California High-Speed Rail
California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) is a publicly funded high-speed rail system being developed in California by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Phase 1, about 494 miles (795 km) long, is planned to run from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim via the Central Valley, and is partially funded and under construction. A proposed Phase 2 would extend the system north to Sacramento and south to San Diego, for a total of 776 miles (1,249 km). The project was authorized by a 2008 statewide ballot to connect the state's major urban areas and reduce intercity travel times. Phase 1 targets a travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles, compared to about nine hours on existing Amtrak service.
California High-Speed Rail
California High-Speed Rail Authority
an agency of the State of California
Initial Operating Segment (IOS) now being developed in the Central Valley (Merced to Bakersfield);
Planned Phase 1 extensions:
north to San Francisco Bay Area
south to Greater Los Angeles;
Future Phase 2 extensions:
north to Sacramento
south to San Diego
California, United States
5 on the IOS; up to 24 authorized in completed system
Brian P. Kelly
2030-2033 on the IOS (Merced to Bakersfield)
DB E.C.O. North America Inc.[1]
- 171 mi (275 km) IOS only
- 494 mi (795 km) full Phase 1
- 776 mi (1,249 km) completed system[2]
2 (plus 2 tracks in stations)
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Construction of Phase 1 began in the Central Valley in 2015. Due to limited funding, the project is being built in sections. As of 2024, the state was targeting completion of a 171-mile (275 km) long Initial Operating Segment (IOS) connecting Merced and Bakersfield. The IOS is projected to commence revenue service as a self-contained high-speed rail system between 2030-2033, at a cost of $28–35 billion.[6][7] With a top speed of 220 mph (350 km/h), CAHSR trains running along this section would be the fastest in the Americas.[a]
From January 2015 to December 2023, a total of $11.2 billion had been spent on the IOS – which has 119 miles (192 km) under active construction – and on upgrades to existing rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles, where Phase 1 is planned to share tracks with conventional passenger trains. The Authority has not secured funding to connect the Central Valley section with either the Bay Area or Los Angeles, which would require crossing several major mountain passes. As of 2024, the entirety of Phase 1 was projected to cost $106.2 billion.
Supporters of the project state that it would alleviate air traffic and highway congestion, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and provide economic benefits by linking the state's isolated inland regions to coastal cities.[8] Opponents argue that it is too expensive, and that the funds should be spent on other transportation or infrastructure projects. The route choice has been controversial, along with the decision to begin construction in the Central Valley rather than more heavily populated parts of the state. The project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns caused by management issues, legal challenges and lack of a complete funding commitment.
Stations and service[edit]
Finances and setbacks[edit]
Overview of project finances[edit]
The project is financed mainly by the state of California, supplemented by federal grants.[91][92] By the end of 2023, the share of committed funding borne by the state was 76%. The Authority has only one source of persistent cash flow: a fixed share of revenue from California cap-and-trade auctions set to expire in 2030.[93] 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. Compared to initial funding in Q4 2008, by Q4 2023 the national price level had increased by 39.1%.[g]
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 expenditures ranging between $28.5$ and $35.3 billion, adjusted for inflation. Except for environmental clearance and investments into the blended corridors, no funding had been obtained for engineering and construction of segments outside the IOS.
Funding[edit]
The 2008 statewide ballot Proposition 1A was the authorization by voters for the CAHSR project itself[94] 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.[95] Formally, bond proceeds have to be appropriated to the Authority in the California state budget. By the end of 2023, $8,516 million out of $9,950 million had been appropriated.[96]
The second major funding infusion was a combination of federal grants in 2009, financed mainly under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for a total of $3.5 billion.[97][98] 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.[99] To adhere to the deadline, the Authority signed construction contracts before design, land acquisition, and utility relocations were completed.[100] This would lead to severe disruptions during construction and delays persisting to date (see subsection § Setbacks on the IOS).
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.[101][102] By December 2023, it had received $11.7 billion through the cap-and-trade appropriation.[103] Unlike all other funding, this is the only persistent income stream for the Authority. With a conservative projection of $750 million in annual revenue, the Authority expects this source to yield $5.3 billion before expiration.
