[ctdonath2]

What is the cost per rider ... ? Zero. That's because these are not costs but a long term investment in infrastructure assets

The "long term investment" pays off via cost per rider, which is not zero. You can play semantic games with "cost" vs. "investment" etc., but fact is checks must be written to make this project happen, and riders will pay to re-fill those bank accounts (and then some).

Thus, the question remains: what is the cost per rider for a decade when amortizing capital costs (the train & tracks etc. aren't free) + real estate costs (seizing property isn't free, even if it sounds like it; property owner must be compensated and lawyers paid) + any other costs to create what the rider rides?

[BenKenobi]

Sigh, the density in CA is only 1/4th that of the only actually successful high speed train.

It’s too far, and there are not enough people in CA to make ridership worthwhile.

[GonzoGOP]

seizing property isn't free, even if it sounds like it; property owner must be compensated and lawyers paid

Got into it with WG yesterday and he was fairly clear that compensation for property seizure isn't a priority with him.