Look at both 99 and I-5 or for that matter nearly any freeway. Do you see posts in the median holding up the overcrossing? Yup. Also, what's the vertical clearance over the road for most of those bridges - 14-16 feet? Yup. Needs to be 25+ for rail let along electrified rail. So you're building all new bridges. Which is one reason HSR likes to be near UP or BNSF - many of the bridges are already high enough because they have to clear the existing railroad.

Speaking of Reason, they have a long reputation for dodgy but good-sounding analysis of well-chosen statistics like any politically-driven think tank. One could say similar things about certain organizations normally associated with the Democrats rather than Repubs. Reason does seem to have a better conduit to the media and "interested" commentators than the left-wingers, possibly because the transportation message is simpler: build roads and fly planes at taxpayers expense, but tolls are good too where a private organization (not the taxpayers) can make money; everything else forget about unless it makes money from day 1 in private hands. No, you won't find evidence of "evil oil companies" funding them, but where *does* their money come from (inquiring minds would like to know)? FWIW, Cato Institute publishes similar "reports" from time to time with a similar viewpoint. Groups that always come up with the same solution regardless of the data are somewhat suspect.

I personally think that a rational HSR scheme for CA would focus on more moderate speeds (say, 150ish) and enough stops to make it competitive with short-distance air (the United Expresses and American Eagles of the world), with mainlines aligned and enough r/w to eventually speed up by adding bypass tracks that the like. The original sale to the public was in terms that a person knowing anything about railroads & HSR could easily see made no sense, but apparently the sales people thought it was needed - so now they're stuck with promises that can't realistically be kept. Sound familiar (certain campaign promises by a current Governor...)? A system with speeds that are short-distance air competitive to major airports and Autobahn-drive-competitive (3-4 hours) over the BA/LA or Sac/LA distance (not air shuttle-competitive at 2) could probably be leased to a private operator and make money, even paying off the construction bonds over some extended period, as the French have done on some routes.

Higher-speed ground passenger transportation can't be done on existing railroads sharing track time/space with freight trains. It has to be separate tracks and if possible a separate system. HSR technology is within reach for about what we would pay for a new freeway over a similar distance/route. But what was promised can't be delivered for that price - some downgrade is needed. Recent announcements suggest that CHSRA is recognizing that and trying to reduce expectations - good, but too late and probably conflicting with some of those unrealistic promises. Oh well...