Passing tracks/layout is based on 2026 CAHSR Business Plan. This allows 1 express and 1 local every hour. In this scenario I made assumptions that led to a 4h16m travel time SF-LA express, but this could be shortened to <4h10m by delaying local CalTrain services. I wasn’t prepared to do this because I really like the current CalTrain schedule, which this largely preserves.

Full video can be seen on YouTube

Summary of CEO remarks delivered at the April 2026 Board meeting. This narrative is not exhaustive; readers can view the full presentation here and video here.

A Defining Year Takes Shape

When we closed out 2025, I said 2026 would be one of the busiest and most consequential years in the history of this program. Now, nearly halfway through the year, I want to share where we stand on our commitments, and how the work underway is shaping the future of high‑speed rail in California.

Planning the work is not enough; we must work the plan. The collaboration across our executive team and staff has been the strongest I’ve seen in many years, reflecting the readiness of this program as we move into major delivery.

Advancing Materials and Track Deployment

A key focus this year has been advancing early procurement of critical materials. In 2024, we committed to placing orders in 2026, and we have delivered on that promise.

• Long-welded rail and concrete ties are now under contract.
• Cable trough procurement is advancing, and additional materials, including OCS poles and ballast, are moving through evaluation.
• We have also advanced Fresno Station early works, keeping our station program on track.

These procurements will enable deliveries later this year to support the start of track installation.

Major Procurement and Construction Milestones Ahead

In June, we will present to the Board the track and systems contract for approval. This is one of the largest and most consequential rail procurements undertaken in the United States in decades. Years of engineering, planning, and coordination have led to this point.

We are also moving forward with other major efforts.

• The Merced to Madera extension is underway, marking a key step toward advancing the system north.
• Architectural and engineering (A&E) IDIQ procurements are scheduled for later this year.
• We are close to procuring a Program Delivery Partner in 2026, strengthening our capacity as we scale up construction.

Progress on Co-Development Partnership

Our co-development agreement is nearing completion. As noted at the end of 2024, we invited P3 investor groups to bring forward their ideas. After an extensive evaluation process, we expect to present the selected partner to the Board in June. This partner will collaborate with us to shape our financial model and delivery strategy. Bringing them aboard quickly is essential.

Legislative & Policy Priorities

Recent legislative progress has been significant. The reauthorization of Cap-and‑Invest, committing $1 billion annually through 2045, is a major accomplishment, though it does not fully fund the San Francisco to Los Angeles buildout.

We continue to advance the following policy priorities:

• utility relocation streamlining and third‑party management
• CEQA exemptions for renewable energy
• streamlined permitting
• expedited right-of‑way cases
• updates to Senate Bill 198
• station‑area land-use tools
• improvements to encroachment permitting

I want to thank Director Emily Cohen and ex officio Board Member Assemblymember Carrillo for emphasizing the importance of these policy changes. As Director Cohen noted, the Authority is not responsible for every component required to deliver this project, and this legislative package is critical to getting it done.

Modernizing How We Contract and Deliver

The Board recently adopted a new Capital Procurement and Contract Management Policy, strengthening governance and supporting more flexible procurement tools. We are deploying contracting methods widely used across the country, including IDIQ for MATOC . These tools allow faster, competitive task orders while ensuring transparency and will be essential as we prepare to deploy $9.8 billion over the next three years.

Growing Our Team to Meet the Moment

Since the start of the year, we have onboarded new staff across engineering, project delivery, environmental, and administrative functions. These hires strengthen our internal capacity as we prepare for expanded construction and systems work.

Staying Focused on 2026 and Beyond

This year is already proving pivotal. Working with the Newsom Administration, the Legislature, and our Board, we will continue to pursue the policies, people, and partnerships needed to deliver this project consistent with global best practices.

Obviously, this is greatly simplified, and omits many platforms and stub tracks at the big stations, as well as yards. The main goal was to visualise the passing loops, and understand how much track sharing and flat junctions there will be under this plan.

The 2026 Business plan was unclear on some details, most notably what actually happens between Sun Valley and LA, where CAHSR and local services now have to share track, but some vague references to passing tracks are made. As a result LAU station is assumed different from the LinkUS plan with CAHSR platforms in the middle to allow terminating services due to lack of rail/rail grade separation and track sharing.

Otherwise 2040+ LinkUS is assumed, with Antelope Valley through running to Perris Valley, and Ventura County through running onto Orange County.

If Metrolink wants to run half hourly AV/PV and VC/OC, there would be need total separation from freight as fitting all the services on a single track pair without rail/rail grade separation is difficult. More investment must be made to ensure a reliable and high quality service. Electrification will help by speeding up these services, and allowing for more reliability as well as more frequency.

Caltrain is assumed to have minimal changes except for new depot and platforms, still terminating at 4th and King and at 79mph, as said in the business plan. Without level boarding and slow local services every half hour, without a timed overtake, there will be a 56 min travel time from SF-SJ. With a timed overtake in Millbrae, this can be reduced to around 47 min with 79mph speeds, but local Caltrain will be slowed 8-9 mins, assuming 3 min minimum headways.

