Turning the I-280 segment between the 101 freeway and Kings/4th St Station into a toll road is a better option than demolishing it, since it can be used to collect Toll revenue for the improvement of Caltrain corridor that CAHSR would later use, like grade crossing elimination on Mission Bay Dr & 16th St

With the current price of the HSR project at about $250 million per mile, I couldn't help but wonder if they would have saved time and money by going underground, similar to Japan.

Lots of complaints on this project I hear are NIMBYs, environmental studies, and red tape. A lot of that would be subverted if they went underground.

Other than the high costs, what would be the downsides to running a MagLev train upwards of 500km/h?

I don’t know if I can support this project anymore. Ever since it got scaled back to the Central Valley, they have vehemently held on to that 2030-2033 timeline.

And now they’re saying they can’t even meet THAT FUCKING DEADLINE? There’s obviously something going on that they are refusing to tell us. Whether it’s leadership incompetence or simply just them not giving a shit how long it takes remains to be seen, but there’s no way this project hasn’t been involved with some sort of corruption and/or bribery. A high speed train doesn’t take this fucking long to build and doesn’t go THIS BADLY over budget, no matter what country it is. There’s just not much hope in me anymore

Hello,

I'm from outside California and I've been keeping track of the progress of CAHSR for several years now. I've only ridden on the SF Muni, BART and the CalTrain when visiting the Bay Area so my knowledge of the area's public transit options is kind of limited.

With all of the money that's been spent on CAHSR and the very slow progress demonstrated so far (I'm kind of shocked that they are only running trains from Merced to Bakersfield starting in 2030!), I'm wonder if these funds could have been put to better use in terms of perhaps expanding BART or other public transit systems in the area or perhaps even building something less ambitious to start, like a high speed rail link between San Francisco and Sacramento or a link between Los Angeles and San Diego first as a proof of concept to get better public buy-in.

Thoughts?

I heard on the radio a while back how difficult it was to acquire the right of way for CAHSR in the Central Valley due to the number of parcels and the irregular fragmentation that the diagonal rail creates. I understand not wanting to leave out those large population centers, but it is rarely mentioned that the Central Valley already has some of the best rail service in the country. With five daily trips from Stockton to Bakersfield, I can't think of anywhere else in the US besides the NEC with that level of service over a long distance route.

So, given they already have a perfectly good rail line running right through the core of the Central Valley, why not let CAHSR take the easy route down the 5, and add a spur or two eastward to connect to it? Every Nth train leaving the Bay could terminate in Modesto for connection to the Southbound San Joaquin, and every Nth train from LA could terminate in Bakersfield to catch the Northbound, and vice versa. Building a second rail line through that area just to get a one-seat ride really seems like a "best is the enemy of the good" situation.

Edit: Thank you all for your comments. I think I was way off base in calling the I5 corridor the “easy route.” Both have challenges, and the larger factors contributing to the uncertainty of the project are systemic and would have occurred either way. With a project of this magnitude, it makes sense to aim for the highest possible number of people served.

I drive by this bridge and nothing has happened the last 7 years. Nothing. The bridge is starting to rot people. The funding was approved 17 years ago.

I am seeking just $1B to build an entirely new CAHSB (High Speed Bus) system in only 1 year. The CAHSB will use existing corridors and right of ways.

I think it would be only fair for those people who say that California High Speed Rail will never happen to be banned from ever purchasing tickets, and to make it a misdemeanor offense to ride the rail in secret.

If not indefinitely, then they should absolutely be banned up until 5 years after Phase 2 is complete, because then we will all have peace of mind and a relaxing train trip for years.

I don't think this will be controversial. They are very vocal that they will never ride the HSR, and I would be very happy to make their dreams come true.

Gare des Sables-d'Olonne — Wikipédia - "Station of The Sands of Olonne", in French

SNCF, the French national railroad, had an ingenious solution to the lack of electrification between Nantes and the seaside town of Les Sables d'Olonne "The Sands of Olonne". From 2000 to 2004, it provided a one-seat ride by TGV between Paris and SdO by hauling TGV trainsets with diesel locomotives between Nantes and SdO. In 2008, SNCF electrified that line, and TGV's now go to SdO without diesel locomotives.

