California’s high-speed rail project has largely survived the controversy that has surrounded it since its inception. However, the current political climate and a decision made more than a decade ago have now placed the project in greater jeopardy than ever before.
When voters approved funding for high-speed rail in 2008, the vision was clear: a bullet train that would transport passengers from the Bay Area and Sacramento to Los Angeles in under three hours, transforming how Californians travel.
But a pivotal decision by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to begin construction in the Central Valley, connecting Merced to Bakersfield, ultimately undermined the project due to the requirements and central tenets of the environmental law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
This federal law, mandates that all portions of a project adhere to the principle of proper segmentation and independent utility, ensuring that each segment can function on its own without relying on future extensions.
To be legally viable, a rail segment must stand on its own, meaning it cannot rely on a future segment to function. Typically, this principle results in projects connecting population centers with existing demand. Population mass acts like gravity to transit stations, drawing ridership and revenue.
By choosing to start in the Central Valley, where population is relatively sparse, the project ignored this fundamental principle.
At the time of the decision, officials argued that the flat terrain and lower costs made the Central Valley the logical place to start. But critics warned that building a segment without immediate connections to major cities was illogical and would create a stranded investment with minimal transportation utility for very few people.
Now, with the project years behind schedule and vastly over budget, its opponents are armed with new legal arguments. The United States Department of Transportation, under pressure to cut spending as part of a nationwide effort to improve government efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, is weighing whether to eliminate federal funding for California’s high-speed rail.
If the agency moves forward, it will likely cite the independent utility requirement under NEPA, arguing that the Merced-Bakersfield segment fails to function as a standalone transportation solution.
Meanwhile, California officials argue that cutting off funding now would undermine the broader vision. They contend that the Central Valley segment lays the groundwork for eventual connections to major urban hubs, fulfilling the long-term promise to voters. The state has also made incremental progress on environmental approvals for future extensions, but funding for construction of those plans remains uncertain.
The irony is striking. A decision once made to accelerate construction in the Central Valley is now the very factor that makes it easier to halt. The argument is simple: without proper segmentation, the segment does not function independently and should not have been built in isolation.
With the future of high-speed rail hanging in the balance, the battle is now as much legal as it is political. If the federal government pulls funding, the project could grind to a halt—turning a once-promising vision into an expensive lesson in flawed planning.