You don't suppose QK & friends actually designed the Proposition so a billlion or 2 would go to local transit and the rest would never be spent? The requirements in the Proposition were (to me at least, knowing a little about rail and public works projects) obviously internally inconsistent -- it's impossible to meet all of them. In CAHSR's wildest dreams there's no way a train would make it from SF to LA on their system in 2:40 before 2100, if then. But a straight-through shot for SF-LA serves so few users that there's no way to meet the financing and operating support criteria. So QK says it's illegal to even start. Well, he wrote the Prop that way -- so did it deliberately mislead the voters? Effectively, did QK & friends commit political fraud?

At least the "local connections" part of the Proposition produced (and may still produce a bit more, with the Caltrain electrification help) some useful local/regional transit projects. More are needed, but that piece of the HSR pie has pretty much been eaten. Arguably, the transit stuff would never have happened without the HSR glitz, but now that it's done we still have to live with the food fight over the HSR part.

Could something be approvable (by the voters) that includes:

1) Previous authorization for use of CAHSR funding is withdrawn to the extent that
it has not already been used for actual construction of connecting and
independently useful trackage (note that I think the Madera-Calwa portion of the
currently proposed line DOES have independent usefulness, just not necessarily as
HSR in the immediate future).
2) A "Son of Prop 116" that improves Amtrak and other rail/fixed guideway (including
separated BRT for some local transit connections) service, including:
a) constructing additional track on existing Amtrak lines, with parallel or
relocated track designed for at least 90 mph initial operation upgradable
to 150+ (compatible with XpressWest or Amtrak NEC standards);
b) additional/replacement equipment for Amtrak Calif. capable of 125 mph, using
dual-power (electric/diesel) or dual-power capable locomotives;
c) connection between Bakersfield and Metrolink near Lancaster/Palmdale on an
alignment that could be used by future HSR equipment at 125+ (recognizing
topographic constraints - 150-200+ is just not feasible without huge tunnel
jobs);
d) upgrade Metrolink trackage to support 100-125+ electrified operation on the
Palmdale, Orange, and SB lines where feasible for shared use of commuter &
HSR trains (including XW).
3) Make various findings to guide BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY PROMISE FEATURES OF the design, such as:
a) Find that the transportation purpose of the service is essentially
interregional transit, not competition with air service between SF and
LA, and explicitly allowing express freight service (privately operated)
that doesn't interfere with the fundamental passenger service.
b) Emphasize connections between inland cities and major airports - a
transportation purpose CAN be substitution for energy/CO2-inefficient
short-distance air service.
c) Accept target SF-LA times of 3-4 hours for express/limited trains, which is
still competitive with driving or even (with modern TSA shenanigans) airlines.
d) IOW - this form of HSR would be the backbone (like Interstates and major
freeways for the road system) of an alternative transportation system for most
Californians, not just SF and LA.
e) Accept that such a line will probably require an ongoing subsidy at least for
capital and maintenance, but should be designed to minimize it and to at least
cover direct operating expenses out of gross receipts by the time it reaches
first-stage (Bay Area-LA) endpoints.

Yes, I would expect the system to extend beyond that over 100 years, connecting (via XW) to Vegas, and going to SD, Sac, and even Redding. But realistically it could take 50 years or more even to get a good starter line working right. For instance, according to Trains' article last year the original French TGV line is now (barely) covering operating and (low interest, long payoff) capital costs out of operating revenue - i.e. does not require ongoing subsidy; it was built and started operating in the mid-late 1960s. That's 50 years folks, even assuming Trains is correct.

If that sounds like glorified Amtrak, so be it. Amtrak's current NEC operation is about the length (Bos-NY-Wash) of a line covering the main developed parts of California (BA/Sac - LA/SD) and which (starting with PRR's electrification and upgrades in the 1920s-30s) has taken almost 100 years to get to its current state. Amtrak is talking (realistically I think, which is why it won't be approved by current politicians) around $150B to build a new 200+ HSR line. Amtrak in the NEC is competitive with air shuttles now city center-center, or even suburb-suburb if on-line stations are not near a major airport, and buses only really beat it on price (and remember who built and has to maintain, with only partial user funding, the roads they run on), so a 200+ service there is really for meeting future needs as continued urban growth overwhelms the existing system. Absent an extinction-level event in the near future, there *will* be continued urban growth even in CA. NEC-level service is nothing to sneeze at, and would meet our alternative transportation needs for a long time to come. It's also about the engineering level of XpressWest (nee DesertXpress). Would it be a Good Thing for XpressWest to provide through trains LA-LV via Palmdale instead of requiring a transfer?

Could something like that be made to fly, understanding that it will take at least 100 years to fnish and adjustments in design and funding will certainly happen along the way? Starter funding in the $30-40B range over 20 years or so will be needed, though, not something clearly inadequate (as QK knew) like $10B, and it should include some kind of VAT or sales tax to provide ongoing funding and pay off bonds - no more "free money" GO Bonds that "somebody else" will have to pay for. Federal funds should be considered gravy - to be gotten, but not to be relied on. Private parners are a given - they have to be there to make this work - but you can't rely on the private sector for funding of something this big that will take 100 years to complete; private sector works on a much shorter timeframe with much clearer profit potential.

California is still (Texas governor snipes notwithstanding) one of the top 10 economies in the world. France as a country may be bigger, but not by much. Can we have a little realistic Vision here?

/rant