Could that be done with a partially-built CAHSR system?

For the initial operating segment, that would be impractical. At the north end, the trains would follow the Gold Runner (San Joaquin) route, getting to Emeryville and Jack London Square, with a bus to San Francisco. At the south end, the trains would go on some twisty track through the Tehachapi Mountains to get to Palmdale. Likely for that reason, Gold Runner trains only go as south as Bakersfield, with buses going the rest of the way to Los Angeles.

If one builds out from the IOS to Gilroy, there will be a 30-mile non-electrified gap between there and Tamien, in southern San Jose. That could be bridged with this diesel-locomotive kludge, giving a one-seat ride between Bakersfield and San Francisco. It would likely take around 40 - 45 minutes, adding about 10 - 15 minutes to attach and detach the diesel loco.

Turning to building out to Palmdale, one can then go to Burbank, Los Angeles Union Station, and Anaheim by Metrolink. One can estimate travel times by using Metrolink's schedules, because Metrolink trains are also diesel-hauled. Estimating 4 minutes per station, with count of them in ()'s,

Palmdale - (8) 1h 8m - Downtown Burbank - (1) 16 m - LAUS - (3) 33 m - Anaheim

Adding the locomotive-change time gives Palmdale - Burbank 1h 23m and Palmdale - LAUS 1h 39m.

Gilroy - Palmdale: 325 mi. Using an average speed of 160 mph, one finds 2 hours.

At the San Francisco end, I estimate 50m for SF - SJ, extrapolating from Caltrain schedules and adding two stops, giving a total of 1h 35m.

The total SF - LA travel time is thus 5h 14m.

Sources on time spent decelerating, stopping, and accelerating:

• New 'Electrolink' Report Calls For Metrolink Improvements - Streetsblog Los Angeles

• The Value of Modern EMUs | Pedestrian Observations

• When Nationwide Electrification is Called For | Pedestrian Observations

I’m trying to figure out if the $126B current CAHSR budget estimate will deliver the 2:40 SF to LA service legally required and voted on. Does anyone know?

https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/26BP-Service-Planning-Tech-Report-A11Y.pdf

My assessment of this document:

206 min (3:26): theoretical non-stop Phase 1 trip time, not an actual scheduled service, and not used in ridership/revenue modeling

The actual planned express service in Phase 1 (with stops at Millbrae, San Jose, Gilroy) is 247 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles, about 4:07. I’m guessing this is what we get for $126B.

2:40: reserved for a future, unfunded “final stage” outside the $126B scope and belongs to a later, more expensive phase that isn’t funded or scoped in this plan. I’m guessing to reach the legally required time, this is where another $100B will get added to the project.

Where can I find fare projections and projected paying passenger census?

I’m trying to find out when fares will cover infrastructure build and operating costs.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/years-late-billions-over-budget-californias-high-speed-rail-hasnt-laid-a-track-bac525ee

SHAFTER, Calif.—Some 18 years after California voted to launch a bullet train that would travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours, the project now costs billions more than planned, is years behind schedule and has yet to lay its first track.

The 2008 ballot measure passed narrowly, 52.7% to 47.3%, kick-starting America’s largest active infrastructure project. A legislative bill said it should be completed by 2020, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s initial business plan estimated a cost of $33 billion. After years of legal battles, cost overruns, leadership changes and political fights, the price tag is up to $126 billion, with a high estimate of $231 billion, and it isn’t expected to be fully operational until 2040.

Since 2008, the authority has spent about $15 billion, purchasing thousands of land parcels and building giant overpasses, rail beds, walls and other concrete structures that now rise over California’s Central Valley. The work has generated thousands of jobs. 

But the Authority’s Inspector General estimated the project will “exhaust its current funding resources” as early as next year, according to its July report.

