Can Permitting Reform Unlock US High-Speed Rail?

High-speed rail projects in the United States have long been hindered by a complex regulatory environment, leading to prolonged timelines and rising costs that discourage private investment. For example, environmental review and permitting for Brightline West took eight years, while California High-Speed Rail faced an even longer process spanning nineteen years.

During a recent webinar hosted by the High Speed Rail Alliance, Terry Hynes, Senior Counsel at Sidley, emphasised the need to reform permitting processes to accelerate project delivery. Hynes argued that environmental review does not need to take as long as it currently does, particularly since the long-term outcome of high-speed rail is overwhelmingly beneficial to the environment. The most significant impacts that require scrutiny tend to occur during construction, but this stage is often entangled in local opposition and “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) challenges, which can strategically exploit procedural review to delay or prevent progress.

Hynes noted that federal law already includes statutory time limits for environmental reviews. Under the current statute, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be completed within two years, while a less intensive Environmental Assessment (EA) should be finished in one year. However, as the timelines for Brightline West, Texas Central, and California High-Speed Rail show, these deadlines are routinely ignored. Agencies often delay the start of the review clock by engaging in prolonged preliminary fact-finding or by waiting to resolve financial questions before formally commencing environmental review.

In other cases, review proceeds in a ‘stop-and-start’ fashion, pausing for additional data requests or new questions—effectively freezing the statutory timeline. In some instances, the sheer complexity of the project, combined with limited agency staffing, results in reviews extending far beyond the legal timeframe.

Hynes stressed that if Congress intends to enforce these deadlines meaningfully, it must pair streamlined review requirements with increased staffing and resources for the agencies responsible; otherwise, expediency will remain unattainable in practice.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

To address delays, several proposals are circulating in Washington that focus on clarifying and streamlining agency authority. One approach would designate the Surface Transportation Board (STB) as the lead agency for environmental review of all high-speed rail projects.

Since most high-speed rail corridors either cross state lines or are connected to the broader interstate rail system, the STB already has jurisdiction in many cases. Proponents argue that Congress could strengthen this framework by explicitly expanding the STB’s jurisdiction. This clarification would ensure that high-speed rail is consistently treated as a national infrastructure programme, rather than a patchwork of local or state-led initiatives vulnerable to local obstruction.

Hynes noted that there are also practical reasons to assign the STB a greater role. The agency already manages environmental review for freight rail construction and expansion projects. Every freight railroad in the country is part of the interstate system, so the STB has deep institutional experience in evaluating construction impacts and adjudicating competing stakeholder interests.

However, the question of whether the STB should be the exclusive lead agency remains under discussion. Some argue that if the FRA is providing billions in funding, it should maintain a central role in environmental review. One alternative being explored is a joint, interagency task force, combining the STB’s regulatory authority and construction-review experience with the FRA’s financial oversight and technical rail expertise. Such a shared model could allow resources to be pooled, staffing capacity to be increased, and review timelines to be shortened, while still retaining clear accountability.

Enforcement

Hynes argued that effective reform must also include enforceable deadlines. One proposal suggests a requirement that the review clock begins the day an application is submitted, preventing agencies from delaying the start of the review through preliminary steps or administrative interpretation. Supplemental environmental reviews, which often extend projects by months or years, could also be capped: for example, at six months.

Several recent legislative proposals have explored ways to accelerate the process further. A House budget bill introduced last spring suggested guaranteeing a one-year review process if the project proponent agreed to pay 125% of the agency’s review costs. While some critics argue that such provisions favour wealthier developers, Hynes noted that the alternative of a prolonged review period often results in far greater costs, since inflation and market changes can add billions to overall project budgets.

Under current practice, high-speed rail project sponsors already cover the cost of environmental review, typically by funding third-party consultants who work under agency oversight. Formalising faster review timelines would not shift cost burdens; it would simply ensure that the time and money invested lead to timely decisions.

If a review is not completed within the required timeframe, the proposed consequences are currently politically contentious. Some reform advocates have suggested that if an agency does not complete an Environmental Impact Statement within the statutory two-year window, the project should simply be deemed approved.

Other proposals suggest requiring agencies to reimburse project sponsors for additional costs if environmental review exceeds the statutory deadline, as delays often force developers to pay consultants for extended work and to absorb rising construction and borrowing costs. Reimbursement would thus create a financial incentive for agencies to stay on schedule.

Lessons from California

Notably, the California High-Speed Rail project illustrates both the consequences of unclear authority and the importance of federal preemption.

Although the STB approved the project and explicitly exempted it from state and local permitting, the state chose to comply with California’s own environmental law (CEQA) for political reasons. Complying with CEQA—one of the strictest environmental review regimes in the country—introduced layers of additional analysis and significantly expanded opportunities for legal challenge. This decision contributed to years of delay and cost escalation.

Hynes noted that the original STB approval explicitly stated that the project was exempt from state law, but the state waived that exemption to secure continued legislative support. Recent policy changes in California suggest growing recognition of the costs of that approach, including new exemptions for electrified rail infrastructure.

Looking Ahead

The case for high-speed rail in the United States is strong: it reduces emissions, expands mobility, and supports regional economic growth. Yet the current permitting system continues to delay—or in some cases derail—projects that could deliver major public benefits.

Clear agency authority, enforceable timelines, and realistic staffing levels are not shortcuts; they are prerequisites for credible governance. The STB, with its existing statutory deadlines and experience managing complex rail approvals, offers a model for how federal leadership could be structured more effectively. Likewise, better coordination with the FRA can reduce duplicative review and ensure that funding requirements align with permitting expectations.

Real permitting reform will require balancing accountability with flexibility and ensuring that community and environmental safeguards remain robust. But it also demands a willingness to confront the costs of inaction. If the United States is serious about building a modern, low-carbon transportation network, it must design regulatory systems capable of delivering projects within a generation.