View source for California High-Speed Rail

{{Short description|Under-construction passenger rail system in the US}}
{{Use American English|date=February 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2024}}
{{Infobox public transit
| name = California High-Speed Rail
| image = CAHSRA Logo.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| image2 = CAHSR location map.svg
| imagesize2 = 300px
| caption2 = A map of CAHSR; the separate [[Brightline West]] is indicated in yellow
| locale = [[California]], United States
| notrack = [[Double-track railway|Double-track]]
| owner = [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]
| area served = IOS now being developed from [[Merced, California|Merced]] to [[Bakersfield, California|Bakersfield]]<br />Planned Phase&nbsp;1 extensions:<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;north to [[San Francisco]]<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;south to [[Los Angeles]]<br />Future Phase&nbsp;2 extensions:<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;north to [[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]]<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;south to [[San Diego, California|San Diego]]
| top_speed = {{cvt|220|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}
| transit_type = [[High-speed rail]]
| chief_executive = Ian Choudri
| track_gauge = {{railgauge|sg|first=imp|allk=on}}
| el = [[25 kV AC railway electrification|25 kV 60 Hz AC]] [[overhead line]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Technical Memorandum: Traction Power 2x25kV Autotransformer Feed Type Electrification System & System Voltages|url=http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_1_1_1R02.pdf|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=November 3, 2016|archive-date=October 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016191349/https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_1_1_1R02.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
| stations = 5 on the IOS; up to 24 authorized in completed system
| system_length = {{plainlist|
* {{convert|171|mi|km|abbr=on}} (IOS only)
* {{convert|494|mi|km|abbr=on}} (full Phase&nbsp;1)
* {{convert|776|mi|km|abbr=on}} (completed system)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080123171537_ImplementationPlan.pdf |title=Implementation Plan |access-date=July 17, 2008 |author=California High-Speed Rail Authority |pages=23, 25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910174725/http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080123171537_ImplementationPlan.pdf |archive-date=September 10, 2008 }}</ref>
}}
| operator = DB E.C.O. North America Inc.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://db-engineering-consulting.com/en/projects/california-high-speed-rail-early-train-operator/ |title=DB E.C.O. North America Inc. |access-date=November 21, 2022 |archive-date=November 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221121211645/https://db-engineering-consulting.com/en/projects/california-high-speed-rail-early-train-operator/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
| website = {{url|https:www.hsr.ca.gov/}}
| map = {{California High-Speed Rail}}
| map_state = collapsed
| operation_will_start = 2031–2033
}}

{{multiple image
|image1=San Joaquin River Viaduct 2019.jpg
|width1=280px
|caption1=[[San Joaquin River Viaduct]] under construction in 2019.
|image2=San Joaquin Viaduct, 2021-02-10 IMG 0271.jpg
|width2=280px
|caption2=The same viaduct completed in February 2021.
|align=right
|direction=vertical}}

'''California High-Speed Rail''' ('''CAHSR''') is a publicly-funded [[high-speed rail]] system under construction across [[California]] by the [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]. The project was authorized by a [[2008 California Proposition 1A|2008 statewide ballot]] to connect the state's major urban areas. The project is to be constructed in two major phases. Phase&nbsp;1, as approved by voters will connect San Francisco and Los Angeles in two hours and 40&nbsp;minutes.  A Phase&nbsp;2 would extend the system north to [[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]] and south to [[San Diego]], for a total system length of {{convert|776|mi|km}}. With a top speed of {{convert|220|mph|abbr=on}}, CAHSR trains would be the fastest in the U.S.{{efn|The [[Acela]], with a top speed of {{convert|160|mph}}, is currently the fastest rail service in the U.S.}} and among the fastest in the world.{{efn|The [[Fuxing (train)|Fuxing series]] in China, with a top speed of {{convert|350|km/h|mph}}, is currently the fastest rail service in the world in terms of operating speed.}}

Phase&nbsp;1, which is about {{convert|494|mi|km}} long, is planned to run from [[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]] to [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]] and [[Anaheim, California|Anaheim]] via the [[Central Valley (California)|Central Valley]]. As of July 2025, only the Initial Operating Segment (IOS), a section of Phase&nbsp;1 that spans 35&nbsp;percent of its total length, has advanced to construction and will connect [[Merced, California|Merced]] and [[Bakersfield, California|Bakersfield]]. Revenue service on the IOS is projected to commence in 2032 as a self-contained high-speed rail system, at a cost of $36.7&nbsp;billion.<ref>https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=December 2025}}</ref> 

Construction began in the Central Valley in 2015, with completion of the IOS originally planned for 2022. As of August 2025, a total of $13.8&nbsp;billion had been spent on the project, mainly constructing the IOS.<ref>https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=December 2025}}</ref> Other project expenditures include upgrades to existing rail lines in the [[San Francisco Bay Area]] and [[Greater Los Angeles]], where Phase&nbsp;1 is planned to share tracks with conventional passenger trains. Regulatory clearance has been obtained for the full route connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. However, the [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] ("the Authority") has not yet received sufficient funding commitment to construct the full buildout of the Phase&nbsp;1 system, currently estimated at $89–$128&nbsp;billion. As of August 2025, the Authority's interim goal is to connect the Bay Area via a connection at [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]], which is {{convert|70|mi|km}} south of San Francisco, to either [[Bakersfield, California|Bakersfield]] or [[Palmdale, California|Palmdale]], by the year 2038. The estimated cost to build the San Francisco–Gilroy–Bakersfield system is $54 billion, while the San Francisco–Gilroy–Palmdale system is $84 billion.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supplemental Project Update Report Provides a Path Forward to Delivering the First-in-the-Nation System |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2025/08/22/news-release-delivering-high-speed-rail-for-californians-supplemental-project-update-report-provides-a-path-forward-to-delivering-the-first-in-the-nation-system/ |access-date=2025-10-07 |website=hsr.ca.gov}}</ref><ref>https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=December 2025}}</ref>

The project has been politically controversial. Supporters state that it would alleviate [[California housing shortage|housing shortages]], [[Air traffic flow management|air traffic]] and [[Traffic congestion|highway congestion]], reduce [[pollution]] and [[greenhouse gas]] emissions, and provide economic benefits by linking the state's inland regions to coastal cities.<ref name="SPUR 2022">{{cite web |last1=Nutt-Beers |first1=Jackson |last2=Tolkoff |first2=Laura |date=May 19, 2022 |title=How Cities Can Make the Most of California's High-Speed Rail Investment |url=https://www.spur.org/news/2022-05-19/how-cities-can-make-most-californias-high-speed-rail-investment |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315175657/https://www.spur.org/news/2022-05-19/how-cities-can-make-most-californias-high-speed-rail-investment |archive-date=March 15, 2024 |access-date=March 15, 2024 |publisher=SPUR}}</ref> Opponents argue that the project is too expensive in principle, has lost control of cost and schedule, and that the budgetary commitment precludes other transportation or infrastructure projects in the state. The route choice has been controversial, along with the decision to construct the first high-speed segment in the Central Valley rather than in more heavily populated parts of the state. The project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns caused by management issues, legal challenges and permitting hold-ups, and inefficiencies from inadequate and sporadic funding. The Authority has also faced notable delays in securing agreements to relocate utilities, such as power lines and water infrastructure.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-21 |title=California watchdog says high-speed rail on track to blow more deadlines |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/california-high-speed-rail-ig-report-00205506 |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=POLITICO |language=en}}</ref> A state-appointed high-speed rail peer review group confirmed that the project may fall short of promises made to voters in several areas, including ridership and travel times.<ref name=slow />

The Federal government withdrew in 2025 after spending  $2.6 billion in grants to CAHSR,<ref>{{cite web |title=CA High-Speed Rail Authority Funding and Cash Management Report December 2025 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FA-Funding-and-Cash-Management-December-2025-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=31 December 2025}}</ref> and the state opted to move forward independently.<ref>{{cite news |author1=David Shepardson |title=California drops lawsuit over Trump decision to pull $4 billion in high-speed rail funds |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-drops-lawsuit-challenging-trump-decision-pull-4-billion-high-speed-2025-12-27/ |access-date=31 December 2025 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=29 December 2025 |quote="Rather than continuing to spend time and money challenging the termination, the state is moving forward without them," the agency said}}</ref>

== Background ==
{{Main|History of California High-Speed Rail}}

=== Legislative context ===

High-speed rail in California was first proposed in 1979 by Governor [[Jerry Brown]].<ref name="Cowan 2022">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/california-bullet-train.html|title=Two Former Governors Weigh In on California's Bullet Train|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=March 16, 2022|last=Cowan|first=Jill|access-date=March 10, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240310173721/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/california-bullet-train.html|archive-date=March 10, 2024}}</ref> In 1982, Brown signed a bill authorizing $1.25&nbsp;billion in bonds for a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego.<ref name="TRR"/> The law failed due to concerns over its economic viability, environmental impact, and [[Caltrans]]' objection to the handling of the project by a private company.<ref name="TRR">{{cite journal |url=https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1143/1143-006.pdf |title=High-Speed Rail in California: The Dream, the Process, and the Reality |last1=Smith |first1=George C. |last2=Shirley |first2=Earl |journal=Transportation Research Record |pages=36–43 |access-date=April 4, 2024 |archive-date=April 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240410224202/https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1143/1143-006.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1993, the state created the [[California Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission]].<ref name="SB1420"/> In 1996, the California Legislature and Governor [[Pete Wilson]] passed the High-Speed Rail Act, which formed the California High-Speed Rail Authority to plan, design, construct and operate a statewide high-speed rail system.<ref name="SB1420">{{cite web|url=http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1420_bill_960924_chaptered.html|title=Bill Number: SB 1420|publisher=California Legislative Information|access-date=March 10, 2024|archive-date=March 10, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240310173721/http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1420_bill_960924_chaptered.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2008, Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] championed [[2008 California Proposition 1A|Proposition 1A]] (Prop&nbsp;1A), which authorized $9&nbsp;billion in bonds to begin the planning and construction of high-speed rail and a further $950&nbsp;million to upgrade [[commuter rail]] systems in Northern and Southern California that would connect with the high-speed rail system. Prop&nbsp;1A, which passed with about 53&nbsp;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&nbsp;minutes.<ref name="Prop 1A Ballotpedia">{{cite web |title=California Proposition 1A, High-Speed Rail Bond Measure (2008) |url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Bond_Measure_(2008) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314103740/https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Bond_Measure_(2008) |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |access-date=March 10, 2024 |publisher=[[Ballotpedia]]}}</ref><ref name="Prop 1A text"/> 

After the prioritized funding of the San Francisco to Los Angeles section, Prop 1A proposed additional potential corridors for high-speed rail investment:
*Oakland–San Jose
*Sacramento–Merced
*Los Angeles–Inland Empire
*Inland Empire–San Diego
*Los Angeles–Irvine
The only specific route requirements set by Prop&nbsp;1A were to complete a link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and that the Authority would study the additional corridors for possible inclusion. It did not require that all corridors be built, indicate the order of construction, or specify precise routes and station locations other than in San Francisco and Los Angeles.<ref name="Prop 1A text">{{cite web|url=https://www.lalawlibrary.org/pdfs/PROP_1108_1A.pdf|title=Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 1A|publisher=LA Law Library|access-date=March 10, 2024|archive-date=March 10, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240310173721/https://www.lalawlibrary.org/pdfs/PROP_1108_1A.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>https://hsr.ca.gov/about/high-speed-rail-business-plans/2012-business-plan/</ref>

=== 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–Jack London Square station|Oakland]]. The Amtrak ''[[Coast Starlight]]'', the only direct rail service from Oakland to Los Angeles, takes eleven hours and runs once daily.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/20928/coast-starlight.pdf|title=Amtrak's Coast Starlight|publisher=Rail Passengers Association|access-date=March 15, 2024|archive-date=March 30, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240330063105/https://railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/20928/coast-starlight.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> While the ''[[Gold Runner]]'' takes about nine hours, a bus transfer is required for part of the route.<ref name="San Joaquins timetable">{{cite web|url=https://amtrak-bucket.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/JPA17915_TimetableEdits_September_V2.pdf|title=San Joaquins Timetable|publisher=Amtrak|access-date=March 15, 2024|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315175656/https://amtrak-bucket.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/JPA17915_TimetableEdits_September_V2.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sauter-Servaes |first1=Thomas |last2=Krautscheid |first2=Thomas |last3=Schober |first3=Alexander |title=A Level Playing Field for Comparing Air and Rail Travel Times |journal=The Open Transportation Journal |date=2019 |volume=13 |pages=48–56 |url=https://opentransportationjournal.com/VOLUME/13/PAGE/48/FULLTEXT/#:~:text=Research%20on%20the%20interaction%20between,than%20air%20travel%20%5B27%5D. |language=en |doi=10.2174/1874447801913010048}}</ref> The entry of high speed rail into the transportation market typically results in improved on-time flight performance, service quality, and price competition.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fang |first=Hanming |date=March 2025 |title=Competition and Quality: Evidence from High-Speed Railways and Airlines |url=https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/107/2/494/114755/Competition-and-Quality-Evidence-from-High-Speed?redirectedFrom=fulltext# |journal=The Review of Economics and Statistics |volume=107 |issue=2 |pages=494–509 |doi=10.1162/rest_a_01294 |via=MIT Press Direct|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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&nbsp;scheduled flights daily.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/05/americans-fly-lax-sfo-more-than-any-other-flight-path-in-the-u-s/|title=Americans fly LAX-SFO more than any other flight path in the U.S|work=[[The Mercury News]]|date=July 5, 2016|access-date=March 15, 2024|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315184645/https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/05/americans-fly-lax-sfo-more-than-any-other-flight-path-in-the-u-s/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 work]]ers 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,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article280898638.html|title=Fresno has big hopes for high-speed rail to spur downtown renaissance. What's the grand plan?|work=[[The Fresno Bee]]|date=October 24, 2023|last=Sheehan|first=Tim|access-date=March 15, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/291/High-Speed-Rail-Station-Area-Plan-Goals|title=High-Speed Rail Station Area Plan Goals|publisher=City of Bakersfield|access-date=March 15, 2024|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315175657/https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/291/High-Speed-Rail-Station-Area-Plan-Goals|url-status=live}}</ref> the urban policy advocacy group [[SPUR (San Francisco organization)|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.<ref name="SPUR 2022"/> Phase&nbsp;1 of high-speed rail is projected to reduce annual statewide CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by about 600,000&nbsp;tons by replacing highway trips and flights; however, it would only account for 0.2&nbsp;percent of the state's total emissions from all sectors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ocregister.com/2024/02/24/new-figures-show-that-california-high-speed-rail-wont-do-much-about-climate-change/|title=New figures show that California High-Speed Rail won't do much about climate change|work=[[The Orange County Register]]|last=Joffe|first=Marc|date=February 24, 2024|access-date=March 15, 2024|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315175656/https://www.ocregister.com/2024/02/24/new-figures-show-that-california-high-speed-rail-wont-do-much-about-climate-change/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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&nbsp;1 and Phase&nbsp;2.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/rail-mass-transportation/documents/california-state-rail-plan/20230309-casrp-public-dor-guidance.pdf|title=California State Rail Plan 2023|publisher=California Department of Transportation|year=2023|access-date=April 29, 2024}}</ref>

== Plans, construction and project status ==

{{main|Construction of California High-Speed Rail}}

The project is split into two major phases: Phase&nbsp;1 is to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles via the [[Central Valley, California|Central Valley]]; Phase&nbsp;2 is an extension of Phase&nbsp;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 {{convert|171|mi|km|adj=on}} section within the Phase&nbsp;1 route in the Central Valley, with {{convert|119|mi|km}} under active construction. The project has received approximately $23&nbsp;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&nbsp;billion. As of February 2024, the entire Phase&nbsp;1 was projected to cost between $89–128&nbsp;billion, with allowance for future inflation.<ref name="2024 Business Plan">{{cite web |title=2024 Draft Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-Draft-Business-Plan-020724-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313030820/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-Draft-Business-Plan-020724-A11Y.pdf |archive-date=March 13, 2024 |access-date=March 12, 2024 |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]}}</ref>
=== Phase&nbsp;1 ===

[[Image:CAHSR_map.svg|thumb|300px|High-speed rail project status as of May 2025]]

Phase&nbsp;1 of the planned route, about {{convert|494|mi|km}} long,<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> runs from the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco to the [[Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center]] in Anaheim, with intermediate stops planned for [[Millbrae station|Millbrae]], [[San Jose Diridon station|San Jose]], [[Gilroy station|Gilroy]], [[Merced station (California High-Speed Rail)|Merced]], [[Madera station (California High-Speed Rail)|Madera]], [[Fresno station (California High-Speed Rail)|Fresno]], [[Kings–Tulare Regional Station|Kings/Tulare (Hanford)]], [[Bakersfield station (California High-Speed Rail)|Bakersfield]], [[Palmdale Transportation Center|Palmdale]], [[Burbank Airport station (California High-Speed Rail)|Burbank]] and Los Angeles.<ref name="Statewide map"/> An additional station between Los Angeles and Anaheim, at [[Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs station|Norwalk]] or [[Fullerton Transportation Center|Fullerton]], is being considered.<ref name="Los Angeles to Anaheim section">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/los-angeles-to-anaheim/|title=Los Angeles to Anaheim|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=January 25, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240125222842/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/los-angeles-to-anaheim/|url-status=live}}</ref> The existing [[San Francisco 4th and King Street station|4th and King Caltrain station]] in San Francisco is expected to be the northern terminus of Phase&nbsp;1 until the future completion of the Downtown Rail Extension (now known as [[The Portal (San Francisco)|The Portal]]) to the Salesforce Transit Center.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/san-francisco/|title=San Francisco station|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=January 26, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240126015038/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/san-francisco/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 junction|flying]] [[Wye (rail)|wye]] which is intended to serve as the connection for a future Phase&nbsp;2 extension to Sacramento.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/merced-to-fresno/merced-to-fresno-central-valley-wye/|title=Merced to Fresno – Central Valley Wye|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/merced-to-fresno/merced-to-fresno-central-valley-wye/|url-status=live}}</ref> As part of Phase&nbsp;1, Merced is planned to serve as a transfer point to the ''Gold Runner'' and [[Altamont Corridor Express]]{{efn|ACE plans to expand operations to Merced by 2030.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/ace-working-toward-rail-service-in-26-to-downtown/|title=ACE working toward rail service in '26 to downtown|work=[[Manteca Bulletin]]|last=Wyatt|first=Dennis|date=July 28, 2023|access-date=April 4, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030451/https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/ace-working-toward-rail-service-in-26-to-downtown/|url-status=live}}</ref>}} (ACE) trains continuing towards Stockton, Sacramento and other destinations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/merced/|title=Merced station|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=January 26, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240126015722/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/merced/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Baig |first=Yousef |date=2025-08-22 |title=For California high-speed rail to succeed, part of the Central Valley will have to wait {{!}} Opinion |url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/08/california-high-speed-rail-strategy/ |access-date=2025-10-06 |work=CalMatters |language=en-US}}</ref> South of there, Madera through Bakersfield stations are located along the main line in the Central Valley.<ref name="Statewide map"/> From Bakersfield, the high-speed rail route crosses the [[Tehachapi Mountains]] via the [[Tehachapi Pass]] to Palmdale in the [[Mojave Desert]]. It then tunnels under the [[San Gabriel Mountains]] to reach Los Angeles and Anaheim.<ref name="Statewide map">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_topo.pdf|title=Proposed Statewide Alignment|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=September 2020|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030453/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_topo.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the urbanized areas from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim, the Phase&nbsp;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 (California)|Metrolink]] in Southern California.<ref name="2012 Business Plan"/> This approach was adopted to reduce costs and mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding communities, but also limits train speed in these sections to a maximum of {{convert|110|mph}}.<ref name="2012 Business Plan">{{cite web|url=https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012_rpt.pdf|title=California High-Speed Rail Program Revised 2012 Business Plan|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=April 2012|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030453/https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012_rpt.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Between Gilroy and Burbank, the planned route will run on dedicated high-speed tracks.<ref name="2012 Business Plan"/>

==== Initial Operating Segment (IOS) ====

The Authority is advancing work in sections, first targeting full completion of a {{conv|171|mi|km|adj=on}} "Initial Operating Segment" (IOS).  Within this segment, {{conv|119|mi|km}} are under active construction.

