Good idea! I've been wondering why the emphasis has been on spending the first money on the segments where there's already something in place (Peninsula, LA-Anaheim, even most of the Valley) and the NIMBYs are wild. Why not do something that fills in a hole in the current system? LA-Bakersfield is the conspicuous one. If all we will have for the near future is maybe 1/4 of the cost of the whole system, spend it on the hole and run Amtrak trains (and maybe some overnight FedEx/UPS specials) through it for the time being. If there's a billion or so left over, great, use it for a few strategic updates elsewhere (LAUS run-through comes to mind). Must shortcut the 3-hour bus ride from Bakersfield to LA (scheduled; it's often less); if Amtrak can't make it with normal equipment in 2 hours or so then it's no good for HSR either. Initial target might be a time from Oakland to LA of about 8 hours assuming current track speeds elsewhere. Current time with the bus ride is about 9.5 hours from Bay Area and 8.5 from Sacramento.

A 7-8 hour run is nearly competitive with flying. Look at Sacramento-LA: probably an hour driving to the airport, parking, shuttling to the terminal; hour to 1 1/2 hour (depending on how lucky you feel) in the terminal for security etc. (more if you're checking baggage); hour on the airplane; hour negotiating the terminal and car rental; and 1/2-1 hour to get downtown. From Burbank, depending on when you go, you could cut the transfer time to downtown to around 1/2 hour with Metrolink. So call it 5-6 hours for the trip. Bay Area airports probably aren't much better. Of course if might take you an hour to get to the train station too (hello light rail!). And if you really can drive it in less than 7 hours that beats all the alternatives except those that count on some sleep time.

I think it's instructive that the other "high speed" proposals around the country, except possibly for Florida, are all focusing on 110-125 mph. We are kind of out there with a TGV+ concept. 110-125 has its attractions: fast enough to give an advantage over driving and be competitive with air over 300-400 miles; compatible with standard track and r/w construction principles; operable with diesels and conventional equipment in the short term. If we were to do that with an alignment that could eventually host 200 mph, it would probably be more cost-effective and we might actually see something running instead of just more consultant reports over the next 10 years.