A basic problem with this high speed rail is paradoxical.
This is, that about the only place you can put such rail is over the same right of way already used by low speed rail.
And almost all the low speed rail right of ways West of the Mississippi are owned by Union Pacific. Creating new right of way would be insanely expensive.
But this also means that the California high speed rail is intended to take the place of low speed rail lines. And in this case, if low speed rail already existed, it is a great indicator of how profitable high speed rail lines would be.
In a nutshell, it isn’t. The low speed rail lines on this route have long been money losers. There just isn’t the demand they need even for low speed rail.
But, they insist, high speed rail will be profitable. Because it is high! and speed! and rail!
And that is no way to run a railroad.
Isn't Union Pacific pretty much the most profitable railroad on the planet?
For the foreseeable future, high-speed rail is really only going to work well in the Northeast in the Boston to Washington corridor where cities are more compact and it's easier to get around by walking and using cabs, and public transportation takes you to many more places than it cam take you to in CA. In the very long run, maybe in the second half of this century, when public transportation improves greatly in CA, then high-speed rail could make sense and at least break even. We shouldn't be spending tax money and borrowed money on this project until then.