The IOS is intended to begin carrying passengers along a limited portion of the route before the full Phase 1 is completed. This initial service would span either from Merced or Madera, to Fresno and Hanford, and then to Bakersfield. High-speed trains would fully replace existing, slower Amtrak ''Gold Runner'' service south of Merced to Bakersfield.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAFT-2023-SJJPA-Business-Plan-Update_Public-Review-Draft.pdf|title=Draft 2023 Business Plan Update|publisher=San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=November 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231104180918/https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAFT-2023-SJJPA-Business-Plan-Update_Public-Review-Draft.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> ''Gold Runner'' passengers continuing to Southern California currently transfer to [[Amtrak Thruway]] buses at Bakersfield.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amtrak.com/san-joaquins-train|title=San Joaquins|publisher=Amtrak|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=August 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170802062718/https://www.amtrak.com/san-joaquins-train|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="2023 Project Update Report"/>

As of August 2025, the IOS construction progress includes {{conv|70|mi|km}}, or 59%, of contiguous guideway declared complete and ready for track-laying, as well as 54 civil construction structures completed, 32 underway, and 6 not started yet.<ref>{{Cite web |title=California High-Speed Rail Authority Releases 2025 Update Report |url=https://www.constructionowners.com/news/california-high-speed-rail-report-outlines-path-forward |access-date=2025-10-06 |website=www.constructionowners.com}}</ref>  The remainder of the {{conv|119|mi|km}} is expected to complete civil construction by the end of 2026. {{conv|54|mi|km}} of extensions to Merced and to Bakersfield, which would complete the IOS, are under engineering design.<ref name="chsra cv status report 2024 nov">{{cite web |title=Central Valley Status Report, November 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CVSR-2024-10-Data-2024-08-Draft-3-A11Y.pdf |website=hsr.ca.gov |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=8 January 2025}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ IOS construction status, as of August 2025
! style="border: none; background: none;" | !! Section !! Section Start !! Section End !! Length !! Funding Status !! Type !! Civil Construction Status !! Track and Systems Status !! Notes 
|-
! rowspan=5 | Initial Operating Segment (IOS)
| Merced Extension
| [[Merced]] || [[Madera, California|Madera]] || {{conv|34|mi|km}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Success|Fully funded}} || High-speed ROW || data-sort-value="1" {{NA|60% design complete, advancing on 100% design}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Procurement underway}}|| Potentially resequenced for later construction
|-
| [[Construction of California High-Speed Rail#CP 1 (Madera–Fresno)|Construction Package 1]]
| Madera || South of [[Fresno]] || {{conv|32|mi|km}} || data-sort-value="3" {{Success|Fully funded}} || High-speed ROW || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Active construction, expected completion: Nov 2026}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Procurement underway}} ||
|-
| [[Construction of California High-Speed Rail#CP 2-3 (Fresno – Tulare/Kern)|Construction Package 2–3]]
| South of Fresno || [[Tulare County|Tulare]]/[[Kern County|Kern]] county border || {{conv|65|mi|km}} || data-sort-value="3" {{Success|Fully funded}} || High-speed ROW || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Active construction, expected completion: 2026}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Procurement underway}} ||
|-
| [[Construction of California High-Speed Rail#CP 4 (Tulare/Kern – Poplar Avenue)|Construction Package 4]]
| Tulare/Kern county border || Poplar Avenue || {{conv|22|mi|km}} || data-sort-value="3" {{Success|Fully funded}} || High-speed ROW || data-sort-value="2" {{Success|Declared substantively complete in January 2025}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Procurement underway}} || 
|-
| Bakersfield Extension
| Poplar Avenue || [[Bakersfield]] || {{conv|18.5|mi|km}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Success|Fully funded}} || High-speed ROW || data-sort-value="1" {{NA|Advancing to 60% design}} || data-sort-value="2" {{Pending|Procurement underway}}||
|}

{{Multiple image
|image1=Fresno River Viaduct construction 2016.jpg
|caption1=The Fresno River Viaduct, part of the IOS, under construction, 2016.
|width1=
|image2=Fresno River Viaduct construction 2017.jpg
|caption2= The same location, 2017.
|width2=
|direction=vertical
}}

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 {{convert|300|mi|km}}. 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.<ref name="2012 Business Plan"/> In 2016, due to changes in funding and financing plans,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/legislative_affairs/SB1029_Project_Update_Report_050119.pdf|title=Project Update Report to the California State Legislature|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=May 2019|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030451/https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/legislative_affairs/SB1029_Project_Update_Report_050119.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> the Authority changed the IOS to a northern segment between San Jose and Bakersfield, the "Silicon Valley to Central Valley line".<ref name="2016 Business Plan">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2016_BusinessPlan.pdf|title=Connecting and Transforming California: 2016 Business Plan|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=May 1, 2016|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030454/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2016_BusinessPlan.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2019 [[Gavin Newsom]] chose the current definition of an IOS between Merced and Bakersfield in the Central Valley,<ref>{{cite news |author1=Jill Cowan |title=Trump Administration to Pull $4 Billion in Funding for California High-Speed Rail |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/us/politics/california-high-speed-rail-funding.html?searchResultPosition=3 |access-date=23 July 2025 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=4 June 2025 |quote=In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the state would instead first open a kind of starter segment of the train connecting two smaller cities in California’s agricultural Central Valley}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author1=Jill Cowan |title=How High-Speed Rail Got Caught Between Newsom and Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/california-today-high-speed-rail-newsom-trump.html |access-date=23 July 2025 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=20 February 2019 |quote=he announced, the project would be scaled back for the time being, instead stretching from Bakersfield to Merced}}</ref>  a {{convert|171|mi|km|adj=mid}} long segment with {{convert|119|mi|km}} under active construction.<ref name="2023 Project Update Report">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Project-Update-Report-FINAL-022823.pdf|title=2023 Project Update Report|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=February 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240216093925/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Project-Update-Report-FINAL-022823.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> If additional funding becomes available, the Authority still intends to construct the northern Bay Area connection before the southern connection to Los Angeles.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>

Construction on the IOS began with a groundbreaking in Fresno on January 6, 2015, with construction of the first vertical structure, [[Fresno River Viaduct]], beginning on June 16, 2015.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/07/california-breaks-ground-high-speed-rail-project|title=California breaks ground on high-speed rail project but completion not assured|work=[[The Guardian]]|last=Carroll|first=Rory|date=January 7, 2015|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/07/california-breaks-ground-high-speed-rail-project|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite AV media |date=2015-06-22 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akXU7vgk1dg |title=Construction of Fresno River Viaduct Underway - June 18, 2015 |format=video |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=2025-11-14 |via=YouTube}}</ref> The first 119 miles, stretching from [[Madera, California|Madera]] south to [[Shafter, California|Shafter]], a city about {{convert|20|mi|km}} northwest of Bakersfield, are being constructed under four [[design-build]] contracts titled "construction packages".<ref name="construction packages"/> These include constructing the [[railroad grade]], viaducts, road overpasses and underpasses and other structures along the route, but not the track itself.<ref name="construction packages">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/contract-opportunities/design-build-construction-packages/|title=Design-Build Construction Packages|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/contract-opportunities/design-build-construction-packages/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Bowden |first1=Bridgit |last2=Johnson |first2=Shawn |date=October 30, 2019 |title=The High-Speed Rail Debate Persists In California |url=https://www.wpr.org/derailed/high-speed-rail-debate-persists-california |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191105083718/https://www.wpr.org/derailed/high-speed-rail-debate-persists-california |archive-date=November 5, 2019 |access-date=March 18, 2024 |work=[[National Public Radio]] |language=en |quote=the rail authority agreed to build Dejong an underpass}}</ref> In August 2022, the Authority approved design contracts for the remaining {{convert|52|mi|km}} of the IOS connecting Madera to Merced and Shafter to Bakersfield,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/08/17/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-board-approves-design-contracts-to-prepare-for-construction-into-merced-and-bakersfield/|title=News Release: California High-Speed Rail Board Approves Design Contracts to Prepare for Construction into Merced and Bakersfield|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=August 17, 2022|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=December 9, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209173748/https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/08/17/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-board-approves-design-contracts-to-prepare-for-construction-into-merced-and-bakersfield/|url-status=live}}</ref> with construction contracts expected in 2025–2026.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>

In October 2022, the Authority approved a design contract for the Merced, Fresno, Kings/Tulare and Bakersfield stations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/10/20/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-board-awards-design-contract-for-central-valley-stations/|title=California High-Speed Rail Board Awards Design Contract for Central Valley Stations|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=October 20, 2022|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=September 29, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230929101647/https://hsr.ca.gov/2022/10/20/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-board-awards-design-contract-for-central-valley-stations/|url-status=live}}</ref> Planning for the Madera station is occurring under a separate agreement with the [[San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/20231122140306/Madera-HSR-Station-Full-Build_NOP_2023-11-22_FINAL.pdf|title=Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report: Madera High Speed Rail (HSR) Station Full-Build Project (Phase 3)|publisher=San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030453/https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/20231122140306/Madera-HSR-Station-Full-Build_NOP_2023-11-22_FINAL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The construction contract for track and electrical power systems on the IOS<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/contract-opportunities/track-systems/|title=Track & Systems|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/contract-opportunities/track-systems/|url-status=live}}</ref> is expected in 2024–2025.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>  As of February 2024, Construction Packages 1–3 were more than 70&nbsp;percent complete and Construction Package 4 was at 98&nbsp;percent.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> The full Merced–Bakersfield line was expected to be complete in 2029.<ref name="2023 Project Update Report"/>

By 2025, Authority plans were for the IOS to be completed in 2031; the Inspector General, however, determined the IOS (including Merced and Bakersfield extensions) was unlikely to be operational by 2033. The Authority is planning to begin passenger revenue service on the active construction segment (Madera to N. Bakersfield) in 2032.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Benjamin M. Belnap |title=Merced to Bakersfield Segment The Authority Is Unlikely to Complete the Segment as Currently Envisioned within Its Planned Schedule |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Schedule-Engagement-Report-FINAL-A11Y.pdf |publisher=HSR.CA.gov |access-date=2 April 2025 |date=3 February 2025 |quote=the latest project information, the 2030 target date has been pushed back to 2031 [...] staying within the 2033 schedule envelope is unlikely}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author1=ALEX NIEVES |title=California watchdog says high-speed rail on track to blow more deadlines |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/california-high-speed-rail-ig-report-00205506 |access-date=2 April 2025 |work=[[Politico]] |date=21 February 2025 |quote=the initial 171-mile Central Valley line is unlikely to be completed by the High-Speed Rail Authority's 2033 timeline}}</ref><ref name="2025 CHSRA supplemental PUR" />

==== Blended corridor investments ====

[[Image:Caltrain Stadler KISS in San Jose 2023 dllu.jpg|thumb|[[Stadler KISS]] electric trainset operated by Caltrain after electrification]]
[[Image:Link Union Station diagram.png|thumb|A diagram of the Link US project in Los Angeles Union Station, showing the location of planned high-speed rail platforms.]]

Concurrently with Central Valley construction, the Authority has worked with other California transportation agencies and rail operators to prepare the northern and southern blended segments for high-speed rail operations. In the Bay Area, the [[Caltrain Modernization Program|electrification of Caltrain]] will enable electric high-speed trains to run on the existing Caltrain commuter rail corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. Work began in 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/21596/|title=Caltrain Electrification Frequently Asked Questions|publisher=Caltrain|date=September 2021|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://www.caltrain.com/media/21596/|url-status=live}}</ref> and was completed in September 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last=DiNapoli |first=Alyse |date=2024-09-21 |title=Caltrain goes fully electric |url=https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-goes-fully-electric/article_5e2c23a2-77c4-11ef-8610-47587c0ec09b.html |access-date=2024-10-05 |website=San Mateo Daily Journal |language=en}}</ref>

The corridor from San Jose to Gilroy will also require electrification;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/san-jose-to-merced/|title=San José to Merced|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 30, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240330055800/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/san-jose-to-merced/|url-status=live}}</ref> as of February 2024, the Authority was still in negotiations with [[Union Pacific Railroad]] over proposed alterations to the tracks.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> Several [[grade separation]]s and passing tracks have been completed or are planned along the route from San Francisco to Gilroy, in order to improve track capacity, speed and safety for blended Caltrain/high-speed rail operations.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/24/caltrain-plans-for-4-track-segments-complicate-palo-altos-effort-to-redesign-rail-crossings/|title=Caltrain plans for 4-track segments complicate Palo Alto's effort to redesign rail crossings|work=Palo Alto Online|date=November 24, 2023|last=Sheyner|first=Gennady|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/24/caltrain-plans-for-4-track-segments-complicate-palo-altos-effort-to-redesign-rail-crossings/|url-status=live}}</ref> Since many [[Level crossing|at-grade crossings]] will remain,{{efn|For example, 49 from San Mateo to Palo Alto<ref>{{cite news |title=Palo Alto, Calif., wants grade separation for high-speed rail project, but authority is not listening |url=https://www.rtands.com/grade-crossings/palo-alto-calif-wants-grade-separation-for-high-speed-rail-project-but-authority-is-not-listening/ |access-date=April 2, 2024 |work=[[Railway Track & Structures]] |date=August 4, 2022 |quote=A new report has revealed that 41 out of 49 at-grade crossings between San Mateo and Palo Alto [...] |issn=0033-9016 |archive-date=April 2, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240402175049/https://www.rtands.com/grade-crossings/palo-alto-calif-wants-grade-separation-for-high-speed-rail-project-but-authority-is-not-listening/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and 29 from San Jose to Gilroy.<ref name=SJtoGilroy />}} other safety improvements such as [[Four-quadrant gate|quad gates]] are being considered.<ref name=SJtoGilroy>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/At-Grade-Crossing-Safety-1-26-2022_a11y.pdf|title=At-Grade Crossing Safety|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105201832/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/At-Grade-Crossing-Safety-1-26-2022_a11y.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In Southern California, the Link US project plans to reconfigure Los Angeles Union Station from a [[Train station#Terminus|terminal]] to a run-through station and add two dedicated high-speed rail platforms.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/los-angeles/|title=Los Angeles|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 26, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240126021755/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/station-communities/los-angeles/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.metro.net/projects/link-us/|title=Link Union Station (Link US)|work=LA Metro |publisher=Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107004847/https://www.metro.net/projects/link-us/|url-status=live}}</ref> The shared Amtrak and Metrolink tracks from Burbank to Anaheim will require electrification. Between Los Angeles and [[Fullerton, California|Fullerton]], the rail corridor is also heavily used by [[BNSF Railway|BNSF]] freight trains coming from the Ports of [[Port of Los Angeles|Los Angeles]] and [[Port of Long Beach|Long Beach]], requiring further separation to prevent congestion.<ref name="Los Angeles to Anaheim section"/><ref name="LA Anaheim Update Nov 2023">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LA-A-SAA-and-PA-Overview-NovBoard-A11Y.pdf|title=Los Angeles to Anaheim Update|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=November 2, 2023|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105211420/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LA-A-SAA-and-PA-Overview-NovBoard-A11Y.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="LA Anaheim Update Nov 2023"/><ref name="Slaten 2023">{{cite news|url=https://www.ocregister.com/2023/11/01/california-high-speed-rail-authority-considering-adding-new-track-in-southern-california-corridor/|title=4th track proposed for LA-to-Anaheim segment of planned high-speed rail|work=[[The Orange County Register]]|last=Slaten|first=Michael|date=November 1, 2023|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://www.ocregister.com/2023/11/01/california-high-speed-rail-authority-considering-adding-new-track-in-southern-california-corridor/|url-status=live}}</ref> Some freight trains may be allowed to use the passenger tracks during off-peak hours.<ref name="LA Anaheim Update Nov 2023"/>

The Authority has also funded other projects such as the installation of [[positive train control]] systems along the shared commuter rail lines, and upgrades to existing stations and railyards to accommodate both future high-speed rail and other passenger rail services.<ref name="Connectivity and Bookend Investments">{{cite web|url=https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/communication/info_center/factsheets/Connectivity_Bookends.pdf|title=Connectivity and Bookend Investments|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=February 15, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215051326/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/communication/info_center/factsheets/Connectivity_Bookends.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Remainder of Phase&nbsp;1 ====

Construction of the remaining Phase&nbsp;1 route is still on hold due to budget constraints. As of June 2024, the [[environmental impact statement]]s for {{convert|463|mi|km}} of the {{convert|494|mi|km|adj=on}} route had been certified,<ref>{{Cite web |last=CAHSRA |title=California High-Speed Rail Authority Board Clears Final Environmental Milestone to Connect Downtown San Francisco to Downtown Los Angeles |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/06/27/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-authority-board-clears-final-environmental-milestone-to-connect-downtown-san-francisco-to-downtown-los-angeles/}}</ref> 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 [[California State Route 152|SR&nbsp;152]].<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> It would include [[Pacheco Pass Tunnels|several tunnels]], the longest of which would be {{convert|13.5|mi|km}}, making it the longest intercity rail tunnel in the US.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Pacheco-Pass-Factsheet-for-web-English.pdf|title=Tunneling in Northern California: San Jose to Merced Project Section Factsheet|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 21, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240321100123/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Pacheco-Pass-Factsheet-for-web-English.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Engineering challenges along this section include "poor-quality rock formations, faults and shear zones, and potentially high groundwater inflows that can affect tunnel stability."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.enr.com/articles/54030-california-high-speed-rail-connection-to-silicon-valley-approved|title=California High-Speed Rail Connection to Silicon Valley Approved|last=Aragon|first=Greg|date=April 29, 2022|work=Engineering News-Record|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://www.enr.com/articles/54030-california-high-speed-rail-connection-to-silicon-valley-approved|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="2023 Project Update Report"/>

[[Image:Tehachapi_Loop_Aerial.jpg|thumb|Part of Phase&nbsp;1 will travel through the Tehachapi Pass, which is currently traversed by the Union Pacific Railroad. Tehachapi Loop shown here.]]
The Bakersfield–Palmdale section of the line will cross Tehachapi Pass, roughly parallelling the Union Pacific Railroad's [[Mojave Subdivision]]. Due to its heavy freight traffic and sharp curves (including the famous [[Tehachapi Loop]]), there is no current passenger service through the pass.<ref name="Bakersfield to Palmdale Draft EIR/EIS"/> While the proposed high-speed rail alignment will not include any long tunnels comparable to those in Pacheco Pass, it has nine shorter tunnels and several viaducts more than {{convert|200|ft|m}} high.<ref name="Bakersfield to Palmdale">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf|title=Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=December 2021|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 26, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240126075741/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The maximum [[Grade (slope)|grade]] through the pass would be 2.8&nbsp;percent, making it the steepest portion of the Phase&nbsp;1 route.<ref name="Bakersfield to Palmdale Draft EIR/EIS">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/programs/bakersfield-palmdale/BP_Draft_EIRS_Vol_1_CH_2_Alternatives.pdf|title=Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section Draft Project EIR/EIS|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=February 2020|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030451/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/programs/bakersfield-palmdale/BP_Draft_EIRS_Vol_1_CH_2_Alternatives.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> At a press conference in January 2025 in [[Kern County, California|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.<ref name="sf chronicle cp4 railhead groundbreaking">{{cite web |last1=Swan |first1=Rachel |date=January 6, 2025 |title=California's new plan for its long-delayed high speed rail system: Connect it to Las Vegas |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/ca-high-speed-rail-las-vegas-20018173.php |access-date=January 7, 2025 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]}}</ref>

From Palmdale to Burbank the proposed route crosses the San Gabriel Mountains on an alignment roughly along [[California State Route 14|SR&nbsp;14]].{{efn|Several different options are still being studied for the route, but the Authority has identified the "SR14A" route along State Route 14 as its preferred option.<ref name="Palmdale to Burbank fact sheet 2022"/>}} It would require the most tunneling of any of the mountain crossings, with four separate tunnels totaling {{convert|28|mi|km}} in length.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Palmdale_to_Burbank.pdf|title=Palmdale to Burbank Project Section Map|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=October 2020|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=February 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217122546/https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Palmdale_to_Burbank.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Palmdale to Burbank fact sheet 2022">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-0805-P-B_DEIRS_Fact-Sheet_4pgs_English_Rem.pdf|title=Palmdale to Burbank Project Section: Connecting Community Update 2022|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 31, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240131202501/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-0805-P-B_DEIRS_Fact-Sheet_4pgs_English_Rem.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PB_02.0-AppxD_P2K_PEPD_RECORD_SET_Rev02_Design_Baseline_Report-a11y.pdf|title=Palmdale to Burbank Project Section: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|date=August 2022|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=January 31, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240131203506/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PB_02.0-AppxD_P2K_PEPD_RECORD_SET_Rev02_Design_Baseline_Report-a11y.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In total, the southern extension from Bakersfield to Los Angeles may require {{Convert|36|mi|km}} of tunnels. In 2018, the Authority estimated that the tunneling may cost $26–$45&nbsp;billion.<ref>{{cite news|last=Vartabedian|first=Ralph|title=Cost for California bullet train system rises to $77.3 billion|url=http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html|access-date=March 10, 2018|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=March 9, 2018|quote=Among the most challenging is the cost of about 36 miles of tunnels through mountainous Southern California, which could range anywhere from $26 billion to $45 billion, according to the report|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315213019/https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Operations infrastructure ====

The high-speed rail system is planned to run entirely on renewable energy.<ref name="CAHSRA sustainability"/> Due to the large energy demand of high-speed trains, the system is being planned to generate much of its own power.<ref name="Ohnsman 2023"/> Solar arrays and battery backup systems are to be installed at traction power substations along the route; however, they will still be tied into the California power grid, allowing them to share energy as needed. The Authority plans to install solar panels capable of producing 44&nbsp;[[megawatt]]s, and batteries to store 124&nbsp;[[megawatt hour]]s.<ref name="CAHSRA sustainability"/> The on-site generation of solar power is estimated to cut future electricity costs by 75&nbsp;percent compared to purchasing it from the state grid,<ref name="CAHSRA sustainability">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-practices-sustainability/sustainability/|title=Sustainability|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=February 9, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240209125205/https://www.hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-practices-sustainability/sustainability/|url-status=live}}</ref> and will keep the system operational if the grid suffers a blackout.<ref name="Ohnsman 2023">{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2023/06/12/californias-100-billion-electric-bullet-train-will-be-fully-solar-powered/|title=California's $100 Billion Electric Bullet Train Will Be Fully Solar Powered|work=[[Forbes]]|last=Ohnsman|first=Alan|date=June 12, 2023|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2023/06/12/californias-100-billion-electric-bullet-train-will-be-fully-solar-powered/|url-status=live}}</ref>{{better source needed|reason=[[WP:FORBESCON]]|date=May 2024}}

