![\"Aerial](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/image-47.png\")
Construction crews work on California\u2019s high-speed rail project. Photo courtesy of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.<\/p>\nConstruction crews work on California\u2019s high-speed rail project. Photo courtesy of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.<\/p>\n
Inspector general says the Merced-to-Bakersfield project\u2019s completion window now extends into 2034, while rail officials maintain passenger service remains targeted for 2033<\/p>\n
Merced, CA (August 16, 2026) \u2014 California\u2019s planned high-speed rail line between Merced and Bakersfield has fallen approximately nine months further behind schedule, according to a new state oversight report that also raises concerns about how the revised timeline was presented to lawmakers and the public.<\/p>\n
The California High-Speed Rail Office of the Inspector General reported that the segment\u2019s target completion date moved from December 2031 to September 2032. According to the inspector general, the delay shifts the project\u2019s risk-adjusted completion window from 2031\u20132033 to 2032\u20132034. The California High-Speed Rail Authority maintains that its estimated schedule for operations remains within 2033.<\/p>\n
The findings were published in the inspector general\u2019s July 31 review of the California High-Speed Rail Authority\u2019s 2026 Business Plan.<\/a><\/p>\n According to the review, the authority conducted a schedule-risk analysis that identified September 2034 as the project\u2019s contingency completion date. The inspector general found that the updated 2032\u20132034 window was not clearly shown in the business plan\u2019s primary schedule graphic or explained in its main discussion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield schedule.<\/p>\n The authority\u2019s chief executive officer instead described the project as remaining on pace for completion in 2032\u20132033, which the inspector general identified as the previous schedule window.<\/p>\n The inspector general concluded that the inconsistent presentation could leave project stakeholders without a clear understanding of the likelihood that completion will extend into 2034.<\/p>\n The review attributed the nine-month delay primarily to changes in the scope and design of the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment. <\/a>Authority staff told the inspector general that the revised scope requires updates to preliminary design work that had already been completed.<\/p>\n A change in the authority\u2019s procurement strategy also delayed the planned start of contracts for the final design and construction of the Merced and Bakersfield extensions.<\/p>\n The procurement process for the Merced extension was scheduled to begin in May 2026 but was released in July. The inspector general said the authority may be able to make up that delay and award the contract by December 2026.<\/p>\n The Bakersfield extension procurement was scheduled to begin in June but had not been released as of mid-July. Information on the authority\u2019s procurement website indicated that it could begin during the third or fourth quarter of 2026.<\/p>\n The report identified both contracts as part of the project\u2019s critical path, meaning additional delays involving either extension could delay completion of the entire Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.<\/p>\n The schedule also depends on the authority reaching agreements with local governments affected by the design changes, including the cities of Merced and Shafter. The inspector general warned that the schedule could be delayed further if those agreements are not reached as quickly as the authority anticipates.<\/p>\n The authority\u2019s proposed early operating segment differs from the 171-mile, dual-track system defined in state law. The reduced-scope proposal is approximately 162 miles long, uses predominantly single track and replaces previously planned downtown stations with a station south of Merced and a temporary station north of Bakersfield.<\/p>\n According to the inspector general, relocating the Merced station south of downtown produced estimated reductions of approximately $551 million in civil construction costs, $201 million in track and train-control costs and $66 million by changing from an elevated station to a ground-level station. Those reductions were partly offset by a $61 million increase involving power-supply infrastructure, resulting in a net decrease of approximately $757 million for the Merced extension.<\/p>\n State law defines the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment as including a new station in downtown Merced. The authority\u2019s business plan acknowledges that changing the station location would require an amendment to state law.<\/p>\n As of July, the authority was negotiating with the City of Merced and had not submitted a proposed legislative change, according to the inspector general.<\/p>\n The estimated cost of the reduced-scope project is approximately $35.7 billion, compared with the $36.75 billion estimate included in the authority\u2019s 2025 Supplemental Project Update Report.<\/p>\n The inspector general found that most of the reduction came from shortening the system and changing the station locations rather than constructing the same project at a lower cost.<\/p>\n An estimate for a complete 171-mile, dual-track segment with downtown stations in Merced and Bakersfield placed the project\u2019s cost at approximately $47.7 billion.<\/p>\n Costs increased in portions of the project where the authority did not make substantial reductions. The estimated cost of the 119-mile Central Valley section increased by approximately $885 million.<\/p>\n That increase included approximately $404 million for track and train-control systems, $166 million in civil construction costs and $157 million for power-supply infrastructure and utilities. Station and maintenance-facility estimates also increased as designs advanced.<\/p>\n The inspector general also raised concerns about whether the authority will have enough money available at the time it is needed to maintain the current construction schedule.<\/p>\n The authority\u2019s cash-flow projections show it could exhaust the funding available for scheduled expenditures as soon as December 2027 without financing. It would then need approximately $2.2 billion to cover planned spending during the remainder of the 2027-28 fiscal year.<\/p>\n The projected cash-flow gaps total approximately $9.56 billion between the 2027-28 and 2031-32 fiscal years.<\/p>\n The authority is considering several ways to make future Cap-and-Invest revenue available sooner, including an internal state loan, revenue bonds and private-sector financing.<\/p>\n The inspector general estimated that financing costs could add between $3.6 billion and $6.6 billion to the amount needed for the Merced-to-Bakersfield project. Those potential financing costs are not included in the project\u2019s capital-cost estimate.<\/p>\n If financing is not secured and the authority is limited to spending its annual Cap-and-Invest allocation as it is received, the start of construction on the Merced extension could be postponed until the 2032-33 fiscal year. Construction of the Bakersfield extension could be postponed until 2038-39 under that scenario.<\/p>\n The inspector general noted that postponing construction would also increase the risk of higher costs caused by inflation.<\/p>\n In its written response, the California High-Speed Rail Authority said the updated schedule reflects the project\u2019s current financial conditions and the fact that all necessary funding and financing tools have not yet been secured.<\/p>\n The authority acknowledged the nine-month schedule change but maintained that its estimated start of operations remains within the previously established 2033 window.<\/p>\n