In May 2019, the FRA under the Trump-Pence administration announced that $929 million in funding that were awarded under ARRA/FY10 in 2009 but had not yet been paid out would be withheld and cancelled. The reasons given were that the Authority had not made reasonable progress, and that the State of California under Governor Gavin Newsom abandoned the original goal of connecting San Francisco with Los Angeles, both being in violation of the federal funding agreement.[104][105] In June 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration reinstated the funding.[106]
In September 2023, the Authority obtained a $202 million FRA grant to design and construct six grade separations in Shafter, California,[107] part of the southward extension from the initial 119 miles (192 km) 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.[108] Both FRA grant programs were funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
As of December 2023, full completion of the IOS along with the ongoing investments into blended corridors for Phase 1 and program-wide costs (such as administration, project development, trainsets, and maintenance facilities) is expected to entail a funding shortfall of between $200 million and $7 billion. This broad range stems from uncertainty both on the cost side (upcoming contract bids; IOS construction schedule combined with inflation and general cost increases in the construction sector), and on the funding side with uncertain amounts of future cap-and-trade revenue.[14]
The Authority seeks further federal grants to ensure completion of the IOS, thereby increasing the current 23% federal share in project contributions. It further strives to obtain an extension of the 25% cap-and-trade appropriation from the state until 2050, which would provide additional funds that are hedged against inflation-related cost increases from delays in schedule.[14]
The following table provides a summary over funding firmly granted and realized expenditure by the end of 2023, as well as expected future funding and expenditure:
Political perspectives[edit]
Support[edit]
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."[165] 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?"[9]
Current California Governor Gavin Newsom, in his February 2019 State of the State address, said: "Let's be real... The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long . . . Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were."[166] 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."[167]
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."[168] Congressman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), 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."[169][170]
Other supporters include local governments along the route, business groups, and labor unions. In 2024, Fresno mayor Jerry Dyer described high-speed rail as "a game-changer for the Valley and for Fresno," while Merced deputy city manager Frank Quintero called it "a major economic catalyst."[171] 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."[172]
Opposition[edit]
California Republicans have generally opposed the project. Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Big Bear Lake), 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",[101] a few days before becoming House majority leader. McCarthy has often pushed for redirecting high-speed rail funding to water projects in the Central Valley.[173] 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."[172] Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield) has also been a vocal opponent, stating in 2020, "We need to seriously reevaluate High Speed Rail funding, especially when this state is asking Californians to make real sacrifices," in regard to "[proposed] cuts to education, healthcare programs, and diverting road funds to address our budget deficit."[174]
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."[175] 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."[172]
Many advocacy groups have also opposed the project or criticized its management and implementation. The libertarian Reason Foundation wrote in 2008 that "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."[176] 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 San Joaquins services would provide more benefits per dollar.[177]
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.[165] Many agricultural interests along the proposed route have also opposed the project due to its potential impact on farming operations and the use of eminent domain.[178][179]
Legislative oversight[edit]
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.[180] The LAO recommended that the state seek flexibility with the use of federal funds, most of which was required to be used on the Merced–Bakersfield segment, and recommended the state pursue other corridors in the Bay Area and Los Angeles that could provide more immediate benefits. They also criticized the Authority's heavy reliance on private consultants, which increased costs and complicated management.[180]
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.[181] 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".[182] It called future cost estimates into question as those sections had not yet been bid on, and that the Authority lacked contract management experiences with key portions of those sections (such as tunneling).[182]
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.[183] In 2023, the governor appointed Benjamin Belnap to the position.[184]
Public opinion polls[edit]
Public approval of the project among California residents has remained relatively steady since 2008, when Proposition 1A passed with 53 percent of the vote. In April 2022, UC Berkeley's Institute of Government Studies released a survey of registered voters that found 56% supporting continuation of the high-speed rail project, even if "its operations only extend from Bakersfield to Merced in the Central Valley by the year 2030 and to the Bay Area by the year 2033", and 35% remaining opposed.[185] Approval varied by political affiliation, with 73% of Democrats backing the project versus 25% of Republicans.[185]
An older statewide survey, conducted in March 2016 by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), indicated that 52% of Californians supported the project, while 63% 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%, and lowest in Orange/San Diego at 47%), by race (Asians 66%, Latinos 58%, whites 44%, and blacks 42%), by age (declining sharply with increasing age), and by political orientation (Democrats 59%, independents 47%, and Republicans 29%).[186]
Economic, environmental and community debates[edit]
Construction sequencing[edit]
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.[187] 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 (D-Lakewood) 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."[188] 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.[99][100]
A 2024 opinion piece published in the Times of San Diego compared the California project to high-speed rail in Indonesia, which opened its initial section in 2023. The Indonesian rail project only reaches the outskirts of the cities it serves, requiring a long trip on local transit to reach the city centers. Similarly, the California IOS would require a transfer on both ends to reach the Bay Area and Los Angeles. High-speed rail in Indonesia was reporting an operational loss and lower ridership than forecast.[189] However, the Lowy Institute notes that the Indonesian corridor is short (less than half of the California IOS[189]) and already served by frequent rail service while its tickets are twice as expensive, limiting the line's attractiveness to passengers.[190] The Los Angeles Times wrote that "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."[191]
Transport mode and ridership[edit]
The sections from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim are intended to be operated as "blended" sections,[192] 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.[193] 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.[194] 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.[195]
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 (D-Glendale) 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?"[196] 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.[8] Large investments in public transit are currently underway or planned in the state's major cities, with the Bay Area expanding BART, commuter rail, light rail and bus rapid transit,[197] while Los Angeles is spending $120 billion through Measure M to build out its Metro Rail and bus network.[198]
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.[199] 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.[199] In 2023, about 4.8 million passengers flew between the Bay Area and greater Los Angeles,[y] while total 2022 Amtrak ridership in the state was about 6.4 million.[201] In comparison, the Authority projected 28.4 million high-speed rail riders on Phase 1 by 2040.[14] The Reason Foundation did not account for induced demand, or new trips generated by high-speed rail rather than those replacing existing car, airline and transit trips. A study by the Transportation Research Board found that among high-speed rail projects worldwide, induced demand accounted for anywhere from 0 to 80 percent of total ridership, which represents a major uncertainty in ridership projections.[202]
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.[203] With the rate of population growth slowing, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, some critics have questioned the need for additional transportation capacity in the state. In 2023, the Times-Standard wrote, "...It’s time for local and state government officials to recalibrate. Projects that were conceived based on the assumption of an expanding California population will no longer make sense."[203] The Authority has revised its Phase 1 ridership projections downward, from 38.6 million in 2020 to 31.5 million in 2023.[204] 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.[168]