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.<ref name="2012 DEIR service">{{cite web|url=https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/2429/2_C_Operations_and_Service_Plan_Summary.pdf|title=Appendix 2-C, Operations and Service Plan|work=California High-Speed Train Project Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS|year=2012|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=January 6, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106110716/https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/2429/2_C_Operations_and_Service_Plan_Summary.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Also planned along the Phase&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/about/maintenancefacilities/|title=High-Speed Rail Maintenance Facilities|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030450/https://hsr.ca.gov/about/maintenancefacilities/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://sjvsun.com/news/fresno/behind-fresnos-pitch-for-the-hsr-maintenance-yard/|title=Behind Fresno's pitch for the HSR maintenance yard|last=Hostetter|first=George|work=The San Joaquin Valley Sun|date=March 14, 2019|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://sjvsun.com/news/fresno/behind-fresnos-pitch-for-the-hsr-maintenance-yard/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Phase&nbsp;2 ===

Phase&nbsp;2 would construct two major extensions to the system. The northern extension would stretch {{convert|115|mi|km}} from Merced to Sacramento, with intermediate stops at [[Modesto, California|Modesto]] and [[Stockton, California|Stockton]]. It would largely parallel the existing ''Gold Runner'' route through the Central Valley.<ref name="CAHSR Phase 1">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/merced-to-sacramento/|title=Merced to Sacramento|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030448/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/merced-to-sacramento/|url-status=live}}</ref> In the south, the system would be extended {{convert|167|mi|km}} from Los Angeles to [[San Diego, California|San Diego]].<ref name="CAHSR Phase 2">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/los-angeles-to-san-diego/|title=Los Angeles to San Diego|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/los-angeles-to-san-diego/|url-status=live}}</ref> Instead of continuing south from Anaheim, it would split off from the Phase&nbsp;1 route at Los Angeles Union Station and travel east along [[Interstate 10 in California|I-10]] before turning south, following an inland route along [[Interstate 15 in California|I-15]] or [[Interstate 215 (California)|I-215]]. This would enable high-speed trains to serve the [[Inland Empire (California)|Inland Empire]] and inland parts of San Diego County, with stops at [[Ontario International Airport]] and [[Escondido, California|Escondido]]. One or more additional stations may be built, in either [[El Monte, California|El Monte]], [[West Covina, California|West Covina]], [[Pomona, California|Pomona]], [[San Bernardino, California|San Bernardino]], [[Corona, California|Corona]], [[March Air Reserve Base|March ARB]], or [[Murrieta, California|Murrieta]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/LA_to_San_Diego.pdf|title=Los Angeles to San Diego Section|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313192747/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/LA_to_San_Diego.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

If the entire Phase&nbsp;2 is completed, it would bring the total length of the high-speed rail system to {{convert|776|mi|km}}.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/><ref name="CAHSR Phase 1"/><ref name="CAHSR Phase 2"/> Phase&nbsp;2 is still early in the planning stages, and would not be constructed until after the completion of Phase&nbsp;1.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/|title=Project Sections|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030449/https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Rolling stock ==

=== Train design ===

[[File:CAHSR Corcoran 2-scaled.jpg|thumb|An artistic rendering of a CAHSR high-speed train running in the Central Valley. As the model of trainset to be acquired is not yet known, such renderings are purely illustrative.]]

[[2008 California Proposition 1A|Proposition 1A]] sets an explicit requirement for a sustained operating speed of at least {{convert|200|mph}}. The Authority plans to operate trains at {{convert|220|mph}}; with a conventional 10&nbsp;percent buffer for testing, this requires a top speed of at least {{Convert|242|mph|km/h}}.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sheehan |first1=Tim |title=California takes first step to buy trains for its high-speed rail route. What's the price tag? |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article280078874.html |access-date=April 4, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=October 4, 2023 |language=en |quote=capable of operating at speeds up to 220 mph and testing at up to 242 mph |archive-date=January 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105032621/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article280078874.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
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&nbsp;years, the ability to operate two coupled trainsets as a single consist ("double heading"), a capacity of at least 450&nbsp;seats and eight bicycle spots, and a length no longer than about {{Convert|680|ft|m}}. Some requirements reflect American legislation or standards corresponding to the local environment, including full [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990|ADA]]-compliance, Tier III [[Federal Railroad Administration|FRA]] safety standards,<ref name="FRA tier iii final rule notice 2018">{{cite web |title=Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Standards for Alternative Compliance and High-Speed Trainsets |url=https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations-fr/rulemaking/2018-25020 |publisher=Federal Railroad Administration |access-date=March 13, 2024 |date=November 21, 2018 |archive-date=March 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313024048/https://railroads.dot.gov/regulations-fr/rulemaking/2018-25020 |url-status=dead }}</ref> earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting, and a floor height of {{Convert|50.5|in|cm}} above the rails to enable level boarding.

{{Multiple image
| total_width       = 500
| title             = Comparable high-speed trainsets by the shortlisted bidders
| image1            = Avelia_Liberty_Slocum_RI.png
| caption1          = An Alstom [[Avelia Liberty]] trainset for the [[Acela]] service on the [[Northeast Corridor]]
| image2            = ICE 3 Neo, 407 8017, Bruxelles-Nord 31-07-2024.jpg
| caption2          = A [[Siemens Velaro]] trainset operated by [[Deutsche Bahn]] seen at [[Brussels North station]]
| alignment         = right
| direction         = horizontal
}}

=== 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&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite web |title="NEWS RELEASE: High-Speed Rail Authority Releases Shortlist of Potential Suppliers for Electrified High-Speed Trains in California" |date=January 6, 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/01/05/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-releases-shortlist-of-potential-suppliers-for-electrified-high-speed-trains-in-california/ |publisher=CAHSR Authority |access-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-date=January 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240106025701/https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/01/05/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-releases-shortlist-of-potential-suppliers-for-electrified-high-speed-trains-in-california/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Authority released a ''request for proposals'' (RFP) in mid-April 2024, with a procurement contract planned for summer 2025.<ref>{{cite news |last1=May |first1=Tiana |title=California High-Speed Rail Releases RFP for Electric Train Contract |url=https://railway-news.com/california-high-speed-rail-releases-rfp-for-electric-train-contract/ |access-date=September 2, 2024 |work=Railway News |date=April 17, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/business-opportunities/procurements/architectural-engineering-and-capital-contracts/high-speed-trainsets-and-related-services/ |access-date=2025-01-25 |website=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|title=High-Speed Trainsets and Related Services}}</ref> 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.<ref name="board memo trainset rfq">{{cite web |title=CHSRA Board Meeting Briefing: Trainset RFQ |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/August-4-2023-Agenda-Item-2-Board-Memo-Trainsets-RFQ-Final-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 10, 2024 |archive-date=March 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240310192514/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/August-4-2023-Agenda-Item-2-Board-Memo-Trainsets-RFQ-Final-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> There is also an option for a further 15&nbsp;trainsets. In 2023, it was projected that for the full Phase&nbsp;1 system, 66&nbsp;trainsets would be needed.<ref name="2023 Project Update Report"/>

Because the trainset purchase is funded by an FRA grant program authorized under the [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act]], manufacturing and sourcing for the trainsets fall under provisions of the [[Buy America Act]]. Both qualified bidders have local manufacturing capacities: Alstom in [[Hornell, New York#Hornell in the post-railroad period (1960–present)|Hornell, New York]] and Siemens Mobility in [[Horseheads (village), New York|Horseheads, New York]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-09 |title=Siemens Mobility to establish America's first high-speed rail production facility in Horseheads, New York |url=https://www.mobility.siemens.com/us/en/company/newsroom/press-releases/siemens-mobility-to-establish-americas-first-high-speed-rail-production-facility-in-horseheads-new-york.html |access-date=2024-09-09 |website=Siemens Mobility Global |language=en}}</ref> The Authority was granted a Buy America-waiver by the [[Federal Railroad Administration|FRA]] for the two prototype trainsets, allowing those to be manufactured abroad.<ref name="fra chsra waiver">{{cite web |title=California High Speed Rail Authority Prototypes Buy America Waiver Decision |url=https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/california-high-speed-rail-authority-prototypes-buy-america-waiver-decision |publisher=Federal Railroad Administration |access-date=March 10, 2024 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319222836/https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/california-high-speed-rail-authority-prototypes-buy-america-waiver-decision |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Stations and service ==

=== Stations and stop patterns ===

Prop&nbsp;1A specifies up to 24&nbsp;stations to be constructed on the full network.<ref name="Prop 1A text"/> Thirteen stations are planned as part of Phase&nbsp;1, of which the five on the IOS are (partially) funded. The table below lists all Phase&nbsp;1 stations and their transfer connections:

{| class=wikitable style="font-size:90%;"
|+ List of Phase&nbsp;1 stations with transfer connections
! Phase
!
! Station
! Location
! Transfers
! Responsible Authority
! Status and Notes
|-
! rowspan="14" | Phase 1
! rowspan="5" | Northern California
| San Francisco [[Salesforce Transit Center]]
| Downtown [[San Francisco]]
| {{plainlist|
*{{rint|caltrain}} [[Caltrain]] ([[The Portal (San Francisco)|future extension]])
*{{rint|bart}} [[BART]]{{efn|name=Embarcadero station|Salesforce Transit Center is {{convert|0.2|miles}} away from [[Embarcadero station]]; a connecting pedestrian tunnel has been proposed.}} ({{rint|bart|R}}{{rint|bart|Y}}{{rint|bart|B}}{{rint|bart|G}})
*{{rint|sanfrancisco|metro}} [[Muni Metro]]{{efn|name=Embarcadero station}} ({{rint|sanfrancisco|J}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|K}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|L}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|M}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|N}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|S}})
*{{bus icon}} [[AC Transit]], [[San Francisco Municipal Railway|Muni]], [[WestCAT]], [[Golden Gate Transit]] and intercity bus services
}}
| [[San Francisco Transbay development#Transbay Joint Powers Authority|Transbay Joint Powers Authority]] (TJPA)
| Part of the independent Downtown Rail Extension (DTX, also known as [[The Portal (San Francisco)|The Portal]]) project
|-
| San Francisco [[San Francisco 4th and King Street station|4th and King station]]
| San Francisco
| {{plainlist|
*{{rint|caltrain}} Caltrain (Express, Local, Limited, Weekend Local)
*{{rint|sanfrancisco|metro}} Muni Metro ({{rint|sanfrancisco|N}}{{rint|sanfrancisco|T}})
*{{bus icon}} Muni bus services
}}
| Caltrain
| Interim northern terminus for CAHSR until DTX concludes, after which some CAHSR trains will stop at an adjacent planned station at 4th and Townsend
|-
| [[Millbrae station|Millbrae-SFO station]]
| [[Millbrae, California|Millbrae]], [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo County]]
| {{plainlist|
*{{rint|caltrain}} [[Caltrain]] (Express, Local, Limited, Weekend Local)
*{{rint|bart}} BART ({{rint|bart|R}}{{rint|bart|Y}})
*{{bus icon}} [[Commute.org]] and intercity bus services
}}
|
| {{rint|air}} [[San Francisco International Airport|SFO Airport]] connection via BART
|-
| San Jose [[Diridon Station]]
| [[San Jose, California|San Jose]], [[Santa Clara County]]
| {{Plainlist|
* {{rint|US|Amtrak}} Amtrak ([[Capitol Corridor]] and [[Coast Starlight]])
* {{rint|caltrain}} Caltrain (Express, Local, Limited, Weekend Local, South County Connector)
* {{rint|ace}} [[Altamont Corridor Express|ACE]]
* {{rint|santaclara}} [[VTA light rail]] ({{rint|santaclara|green}})
* {{rint|bart}} BART ([[Silicon Valley BART extension|future extension]]: {{rint|bart|G}}{{rint|bart|O}})
* {{bus icon}} Intercity and [[Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority|VTA]] bus services
 }}
| Caltrain
|
|-
| [[Gilroy station]]
| [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]], Santa Clara County
|{{Plainlist|
* {{rint|caltrain}} Caltrain (South County Connector)
* {{bus icon}} Intercity, VTA and [[San Benito County Transit]] bus services
}}
| Caltrain
|
|-
! rowspan="5" | Initial Operating Segment (IOS)
| [[Merced station (California High-Speed Rail)|Merced Station]]
| [[Merced, California|Merced]], [[Merced County]]
|{{Plainlist|
* {{rint|US|Amtrak}} Amtrak ([[Gold Runner]])
* {{rint|ace}} ACE (future extension)
}}
| [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA)
| Upon CAHSR being operational on the IOS, Merced will become the southern terminus of the Gold Runner service. (As of August 2025, the southern Gold Runner terminus may be Madera)
|-
| [[Madera station (California High-Speed Rail)|Madera Station]]
| [[Madera, California|Madera]], [[Madera County]]
|
| San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)
| The SJJPA is the entity operating the Amtrak Gold Runner service. It is relocating the existing [[Madera station (Amtrak)|Madera station]] in anticipation of HSR, starting 2024<ref name="SJJPA madera relocation">{{cite web |title=Madera Station Relocation Project |url=https://sjjpa.com/madera-station-relocation-project/ |publisher=San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 21, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240321100121/https://sjjpa.com/madera-station-relocation-project/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
|-
| [[Fresno station (California High-Speed Rail)|Fresno station]]
| [[Fresno]], [[Fresno County]]
| {{bus icon}} [[Fresno Area Express]]
| CHSRA
|
|-
| [[Kings–Tulare Regional Station]]
| {{convert|3|mi|adj=on}} outside [[Hanford, California]], [[Kings County, California|Kings County]]
| {{rint|bus|1}}/{{rint|rail|1}} [[Cross Valley Corridor]] (proposed)
| CHSRA
|
|-
| [[Bakersfield station (California High-Speed Rail)|Bakersfield station]]
| [[Bakersfield, California|Bakersfield]], [[Kern County]]
| {{bus icon}} [[Golden Empire Transit]]
| CHSRA
|
|-
! rowspan="4" | Southern California
| [[Palmdale Transportation Center|Palmdale station]]
| [[Palmdale, California|Palmdale]], [[Los Angeles County]]
| {{plainlist|
*{{rint|losangeles|metrolink}} [[Metrolink (California)|Metrolink]] ([[Antelope Valley Line]])
*{{rint|brightline|link=Brightline West}} [[Brightline West]] (proposed)
}}
| CHSRA
| Connection to Brightline West in the [[Victor Valley]] is proposed via the [[High Desert Corridor]] project
|-
| [[Burbank Airport station (California High-Speed Rail)|Burbank Airport station]]
| [[Burbank, California|Burbank]], Los Angeles County
| {{plainlist|
*{{rint|losangeles|metrolink}} Metrolink ([[Ventura County Line]])
*{{rint|air}} [[Burbank Airport]]
}}
| CHSRA
| <ref name="CHSRA burbank airport settlement">{{cite web |title=CHSRA and Burbank Airport reach settlement |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/2023/11/16/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-and-hollywood-burbank-airport-reach-settlement-agreement/ |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319222838/https://hsr.ca.gov/2023/11/16/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-and-hollywood-burbank-airport-reach-settlement-agreement/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
|-
| [[Union Station (Los Angeles)|Los Angeles Union Station]]
| Downtown [[Los Angeles]]
| {{Plainlist|
* {{rint|US|Amtrak}} Amtrak ([[Coast Starlight]], [[Pacific Surfliner]], [[Southwest Chief]], [[Sunset Limited]], [[Texas Eagle]])
* {{rint|losangeles|metrolink}} Metrolink (all lines)
* {{rint|losangeles|lacmta}} [[Los Angeles Metro Rail]] ({{rint|losangeles|A}}{{rint|losangeles|B}}{{rint|losangeles|D}})
* {{bus icon}} [[Los Angeles Metro Bus]] and other local and intercity bus services
  }}
| [[Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority]] (LA Metro)
| To be converted to a through-run station under the [[Union Station (Los Angeles)#Link Union Station|Link US project]]
|-
| [[Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center|Anaheim station]]
| [[Anaheim, California|Anaheim]], [[Orange County, California|Orange County]]
| {{Plainlist|
* {{rint|US|Amtrak}} Amtrak (Pacific Surfliner)
* {{rint|losangeles|metrolink}} Metrolink ([[Orange County Line]])
* {{bus icon}} [[OC Bus]]
  }}
| CHSRA
|
|}

Phase&nbsp;1 is planned to include several types of service – nonstop trains traveling directly between San Francisco and Los Angeles; express and limited trains making a few intermediate stops at major cities; and local trains making all stops.<ref name="2024 business plan service plan"/> Prop&nbsp;1A requires that the system must be designed for operating headways of five minutes or less (12&nbsp;trains per hour), and that intermediate stations must be designed so nonstop trains can bypass them without slowing down.<ref name="Prop 1A text"/> In addition, it indicates the following nonstop travel times:<ref name="Prop 1A text"/>

*San Francisco–Los Angeles: two hours, 40&nbsp;minutes
*San Francisco–San Jose: 30&nbsp;minutes
*San Jose–Los Angeles: two hours, 10&nbsp;minutes
*San Diego–Los Angeles: one hour, 20&nbsp;minutes
*Inland Empire–Los Angeles: 30&nbsp;minutes
*Sacramento–Los Angeles: two hours, 20&nbsp;minutes

<!-- side-by-side for stop pattern table legend -->
{{columns-start | num=3}}
{| class="wikitable"
! ●
| All trains stop
|-
!｜
| All trains pass
|-
!
| Not on route
|}
{{column}}
{{hidden text|vertical padding}}

{{color box|border=gray|#EEE8AA}} Initial Operating Segment (IOS)

{{color box|border=gray|#F5F5DC}} Silicon Valley–Central Valley Segment
{{column}}
{{hidden text|padding-padding-padding-padding}}
{{columns-end}}

[[File:Southern_Pacific_Passenger_Depot_-_view_from_Tulare_St.JPG|right|thumb|Historic [[Santa Fe Passenger Depot (Fresno, California)|Fresno station]] in 2014 ]]
[[File:FresnoStationRenderCASHR.jpg|right|thumb|Rendering of the planned future [[Fresno station (California High-Speed Rail)|Fresno HSR station]], the old station building is on the right]]

{|class="wikitable"
|+ Planned service patterns for Phase&nbsp;1<ref name="2024 business plan service plan">{{cite web|url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-BP-Service-Planning-Methodology-V06-Final-A11Y.pdf|title=California High-Speed Rail Authority 2024 Business Plan Technical Supporting Document: Service Planning Methodology|date=January 2024|publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]]|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313032125/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-BP-Service-Planning-Methodology-V06-Final-A11Y.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
!Station
!Nonstop
!Express
!Limited
!All-stop
!Merced–<br>Anaheim
!Merced–<br>San Jose
|-
!San Francisco<br>(Transbay)
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|
|-
!San Francisco<br>(4th and Townsend)
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|
|-
!Millbrae/SFO
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|
|-
!San Jose
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|-
!Gilroy
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|-
!Merced
|
|
|
|style="text-align:center;"|{{efn|San Jose–Bakersfield trains on the initial Silicon Valley to Central Valley line will call at Merced. Once Phase 1 is completed, San Francisco–Los Angeles trains will skip Merced.<ref name="2024 business plan service plan"/>}}
|style="text-align:center; background:#EEE8AA"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|-
!Madera
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#EEE8AA"|●
|
|-
!Fresno
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#EEE8AA"|●
|
|-
!Kings–Tulare
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#EEE8AA"|●
|
|-
!Bakersfield
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#F5F5DC"|●
|style="text-align:center; background:#EEE8AA"|●
|
|-
!Palmdale
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|-
!Burbank Airport
|style="text-align:center;"|｜
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|-
!Los Angeles
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|-
!Anaheim
|style="text-align:center;"|
|style="text-align:center;"|
|style="text-align:center;"|
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|style="text-align:center;"|●
|
|-
|}

=== Operations and ridership forecast ===

In October 2017, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced that DB E.C.O. North America, a subsidiary of German national rail operator [[Deutsche Bahn]] (DB), had been chosen as the early train operator.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/db-consortium-selected-for-california-high-speed-rail-consultancy-contract.html|title=DB consortium selected for California high speed rail consultancy contract|work=Railway Gazette International|date=October 9, 2017|access-date=October 10, 2017|archive-date=October 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171014002931/http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/db-consortium-selected-for-california-high-speed-rail-consultancy-contract.html|url-status=live}}</ref> 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&nbsp;million riders annually for a Silicon Valley to Bakersfield service. For the entire Phase&nbsp;1 system it projected 28.4&nbsp;million riders annually,<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> more than twice the number of annual passengers on the [[Northeast Corridor]] Amtrak services (12.1&nbsp;million) in 2023.<ref name="amtrak FY2023 ridership">{{cite web |title=Amtrak FY23 Ridership |url=https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Copy-of-FY23-Year-End-Ridership.pdf |publisher=Amtrak |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=December 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231201135517/https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Copy-of-FY23-Year-End-Ridership.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Connections with other major transit projects ===

