I was not dissing CAHSR in general. I think it's a good system in concept, though some of the execution so far has been a little questionable. I am certainly willing to pay (a reasonable amount) for it just like I do local streets, freeways in general, California Amtrak, urban transit (including BART, which actually is one of the better farebox-return systems around), the airway system and airports, and even the highway subsidy Greyhound gets. Unfortunately, Big Projects almost always, whether public or private, take longer and cost more than was expected (or promoted) at the beginning; things happen as you go along and gradually get a better picture of what's needed - I see no reason why CAHSR should be any different. Is there Graft and Corruption? Certainly - again, there has never been a Big Project (public or private) without it - so you try to keep it to a reasonable minimum and get the thing done.

Unfortunately, US politicians and large chunks of the public think there's a Silver Bullet that can do everything in transportation (and most other Big Problems), and if it turns up with warts or a realistic (not politically correct) estimate of the cost and time needed is discovered it's a waste and shouldn't be done at all. Wrong. If there was a good reason for it in the first place then maybe, with some adjustments, there still is. We need a diverse transportation ecology, where the right form of transportation is available for any type of trip at the time it needs to be made. The alternative is to limit mobility by fiat or deliberate pricing strategies, which some groups would like to do but I'm not part of them.

What I pointed out was that, for a family trip that can be completed by driving over a single day, it makes little sense not to drive under present and foreseeable (assuming HSR fares are competitive with airfare, as they are supposed to be) circumstances. I've done family trips by air before, and for a specific destination that doesn't require much moving around once there, for 2 or possibly 3 people with severely controlled luggage, it works. For 4 or more it doesn't if you have driving alternative, unless gas prices shoot way up again (which will be used as an excuse to raise airfares too so the relative costs won't change much). For my purposes, I expect CAHSR to replace, or at least be competitive with, air travel in its corridor(s), and expect that the same cost comparison to driving will apply as long as driving is otherwise feasible.

Note that I'm talking about trips in the 400-600 mile range - feasible to drive in a day with some degree of comfort and safety. That also happens to be the heart of the HSR market (4-6 hours end to end, with intermediate stops for "locals" at least 1 hour apart). The typical Southwest Airlines leg is 1-3 hours long which overlaps the long end of the HSR market given that flights operate at about 2-3 times the speed of HSR.

So: 1) business and single travelers are time-sensitive and, while currently using Southwest (and occasionally the others) for in-state commutes, would probably flock to a HSR operating more frequently and predictably than the airline, and roughly as fast all things considered, if service is available to/from the right places; 2) small families also might be time-sensitive, because a reliable and frequent HSR would allow them to ditch an extra overnight stay or leave earlier/return later without the hassle of driving, at some extra cost; 3) commute sheds for the Bay Area and LA would be redefined to include essentially all of the Central Valley, producing potentially huge passenger loads; and 4) the short-hop airlines between the Central Valley and Bay Area/LA Area airports would go extinct quickly, which from a CO2 reduction standpoint (small amount, but definitely there) is a Good Thing - perhaps some of the Big Airlines could kick in a few $$ to make that happen considering their costs now. None of that eliminates the need for keeping I-5 and 99 in shape (some of those potholes would have swallowed my normal cars without a trace!) for the trips that make more sense driving, and the trucks.

Note also: none of this depends, ultimately, on use of a particular route. It depends on actually getting a high speed line (technology-agnostic, really) that connects Sac, SF, Fresno (as a central stop for the Valley), LA, and SD. While I think a rail-based system would be more reliable for expresses going straight through the mountains, the Antelope Valley short-distance market MIGHT (haven't seen reliable numbers) be worth the extra miles/time, not to mention providing a more convenient connection to XpressWest's LV line if it ever resurfaces.

Musk's loops of course would have to go straight; to get the speeds he claims without making it just a huge rollercoaster the line would need huge curve radii (vertical as well as horizontal), and couldn't make any stops between SF (or SJ) and LA, unless he's also invented anti-gravity. So even if that happens, it would only skip off the true SF-LA express traffic that has to get there Right Now regardless of cost. I say, let him do it if he can, and if he wants to use some public right of way then let him pay for it (we already did, it's ours), and CAHSR or something that looks a lot like it will still be needed to supply transportation for the Rest Of Us.

/soapbox

Cheers!