I think I mentioned before ... the HSR bond act looks like it was written to prevent construction of HSR. No feasible project can meet the criteria. Attempts by the HSR agency to come up with something that would serve a transportation functions (after wasting a bunch of time/money on consultants) have only resulted in a 1/2 useful 1/2 wasteful system that can't meet one or more of the bond criteria no matter how you cut it. But even straight-down-I-5 wouldn't have done it given the bond's restrictions.

OTOH, the part of the bond that was to pay for transit that connects to HSR has been well-used and many projects with that portion of the program are done or about to go to construction. A few others (Caltrain electrification?) are still in process but close.

My pet conspiracy theory: the bond act was written mainly for transit funding, but the original promoters recognized that it had no chance as a straight transit bond. So they made up the HSR scheme for glitz and voter draw but set up so many roadblocks to actually building it that nothing beyond the transit stuff can ever be done with the bond money. They got their transit money - the rest is collateral damage best swept under some political or legal rug.

HSR if ever done will have to be done as a standard transportation project, not with the bond money. And I mostly agree with BOB2 about how to incrementally build toward higher-speed (not High Speed) service that provides a useful transportation alternative to driving and short-distance air. Actually, a good start would be that urban Fresno segment where HSR wants to begin, as long as it's built to handle the weight of freight trains as well as Amtrak & HSR.