{{Multiple image
|title = Planned intercity and commuter rail connections
|image1=CAHSR connections north.svg
|caption1 = Northern California
|width1=280px
|image2=CAHSR connections south.svg
|caption2 = Southern California
|width2=280px
|alignment=right
|direction=horizontal
}}

==== Brightline West and High Desert Corridor====
{{Main|Brightline West|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|Las Vegas, Nevada]] to [[Victorville, California]], about {{convert|90|mi|km}} northeast of Los Angeles, since 2007. The line is intended to cross the [[Mojave Desert]] using the median of [[Interstate 15 in California|I{{Non breaking hyphen}}15]] for most of its length. The separate High Desert Corridor rail line has been proposed between 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).<ref name="HDCJPA prelim engineering grant"/> The [[High Desert Corridor]] is in a preliminary planning and project development stage with construction currently being unfunded.<ref name="HDCJPA prelim engineering grant">{{cite web |title=High-Speed Rail Corridor Project Awarded $8M Grant |date=December 14, 2023 |url=https://highdesertcorridor.org/high-speed-rail-corridor-project-awarded-8m-grant/ |publisher=High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Agency (HDC JPA) |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319222837/https://highdesertcorridor.org/high-speed-rail-corridor-project-awarded-8m-grant/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The HDC JPA signed two labor agreements in July 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Schlepp |first=Travis |date=July 9, 2024 |title=Plan to connect California's 2 high-speed rail projects moves forward |url=https://ktla.com/news/california/plan-to-connect-californias-2-high-speed-rail-projects-moves-forward/ |work=KTLA 5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wright |first=Jarah |date=2024-07-10 |title=Another high-speed rail project would connect Las Vegas to additional California stops |url=https://www.ktnv.com/news/another-high-speed-rail-project-would-connect-las-vegas-to-additional-california-stops |access-date=2024-07-14 |website=Channel 13 Las Vegas News KTNV |language=en}}</ref>

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&nbsp;billion in federal funding via the [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act]], concurrent with the $3.1&nbsp;billion funding for CAHSR, enabled the project to advance.<ref name="nbc federal grants california">{{cite news |title=Feds grant $6 billion for high-speed rail projects |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/feds-grant-6-billion-high-speed-rail-projects-rcna128508 |last=Gagliardi|first=Mike |publisher=NBC News |date=December 9, 2023 |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311141311/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/feds-grant-6-billion-high-speed-rail-projects-rcna128508 |url-status=live }}</ref> Construction of the Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga route began in 2024 and is projected to take approximately four years to construct.<ref name="nevada dot brightline">{{cite web |title=Brightline West High Speed Rail Project |url=https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/transportation-projects/brightline-west-high-speed-rail-project |publisher=Nevada Department of Transport |access-date=November 24, 2024 |archive-date=October 9, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241009053148/https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/transportation-projects/brightline-west-high-speed-rail-project |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== 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 station (California High-Speed Rail)|Merced Multi-Modal Transit Station]], the northern terminus of the IOS.<ref name="SJJPA 2023 business plan">{{cite web |title=2023 SJJPA Business Plant |url=https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAFT-2023-SJJPA-Business-Plan-Update_Public-Review-Draft-1.pdf |publisher=San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331224411/https://cdn.sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAFT-2023-SJJPA-Business-Plan-Update_Public-Review-Draft-1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Marybet |first1=Luczak |title=Transit Briefs: ACE, Amtrak, BART, Brightline West |url=https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/transit-briefs-ace-amtrak-bart-brightline-west/ |access-date=April 6, 2024 |work=[[Railway Age]] |date=March 13, 2023 |quote=ACE's new timeline, it reported, means Manteca, Modesto and Ceres would see stations by late 2026, with Ripton and north Lathrop coming on line in late 2027, Turlock in 2029, and Livingston and Merced in 2030 |archive-date=April 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240406001700/https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/transit-briefs-ace-amtrak-bart-brightline-west/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The ACEforward project is further proposed to improve service in the ACE corridor.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/2013/08/04/ace-looks-to-expand-speed/44385643007/|title=ACE looks to expand, speed up service|work=Stockton Record|date=August 4, 2013|last=Johnson|first=Zachary K.|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313171415/https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/2013/08/04/ace-looks-to-expand-speed/44385643007/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Cross Valley Corridor ====

{{main|Cross Valley Corridor}}

The Cross Valley Corridor (CVC) is a proposed transit line connecting [[Naval Air Station Lemoore]] and the cities [[Hanford, California|Hanford]], [[Visalia, California|Visalia]], and [[Porterville, California|Porterville]] with the future [[Kings–Tulare Regional Station|Kings-Tulare high-speed rail station]]. Its route runs east–west for a total of about {{convert|80|mi|km|adj=on}}, 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.<ref name="TCAG cross valley corridor plan">{{cite web |title=Cross Valley Corridor Plan |url=https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/transit-planning/transit-plans/cross-valley-corridor-plan/cross-valley-corridor-plan/ |publisher=Tulare County Association of Governments |access-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311192816/https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/transit-planning/transit-plans/cross-valley-corridor-plan/cross-valley-corridor-plan/ |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Official Voter Information Guide • California General Election, Tuesday, November 4, 2008 |url=https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf#prop1a |publisher=Secretary of State (California) |access-date=19 March 2024 |date=18 September 2008 |quote=bond funds may be used to provide only up to one-half of the total cost of construction of each corridor or segment of a corridor. The measure requires the authority to seek private and other public funds to cover the remaining costs}}</ref>  The government of Japan offered long-term, low-interest financing if California employed [[Shinkansen]] bullet-train technology.<ref>{{cite news |title=Japan readies loans for California high-speed train |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/japan-california-rail-idUSTOE68D05G20100914/ |access-date=11 June 2024 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=14 September 2010}}</ref>

The project is now financed mainly by the state of California, supplemented by federal grants.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Nagourney |first1=Adam |title=A $100 Billion Train: The Future of California or a Boondoggle? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/california-high-speed-rail.html |access-date=March 22, 2024 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=July 30, 2018 |language=en |quote=“At the moment, 100 percent of the cost is going to be absorbed by the taxpayers.” |archive-date=March 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322175259/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/california-high-speed-rail.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=California bullet train costs soar to $77 billion, opening delayed |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/california-bullet-train-costs-soar-to-77-billion-opening-delayed.html |access-date=March 22, 2024 |publisher=[[CNBC]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=March 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180312155112/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/california-bullet-train-costs-soar-to-77-billion-opening-delayed.html |archive-date=March 12, 2018 |quote=Predicted private investment has not come in either}}</ref> By the end of 2023, the share of committed funding borne by the state was 76&nbsp;percent. 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.<ref name=SFC324>{{cite news |last1=Cano |first1=Ricardo |title=California's high-speed rail needs $100 billion to finish — scrapping the project is a possibility |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ca-high-speed-rail-100-billion-18979091.php |access-date=April 3, 2024 |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=March 16, 2024 |quote=Its sole source of ongoing funds, from the state's cap-and-trade program, expires in 2030 […] the project remains about $7 billion short of the cost to complete the initial segment from Merced to Bakersfield |archive-date=April 3, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240403185329/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ca-high-speed-rail-100-billion-18979091.php |url-status=live }}</ref> 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&nbsp;percent.{{efn|From St. Louis FED [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF/ FRED Economic Data]: 123.273/88.613 equals 1.391}}

By the end of 2023, the Authority had been granted funding of $22.9&nbsp;billion and expended $11.2&nbsp;billion. To bring the IOS into revenue service (including trainsets, stations, and maintenance facilities) along with ongoing project development for Phase&nbsp;1 and statewide connectivity programs (blended corridor investments, such as the [[Caltrain Modernization Program|Caltrain electrification]]), it estimates nominal expenditures at around $28.5–$35.3&nbsp;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:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Funding and expenses, until December 31, 2023<ref name="CHSRA f&a capital outlay Feb 2024">{{cite web |title=Capital Outlay and Expenditure Report Feb 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Capital-Outlay-Budget-and-Expenditures-Report-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 14, 2024 |date=February 29, 2024 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314033208/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Capital-Outlay-Budget-and-Expenditures-Report-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Total Expenditures with Forecast Feb 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Total-Project-Expenditures-with-Forecast-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 14, 2024 |date=February 29, 2024 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314033544/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Total-Project-Expenditures-with-Forecast-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! colspan="4" | Funding granted{{efn|List of funding granted, but not necessarily formally appropriated. For certain state funding such as Prop 1A or federal funding such as through the IIJA, funding has to be formally appropriated in the budget by the legislature.}} !! colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | Expenditure
|-
! Amount in $ millions !! Funding Program (Year granted) !! Source !! Conditions or Earmark !! style="border-left: 3px solid black" | Amount in $ millions !! Item
|-
| 9,950 || [[2008 California Proposition 1A|Proposition 1A]] <br> (2008)|| State || $950m earmarked for statewide connectivity projects (blended corridors) || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 211 || Administrative
|-
| 6,161 || [[Cap-and-trade]] <br> (2014) || State || 25% of quarterly cap-and-trade auctions through 2030 || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 745 || Blended segments
|-
| 3,500 || [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|ARRA]] and FY10 <br> (2009) || Federal || For construction in the Central Valley only, to be completed by 2017 (later amended) || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 283 || Support
|-
| 3,300 || [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act|IIJA]] + other <br> (2023) || Federal || Advancement on IOS || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 1,436 || Project Development
|-
| colspan="4" | <!-- no more funding --> || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 8,546 || Civil construction <br> Central Valley Segment (the {{convert|119|mile}} under active construction)
|-
! colspan="4" | Total funding granted by December 31, 2023 || colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | Total expenditure by December 31, 2023
|-
| colspan="4" | 22,911 || colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 11,182
|- 
! colspan="4" | Expected future funding !! colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | Expected future expenditure,<ref name="CHSRA 2024 business plan cost estimates">{{cite web |title=2024 Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-Draft-Business-Plan-020724-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 14, 2024 |pages=88 |archive-date=February 17, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217195034/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-Draft-Business-Plan-020724-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> IOS only, in YOE${{efn|"Year-of-expenditure" $: Expected nominal prices in the year when expenditures are made. This number hence depends on forecasted inflation and the assumed construction schedule.}}
|-
| rowspan="7" | 5,250 || rowspan="7" | Cap-and-trade, $750m annually{{efn|The Authority was granted 25% of all future cap-and-trade proceeds from 2015 to 2030 in the 2014 California State Budget. The Authority states a low scenario as $750m in annual future revenues. According to the Capital Outlay Report, received cap-and-trade funds plus estimated future revenues total $11,686m. According to the Cash Management Report,<ref name="CHSRA f&a cash management report">{{cite web |title=Cash Management Report Feb 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cash-Management-Report-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 14, 2024 |date=February 29, 2024 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314153509/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Cash-Management-Report-February-29-2024-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> revenue so far has been $6,161m. Their implied forecast of $5,525m in future funding hence assumes an annual cap-and-trade appropriation of $789m. For clarity, this table displays the number for $750m.}} || rowspan="7" | State || rowspan="7" | – || style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 4,463{{efn|Calculated from expected total expenditure minus expenditures so far}}|| Civil Construction Central Valley Segment
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 3,172 || Civil Construction Merced Extension
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 2,301 || Civil Construction Bakersfield Extension
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 2,162 || Track and Systems
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 875 || Stations
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 379 || Trainsets
|-
| <!-- exp funding cols --> style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 438 || Power Systems and Operating Infrastructure
|-
! colspan="4" | Total expected funding || colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | Total expected expenditure for IOS completion, Phase 1 project development, and blended corridors
|-
| colspan="4" | 28,161 || colspan="2" style="border-left: 3px solid black" | 28,470 (zero risk assumption) <br> 35,323 (P65 risk assumption)
|}

=== Funding history ===

[[2008 California Proposition 1A|Proposition&nbsp;1A]], a 2008 state-wide ballot was the authorization by voters for the CAHSR project itself and for the sale of $9.95&nbsp;billion in state bonds, to be made available to the Authority.<ref name="Wired prop1a passed">{{cite magazine |last=Demerjian |first=Dave |date=November 5, 2008 |title=Full Steam Ahead for California's High-Speed Rail |url=https://www.wired.com/2008/11/california-vote-2/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319153953/https://www.wired.com/2008/11/california-vote-2/ |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |access-date=March 14, 2024 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]}}</ref> Out of this sum, $950&nbsp;million were earmarked for other passenger rail services, such as the [[Caltrain Modernization Program|Caltrain Electrification]], to improve connection to the future high-speed rail system.<ref>{{cite web |title=2008 Proposition 1 High Speed Rail Bonds |url=https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2280&context=ca_ballot_props |publisher=UC Hastings Scholarship Repository |access-date=March 14, 2024 |date=2008 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314222229/https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2280&context=ca_ballot_props |url-status=live }}</ref> 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&nbsp;billion had been appropriated.<ref name="CHSRA f&a capital outlay Feb 2024" />

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&nbsp;billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mtc.ca.gov/news/obama-administration-invests-235-billion-high-speed-rail-stimulus-funding-california|title=Obama Administration Invests $2.35 Billion in High-Speed Rail Stimulus Funding in California|publisher=Metropolitan Transportation Commission|date=January 28, 2010|access-date=March 10, 2024|archive-date=March 10, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240310230117/https://mtc.ca.gov/news/obama-administration-invests-235-billion-high-speed-rail-stimulus-funding-california|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/19/dept-of-transportation-wants-high-speed-rail-billions-back/|title=Trump Administration threatens to reclaim $929 million in California's high speed rail funds|work=[[The Mercury News]]|date=February 19, 2019|last=Baldassari|first=Erin|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=March 11, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311174525/https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/19/dept-of-transportation-wants-high-speed-rail-billions-back/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="TheWeek 2015 Mar">{{cite news |title=The most expensive public-works project in U.S. history |url=https://theweek.com/articles/540002/most-expensive-publicworks-project-history |access-date=March 16, 2024 |work=The Week |date=February 21, 2015 |archive-date=March 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316204309/https://theweek.com/articles/540002/most-expensive-publicworks-project-history |url-status=live }}</ref> To adhere to the deadline, the Authority signed construction contracts before design, land acquisition, and utility relocations were completed.<ref name="FresnoBee 2023 Mar cost increase arra background">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=Changes add to high-speed rail construction costs in Fresno region. Here's how much more |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article273296540.html |access-date=March 29, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=March 19, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230512002650/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article273296540.html |archive-date=May 12, 2023 |quote=among the key conditions were that the money be spent for construction of the rail route in the central San Joaquin Valley and that the funds be exhausted by September 2017. Rather than forfeit the grants, leaders of the California rail authority acknowledged that they pushed to award construction contracts before most of the pre-construction work typical of major infrastructure projects – including substantial design work, purchasing land for the railroad right of way, and identifying and relocating hundreds of utilities – was not even started before the construction contracts were awarded.}}</ref> This would lead to severe disruptions during construction and delays persisting to date (see {{section link||Setbacks on the IOS}}).

In 2014, the [[California State Legislature]] voted to appropriate $250&nbsp;million in state [[cap-and-trade]] revenue for the Authority, along with 25% of all future revenue until the end of 2030.<ref name="LA Daily News 06-2014 cap and trade funding">{{cite news |title=Long-term money a big boost for California's high-speed rail |url=https://www.dailynews.com/2014/06/16/long-term-money-a-big-boost-for-californias-high-speed-rail/ |access-date=March 16, 2024 |agency=Los Angeles Daily News |date=June 16, 2014 |archive-date=March 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316204317/https://www.dailynews.com/2014/06/16/long-term-money-a-big-boost-for-californias-high-speed-rail/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url = http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/64|title = Cap-and-Trade Revenue: Likely Much Higher Than Governor's Budget Assumes|publisher = California Legislative Analyst's Office|access-date = January 14, 2016|archive-date = January 19, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160119110622/http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/64|url-status = live}}</ref> By December 2023, it had received $11.7&nbsp;billion through the cap-and-trade appropriation.<ref name="CHSRA f&a cash management report" /> Unlike all other funding, this is the only persistent income stream for the Authority. With a conservative projection of $750&nbsp;million in annual revenue, the Authority expects this source to yield $5.3&nbsp;billion before expiration.

In May 2019, the FRA under the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump-Pence administration]] announced that $929&nbsp;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.<ref name="CNBC 2019 trump cancels 919m funding">{{cite news |title=Trump administration pulls $929 million in funding for California high-speed rail |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/trump-administration-pulls-california-high-speed-rail-funding.html |last=Daniels |first=Jeff |access-date=March 16, 2024 |publisher=[[CNBC]]|date=May 16, 2019 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319132235/https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/trump-administration-pulls-california-high-speed-rail-funding.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="NPR 2019 trump cancels 929m funding">{{cite news |title=Trump Administration Cancels Nearly $1 Billion In California High-Speed Rail Funding |last=Adler|first=Ben |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/724145472/trump-administration-cancels-nearly-1-billion-in-california-high-speed-rail-fund |access-date=March 16, 2024 |publisher=[[NPR]] |date=May 16, 2019 |archive-date=April 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240406061416/https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/724145472/trump-administration-cancels-nearly-1-billion-in-california-high-speed-rail-fund |url-status=live }}</ref> In June 2021, the [[Presidency of Joe Biden|Biden-Harris Administration]] reinstated the funding.<ref name="Reuters 2021 biden reinstates 929m funding">{{cite news |title=Biden restores $929 mln for California high-speed rail withheld by Trump |last1=Francis |first1=Derek |last2=Singh |first2=Kanishka |last3=Shepardson |first3=David |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-restores-929-mln-california-high-speed-rail-2021-06-11/ |access-date=March 16, 2024 |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=June 11, 2021 |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331003749/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-restores-929-mln-california-high-speed-rail-2021-06-11/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In September 2023, the Authority obtained a $202&nbsp;million [[Federal Railroad Administration|FRA]] grant to design and construct six grade separations in [[Shafter, California]],<ref name="KTLA 2023 crisi grant">{{cite news |title=California High-Speed Rail gets big boost from Biden Administration |url=https://ktla.com/news/california/california-high-speed-rail-gets-big-boost-from-biden-administration/ |access-date=March 16, 2024 |agency=KTLA |date=September 25, 2023 |archive-date=March 16, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316221641/https://ktla.com/news/california/california-high-speed-rail-gets-big-boost-from-biden-administration/ |url-status=live }}</ref> part of the southward extension from the initial {{convert|119|mi|km}} towards Bakersfield.
In December 2023, the Biden-Harris administration awarded the CAHSR project $3.1&nbsp;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&nbsp;billion for [[Brightline West]], a similar but privately-run high speed rail project aiming to connect [[Los Angeles]] with [[Las Vegas]].<ref name="Reuters IIJA award 6bn">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-award-3-billion-las-vegas-high-speed-rail-project-2023-12-05/|title=US to award $6.1 billion to Las Vegas, California high-speed rail projects|last=Shepardson|first=David|publisher=[[Reuters]]|date=December 6, 2023|access-date=March 10, 2024|archive-date=December 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213030237/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-award-3-billion-las-vegas-high-speed-rail-project-2023-12-05/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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&nbsp;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&nbsp;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&nbsp;completed structures and {{convert|60|mi|km}} 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&nbsp;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.<ref name="2025 nyt fra report repudiation">{{cite news |last1=Vartabedian |first1=Ralph |title=California Offers Spirited Defense of Bullet Train Project |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/us/california-high-speed-rail-funding.html |access-date=17 July 2025 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=7 July 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250708041232/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/us/california-high-speed-rail-funding.html |archive-date=8 July 2025}}</ref> In April 2025, the administration further cancelled $175&nbsp;million for grade separation, over-crossing and design work. The state of California challenged its legality, calling the decision "illegal".<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-08-27 |title=Trump administration pulls another $175m from California's high-speed rail |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/26/california-high-speed-rail-trump-administration |access-date=2025-09-16 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