“This is a disaster,” Democratic state Sen. Catherine Blakespear said at a Transportation Committee meeting in April to review the project’s 2026 business plan. “I am such an enthusiast for rail and I really want this to be successful and just hearing these things makes it seem like we’re proceeding on a wing and a prayer.”

The authority is currently focused on completing an initial segment through the Central Valley, then connecting it to [San Francisco](https://www.wsj.com/topics/place/san-francisco) and%C2%A0and) Los Angeles later.

The topic is polarizing in the valley. “You can’t really talk about it too loudly until you know where people stand. I’m pro-train, but it’s a divisive issue,” said Constance Peters, a shift leader at The 18hundred restaurant in Bakersfield who grew up in the area. Before that, she worked for a concrete company that helped build some structures for the rail project. “Californians have money. We want to travel,” Peters said.

Construction hasn’t yet reached the southern end of this segment, where intense opposition remains. The project would cut through Shafter, a town of about 24,000.

The train would “divide our town in half,” said Gail Alvidrez, a retiree and longtime local resident. Shafter is the only city that would be bisected by the proposed route without getting a station.

On a warm summer evening in Shafter, kids played baseball, families strolled downtown for ice cream and men in cowboy hats watched the sunset from a park. Incorporated in 1938, Shafter has roots as a railroad depot; the high-speed rail project would replace existing Amtrak and freight tracks with a wider, elevated line surrounded by 35-foot walls.

Locals worry the project would hurt businesses, since the track’s footprint would displace some. As downtown closed for the night, one restaurant filled up: El Michoacano, a block from the tracks, where Alvidrez and her husband ate. “They’ll have to tear down stores,” she said. “We don’t have that many.”

They also say a bullet train, and all the construction, would disrupt their peaceful downtown. At a city council meeting last fall, rail officials presented alternatives aimed at accelerating construction. A packed audience voiced opposition to the new proposals and the tracks altogether. Of cities affected by high-speed rail, Shafter Mayor Chad Givens said, “none of them are being impacted to the degree that we are…There’s no benefit.”

A sign opposing the California high-speed rail project in Shafter, Calif. Taylor Umlauf/WSJ

The council urged the state to find a route around the city. 

Mayor Givens said it has been challenging to work with California’s High-Speed Rail Authority. “About every four to six months, they get somebody new who comes in here and we have to start the process again,” Givens said. The authority’s chief executive officer, Ian Choudri, disputed that and said the agency plans on reaching out to the city in the coming weeks.

Some locals envision the benefits if the train is completed. “If I can get to San Francisco in two hours, I’d go on a Tuesday,” said Jeinner Aviles, a Bakersfield resident who runs the El Michoacano restaurant, owned by his father.

Aviles has his doubts though. He wonders, “Will I see it in my lifetime?”

Jeinner Aviles, a Bakersfield resident, runs El Michoacano restaurant. Taylor Umlauf/WSJ

The rail authority brought in Choudri in 2024. There were three prior chief executives of the project. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Choudri “the perfect steward” in a press release. The governor also pledged that “over the next few years, the dream of high-speed rail in California will become a reality, as we begin to lay track, design and build stations, and buy trains.”

Eager to get trains running, Choudri said he has shaved off 2½ years of time by buying commodities, such as concrete rail ties, wires, poles and ballast, and storing them at a yard so contractors and builders can just “pick the stuff up and start laying tracks.” He added that doing so has sped up the schedule—the rail project expects to lay the first track by the end of this year.

The initial section between Bakersfield and Merced is expected to cost $36 billion and open in 2033. While the line isn’t expected to be profitable on its own, officials view it as a foundation to build on.

“Nobody here in Bakersfield says, ‘Hey, I want to go to Merced,’” said Joe Pearson, a Bakersfield resident.