As a result, combined with the passing tracks in the Central Valley plus adequate padding, travel times SF-LA of 4:15 seems likely, with 4:07 possible with Caltrain overtake.

A comparison of travel times between LA and SF for driving, public transit (including CAHSR’s modified LA-SF route), and flying, shown here as a hypothetical race from downtown to downtown, starting at Crypto Arena in LA and finishing at Union Square in SF.

Times are calculated based on current travel times of certain modes and estimated ones (CAHSR), and are approximate. These are broken down below:

Car: 382 miles, 5 hours 51 minutes

Based on current estimated drive time, which can fluctuate depending on road conditions, potential traffic, and stops.

Public Transit: 460 miles, 5 hours 11 minutes

• Walk to Pico Station (7 minutes plus 2 minute wait),
• Metro A Line to LA Union Station (10 minutes)
• 15-minute transfer at LA Union Station
• CAHSR (4 hours 21 minutes; calculated based on projected express travel time for interim HSR service sharing AV Line to Palmdale, and up to 110mph running from Gilroy to SF)
• 6-minute transfer at Salesforce Transit Center
• Muni 38R Bus (8 minutes)
• Walk to Union Square (2 minutes)

Flying: 372 miles, 4 hours 29 minutes

• 15-minute wait for rideshare (can vary)
• Rideshare to LAX (21 minutes; depends on traffic and road conditions)
• 90 minutes at LAX, from arriving at curbside to plane leaving gate
• Fly LAX to SFO (80 minutes from gate to gate, assuming no delays)
• 15 minutes from plane to AirTrain
• AirTrain to SFO BART station (5 minutes plus 6 minute transfer)
• BART to Powell Street station (29 minutes)
• Walk to Union Square (8 minutes)

So based on this, and if these travel times hold up on a regular basis, flying would still come out on top, but only by a little over 1/2 an hour or so, which in terms of competitiveness isn’t that huge a gap in travel time.

The TV show Mythbusters also did once run a race from SF to LA to test the myth if journeys under 400 miles are faster by car than plane, racing from their M5 Industries workshop in SF to the Natural History Museum in LA. The total plane journey took 5 hours 25 minutes, while driving took 5 hours 33 minutes. They concluded that because of how close the finish was, and variables that can affect the results either way, it was deemed plausible that driving could be faster than flying for journeys under 400 miles.

So bearing that in mind, even a 5-hour journey by public transit for downtown-downtown travel puts it well within the realm of competitiveness to flying, given how much the air travel time can be affected by various factors, as well as driving. Granted, similar delays can happen to public transit too, namely for CAHSR if it’s sharing a good part of its route from LA to Palmdale and Gilroy to SF (32% of the total LA-SF route) with other trains that can be delayed by various factors, causing a domino effect to CAHSR trains on those tracks.

It means that ultimately whichever mode one chooses will come down to their personal preference, just as a sub-3 hour nonstop LA-SF HSR journey would. And it also means that maybe, just maybe, a Palmdale-Gilroy high speed rail route, with shared tracks to LA and SF, could suffice in delivering the bulk of benefits this project set out to deliver, especially when the majority of ridership will likely be between the Central Valley cities and those major metro areas, less so SF-LA, given how much the estimated costs have exponentially increased and if those benefits still outweigh those costs enough to justify them.

A one-seat LA-SF ride does need to happen though, to compete with the convenience of flying and driving (few if any transfers), as well as for travel time, and also comfort as well as cost. And it needs to be delivered ASAP, if that can be the 2040s, if maybe even the 2030s, or if it’s destined to take longer than that based on the current funding trend and what future funding there is and where it may come from, among whatever other factors come into play that can slow down, or speed up, construction progress.

I do have confidence that by the 2040s, one will be able to board a high speed train at LA‘s Union Station and ride it all the way to SF’s Salesforce Transit Center, with an express travel time of a little over four hours, faster than driving and competitive with flying for downtown-downtown travel, at least in overall experience.

How and when it achieves that remains to be seen, but it will be done simply because California has to finish what it started, even in this modified form, as the alternatives currently remain more costly and less beneficial in the long run than finishing HSR and delivering a competitive third option for intercity travel between the Bay Area, Central Valley, and SoCal as quickly as possible.

We need that today, and will in all likelihood continue to, as travel between all three regions shows little sign of slowing down anytime soon, and current competitive intercity travel options are already strained. HSR, even modified, will help relieve some of that pressure on freeways and airports, giving those currently forced to drive or fly a third competitive option, in addition to generating more trips from those people who currently can’t or prefer not to drive or fly.

*Edit: I’ve recalculated the PT travel time, and added ten minutes to reflect that the CAHSR trains would likely be traveling at the current Caltrain track speeds between San Jose and SF, not 110mph (so when viewing the image replace the 1 minute for PT with 11 minutes). I’m still assuming they will be going up to 110mph between San Jose and Gilroy.