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&nbsp;billion, marking the second attempt of an administration under Trump to cancel federal funding awarded to CAHSR.<ref name="2025 politico fra grant termination">{{cite news |last1=Starcevic |first1=Seb |last2=Nieves |first2=Alex |title=Trump pulls federal funds for California's high-speed rail |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/16/trump-california-high-speed-rail-00459191 |access-date=17 July 2025 |work=[[Politico]] |date=16 July 2025}}</ref><ref name="2025 la times fra grant termination">{{cite news |last1=Shalby |first1=Colleen |title=Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision 'illegal' |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancels-funding-for-high-speed-rail-project |access-date=17 July 2025 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=16 July 2025}}</ref> In response, the state of California under Governor [[Gavin Newsom]] filed a lawsuit with the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of California|U.S. District Court in Sacramento]] in the [[Ninth Circuit]] seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,<ref name="2025 la times grant termination lawsuit">{{cite news |last1=Shalby |first1=Colleen |title=California sues Trump administration over loss of high-speed rail funding |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-17/california-sues-the-trump-administration-over-loss-of-high-speed-rail-funds |access-date=18 July 2025 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=17 July 2025 |quote=The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, comes one day after the Federal Railroad Administration pulled $4 billion from the project that was intended for construction in the Central Valley. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and challenges the legality of the decision.}}</ref> alleging that the move from the federal government was a "petty, political retribution, motivated by President Trump’s personal animus".<ref name="2025 wp grant termination lawsuit">{{cite news |last1=Vinall |first1=Frances |title=Trump revokes $4 billion from California high-speed rail project |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/17/california-high-speed-rail-funding-trump-newsom/ |access-date=18 July 2025 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=18 July 2025 |quote=Newsom on Thursday announced that California is suing the Trump administration over the move. The lawsuit alleges the termination of funding is “petty, political retribution, motivated by President Trump’s personal animus,” a news release said.}}</ref><ref name="2025 governor announcement lawsuit">{{cite web |title=California sues to stop Trump's politically motivated attack on high-speed rail |url=https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/07/17/california-sues-to-stop-trumps-politically-motivated-attack-on-high-speed-rail/ |website=www.gov.ca.gov |date=July 18, 2025 |access-date=18 July 2025}}</ref>

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&nbsp;percent of revenue given to high-speed rail, was changed into instead prioritizing $1&nbsp;billion annually for the project ahead of other uses of the fund.<ref name="2025 SacBee cap-and-trade extension">{{cite news |last1=Wolffe |first1=Kate |last2=Russell |first2=Lia |title=California lawmakers pass climate deal extending cap-and-trade, permitting more drilling |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article312084510.html |quote=Democratic lawmakers in California approved a sweeping slate of climate and environmental bills Saturday – a package that would double-down on climate commitments like cap-and-trade and high speed rail [...].|access-date=14 September 2025 |work=[[The Sacramento Bee]] |date=13 September 2025}}</ref> According to the CEO of the high-speed rail authority, this guarantees full funding for the {{convert|171|mi|km|adj=on}} initial operating segment from Merced to Bakerfield.<ref name="2025 LATimes cap-and-trade ext">{{cite news |last1=Shalby |first1=Colleen |title=High-speed rail project slated to receive billions in state funding |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-12/high-speed-rail-project-slated-to-received-20-billion-in-state-funding |access-date=14 September 2025 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250912103841/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-09-12/high-speed-rail-project-slated-to-received-20-billion-in-state-funding |archive-date=12 September 2025 |quote=California’s high-speed rail project is slated to receive $1 billion a year in funding through the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2045 [...] “This funding agreement resolves all identified funding gaps for the Early Operating Segment in the Central Valley and opens the door for meaningful public-private engagement with the program,” Choudri said in a statement.}}</ref> 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.<ref name="2025 FresnoBee cap-and-trade ext">{{cite news |last1=Galicia |first1=Erik |title=Here's what CA high-speed rail can do with new $1B-a-year promise from state |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article312083020.html |access-date=14 September 2025 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=13 September 2025 |quote=California’s High-Speed Rail Authority can consider the project’s initial Central Valley route fully funded [...] [Authority board member Henry Perea said:] “The way money is allocated, money will not be slowing down anything having to do with the completion of the 171 miles.”.}}</ref>

=== Current cost estimates ===

The table below shows capital cost estimates as of 2024 for the active project scope of the Authority: putting the {{convert|171|mi|km|adj=on}} IOS into revenue service by 2030&ndash;2033, investments into blended corridors, and project development such as environmental clearance of Phase&nbsp;1. Unfunded segments are listed in the next table. Estimates are provided for three risk scenarios and were reported in by the Authority in 2024 as part of legally mandated updates to the California legislature.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ 2024 capital cost estimates for IOS + advance Phase&nbsp;1 work<br>(year of expenditure $, in billions)<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>
|-
! Risk Scenario !! Low (P30) !! Base (P50) !! High (P65)
|-
| Central Valley segment<br>{{convert|119|mi|km}} || 17.3 || 17.8 || 18.3
|-
| Project development || 0.1 || 0.1 || 0.1
|-
| Merced extension || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.5
|-
| Bakersfield extension || 2.8 || 3.0 || 3.3
|-
| Stations || 1.0 || 1.1 || 1.2
|-
| Tracks and rail systems || 2.6 || 2.8 || 3.0
|-
| Power generation and system || 0.2 || 0.2 || 0.2
|-
| High-speed trainsets (six for IOS) || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.6
|-
| Maintenance || 0.3 || 0.4 || 0.4
|-
| Contingency || 1.2 || 1.3 || 1.4
|-
! '''Subtotal Initial Operating Segment (IOS)<br> fully operational, Merced to Bakersfield''' || '''29.8''' || '''31.5''' || '''33.0'''
|-
| Project development Phase 1 || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.6
|-
| Program wide support balance || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5
|-
| Blended corridor investments<br>(such as Caltrain electrification, Link US) || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3
|-
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''' ''Active project scope'' ''' || '''32.1''' || '''33.8''' || '''35.3'''
|}

The next table displays capital cost estimates for the full Phase&nbsp;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),{{efn|"The $128&nbsp;billion price tag does not include cost updates for two separate segments between Palmdale and Anaheim, because the rail authority in the past has not updated costs until it completes environmental assessments. There could be additional jolts of sticker shock when those costs are added in the future."<ref name="CalMatters 2023 March cost increase"/>}} 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.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ 2024 capital cost estimates for full Phase&nbsp;1 <br>
(year of expenditure $, in billions)<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>
|-
! Risk Scenario !! Low (P30) !! Base (P50) !! High (P65)
|-
| Northern California <br> ''San Francisco to Merced'' || 21.2 || 27.9 || 35.5
|-
| style="background:#EEE8AA" | '''Initial Operating Segment (IOS)'''<br> ''Merced to Bakersfield'' || style="background:#EEE8AA" | '''29.8''' || style="background:#EEE8AA" | '''31.5''' || style="background:#EEE8AA" | '''33.0'''
|-
| Southern California <br> ''Bakersfield to Anaheim'' || 31.9 || 40.7 || 52.8
|-
| style="background:#EEE8AA" | Programwide <br> ''Trains for Phase 1, facilities, power, project development'' || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 5.6 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 6.2 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 6.6
|-
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''' ''Full Phase 1'' ''' || '''88.5''' || '''106.2''' || '''127.9'''
|}
{{color box|border=gray|#EEE8AA}} partially funded and underway

=== Past cost estimates ===

<!-- DO NOT DELETE
price calculations into 2023 based on Q4 2023 price index
-->
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 $6.2&nbsp;billion (${{Inflation|US|6.2|2008|r=1}}&nbsp;billion in 2025).<ref>{{cite news |title=Trump administration cancels $929-million grant for California bullet train |last1=Vartabedian |first1=Ralph |last2=Leavenworth |first2=Stuart |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-loses-federal-funding-20190516-story.html |access-date=May 17, 2019 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=May 16, 2019 |language=en |quote=costs for current construction in the Central Valley has jumped an additional $ 1.8 billion to $ 12.4 billion, a segment for which originally cost $ 6 billion |archive-date=April 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240404042636/https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-loses-federal-funding-20190516-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The same scope of work was projected to be $30.5&nbsp;billion in 2024.<ref name="2024 Business Plan" /><ref name="MercuryNews">{{cite news |last1=Woolfolk |first1=John |title=Overdue, overbudget California high-speed rail just got $3.1&nbsp;billion boost: Will trains ever roll? |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/08/overdue-overbudget-high-speed-rail-just-got-3-1-billion-boost-will-trains-ever-roll/ |access-date=January 2, 2024 |work=[[The Mercury News]] |date=January 8, 2023 |language=en |quote=costs for the 171-mile Merced to Bakersfield segment now are estimated as high as $35.3&nbsp;billion [...] The current timeline is for train service by 2033.}}</ref>{{efn|The 2008 estimate included structures, stations, tracks, and power systems. Trainsets and maintenance facilities were not included. The given 2024 number reflects the same scope, for comparison.}} The initial 2008 total cost estimate for Phase&nbsp;1, developed by consultants [[WSP USA]] for the Authority and presented to voters, was $45&nbsp;billion (${{Inflation|US|45|2008|r=1}}&nbsp;billion in 2025).<ref>{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=How California's faltering high-speed rail project was 'captured' by costly consultants |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html |access-date=March 23, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=April 26, 2019 |quote=In 2008, WSP developed the estimate that the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line would cost $33 billion and take 12 years to build. In the same year, voters approved a $9-billion bond that was supposed to fund one-third of the project |archive-date=March 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240330135238/https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> No timeline for completion was presented to voters, but the Authority initially anticipated a possible completion date by 2020.<ref>{{cite news |title=The world's slowest bullet train trundles ahead in California |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/05/16/the-worlds-slowest-bullet-train-trundles-ahead-in-california?utm_campaign=a.the-economist-today&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=20240517&utm_content=ed-picks-image-link-1&etear=nl_today_1&utm_campaign=a.the-economist-today&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/17/2024&utm_id=1880521 |access-date=18 May 2024 |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |date=16 May 2024 |quote=In 2008, when the state's voters approved nearly $10bn in bonds for the train, it was thought that the total cost would run to $33bn and that it would be done by 2020}}</ref>  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&nbsp;billion.

Regular public controversy about project cost increases is centered around the latter headline number for the total cost of Phase&nbsp;1. Up until 2016, cost estimates were reported as [[Real and nominal value|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.{{efn|Segment and project scope definitions changed over the years, such as whether trainsets and stations are included or not. Hence, the definitions in this table may not be exactly constant. The exposition here is intended to provide a rough indication of cost developments.}}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Capital cost estimates <br> made by the California High-Speed Rail Authority over the years 2008–2024 <br> (in $ billions, nominal prices){{efn|Scope per segment may change over the years. For example, the inclusion of a second track is part of costs for Merced to Bakersfield in some years, but not in others. When a cost range is given, the point estimate in this table is chosen to be the midpoint, for exposition.}}
|-
! rowspan="2" |
! Segment{{efn|Precise segments may change definition across years, such as San Jose to Merced vs. to Central Valley Wye}}
! 2008<ref name="CHSRA 2008 business plan">{{cite web |title=2008 Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2008_FullRpt.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 12, 2024 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314181518/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2008_FullRpt.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> !! 2012<ref name="CHSRA 2012 cost change">{{cite web |title=Cost Changes from 2009 Report to 2012 Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 12, 2024 |page=2 |archive-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925110453/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! 2014<ref name="CHSRA 2016 business plan appendix cost estimate">{{cite web |title=2016 Business Plan Basis of Estimate |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2016_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 12, 2024 |pages=14–15 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319154011/https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2016_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! 2016<ref name="CHSRA 2016 business plan appendix cost estimate" />
! '''2018'''<ref name="CHSRA 2018 business plan cost estimate">{{cite web |title=2018 Business Plan Capital Cost Basis of Estimate |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2018_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 23, 2024 |pages=9 |archive-date=March 27, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327045015/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2018_Business_Plan_Basis_of_Estimate.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! '''2018'''<ref name="CHSRA 2018 business plan cost estimates">{{cite web |title=2018 Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2018_BusinessPlan.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 16, 2024 |pages=43–51 |archive-date=March 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240314030451/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/2018_BusinessPlan.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! '''2020'''<ref name="CHSRA 2020 business plan basis of cost estimate">{{cite web |title=2020 Business Plan Basis of Estimate |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2020_Business_Plan_Capital_Cost_Basis_of_Estimate_Report.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 20, 2024 |page=6 |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326225255/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2020_Business_Plan_Capital_Cost_Basis_of_Estimate_Report.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! '''2022'''<ref>{{cite news |last=Kamisher |first=Eliyahu |title=$5.3 billion: San Jose to San Francisco high-speed rail costs balloon by over 200% |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/16/bay-areas-high-speed-rail-is-closer-than-ever-but-the-price-tag-is-exploding/ |access-date=July 30, 2022 |work=[[The Mercury News]] |date=June 16, 2022 |language=en |quote=The 2022 business plan — approved in April without the inflated costs for San Jose to San Francisco — already tacked on an extra $13 billion, bringing the higher-end cost up to $113 billion |archive-date=December 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231202103400/https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/16/bay-areas-high-speed-rail-is-closer-than-ever-but-the-price-tag-is-exploding/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="CHSRA 2022 business plan cost estimates">{{cite web |title=2022 Business Plan |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Business-Plan-FINAL-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 17, 2024 |pages=75–81 |archive-date=August 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829022501/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Business-Plan-FINAL-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
! '''2024'''<ref name="CHSRA 2024 business plan basis of cost estimates">{{cite web |title=2024 Business Plan Capital Cost Basis of Estimate Report |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Draft-2024-Business-Plan-Basis-of-Estimate-FINAL-A11Y.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 31, 2024 |pages=7–10 |archive-date=March 18, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240318130351/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Draft-2024-Business-Plan-Basis-of-Estimate-FINAL-A11Y.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
|-
! ''Price Level'' || ''2008'' || ''2011'' || ''2015'' || ''2015'' || ''2017'' || ''YOE'' || ''YOE'' || ''YOE'' || ''YOE''
|-
| rowspan="2" | Northern California
| San Francisco to San Jose || 4.2 || 5.6 || 6.0 ||3.1 || 2.4 || 2.1 || 1.6 || 1.7 || 5.0{{efn|Includes funded investment into Caltrain electrification}}
|-
| San Jose to Merced || 5.2 || 15.1 || 14.7 || 9.9 || 13.9{{efn|Calculated as the sum of segments: San Jose to Gilroy, Gilroy to Carlucci Road, Carlucci Road to Madera Acres (Wye Leg 2)}} || 15.8 || 15.8 || 21.9 || 21.9
|-
| rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | IOS
| style="background:#EEE8AA" | Merced to Fresno || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 2.0 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 5.3 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 4.1 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 3.8 || rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | 14.8{{efn|Calculated as the sum of segments: Merced to Wye Legs 1, Wye Legs 1, Madera Acres to Poplar Avenue, Poplar Avenue to Bakersfield}} || rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | unknown{{efn|Project segments change definition over the years; the 2018 business plan does not show numbers in YOE that allow for a calculation of the {{convert|171|mi|km}} now defined as the IOS. The cost for {{convert|119|mi|km}} was given as $10.6&nbsp;billion.}} || rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | 23.1 || rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | 23.2 || rowspan="2" style="background:#EEE8AA" | 29.8
|-
| style="background:#EEE8AA" | Fresno to Bakersfield || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 4.2 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 6.8 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 7.3 || style="background:#EEE8AA" | 8.3
|-
| rowspan="3" | Southern California
| Bakersfield to Palmdale || 3.9 || 7.7 || 8.3 || 9.7 || 12.3 || 16.3 || 15.7 || 18.4 || 17.1
|-
| Palmdale to Los Angeles || 5.4 || 13.1 || 13.5 || 13.5 || 16.1 || 17.5 || 18.1 || 19.7 || 19.7
|-
| Los Angeles to Anaheim || 2.0 || 0.5 || 0.5 || 2.3 || 3.0 || 3.6 || 2.9 || 2.9 || 2.9
|-
!
! &nbsp;&nbsp; '' '''Full Phase 1''' '' <br> including non-construction costs{{efn|Segment-wise civil construction costs may not sum to this total due to (i) rounding (ii) program-wide non-construction capital costs such as trainsets and maintenance facilities. These may be accounted for in construction sections in some years, and as a separate category in others.}} || 33.2 || 53.4 || 58.6 || 55.3 || 67.5 || 77.3 || 83.0 || 93.5 || 106.2
|}
{{color box|border=gray|#EEE8AA}} 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: [[Wendlingen–Ulm high-speed railway|A {{convert|37.1|mi|km|adj=on}} high-speed line in Southern Germany]] that opened in 2022 saw its budget nearly double, from €2.03&nbsp;billion in 2009 to €3.99&nbsp;billion by 2022.<ref name="DB hsr line wendlingen ulm cost">{{cite web |title=Was kostet die Neubaustrecke Wendlingen-Ulm? |url=https://www.bahnprojekt-stuttgart-ulm.de/projekt/finanzierung-und-kosten/nbs-neubaustrecke-wendlingen-ulm/ |publisher=Deutsche Bahn |access-date=March 17, 2024 |archive-date=June 4, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210604095538/https://www.bahnprojekt-stuttgart-ulm.de/projekt/finanzierung-und-kosten/nbs-neubaustrecke-wendlingen-ulm/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[High Speed 2]], a {{convert|140|mi|km|adj=on}} 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&nbsp;billion in 2010<ref name="BBC 11/3/10">{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8561286.stm |publisher=[[BBC News]] |title=High-speed rail plans announced |date=March 11, 2010 |access-date=November 14, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111026173437/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8561286.stm |archive-date=October 26, 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref> up to possibly £66&nbsp;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&nbsp;percent respectively during the period since the [[COVID-19 pandemic]].<ref name="Guardian 2024 hs2 cost increase 66bn">{{cite news |title=HS2: true cost of London-Birmingham line is more like £66bn, boss admits |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/hs2-cost-of-london-birmingham-line-rise-mps |access-date=March 17, 2024 |agency=[[The Guardian]] |date=January 10, 2024 |archive-date=March 17, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317030457/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/hs2-cost-of-london-birmingham-line-rise-mps |url-status=live }}</ref>

Similar cost increases have occurred on major California infrastructure projects in the 21st century when faced with similar challenges like the CAHSR project. The [[Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge|Bay Bridge replacement span]] increased from an initial $1&nbsp;billion in 1996{{efn|Original plans for the Bay Bridge, which was damaged in the 1989 [[Loma Prieta earthquake]], were to retrofit the structure for about $250&nbsp;million, but later studies favored constructing a new bridge which was initially budgeted at $1&nbsp;billion in 1996.}} to $6.5&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-cost-of-remaking-the-san-francisco-bay-bridge-soared-to-6-5-billion|title=From $250 Million to $6.5 Billion: The Bay Bridge Cost Overrun|publisher=Bloomberg CityLab|last=Jaffe|first=Eric|date=October 13, 2015|access-date=March 26, 2024|archive-date=March 26, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326025105/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-cost-of-remaking-the-san-francisco-bay-bridge-soared-to-6-5-billion|url-status=live}}</ref> The cost of widening a {{convert|10|mi|km|adj=on}} section of [[Interstate 405 in California|I-405]] in [[Sepulveda Pass]] rose from $1&nbsp;billion in 2010 to $1.6&nbsp;billion in 2016, due to "repeated changes to the project's design and failure to identify and relocate utilities."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-405-freeway-settlement-20161128-story.html|title='Lessons learned': Metro will pay nearly $300 million more to company that widened the 405 Freeway|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|last=Nelson|first=Laura J.|date=November 28, 2016|access-date=March 26, 2024|archive-date=March 23, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323022033/https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-405-freeway-settlement-20161128-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The cost of the planned {{convert|6|mi|km|adj=on}} long third phase of the [[Silicon Valley BART extension]] rose from $4.7&nbsp;billion in 2014 to $12.2&nbsp;billion in 2024, due to years of delays and inflation,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02/01/over-12-2b-chief-of-bart-san-jose-says-theres-a-chance-feds-top-vtas-estimate/|title=Even more than $12.2 billion? Chief of BART San Jose says feds could raise extension's estimated cost yet again|last=Greschler|first=Gabriel|work=[[The Mercury News]]|date=February 1, 2024|access-date=March 26, 2024|archive-date=March 23, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323022034/https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02/01/over-12-2b-chief-of-bart-san-jose-says-theres-a-chance-feds-top-vtas-estimate/|url-status=live}}</ref> and to design changes following complaints from property owners along the route.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/13/opinion-badly-bungled-bart-extension-to-san-jose-could-still-be-fixed/|title=Opinion: Badly bungled BART extension to San Jose could still be fixed|work=[[The Mercury News]]|last=Cauthen|first=Gerald|date=October 13, 2023|access-date=March 26, 2024|archive-date=March 27, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327175447/https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/13/opinion-badly-bungled-bart-extension-to-san-jose-could-still-be-fixed/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2023, the Authority published a major cost revision for putting the IOS into revenue service, significantly increasing estimates from $23.4&nbsp;billion in its 2022 business plan to a range of $26.2&ndash;33&nbsp;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&nbsp;billion to a range of $28.5&ndash;35.3&nbsp;billion.<ref name="CHSRA 2023 project update report table costs">{{cite web |title=2023 Project Update Report |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Project-Update-Report-FINAL-022823.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 22, 2024 |pages=55 |archive-date=March 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230302003728/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Project-Update-Report-FINAL-022823.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> This increase of potentially up to $9.7&nbsp;billion, or 37&nbsp;percent, was explained with the following major factors: $2.1&nbsp;billion, or 21&nbsp;percent of the increase, were attributable to delays in schedule combined with inflation;{{efn|General price increases in the construction sector significantly outpaced consumer price inflation since Covid.}} $3.9&nbsp;billion, or 40&nbsp;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&nbsp;billion, or 39&nbsp;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.<ref name="CalMatters 2023 March cost increase">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=New cost estimate for high-speed rail puts California bullet train $100 billion in the red |url=https://calmatters.org/economy/2023/03/california-high-speed-rail/ |work=CalMatters |date=March 7, 2023 |access-date=March 22, 2024 |quote=The roughly $10 billion cost increase on the Merced to Bakersfield line includes $3.9 billion mostly for the decisions to have elevated stations and track realignments in Merced and Bakersfield; $2.1 billion for higher inflation; and $3.7 billion in contingency or reserves for future cost increases. |archive-date=April 4, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240404115836/https://calmatters.org/economy/2023/03/california-high-speed-rail/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Setbacks and challenges ==