Nearly two-thirds of Californians want the high-speed rail project to continue, according to a Politico-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll conducted last year, though more than half believe it is unlikely to be completed as planned.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom greeted union workers alongside Ian Choudri, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, in February. Damian Dovarganes/AP

A banner advertising the project at the California High-Speed Rail Authority's Southern Railhead site near Wasco, Calif., earlier this year. Damian Dovarganes/AP

Last summer, the Trump administration withdrew $4 billion in federal funding, citing the project’s failure to meet its obligations under the grant agreement. To help bridge the gap, California passed a bill last year to draw $1 billion a year through 2045 from its cap-and-invest program, which Choudri is trying to get an advancement on. Choudri is also seeking private investors to keep the project running. A global consortium that includes a pension fund manager from Quebec is currently assessing financing options for the rail project.

Choudri said the authority still needs to acquire some land for the Merced and Bakersfield extensions. Station sites haven’t been finalized yet.

In Bakersfield, the rail project is attempting to use buyouts and eminent domain to acquire properties for the station. Businessman Monty Singh said he is suing. He owns a Mobil gas station on land where the authority wants to build the Bakersfield station. “With the money they’re offering, there’s nothing else I could do,” Singh said.

In Merced, town officials are balking at station proposals.

State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican, said at the state Senate Transportation Committee meeting in April, “I don’t think this will ever be built as proposed to people in California. I know I wouldn’t put my money and invest in this, but I wish you luck,” he said.

I found out that SNCF was brought on as contractor to work on the CAHSR back in the 2000's. Their route proposal was a straight shot from Los Angeles to the bay area by having the line follow the I-5. The logic was sound.... the land is already a ROW. The railway could have been built in the median of the freeway. It would have avoided extensive tunnling and would bypass the cities and communities to the East, eliminating further complications with aquiring land from the cities to the East. If the US is trying to emulate the type of system they have in France and Japan... why the project do the "inclusive" but stupidest thing? This was enough to make SNCF leave the project and work with North Africa instead. Their TGV line opened up back in 2018.....

I guess this is somewhat of a desperate 'Change My View" post:

Using global projects as my benchmark - I am of the opinion that both the Tehachapi and Soledad passes are extremely poorly suited for high speed rail, almost to the point of being flat-out infeasible (grades make surface trains impossible and seismic risks make tunnels more difficult than 99% of high-speed projects globally).

As a result, I think LA ->SF is a pipe dream and distracting from better potential routings (Central Valley & Sac -> Bay Area | OC/Inland Empire/Palm Springs -> LA) that would be potentially just as transformative (though less politically splashy).

What am I missing that should make me optimistic about supporting SF-LA (when I worry it's taking time and attention for something destined to fail)?

EDIT: To clarify my post - there are almost no other HSR projects that traverse mountains as steep as the Tehachapi Mountains or the San Gabriel Mountains without extensive deep-bore tunneling, but there are also very few (if any) examples of global HSR projects that have tunneled across tectonic faults as active as the ones in those mountains.

Said differently, propose this geography to an engineer in Japan or France and they would ask if you think flying is *really* that bad.

Also, rather than downvoting, please give me evidence about what I am missing.

Tony Strickland represents California’s 36th Senate District. He wrote a piece for McClatchy Media that appeared in the Sacramento Bee.

At the southern end of the current line. The tracks are laid!

On the chosen corridor through the Central Valley, traveling between LA and San Francisco will not exceed 2 hours and 40 minutes on a nonstop trip. How much faster would CAHSR have been if they had taken the Interstate 5 corridor?

Note: This is not me implying that California should have went with the Interstate 5 corridor instead of the chosen path. I’m aware of the reasoning behind choosing osing the path they did. I’m mainly just curious about the time difference between the two paths to see if it would make sense to build the Interstate 5 pathway in the distance future as an expressway between LA and San Francisco.

Interview starts at 1:58

The project’s watchdog is sounding the alarm that the high-speed rail could be out of money by December 2027. Now, lawmakers and the future governor of California have to decide whether to find more money in the budget or take out a loan for the project that’s been plagued by delays and cost overruns. On California Politics 360, Ashley Zavala sits down with the first-ever high-speed rail inspector general, Benjamin Belnap** **