projections downward, from 38.6 million in 2020 to 31.5 million in 2023. The major exception to California population trends is in the Central Valley, which is expected to add up to 5 million new residents by 2060. This could significantly increase transportation demand in the state's interior, even with a lack of growth in coastal cities. Although the hyperloop concept became publicly popular and numerous media outlets such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and the projected $6 billion cost was criticized as implausibly low. Hyperloop construction would have encountered the same planning and land-use hurdles faced by high-speed rail. Hyperloop One, the only company to have built a working prototype, shut down in 2023 after failing to find a buyer for the technology. Choice of route A route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley via Altamont Pass – which was among the corridor options listed in Proposition 1A – has been suggested as an alternative to the Pacheco Pass route. Critics such as the California Rail Foundation have noted that Altamont would provide a more direct link from the Stockton and Modesto areas to San Francisco, compared to Pacheco which requires a long detour to the south. As of 2020, the Sierra Club also opposed the Pacheco route in favor of Altamont, citing the greater impacts of the former on Coast Range wildlife and its potential to induce urban sprawl in the countryside surrounding Gilroy. Sprawl has been a general concern since the early planning of the project; a station in Los Banos – which the Pacheco route passes between Gilroy and Merced – was specifically prohibited by Prop 1A as a compromise for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to endorse the ballot. The Authority has intended to build the Pacheco route since 2007, and as of 2024 its plans remained unchanged. although in 2009 they also expressed their interest in building the state's official proposed alignment. The Authority turned down SNCF's involvement in 2011, in part due to "Buy America" requirements that mandate transportation projects using federal funds to use domestically produced trains and materials, and due to political considerations as Proposition 1A outlined a route through Fresno and Bakersfield. The owners of Tejon Ranch, which has large land holdings in Tejon Pass, also opposed the Tejon route and pressured the Authority to drop the study. Although the Tejon route would provide a faster north-south trip, it would miss the opportunity to connect with Brightline West in Palmdale. In a 2025 project update report to state legislators, the Authority laid out the option of re-sequencing the project such that Merced, which so far had been prioritized as the northern terminus of the initial operating segment (IOS), would be de-prioritized in favor of diverting its limited funding to a faster build-out towards Gilroy, thus connecting to the Bay Area population center. Any such change to the existing prioritization of the IOS would require legislative approval. Within the full Phase 1 system, Merced does not directly lie on the mainline that would connect San Francisco with Los Angeles, but instead is the end node of a shorter segment branching off the former. Projected over 40 years, the Bay Area connection via Gilroy would result in a $47.5 billion operating profit, compared to a $3.8 billion loss on just a Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. Construction impact on communities Construction work in the Central Valley has caused disruptions, such as noise and air quality impacts to residents along the route, and road closures at overpass construction sites. The city of Wasco raised concerns about neglect of properties purchased by the Authority along the rail alignment, which had become blighted and attracted squatters for several years. In November 2021 the city reached a resolution with the Authority to clean up the site. Properties were taken by eminent domain in Fresno, Bakersfield and smaller cities along the route. Assemblyman Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) said that "the high-speed rail authority is trying to sugar coat the impacts it is having on communities... It impacts significantly part of Bakersfield that is socioeconomically disadvantaged." The project has impacted agriculture along its route in the Central Valley, with portions of several large properties being cut off from access, disruption of irrigation systems, and a reduction in the acreage available for farming. While the state is legally required to compensate farmers for financial setbacks and the use of their land, some payments have been significantly delayed, sometimes by up to a year. == Notes ==