<!-- DO NOT DELETE: IMPORTANT RECORDS for numbers displayed
Some simple price calculations based on FRED GDPDEF, base year 2017
price index Q1 2008: 87.315
price index Q2 2012: 92.907
price index Q2 2015: 97.325
price index Q3 2023: 123.273
DO NOT DELETE -->

=== 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.{{efn|The following example illustrates the sequence of pre-construction activities and its sensitivity to delay: "The state, for example, has failed to acquire a piece of land from Smart & Final, a grocery chain, at a city corner, delaying relocation of a gas line. The removal of the gas line in turn has delayed construction of temporary freight track, called a shoofly, for Union Pacific Railroad. The shoofly is necessary to allow construction of underpasses and bridges at three major streets near downtown".<ref name="LA Times 2021 Jan cp1 letter" />}} 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.<ref name="LA Times 2019 Sep land acquisition" /><ref name="TheWeek 2015 Mar" />

By January 2013, the state had not acquired a single parcel,<ref name="LA Times 2013 Jan land acquisition">{{cite web |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=California still hasn't bought land for bullet train route |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2013-jan-27-la-me-bullet-land-20130127-story.html |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=March 22, 2024 |date=January 27, 2013 |archive-date=March 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322175531/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2013-jan-27-la-me-bullet-land-20130127-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> delaying overall construction start to 2015. By 2019, less than 310&nbsp;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.<ref name="LA Times 2019 Sep land acquisition">{{cite web |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=California bullet train's mishandling of land deals adds to mounting costs and delays |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-15/california-bullet-train-land-acquisition |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=March 23, 2024 |date=September 15, 2019 |archive-date=March 23, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240323162342/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-15/california-bullet-train-land-acquisition |url-status=live }}</ref>

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 &ndash; the latter of which were in turn criticized for their “preferential and unreasonable demands”.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Jan cp1 letter"/>

The initial bid for CP1 of just under $1&nbsp;billion had ballooned to $2.2&nbsp;billion in the meanwhile, mostly due to delay claims and change orders. The Authority disputed assertions made in the letter, with then-CEO Brian Kelly responding that those were "attempts to set out why project challenges are everybody else's fault".<ref name="LA Times 2021 Jan cp1 letter">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=State bullet train delays 'beyond comprehension,' contractor says in blistering letter |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-12/california-high-speed-rail-delays-contractor-angry-letter |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=March 22, 2024 |date=January 12, 2021 |archive-date=March 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322175530/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-12/california-high-speed-rail-delays-contractor-angry-letter |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Mar cp2 letter">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=Bullet train contractor warns of further two-year delay as state struggles to secure land |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-29/california-high-speed-rail-contractor-warns-more-delays |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=March 22, 2024 |pages=March 29, 2021 |archive-date=April 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240413235629/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-29/california-high-speed-rail-contractor-warns-more-delays |url-status=live }}</ref>

By December 2023, 2,258 out of 2,295 required parcels (98&nbsp;percent) on the {{convert|119|mi|km}} under active construction had been acquired, shifting the major source of hold-up risk to outstanding utility relocations. On CP1, 18&nbsp;percent of utility relocations had not yet been started, and 20&nbsp;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 {{convert|52|mi|km}} of extensions into Merced and Bakersfield, the Authority plans to initiate construction only after fully completing design and land acquisition.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/>

=== Underestimates ===

[[Image:CAHSR_IOS_construction_map.svg|thumb|300px|The location of construction packages on the IOS]]

The voter information for Prop 1A included an estimate of $45 billion (current 2008 dollars) for a statewide vision of high speed rail. This initial appraisal was not based on any specific right-of-ways, stations, routes, right-of-way blending, or construction phases.

The first cost estimate provided for the eventual "Phase 1" system – with most of its currently designated stations, and blended "bookends" – was published in the Authority's Revised 2012 Business Plan. The estimate in this document for the construction of the blended Phase 1 system was $68.4 billion.<ref>https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012_rpt.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com</ref>

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&nbsp;billion in 2008 to $16.1&nbsp;billion (in 2024 dollars).<ref name="CHSRA 2008 business plan" /><ref name="CHSRA 2012 cost change" /> Unlike the estimates at project inception, this cost revision considered necessary construction of viaducts to cross multiple freight railroads (owned by [[BNSF]] and [[UPRR]]), floodplains, and irrigation canals. Even at this point, design was only at 15&nbsp;percent and environmental clearance incomplete, leaving final community and environmental mitigation measures unspecified.<ref name="CHSRA 2012 business plan cost changes">{{cite web |title=2012 Business Plan Cost Changes |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 23, 2024 |date=April 2012 |archive-date=September 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230925110453/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CostChanges09_12.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sheehan|first=Tim|title=Cost of high-speed rail project in the Valley leaps by $2.8 billion|url=http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article194995999.html|access-date=January 22, 2018|work=[[The Fresno Bee]]|quote=cost increase is due to the authority's continuing problems in purchasing the property it needs for its railroad right of way through the Valley. Some of that increase involves having to buy more parcels than originally forecast, as well as paying more than expected for individual properties|archive-date=January 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180123045601/http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article194995999.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="LA Times 2019 Sep land acquisition" />

In 2013, the contract for ''Construction Package&nbsp;1'' (CP1), the northernmost section of the {{convert|119|mi|km}} under active construction covering {{convert|29|mi|km}} from Madera to south of Fresno, was awarded to a joint venture between the firms [[Tutor Perini]], Zachry, and [[Parsons Corporation|Parsons]] for a winning bid of $985&nbsp;million, below the second-lowest bid of $1.09&nbsp;billion and below Authority staff estimates of $1.2&ndash;1.8&nbsp;billionbillion. Allegations were raised about deliberate lowballing practices by the lead firm Tutor Perini, which would subsequently lead to predictable cost overruns.<ref name="SD UnionTribune cp1 bid"/>

Media reports cited that 11&nbsp;major projects completed by the firm in the past 12&nbsp;years ended up with costs 40&nbsp;percent above initial bids. CEO [[Ron Tutor]] disputed the allegations, claiming that cost overruns were caused by owner-initiated change orders. He anticipated that potential change orders for the CAHSR project in case of land conveyance issues could cause construction delays and cost increases, but that "[t]hese aren't huge. They are not major. They are nothing extensive. [...] and it never spirals out of control.”<ref name="SD UnionTribune cp1 bid">{{cite news |title='Change-order artist' fights back |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-ron-tutor-addressess-high-speed-rail-criticism-2013apr16-htmlstory.html |access-date=March 24, 2024 |work=[[The San Diego Union-Tribune]] |date=April 16, 2023 |quote=His joint venture of Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons has submitted the “best apparent value” bid of $985 million for the first segment of the rail line, below the $1.09 billion proposal by the next-lowest bidder. Rail officials had estimated the cost of the first segment at $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion. |archive-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324030821/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-ron-tutor-addressess-high-speed-rail-criticism-2013apr16-htmlstory.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref name="LA Business Journal cp1 bid scrutiny">{{cite news |title=Tutor Perini Wins High-Speed Rail Contract |url=https://labusinessjournal.com/transportation/rail/tutor-perini-wins-high-speed-rail-contract/ |access-date=March 24, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Business Journal]] |date=June 6, 2013 |quote=Tutor has come under heavy scrutiny for its low-cost bid, which was eliminated from the first round of proposals after recording the lowest technical score of all bids in safety, design, engineering, scheduling and other factors. A mid-evaluation rule change allowed the joint venture to remain in the running. |archive-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324044240/https://labusinessjournal.com/transportation/rail/tutor-perini-wins-high-speed-rail-contract/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Concerns about the contract award prompted a congressional hearing.<ref name="KPCC LAist cp1 congressional hearing">{{cite news |title=Congressman Jeff Denham explains criticism of high speed rail plan |url=https://laist.com/shows/take-two/congressman-jeff-denham-explains-criticism-of-high-speed-rail-plan |access-date=March 24, 2024 |publisher=KPCC |date=May 29, 2013 |archive-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324044240/https://laist.com/shows/take-two/congressman-jeff-denham-explains-criticism-of-high-speed-rail-plan |url-status=live }}</ref> As of December 2023, the CP1 contract had $2.4&nbsp;billion in approved invoices, those being 67% of total expected expenses.<ref name="CHSRA 2024 Feb f&a cv report">{{cite web |title=Central Valley Status Report, February 29, 2024 |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CVSR_2402_2312_Data-FINAL.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 24, 2024 |date=February 29, 2024 |archive-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324044233/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CVSR_2402_2312_Data-FINAL.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2014, the contract for ''Construction Package&nbsp;2–3'' (CP2-3), a {{convert|65|mi|km}} 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&nbsp;billion. This number came significantly below the $1.5&ndash;2&nbsp;billion as expected by Authority staff and the second-lowest bid by Tutor Perini with $1.7&nbsp;billion.<ref name="TheAtlantic 2014 james fallows part 14.75 cp2 bid">{{cite news |last=Fallows |first=James |title=That Winning Bid for California's High-Speed Rail: Is It Suspiciously Low? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/that-winning-bid-for-californias-high-speed-rail-is-it-too-low/383737/ |access-date=March 23, 2024 |work=[[The Atlantic]] |date=December 13, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150329164600/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/that-winning-bid-for-californias-high-speed-rail-is-it-too-low/383737/#city-maker-embed-code-bottom |archive-date=March 29, 2015}}</ref>

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 {{Convert|2|mi|km|adj=mid}} viaduct over several [[Kings River (California)|Kings River]] waterways crossing the alignment.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Feb cp2 design revisions"/>

In their bid submission, lead firm Dragados suggested cost-saving measures such as replacing the viaduct with 13&nbsp;[[box culvert]]s or replacing the elevated platform at Hanford with a ground-level guideway. During construction, it became clear that the contractor had underestimated the complexity of their proposals: A planned freight railroad relocation could not be undertaken as no agreement with [[UPRR]] was reached, a planned freeway relocation into a trench was not feasible, the [[California Department of Fish and Wildlife]] dismissed the alternative designs for the [[Kings River Viaduct]], and the [[Kings–Tulare Regional Station]] at Hanford had to be elevated onto a lengthy viaduct after all.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Feb cp2 design revisions"/>

By 2021, the Authority had approved 273 change orders for CP2-3 and agreed to pay $800&nbsp;million in additional costs, marking an increase of 62&nbsp;percent over the initial bid. During the bidding process, the Authority decided that prospective bidders may disregard a pending geotechnical report on land subsidence due to groundwater pumping. The report was finished in 2017 and noted increased flooding risks. Of the cost increases by 2021, $101&nbsp;million were change orders for elevated embankments.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Feb cp2 design revisions">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=A 'low-cost' plan for California bullet train brings $800 million in overruns, big delays |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-22/california-bullet-train-dragados-design-changes |access-date=March 24, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=February 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240302111904/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-22/california-bullet-train-dragados-design-changes |archive-date=March 2, 2024}}</ref> By December 2023, the CP2-3 contract had $2.4&nbsp;billion in approved invoices, those being expected to be 72&nbsp;percent of total expenditure.<ref name="CHSRA 2024 Feb f&a cv report" />

=== Freight railroad companies ===

{{Multiple image
|image1=WascoViaduct 2020March.png
|caption1=The [[Wasco, California|Wasco]] Viaduct, under construction in 2020. A BNSF freight train is passing underneath the then-future pergola.
|width1=
|image2=WascoViaduct 2024March.png
|caption2= Finished viaduct in 2024.
|width2=
|align=right
|direction=vertical
}}

The high-speed rail alignment shares substantial parts of its corridor with existing freight railroads. Construction activity that affects them are subject to their approval. These third-party hold-ups can cause disruptions to Authority contractors' work sequence, which are exacerbated by any Authority-initiated design changes. For example, the construction of a road underpass in downtown Fresno required also building a bridge for existing [[Union Pacific]] tracks and their temporary relocation ("shoo-fly"). According to CHSRA officials, it took nine iterations of design reviews to obtain approval, with each step taking about 45&nbsp;days.<ref name="FresnoBee 2024 apr fresno road closures">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=Lengthy road closures for high-speed rail worry Fresno mayor: 'I stuck my neck out' |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article286927945.html |access-date=April 12, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=April 9, 2024 |quote='Just to get the shoo fly done, we had to go through nine iterations of back-and-forth with Union Pacific,' [CHSRA Central Valley regional director] Fernandez said. 'For every plan submittal, they came back with questions, and every submittal took maybe 45 days for them to review it.' |archive-date=April 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240422142603/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article286927945.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="KTLA5 finish in five years?">{{cite news |last=Schlepp |first=Travis |title=Could the California High-Speed Rail be completed in the next 5 years? |url=https://ktla.com/news/california/could-the-california-high-speed-rail-be-completed-in-the-next-5-years/ |access-date=March 29, 2024 |publisher=KTLA |date=August 17, 2023 |quote=He [Boris Lipkin, the Northern California Regional Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority] says the Authority faces hundreds and sometimes thousands of different “veto points” during construction, including blackout windows for construction, third parties being affected by the construction, and even competition with Burlington Northern Santa Fe – the nation's largest freight rail company – which has the ability to pause construction during some of the busiest shipping months. |archive-date=November 18, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118000834/https://ktla.com/news/california/could-the-california-high-speed-rail-be-completed-in-the-next-5-years/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BNSF public projects manual">{{cite web |title=Public Projects Manual |url=http://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/in-the-community/public-projects-manual-mtm.pdf |publisher=BNSF Railway |access-date=March 29, 2024 |date=June 29, 2018 |page=12 |quote=Proponents should also be mindful that BNSF has the right to shut down all construction activities on and adjacent to BNSF property during the fourth quarter of each year – October 1 to December 26 – to accommodate BNSF's peak holiday shipping season. |archive-date=April 8, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240408202714/http://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/in-the-community/public-projects-manual-mtm.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="UP oublic projects manual">{{cite web |title=Union Pacific Railroad Public Projects Manual |url=https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@corprel/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_public_projects_manual.pdf |publisher=[[Union Pacific Railroad]] |access-date=March 29, 2024 |pages=2–12 |date=July 30, 2021 |quote=Applicants should also be mindful that UP has the right to shut down all construction activities on and adjacent to Railroad Property during the fourth quarter of each year to accommodate UP's peak holiday shipping season. |archive-date=January 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240114101243/https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@corprel/documents/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_public_projects_manual.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

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 &ndash; thick walls made out of steel reinforced concrete &ndash; to separate its guideway from freight lines. According to the Authority, a final agreement with the [[Federal Railroad Administration|FRA]] and the affected freight rail companies [[BNSF]] and [[Union Pacific]] on technical specifications for such barriers was reached only in December 2016,<ref name="CHSRA 2020 sep board meeting IPB">{{cite web |title=Intrusion Protection Barriers (IPB) |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/brdmeetings/2020/brdmtg_090920_Item4_IPB_Board_Presentation.pdf |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 22, 2024 |archive-date=March 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322154646/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/brdmeetings/2020/brdmtg_090920_Item4_IPB_Board_Presentation.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> well after construction contracts had been issued. The Authority is required to pay all costs for intrusion protection barriers, causing 20&nbsp;change orders totaling about 500&nbsp;million dollars in additional costs.<ref name="CalMatters 2023 March cost increase"/>

=== Legal challenges ===

Hanford-based farmers John Tos and Aaron Fukuda, leading a protest group called ''Citizens for California High Speed Rail Accountability'', began a decade-long series of legal challenges alongside the [[Kings County, California|Kings County]] Board of Supervisors against the California High-Speed Rail Authority when they jointly filed a lawsuit in 2011, alleging that the project violated Proposition 1A funding requirements.<ref name="HanfordSentinel 2014 June lawsuit">{{cite news |last=Niveder |first=Seth |title=Rail authority issues sharp response to county lawsuit |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Hanford Sentinel]] |date=June 7, 2014 |url=https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/rail-authority-issues-sharp-response-to-county-lawsuit/article_0eb076c8-edcf-11e3-b2cc-001a4bcf887a.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140609180050/https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/rail-authority-issues-sharp-response-to-county-lawsuit/article_0eb076c8-edcf-11e3-b2cc-001a4bcf887a.html |archive-date=June 9, 2014}}</ref> 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.<ref name="MercuryNews 2014 Jan hanford vs visalia">{{cite news |last=Calefati |first=Jessica |title=Tale of two bullet-train cities: Hanford, Visalia spar over $68 billion project |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/10/tale-of-two-bullet-train-cities-hanford-visalia-spar-over-68-billion-project/ |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[The Mercury News]] |date=January 10, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221205082605/https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/10/tale-of-two-bullet-train-cities-hanford-visalia-spar-over-68-billion-project/ |archive-date=December 5, 2022 |quote=In Hanford, two farmers leading a court battle against the project have become local celebrities, and the anti-bullet-train lawn signs they distribute dot yards across town. In Visalia, city leaders envision the train zipping residents to college classes and big-league sporting events in the Bay Area and Los Angeles region. Locals, they predict, also will take the train to work and reduce the valley's staggering jobless rates.}}</ref>

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&nbsp;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”.<ref name="MercuryNews 2014 Jul lawsuit appellate court" />

In 2014, Kings County refused the Authority access to county-owned property, where it intended to drill for soil samples as part of a study on land subsidence. A court ordered the county to grant access, but the dispute nonetheless caused delays in obtaining environmental clearance, which was still outstanding at the time.<ref name="HanfordSentinel 2014 June lawsuit" /> In the same year, seven lawsuits were filed against the Authority by various cities, businesses and associations, stating that its environmental statement finalized in May 2014 violated the [[California Environmental Quality Act]] (CEQA).<ref name="FresnoBee 2014 Dec lawsuit eis ceqa">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=High-speed rail agency settles Bakersfield's lawsuit against route |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article19528590.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=December 19, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610232039/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article19528590.html |archive-date=June 10, 2020 |quote=The lawsuit, filed in June by the city in Sacramento County Superior Court, is one of seven challenging the rail agency's environmental-impact report and final route selection for the section of the statewide rail system between the south end of Fresno and downtown Bakersfield. Still pending, however, are six other cases filed by Kern County; Dignity Health, which operates a hospital along the rail route; Coffee Brimhall, a development company with a proposed Bakersfield project site on the route; the First Free Will Baptist Church in Bakersfield; the city of Shafter; and Kings County, Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability and the Kings County Farm Bureau.}}</ref> All these would eventually be dropped or settled, with Kings County being the last one in 2019.<ref name="LA Times 2019 Jun lawsuit kings county settlement">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=On California's high-speed rail project, combatant Kings County is ready to settle |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-settlement-20190601-story.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=June 1, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210214532/https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-settlement-20190601-story.html |archive-date=December 10, 2023 |quote=Kings County has long rallied resistance to the project, but local officials say they finally want out of the litigation. [...] Under the informal deal, the county will remove itself as a plaintiff in the bond lawsuit and drop its environmental suit in exchange for $11 million, said Doug Verboon, a Kings County supervisor who has recently led negotiations.}}</ref><ref name="FresnoBee 2019 lawsuit ceqa dropped">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=Kings County getting $10 million to settle 2014 lawsuit over high-speed rail route |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article234062312.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=August 15, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508045929/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article234062312.html |archive-date=May 8, 2020 |quote=One by one, however, those lawsuits were dropped or settled over the last five years, leaving only the Kings County case.}}</ref> In July 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the 2013 decision of the Sacramento County Superior Court.<ref name="MercuryNews 2014 Jul lawsuit appellate court">{{cite news |last=Calefati |first=Jessica |title=California high-speed rail project wins big in appellate court ruling |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/31/california-high-speed-rail-project-wins-big-in-appellate-court-ruling/ |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[The Mercury News]] |date=July 31, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424035818/https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/31/california-high-speed-rail-project-wins-big-in-appellate-court-ruling/ |archive-date=April 24, 2023 |quote=But in a unanimous decision issued late Thursday afternoon, the 3rd District Court of Appeal's three-judge panel ordered Judge Michael Kinney to vacate his decision.}}</ref><ref name="HanfordSentinel 2014 Aug lawsuit appellate">{{cite news |last=Nidever |first=Seth |title=HSR court rulings rebuff Kings County, but fight continues |url=https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/hsr-court-rulings-rebuff-kings-county-but-fight-continues/article_561c24ca-595b-5c21-a128-63381c95b1f4.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Hanford Sentinel]] |date=August 14, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141019232542/https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/hsr-court-rulings-rebuff-kings-county-but-fight-continues/article_561c24ca-595b-5c21-a128-63381c95b1f4.html |archive-date=October 19, 2014 |quote=The two reversals came last month. In one decision, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento cleared the way for the sale of $8.7 billion in state bonds for the project approved by voters in 2008 as part of Proposition 1A. In another decision, the court overturned the 2013 ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny that the authority's financing plan violated Prop. 1A's requirement that all the construction money be identified before the first usable segment is built.}}</ref> In 2016, the remaining part of the lawsuit that argued via Prop&nbsp;1A requirements was dismissed.<ref name="SacrmentoBee 2016 Mar lawsuit prop1a funds dismissed">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=In major win for high-speed rail, judge rejects claims by Kings County foes of bullet train |url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article64736672.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |publisher=The Sacramento Bee |date=March 8, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190218202150/https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article64736672.html |archive-date=February 18, 2019 |quote=In a major setback to foes of the California high-speed rail project, a Sacramento judge rejected claims by opponents in Kings County that plans for the bullet train system violate state law. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny, who heard verbal arguments from attorneys Feb. 11, issued the ruling late Friday but the court didn't release it to the public until Tuesday morning.}}</ref><ref name="CBS 2016 Mar lawsuit prop1a funds dismissed">{{cite news |title=Judge Allows California High-Speed Rail Project To Proceed |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/judge-allows-california-high-speed-rail-project-to-proceed/ |access-date=March 26, 2024 |agency=[[Associated Press]] |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=March 8, 2016 |quote=A judge has ruled that California's plans for a $64 billion, high-speed rail system do not violate promises made to voters when they approved state financing for the project. The ruling released Tuesday by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny allows planning and financing of the project to proceed. |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326040048/https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/judge-allows-california-high-speed-rail-project-to-proceed/ |url-status=live }}</ref> 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."<ref name="KFSN-TV 2016 Mar lawsuit prop1a funds dismissed">{{cite news |title=Kings County Supervisor talks after judge dismisses HSR lawsuit |url=https://abc30.com/high-speed-rail-kings-county-lawsuit-loss/1237326/ |access-date=March 26, 2024 |publisher=KFSN-TV |date=March 8, 2016 |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326040533/https://abc30.com/high-speed-rail-kings-county-lawsuit-loss/1237326/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref name="LA Times 2017 Jul ceqa stb state supreme court">{{cite news |last1=Dolan |first1=Maura |last2=Vartabedian |first2=Ralph |title=California's bullet train is likely to face more environmental hurdles after a high court ruling |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-high-speed-rail-court-20170728-story.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=July 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240116004013/https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-high-speed-rail-court-20170728-story.html |archive-date=January 16, 2024}}</ref><ref name="NatLawReview">{{cite web |last=Hodges |first=Whitney |title=Faceoff with Federal Government Possibly Looming Following California Supreme Court CEQA Ruling; Cal High Speed Rail Project Also Vulnerable |url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/faceoff-federal-government-possibly-looming-following-california-supreme-court-ceqa |publisher=The National Law Review |access-date=March 26, 2024 |date=August 22, 2017 |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326133457/https://www.natlawreview.com/article/faceoff-federal-government-possibly-looming-following-california-supreme-court-ceqa |url-status=live }}</ref>

