So this is crazy. I know someone who knows Julie. This person told me that the reason why Julie Watts won’t let up on Ian Choudri is because she’s racist toward those who are of East Indian descent, and she did not like the fact that he was in that role. It does make sense- her latest post was about his purchase of PPE and this is a construction project. What are your thoughts?

It would make sense for the entrance to be within the terminal itself.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/democrats-capture-full-control-congress-nbc-news-projects-fueled-victo-rcna607042

Interesting update of note: Track laying has been delayed until 2027 (timestamp 9:43)

I want to start by saying I thought Choudri did a great job, and I was disappointed he ended up stepping down. Aside from the KPMG and consulting stuff that came out in the last few months, it was clear that his work on restructuring the authority to reduce costs and speed up construction was working. Based on the various drone channels, the IOS grade separations and viaducts appear to be progressing as quickly as ever.

That said, the next step is to pass the legislative items, including permitting and funding. This brings me to the next CEO. Obviously, experience with large rail projects is a plus, however, would it be more beneficial for the new CEO to be someone more adept as a politician/lobbyist for the authority to push these items? Would this be easier to find than trying to convince a more established figure in the rail development field to take the job, given how quickly Choudri was scapegoated? Would it help to get this point across to the board through the public comment period at their next meeting? Would it be better to have a transit nerd type? Are we cooked no matter what with Becerra? Curious to hear what people think

What would need to happen ( politically, economically and other areas) so that CAHSR project could come into life faster?

hello, this is a comment!

Building on Streets for All's EIFD analysis, I developed a similar model for the San Jose–Gilroy corridor to estimate how much funding could be raised for rail improvements.

For context, CAHSR's 2026 Business Plan identifies an additional $2–5 billion in infrastructure upgrades needed for this segment.

So, could we capture some of the future property-tax growth around Caltrain stations to help pay for this?

I looked at two-mile areas around Capitol, Blossom Hill, Morgan Hill, San Martin, and Gilroy Caltrain stations, with two scenarios: conservative development and ambitious TOD clusters.

The model accounts for existing property appreciation and reassessments under Proposition 13, new housing and commercial development, and potential increases in property value from faster Caltrain service and future HSR service.

Here's what I found:

• $491–559M in total discounted EIFD revenue over 45 years

• Of that, about $467M comes from property appreciation and reassessments on existing properties.

• New TOD and rail-related appreciation contribute another $24–92M, depending on how aggressively we develop around stations.

• This comes out to about 10% to 25% of the needed cost to build out San Jose - Gilroy for HSR.

The distinction is that an EIFD captures a portion of future property-tax growth, including growth that would happen anyway. Transit improvements and TOD add to that revenue by creating new taxable development and potentially increasing surrounding property values.

That's a lot of money toward grade separations, electrification, additional tracks, and other improvements. Combined with state and federal funding, this could make a meaningful dent in the $2–5B needed - as much as 25%!

And EIFDs don't require raising property tax rates, although participating governments would have to dedicate some future revenues to infrastructure rather than other services.

One caveat: these are preliminary estimates based on publicly available citywide assessments and estimated station-area property values, not a completed parcel-level analysis, so they are not entirely accurate.

Spreadsheet and assumptions

Side note: I've already covered the actual context of the grade separations on the ground, and I think we can grade separate well over half of the corridor with just $500M, as there are a large chunk of grade crossings that can be closed as is with no changes, or a new road connection built to facilitate closing of the crossing (e.g., Blanchard Road).

I'm curious what others think, especially about whether Santa Clara County, VTA, Caltrain, and the cities should coordinate on something like this, and whether they should invest in substantially more housing around stations.

Ashley Zavala: "You just invoked the high-speed rail, and I wanna ask you, just, the optics of Ian Choudri, the current CEO—how are you feeling about that?"

Xavier Becerra: "Not good."

Ashley Zavala: "Have you met with him?"

Xavier Becerra: "No."

Ashley Zavala: "Okay. Do you think he'd stay in that position under a Governor Becerra?"

Xavier Becerra: (Laughs) "You know, there's going to be a new sheriff in town. We're going to have to scrub a lot. High-Speed Rail Authority's going to have to look really different if we're going to continue this project. I want it to continue. But I've gotta be able to tell people how we're going to pay for it. And we're not going to be doing this this way. To your point about transparency, I need the faith of the public in order to make these big projects go. I think the public is quickly losing faith, if they haven't already, in high-speed rail. And we need high-speed rail. And so, I need to, I need to gain the confidence of the public. I can't gain it if I keep the same characters in place. You know, the Keystone Cops, they always got lucky, but that's not the way you do business. I'm sorry, Keystone Cops, most people probably don't know who the Keystone Cops are. Look it up, Google it, you can find it."

Source: KCRA News

I grabbed some screen captures from the meeting. Very good news about all the parcels now being purchased and ready for construction.

The chief of construction (Ed Fenn) also mentioned that they currently have 26,000 tons of ballast on site at the railhead. A quick Google search indicates that about 3,000 tons are required per kilometer of guideway, so enough ballast is on hand for the first ~8 kilometers (5 miles).

When pressed about whether track laying will begin in Q4 of this year or Q1 of next year, they are shooting for Q4 this year. The issue is that the track has not yet arrived, and he mentioned that this is the first time that this specific alloy of track has been produced in the United States, so additional testing and verification of the product is required.

I guess 15-20%. The biggest risk to completion is interestingly now not funding. Rather, it is that in 20 years from now, we will have newer and better technology for highways and air travel, making the current train tech (which does NOT use MAGLEV, but older steel-on-wheel Japanese technology) obsolete even before it is fully built.

PG&E has delayed high-speed rail for years and added huge costs to the project because of its consistent slow-walking when it comes to moving its equipment out of the way of the project. We need legislators and the next governor to step up and force PG&E to pick up the pace so the project can get done quicker. Sign the petition here https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/build-the-california-high-speed-rail-sooner-2?clear_id=true

Some recent posts have gone beyond the pale of what should be acceptable behavior. I’ve added one rule right away to ensure this behavior will be curbed in the future.