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&nbsp;1889, passed in 2016 to further specify requirements previously laid out in Prop&nbsp;1A, was an unconstitutional modification of a voter-approved act.<ref name="SDUT 2018 Nov lawsuit AB1998 dismissed">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=Bullet train survives legal challenge as judge tosses lawsuit over bond funds |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-final-decision-20181101-story.html |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=November 1, 2018 |quote=Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi issued the final decision after putting out a tentative ruling last week that found a 2016 piece of legislation did not fundamentally alter the project or redefine restrictions contained in the bond act. |archive-date=March 26, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240326040053/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-bullet-train-final-decision-20181101-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2021, a state appeals court affirmed the prior ruling.<ref name="LA Times 2021 Nov lawsuit AB1998 appeal dismissed">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |title=State appeals court rejects long-standing challenge to California bullet train |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-30/state-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-to-bullet-train-project |access-date=March 26, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=November 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301224659/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-30/state-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-to-bullet-train-project |archive-date=March 1, 2024 |quote=The Tos case alleged that the Legislature violated the state Constitution when in 2016 it enacted Assembly Bill 1889, which rail proponents said merely clarified the intent of the bond act restrictions. The court rejected arguments that the bill violated the Constitution. The meaning of “suitable and ready,” the court said, could be traced to the rail authority's 2012 business plan, which adopted a blended approach to the system.}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-25/hollywood-burbank-airport-files-an-environmental-lawsuit-against-california-bullet-train | title=Hollywood Burbank Airport files environmental lawsuit against California's bullet train |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph | work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240321100121/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-25/hollywood-burbank-airport-files-an-environmental-lawsuit-against-california-bullet-train |archive-date= March 21, 2024 | date=February 25, 2022 }}</ref> In November 2023, both parties reached a settlement that included dismissal of the lawsuit and compensation to the airport for its legal expenses.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://ktla.com/news/california/burbank-airport-drops-lawsuit-against-california-high-speed-rail/ | last=Schlepp |first=Travis | title=Burbank Airport drops lawsuit against California High-Speed Rail | publisher=KTLA | date=November 17, 2023 | access-date=February 3, 2024 | archive-date=November 30, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231130044036/https://ktla.com/news/california/burbank-airport-drops-lawsuit-against-california-high-speed-rail/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

=== 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.<ref name="FresnoBee 2023 apr flooding cahsr">{{cite news |last=Sheehan |first=Tim |title=California's beleaguered bullet train faces another hurdle: flooding from melting snow |url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article273844110.html |access-date=April 2, 2024 |work=[[The Fresno Bee]] |date=April 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230402210555/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article273844110.html |archive-date=April 2, 2023}}</ref>
In the spring of 2023, the Central Valley around the city of [[Corcoran, California|Corcoran]] was flooded due to unusual amounts of rain and melting snow.<ref name="NPR 2023 may flooding">{{cite news |last1=Rott |first1=Nathan |last2=Harbage |first2=Claire |title=California's epic snowpack is melting. Here's what to expect |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1173069933/snowpack-california-2023-flooding-what-to-expect |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=April 2, 2024 |date=May 5, 2023 |archive-date=April 2, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240402153416/https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1173069933/snowpack-california-2023-flooding-what-to-expect |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="FresnoBee 2023 apr flooding cahsr" />

== Political perspectives ==

=== Support ===
Since the project's inception, multiple California governors have supported the project. Jerry Brown stated in 2012: "During the 1930's {{Sic}}, the [[Central Valley Project|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."<ref name="Dayen 2014">{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jerry-brown-california-high-speed-train-103266/|title=He Thinks He Can|last=Dayen|first=David|date=February 8, 2014|work=[[Politico]]|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171827/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jerry-brown-california-high-speed-train-103266/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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?"<ref name="Cowan 2022"/>

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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gov-newsom-abandons-plan-for-high-speed-train-from-l-a-to-san-francisco-cites-cost/|title=Gov. Newsom Says No 'Path' for High-Speed Train From L.A. to San Francisco, But His Office Says He's Committed to It|last=Pascucci|first=Christine|publisher=KTLA|date=February 12, 2019|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171827/https://ktla.com/news/local-news/gov-newsom-abandons-plan-for-high-speed-train-from-l-a-to-san-francisco-cites-cost/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/13/gavin-newsom-high-speed-gift-republicans-225028/|title=Gavin Newsom's High-Speed Gift to Republicans|last=Grunwald|first=Michael|date=February 13, 2019|work=[[Politico]]|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316213235/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/13/gavin-newsom-high-speed-gift-republicans-225028/|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[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."<ref name="Baig 2024">{{cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/01/high-speed-rail-central-valley/|title=From 'train to nowhere' to Fresno's dream: What high-speed rail means for the Central Valley|work=Cal Matters|last=Baig|first=Yousef|date=January 9, 2024|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313225708/https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/01/high-speed-rail-central-valley/|url-status=live}}</ref> Congressman [[Jim Costa]], one of the original authors of Prop&nbsp;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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://sjvsun.com/california/high-speed-rail-receives-3-1-billion-federal-grant/|title=High-Speed Rail receives $3.1 billion federal grant|work=The San Joaquin Valley Sun|date=December 6, 2023|last=Gligich|first=Daniel|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171827/https://sjvsun.com/california/high-speed-rail-receives-3-1-billion-federal-grant/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?issueId=x1uh8zbb6q8afq&xid=x1uzxza4c74tim&_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cx1wzkesety80ym |title=High speed rail: a viable transportation system for California
|last=Costa|first=Jim|work=Capitol Weekly|date=April 17, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110209070157/http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?issueId=x1uh8zbb6q8afq&xid=x1uzxza4c74tim&_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cx1wzkesety80ym|archive-date=February 9, 2011}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article286649055.html|title=Will bullet-train stations benefit Fresno, Valley cities? Expectations grow as plans advance|work=[[The Fresno Bee]]|last=Sheehan|first=Tim|date=March 16, 2024|access-date=March 16, 2024}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Gardiner 2020"/> This support has also come from local elected Republicans, highlighting the project's bipartisan appeal in the Central Valley despite political divisions at the state and federal levels.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-21 |title=Trump administration announces review of high-speed rail spending in Central California |url=https://abc30.com/post/trump-administration-announces-review-high-speed-rail-spending-central-california/15938998/ |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=ABC30 Fresno |language=en}}</ref>

=== Opposition ===

California Republicans have generally opposed the project. Congressman [[Kevin McCarthy]] (R-[[California's 23rd congressional district|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",<ref name="LA Daily News 06-2014 cap and trade funding" /> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/congressman-kevin-mccarthy-offers-a-false-choice-between-funding-california-high-speed-rail-or-dams|title=In Dry California, Dams or High-Speed Rail Is a False Choice|publisher=Bloomberg CityLab|last=Bliss|first=Laura|date=November 9, 2015|access-date=March 17, 2024|archive-date=December 2, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221202115811/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/congressman-kevin-mccarthy-offers-a-false-choice-between-funding-california-high-speed-rail-or-dams|url-status=live}}</ref> In the wake of economic difficulties brought by the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], State Senator [[Brian Dahle]] (R-[[California's 1st senatorial district|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."<ref name="Gardiner 2020"/> [[Vince Fong]] (R-[[California's 32nd State Assembly district|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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bakersfield.com/news/fong-fellow-assemblyman-unveil-bill-to-shift-high-speed-rail-funding-to-education/article_1e9181f0-a13c-11ea-9116-dfdb9605d481.html|title=Fong, fellow assemblyman unveil bill to shift high speed rail funding to education|work=[[The Bakersfield Californian]]|date=May 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200623052043/https://www.bakersfield.com/news/fong-fellow-assemblyman-unveil-bill-to-shift-high-speed-rail-funding-to-education/article_1e9181f0-a13c-11ea-9116-dfdb9605d481.html|archive-date=June 23, 2020|access-date=March 24, 2024}}</ref>

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."<ref name="huffington6122">{{cite news|author = Judy Lin|title = California High-Speed Rail Funding Approved|url = https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/california-high-speed-rail_n_1655437.html|work=[[HuffPost]]|date = July 6, 2012|access-date = September 3, 2012|archive-date = July 11, 2012|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120711015221/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/california-high-speed-rail_n_1655437.html?|url-status = live}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Gardiner 2020">{{cite news|url=https://www.governing.com/community/california-bullet-train-quickly-losing-money-and-support.html|title=California Bullet Train Quickly Losing Money and Support|work=Governing|last=Gardiner|first=Dustin|date=June 23, 2020|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171828/https://www.governing.com/community/california-bullet-train-quickly-losing-money-and-support.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf|title=The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report|publisher=[[Reason Foundation]]|date=September 2008|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=November 9, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109003957/https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|title=Spend Billions for Good Intercity Rail Service|last=Setty|first=Michael D.|work=California Rail News|publisher=Train Riders Association of California|year=2023|volume=31|number=1}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Dayen 2014"/> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wlj.net/top_headlines/ranchers-and-farmers-resist-high-speed-train-in-california/article_09f876a2-0ab9-11e8-88ff-d71f5d77eb0a.html|title=Ranchers and farmers resist high-speed train in California|work=Western Livestock Journal|last=Mendiola|first=Mark|date=February 16, 2018|access-date=March 17, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171827/https://www.wlj.net/top_headlines/ranchers-and-farmers-resist-high-speed-train-in-california/article_09f876a2-0ab9-11e8-88ff-d71f5d77eb0a.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://grist.org/business-technology/its-high-speed-rail-vs-farmers-in-california/|title=It's high-speed rail vs. farmers in California|work=Grist|last=Cagle|first=Susie|date=December 28, 2012|access-date=March 17, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317171827/https://grist.org/business-technology/its-high-speed-rail-vs-farmers-in-california/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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'.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shalby |first=Colleen |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-05/trump-says-hell-investigate-californias-high-speed-rail-authority-calls-comments-noise |title=Trump says he'll investigate California's high-speed rail; authority calls comments 'noise' |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=5 February 2025 }}</ref>

=== 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.<ref name="LAO201105102"/> 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.<ref name="LAO201105102">{{cite web|title = High-Speed Rail Is at a Critical Juncture|url = http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/high_speed_rail/high_speed_rail_051011.aspx|publisher = California Legislative Analyst's Office|access-date = March 15, 2024|archive-date = September 20, 2023|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230920065034/https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/high_speed_rail/high_speed_rail_051011.aspx|url-status = live}}</ref>

As part of its 2012 funding package, Senate Bill&nbsp;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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SB 1029 Senate Bill – CHAPTERED |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1029_bill_20120718_chaptered.html |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=www.leginfo.ca.gov}}</ref>

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.<ref name="cbs2">{{Cite news|last=Buchanan|first=Wyatt|date=January 4, 2012|title=High-speed rail shouldn't be funded, report says|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/03/BAKF1MKFOG.DTL&tsp=1|access-date=January 4, 2012|archive-date=January 4, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120104043325/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/03/BAKF1MKFOG.DTL&tsp=1|url-status=live}}</ref> 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".<ref name="Peer Review Group 2022"/> 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).<ref name="Peer Review Group 2022">{{cite web |publisher=California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group |title=April 2022 Report |url=https://www.cahsrprg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/05/Final-2022-BP.pdf |access-date=March 15, 2024 |archive-date=March 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319222836/https://www.cahsrprg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/05/Final-2022-BP.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>  The peer group said the target two hour 40&nbsp;min trip time will not be achieved.<ref name=slow>{{cite news |author-first1=Colleen|author-last1=Shalby |title=High-speed rail financial crisis could get worse under Trump |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-12-18/high-speed-rail-financial-crisis-could-get-worse-under-trump |access-date=24 December 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=18 December 2024 |quote=The peer group has pointed out that not only has the project tripled in cost from what was originally proposed, it will take significantly more time to finish, won't meet trip times}}</ref>

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.<ref name="CalMatters inspector general">{{cite news |last=Vartabedian |first=Ralph |date=July 6, 2022 |title=Will a new oversight position help California's high speed rail plans get on track? |url=https://calmatters.org/economy/2022/07/high-speed-rail-california/ |access-date=March 17, 2024 |work=CalMatters |archive-date=April 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240406071624/https://calmatters.org/economy/2022/07/high-speed-rail-california/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2023, the governor appointed Benjamin Belnap to the position.<ref name="CHSRA inspector general">{{cite web |title=Office of Inspector General, Benjamin Belnap |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/about/inspector-general/ |publisher=[[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=March 17, 2024 |archive-date=March 17, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317125820/https://hsr.ca.gov/about/inspector-general/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE |date=April 12, 2023 |title=High-Speed Rail 2023 Project Update Report |url=https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2023/HSR-Project-Update-032823.pdf |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=lao.ca.gov}}</ref> The LAO recommended that the Legislature consider more stable funding sources to ensure the project's continuation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE |date=April 12, 2023 |title=High-Speed Rail 2023 Project Update Report |url=https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2023/HSR-Project-Update-032823.pdf |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=lao.ca.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name="lao.ca.gov">{{Cite web |title=California's Cap-and-Trade Program: Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4811 |access-date=2025-05-22 |website=lao.ca.gov}}</ref> The LAO emphasized that such revenue volatility could cause funding shortages for state projects relying on Cap and Trade funds.<ref name="lao.ca.gov"/>

===Public opinion polls===

Public approval of the project among California residents has remained relatively steady since 2008, when Prop&nbsp;1A passed with 53&nbsp;percent of the vote. In April 2022, UC Berkeley's Institute of Government Studies released a survey of registered voters that found 56&nbsp;percent 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&nbsp;percent remaining opposed.<ref name="2022 UC Berkeley survey">{{cite report | url = https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7sn293xs | title = Release #2022-08: Voters offer a wide range of issues they'd like the state to address | author = Mark DiCamillo | publisher = UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | year = 2022 | access-date = November 4, 2022 | archive-date = November 3, 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221103175533/https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7sn293xs | url-status = live }}</ref> Approval varied by political affiliation, with 73&nbsp;percent of Democrats backing the project versus 25% of Republicans.<ref name="2022 UC Berkeley survey"/>

A poll commissioned by [[Newsweek]] in June 2024 confronted eligible voters across the US with the missed 2020 deadline for completion of Phase&nbsp;1 stipulated in Prop&nbsp;1A, as well as with the increase of its initial cost estimate of $33&nbsp;billion to $128&nbsp;billion. Nonetheless, 40&nbsp;percent of respondents deemed the project worthwhile that 33&nbsp;percent who deemed it not worthwhile, with the other 27&nbsp;percent being undecided.<ref name="newsweek 2024 june poll">{{cite news |last1=Bickerton |first1=James |title=California High-Speed Rail Line Gets Boost |url=https://www.newsweek.com/california-high-speed-rail-line-gets-boost-1914694 |access-date=20 June 2024 |work=[[Newsweek]] |date=19 June 2024}}</ref>

A poll commissioned by [[KTLA]] parent company [[Nexstar Media Group|Nexstar]] and conducted by Emerson College Polling was published in February 2025, which found that among a sample of 1,000&nbsp;Californians, 56&nbsp;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.<ref name="ktla 2025 emerson survey">{{cite news |last1=Schlepp |first1=Travis |title=Majority of Californians still support High-Speed Rail project, polling shows |url=https://ktla.com/news/california/majority-of-californians-still-support-high-speed-rail-project-polling-shows/ |access-date=19 February 2025 |work=KTLA |date=18 February 2025}}</ref>

An older statewide survey, conducted in March 2016 by the [[Public Policy Institute of California]] (PPIC), indicated that 52&nbsp;percent of Californians supported the project, while 63&nbsp;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&nbsp;percent, and the lowest in the Orange/San Diego region at 47&nbsp;percent. It also varied by race, with 66&nbsp;percent of Asians, 58&nbsp;percent of Latin Americans, 44&nbsp;percent of Whites, and 42&nbsp;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&nbsp;percent, compared to 29&nbsp;percent of Republicans and 47&nbsp;percent of Independent Californians.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_316MBS.pdf| title=Californians & Their Government| page=20| publisher=[[Public Policy Institute of California]]| access-date=October 4, 2018| archive-date=November 11, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111215405/https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_316MBS.pdf| url-status=live}}</ref>

== 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train|title=Train to nowhere: can California's high-speed rail project ever get back on track?|work=[[The Guardian]]|last=Gumbel|first=Andrew|date=May 29, 2022|access-date=March 21, 2024|archive-date=March 18, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240318102058/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 (politician)|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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-28/california-redirects-funds-high-speed-rail-project|title=In a blow to the bullet train, California might shift billions to L.A. and Bay Area projects|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|last=Vartabedian|first=Ralph|date=July 30, 2019|access-date=March 19, 2024|archive-date=March 19, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319183840/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-28/california-redirects-funds-high-speed-rail-project|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="TheWeek 2015 Mar" /><ref name="FresnoBee 2023 Mar cost increase arra background" />

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.<ref name="Matthews 2024">{{cite news|url=https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2024/03/15/indonesias-new-whoosh-high-speed-rail-is-cautionary-tale-for-california/|title=Opinion: Indonesia's New 'Whoosh' High Speed Rail Is Cautionary Tale for California|last=Matthews|first=Joe|work=[[Times of San Diego]]|date=March 15, 2024|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240315214726/https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2024/03/15/indonesias-new-whoosh-high-speed-rail-is-cautionary-tale-for-california/|url-status=live}}</ref> However, the [[Lowy Institute]] notes that the Indonesian corridor is short (less than half of the California IOS<ref name="Matthews 2024"/>) and already served by frequent rail service while its tickets are twice as expensive, limiting the line's attractiveness to passengers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-high-cost-high-speed-rail|title=Indonesia: The high cost of high-speed rail|publisher=Lowy Institute|last=Anggina|first=Neta Cynara|date=November 30, 2023|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316173250/https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-high-cost-high-speed-rail|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html#page=1|title=Doing the math on California's bullet train fares|last1=Vartabedian|first1=Ralph|last2=Weikel|first2=Dan|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=May 10, 2015|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=March 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316175148/https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html#page=1|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Transport mode and ridership ===

The sections from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim are intended to be operated as "blended" sections,<ref>{{cite news |title=The bullet train's halting journey into downtown San Francisco |url=https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2017-02-13/the-bullet-trains-halting-journey-into-downtown-san-francisco#stream/0 |access-date=April 1, 2024 |publisher=[[KALW]] |agency=[[National Public Radio]] |date=February 13, 2017 |quote=the two systems plan to use the same set of tracks, creating a “blended system.” |archive-date=April 1, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240401161011/https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2017-02-13/the-bullet-trains-halting-journey-into-downtown-san-francisco#stream/0 |url-status=live }}</ref> 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 [[Intercity Express|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281119877|title=Making the Most of High-Speed Rail in California: Lessons from France and Germany|last=Eidlin|first=Eric|year=2015|publisher=German Marshall Fund of the United States|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=February 18, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218023420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281119877_Making_the_Most_of_High-Speed_Rail_in_California_Lessons_from_France_and_Germany|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article235180462.html|title=Bullet train board votes on proposed Valley to San Jose route, amid backlash|last=Sheehan|first=Tim|date=September 18, 2019|work=[[The Fresno Bee]]|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=May 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508061210/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article235180462.html|url-status=live}}</ref> City governments such as [[Palo Alto, California|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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/05/25/high-speed-rail-launches-study-for-peninsula-segment/|title=High-speed rail launches study for Peninsula segment|work=Palo Alto Online|last=Sheyner|first=Gennady|date=May 25, 2016|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=March 12, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240312042034/https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/05/25/high-speed-rail-launches-study-for-peninsula-segment/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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?"<ref name="Garcia 2021">{{cite news|url=https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/07/california-high-speed-rail-funding/|title=Bullet train budget battle: Should California spend more on urban transit, not high-speed rail?|work=CalMatters|date=July 22, 2021|last=Garcia|first=Marissa|access-date=March 18, 2024|archive-date=March 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240317125922/https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/07/california-high-speed-rail-funding/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="SPUR 2022"/> Large investments in public transit are currently underway or planned in the state's major cities, with the Bay Area expanding [[Bay Area Rapid Transit|BART]], commuter rail, light rail and bus rapid transit,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-bay-area-transportation-projects/|title=Bay Area Transportation Project Road Map|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|date=January 26, 2024|last=Cano|first=Ricardo|access-date=March 19, 2024|archive-date=April 15, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240415053148/https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-bay-area-transportation-projects/|url-status=live}}</ref> while Los Angeles is spending $120&nbsp;billion through Measure M to build out its [[Los Angeles Metro Rail|Metro Rail]] and bus network.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://enotrans.org/article/spotlight-on-measure-m/|title=Spotlight on Measure M|publisher=Eno Center for Transportation|date=July 26, 2019|last=Puentes|first=Robert|access-date=March 19, 2024|archive-date=March 19, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319200716/https://enotrans.org/article/spotlight-on-measure-m/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In a 2013 analysis, the libertarian Reason Foundation argued that California's ridership projections could be overly optimistic. They noted that California expected 73&nbsp;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&nbsp;percent from highways.<ref name="Reason 2013 Due Diligence Report">{{cite web |url=https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/cahsr_due_dilligence.pdf |title=California High Speed Rail: An Updated Due Diligence Report |publisher=[[Reason Foundation]] |last1=Vranich |first1=Joseph |last2=Cox |first2=Wendell |date=March 2013 |access-date=March 16, 2024 |archive-date=April 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230410192717/https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/cahsr_due_dilligence.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Reason 2013 Due Diligence Report"/>

In 2023, about 4.8&nbsp;million passengers flew between the Bay Area and greater Los Angeles,{{efn|Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ |title=Bureau of Transportation Statistics |publisher=[[U.S. Department of Transportation]] |access-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-date=March 24, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324180041/https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ |url-status=live }}</ref> for passenger trips between LAX, BUR, ONT, SNA and LGA airports in Southern California, and SFO, OAK and SJC airports in the Bay Area.}} while total 2022 Amtrak ridership in the state was about 6.4&nbsp;million.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/CALIFORNIA22.pdf|title=Amtrak Fact Sheet, Fiscal Year 2022, State of California|publisher=[[Amtrak]]|access-date=March 16, 2024|archive-date=January 27, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240127233903/https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/CALIFORNIA22.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In comparison, the Authority projected 28.4&nbsp;million high-speed rail riders on Phase&nbsp;1 by 2040.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> 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&nbsp;percent of total ridership, which represents a major uncertainty in ridership projections.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Induced Travel Demand Modeling for High-Speed Intercity Transportation|last1=Zhang |first1=Dapeng |last2=Luchian |first2=Sara |last3=Ulama |first3=Darryle |journal=Journal of the Transportation Research Board |volume=2673 |issue=3 |date=March 17, 2019 |pages=189–198 |doi=10.1177/0361198119837189}}</ref>

In the early 2000s, forecasters expected California's population to hit 59&nbsp;million by 2040, but updated forecasts in 2023 expect it to remain around 40&nbsp;million, only a slight increase from the population at that time.<ref name="Borenstein 2023"/> 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."<ref name="Borenstein 2023">{{cite news|url=https://www.times-standard.com/2023/04/14/borenstein-californias-population-boom-is-over-plan-accordingly/|title=California's population boom is over, plan accordingly|work=The Times-Standard|date=April 14, 2023|access-date=March 19, 2024|archive-date=March 20, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240320004727/https://www.times-standard.com/2023/04/14/borenstein-californias-population-boom-is-over-plan-accordingly/|url-status=live}}</ref> The Authority has revised its Phase&nbsp;1 ridership projections downward, from 38.6&nbsp;million in 2020 to 31.5&nbsp;million in 2023.<ref name="Sheehan April 2023">{{cite news|url=https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article272636534.html|title=How many people will use California's bullet train? Planners lower ridership estimates|last=Sheehan|first=Tim|work=[[The Fresno Bee]]|date=April 17, 2023|access-date=March 19, 2024|archive-date=March 14, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230314025057/https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article272636534.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The major exception to California population trends is in the Central Valley, which is expected to add up to 5&nbsp;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.<ref name="Baig 2024"/>

====Hyperloop====

There was significant press coverage around the [[Hyperloop]] concept first promoted by [[Elon Musk]] in 2013 as an alternative to high-speed rail. Musk proposed that the system of pods carried within vacuum-sealed tubes would be faster than rail and cheaper to construct.<ref name="LA Times Hyperloop 2013">{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-musk-hyperloop-20130813-story.html|title=The Hyperloop: L.A. to S.F. in 30 minutes?|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=August 12, 2013|last1=Green|first1=Catherine|last2=Hennigan|first2=W.J.|last3=Vartabedian|first3=Ralph|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=March 12, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240312042034/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-musk-hyperloop-20130813-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Although the hyperloop concept became publicly popular and numerous media outlets such as ''[[The New York Times]]''<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/technology/hyperloop-virgin-vacuum-tubes.html|title=A Real Tube Carrying Dreams of 600-M.P.H. Transit|last=Taub|first=Eric A.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230225001013/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/technology/hyperloop-virgin-vacuum-tubes.html|archive-date=February 25, 2023|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=February 18, 2019|access-date=March 11, 2024}}</ref> and the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''<ref name="LA Times Hyperloop 2013"/> initially published favorable coverage of the concept, physicists questioned the viability of the technology<ref name="McGraw 2022">{{cite news|url=https://www.thebulwark.com/elon-musks-hyperloop-fantasy-ignores-the-laws-of-science-and-politics/|title=Elon Musk's Hyperloop Fantasy Ignores the Laws of Science—And Politics|work=The Bulwark|last=McGraw|first=Daniel|date=June 16, 2022|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=March 12, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240312042037/https://www.thebulwark.com/elon-musks-hyperloop-fantasy-ignores-the-laws-of-science-and-politics/|url-status=live}}</ref> and the projected $6&nbsp;billion cost was criticized as implausibly low.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/elon-musk-unveils-plans-for-hyperloop-high-speed-train/|title=Elon Musk Unveils Plans for Hyperloop High-Speed Train|work=[[The New York Times]]|last=Bilton|first=Nick|date=August 12, 2013|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=March 12, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240312042034/https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/elon-musk-unveils-plans-for-hyperloop-high-speed-train/|url-status=live}}</ref> Hyperloop construction would have encountered the same planning and land-use hurdles faced by high-speed rail.<ref name="McGraw 2022"/> In a 2019 interview, Musk admitted that the Hyperloop was never a serious proposal. Rather, he had promoted it because of his personal distaste for the high-speed rail project.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions/|title=Elon Musk Is Convinced He's the Future. We Need to Look Beyond Him|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|date=August 8, 2022|last=Marx|first=Paris|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=January 27, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240127005924/https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460|title=Did Musk Propose Hyperloop to Stop California High-Speed Rail?|work=Jalopnik|date=August 11, 2022|access-date=March 11, 2024|archive-date=August 19, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819083732/https://jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/elon-musk-hyperloop-rail-17486877.php |title=Sorry, Elon Musk. California's future belongs to high-speed rail |last1=Kunz |first1=Andy |last2=Silk |first2=Ezra |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=October 5, 2022 |access-date=March 18, 2024 |archive-date=February 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230221202104/https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/elon-musk-hyperloop-rail-17486877.php |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Hyperloop One]], the only company to have built a working prototype, shut down in 2023 after failing to find a buyer for the technology.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/high-speed-transportation-firm-hyperloop-one-shut-down-bloomberg-news-2023-12-21/ |title=High-speed transportation firm Hyperloop One to shut down |last1=Dasgupta |first1=Aatreyee |last2=Satija |first2=Bhanvi |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=December 21, 2023 |access-date=March 11, 2024}}</ref>

=== Choice of route ===

[[Image:CAHSR_map_alternate_routes.svg|thumb|The approximate location of alternative routes (blue) considered for California High-Speed Rail, as compared to the currently planned system (black). Brightline West is indicated in orange.]]
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<ref name="California Rail Foundation Altamont"/> and Samer Madanat, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at [[University of California, Berkeley|UC Berkeley]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2009/11/a-reality-check-on-high-speed-rail-for-california/|title=A Reality Check on High-Speed Rail for California|last=Cosgrove|first=Christine|date=November 13, 2009|publisher=University of California, Berkeley|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205109/https://engineering.berkeley.edu/news/2009/11/a-reality-check-on-high-speed-rail-for-california/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref name="California Rail Foundation Altamont">{{cite web|url=http://calrailfoundation.org/HSR_files/altafinalsm.pdf|title=Why California Must Study the Altamont Pass Alternative In Its High-speed Rail EIR|publisher=California Rail Foundation|access-date=March 13, 2024|archive-date=August 5, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220805063540/http://calrailfoundation.org/HSR_files/altafinalsm.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://transdef.org/HSR/Altamont_assets/Exhibit_C.pdf|title=Evaluation of an Alignment for the California High-Speed Rail Project Bay Area to Central Valley Segment|publisher=Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund|date=April 25, 2010|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205111/https://transdef.org/HSR/Altamont_assets/Exhibit_C.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/sierra-club-chapter-look-high-speed-altamont-option/|title=Sierra Club Chapter: Look at High Speed Altamont Option|work=[[Manteca Bulletin]]|date=August 28, 2020|last=Wyatt|first=Dennis|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205110/https://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/local-news/sierra-club-chapter-look-high-speed-altamont-option/|url-status=live}}</ref> Sprawl has been a general concern since the early planning of the project; a station in [[Los Banos, California|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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2017-02-13/some-mega-commuters-may-not-reap-the-benefits-of-california-bullet-train|title=Some mega-commuters may not reap the benefits of California bullet train|last=Johnston|first=Angela|publisher=KALW|date=February 13, 2017|access-date=March 27, 2024|archive-date=March 27, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240327170503/https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2017-02-13/some-mega-commuters-may-not-reap-the-benefits-of-california-bullet-train|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Authority has intended to build the Pacheco route since 2007,<ref name="Lew 2007">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2007/12/california-high/|title=California High Speed Rail's Route Debate Is Over|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|date=December 22, 2007|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=November 21, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231121015505/https://www.wired.com/2007/12/california-high/|url-status=live}}</ref> and as of 2024 its plans remained unchanged.<ref name="2024 Business Plan"/> Because of its more northerly location, the alternative Altamont route would bypass downtown San Jose and require either a tunnel under [[San Francisco Bay]] or the reconstruction of the [[Dumbarton Rail Bridge]].<ref name="Lew 2007"/> The Altamont route would also pass through more heavily urbanized areas than the Pacheco route, potentially leading to more opposition from property owners.<ref name="Lew 2007"/> Planned upgrades to other existing Northern California rail lines are expected to improve service and increase speeds through Altamont Pass, as well as from Sacramento to the Bay Area.{{efn|As of 2019, planned upgrades to the existing ACE commuter rail route across Altamont Pass would provide a fast and frequent connection from Stockton, Modesto and Merced to the South Bay,{{fact|date=April 2024}} while the [[Dumbarton Rail Corridor]] project plans to restore service (for non-high-speed commuter trains) on the Dumbarton crossing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.samtrans.com/media/5006/download?inline|title=Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project|publisher=San Mateo County Transit District|date=January 2020|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=January 8, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230108120803/https://www.samtrans.com/media/5006/download?inline|url-status=live}}</ref> The existing Capitol Corridor service between Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose is also planned to be improved with more frequent service and speeds up to {{convert|150|mph}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CCJPAVisionPlan_Volume1.pdf|title=Capitol Corridor 2014 Vision Plan Update Final Report|publisher=Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority|year=2014|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205110/https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CCJPAVisionPlan_Volume1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Routing high-speed rail along [[Interstate 5|I-5]], which would have provided a shorter trip between the Bay Area and Southern California but bypassed Fresno and Bakersfield,{{efn|The I-5 route would have included lower speed branch lines to connect the Central Valley cities to the main line.{{fact|date=April 2024}}}} was also discussed in the 2000s. [[SNCF]], the French national high-speed rail operator, proposed an I-5 alignment to the Authority and offered to build it with the help of foreign investment,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-advice-20120709,0,973921,full.story |title=High-speed rail officials rebuffed proposal from French railway |last1=Weikel |first1=Dan |last2=Vartabedian |first2=Ralph |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=July 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120715031917/https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-advice-20120709,0,973921,full.story |archive-date=July 15, 2012}}</ref><ref name="nytimes/rail-politics">{{cite news |last1=Vartabedian |first1=Ralph |title=How California's Bullet Train Went Off the Rails |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html |access-date=October 9, 2022 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=October 9, 2022 |quote=The company's recommendations for a direct route out of Los Angeles and a focus on moving people between Los Angeles and San Francisco were cast aside, said Dan McNamara, a career project manager for SNCF | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221009102347/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html |archive-date=October 9, 2022}}</ref> although in 2009 they also expressed their interest in building the state's official proposed alignment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/sncf/California.pdf|title=Executive Summary|publisher=The Transport Politic|author=SNCF|date=September 14, 2009|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205109/https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/sncf/California.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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,<ref name="Kim 2023">{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/28/buy-america-high-speed-trains-00097776|title=How 'Buy America' could delay high-speed trains|work=[[Politico]]|date=May 28, 2023|last=Kim|first=Minho|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205109/https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/28/buy-america-high-speed-trains-00097776|url-status=live}}</ref> and due to political considerations as Proposition 1A outlined a route through Fresno and Bakersfield.<ref name="Kim 2023"/><ref name="Prop 1A text"/>

A route from the Central Valley to Southern California through [[Tejon Pass]] (the Grapevine along I-5), which would be shorter than the route through Tehachapi Pass and Palmdale, was initially disconsidered because initial studies expected Tejon would require more tunneling. In 2012, the Authority reopened a study of the Tejon route after it was found that the Palmdale route would need more tunneling than anticipated. The study was canceled after the city of Palmdale threatened to sue, citing that Prop&nbsp;1A specifies a route through there.<ref name="Prop 1A text"/><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bakersfield.com/news/high-speed-rail-faces-tough-climb-over-tehachapis/article_310bd2f4-54e8-5307-9172-4734c615dfab.html|title=High-speed rail faces tough climb over Tehachapis|last=Cox|first=John|work=[[The Bakersfield Californian]]|date=September 12, 2016|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205109/https://www.bakersfield.com/news/high-speed-rail-faces-tough-climb-over-tehachapis/article_310bd2f4-54e8-5307-9172-4734c615dfab.html|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ocregister.com/2012/02/06/high-speed-rails-coming-battle-powerful-land-owners/|title=High-speed rail's coming battle: Powerful land owners|work=[[The Orange County Register]]|date=February 6, 2012|last=Joseph|first=Brian|access-date=March 12, 2024|archive-date=March 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240313205109/https://www.ocregister.com/2012/02/06/high-speed-rails-coming-battle-powerful-land-owners/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 (California)|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&nbsp;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.<ref name="2025 CHSRA supplemental PUR">{{cite web |title=2025 Supplemental Project Update Report |url=https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf |website=hsr.ca.gov |publisher=[[California High Speed Rail Authority]] |access-date=14 September 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823141815/https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Project-Update-Report-SUP-FINAL-081925-A11Y.pdf |archive-date=23 August 2025}}</ref> Projected over 40&nbsp;years, the Bay Area connection via Gilroy would result in a $47.5&nbsp;billion operating profit, compared to a $3.8&nbsp;billion loss on just a Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://kmph.com/newsletter-daily/new-high-speed-rail-proposal-raises-concerns-about-merceds-role-in-the-project |title=New High-Speed Rail proposal raises concerns about Merced's role in the project |last1=Franco |first1 = Maya |last2= Aikins |first2=Adjoa |date=September 5, 2025 |work=[[KMPH-TV]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://themercedfocus.org/merced-might-be-removed-from-initial-california-bullet-train-route-to-cut-costs-report-suggests/ |title= Merced might be removed from initial California bullet train route to cut costs, report suggests |publisher=The Merced Focus |last=Patton |first=Victor A. |date=August 22, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901172229/https://themercedfocus.org/merced-might-be-removed-from-initial-california-bullet-train-route-to-cut-costs-report-suggests/ |archive-date=1 September 2025}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shalby |first1=Colleen |title=Despite some progress, state's high-speed rail is $100 billion short and many years from reality |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-21/high-speed-rail |access-date=March 29, 2024 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=March 21, 2024 |quote=In downtown Fresno, for example, a thoroughfare road has been closed for eight years. In Bakersfield, business owners have sought clarity about when they'll have to move, and where they will relocate to, making planning difficult |archive-date=April 3, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240403161353/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-21/high-speed-rail |url-status=live }}</ref> The city of [[Wasco, California|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cityofwasco.org/305/High-Speed-Rail-Impact-on-Wasco|title=High-Speed Rail Impact on Wasco|publisher=City of Wasco|access-date=March 26, 2024|archive-date=March 24, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324190849/https://www.cityofwasco.org/305/High-Speed-Rail-Impact-on-Wasco|url-status=live}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Vartabedian |first1=Ralph |title=Bullet train leaves a trail of grief among the disadvantaged of the San Joaquin Valley |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-29/california-bullet-train-impacts-disadvantaged-communities-san-joaquin-valley |access-date=November 11, 2021 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=October 29, 2021 |language=en |quote=up and down the San Joaquin Valley, the bullet train is hitting hard at people who are already struggling to survive tough economic conditions in one of the poorest regions in the nation |archive-date=November 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211111193609/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-29/california-bullet-train-impacts-disadvantaged-communities-san-joaquin-valley |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Valadao sends letter to High-Speed Rail Authority in defense of Wasco |url=https://www.bakersfield.com/news/valadao-sends-letter-to-high-speed-rail-authority-in-defense-of-wasco/article_c4ff16da-98c4-11eb-b73d-33b640e1ae31.html |access-date=November 16, 2021 |work=[[The Bakersfield Californian]] |date=April 8, 2021 |language=en |quote=The construction of the rail has disrupted businesses and homes, worsened air quality, and the abandoned Wasco Farm Labor Housing complex has posed serious health and safety risks |archive-date=November 16, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211116170758/https://www.bakersfield.com/news/valadao-sends-letter-to-high-speed-rail-authority-in-defense-of-wasco/article_c4ff16da-98c4-11eb-b73d-33b640e1ae31.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cash-20190610-story.html|title=High-speed rail route took land from farmers. The money they're owed hasn't arrived|last=Vartabedian|first=Ralph|date=June 10, 2019|access-date=March 18, 2024|archive-date=March 18, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240318191009/https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cash-20190610-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

*[https://hsr.ca.gov/ California High-Speed Rail Authority] official website
*[https://www.cahsrprg.com/ California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group] official website of an independent, state-appointed body that reviews the California High-Speed Rail Authority

{{California High-Speed Rail navbox|state=expanded}}
{{High-speed rail in the United States}}
{{High-speed rail}}
{{California railroads}}
{{Deutsche Bahn}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:California High-Speed Rail| ]]
[[Category:2029 in rail transport]]
[[Category:25 kV AC railway electrification]]
[[Category:Buildings and structures under construction in the United States]]
[[Category:Deutsche Bahn]]
[[Category:Electric railways in California]]
[[Category:Railway electrification in the United States]]
[[Category:High-speed railway lines in the United States]]
[[Category:High-speed railway lines under construction]]
[[Category:High-speed trains of the United States]]
[[Category:Megaprojects]]
[[Category:Passenger rail transportation in California]]
[[Category:Proposed railway lines in California]]
[[Category:Rail junctions in the United States]]
[[Category:Transportation buildings and structures in Madera County, California]]