Even if there was a bullet train from LA to San Francisco (which is NOT on the drawing board of the high speed rail program ), that would serve only a fraction of the population.
Let me explain.
I commute to LA from Silicon Valley quite a lot (8 to 12 times a year). It takes me 5.5 hours DRIVING from door to door. On a good day I can do it under 5 hours (if I leave at 11pm to midnight).
To fly there using any of three major airports in the Bay Area (San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland) and LAX in Los Angeles... counting the commute time to the airport, security screening, etc... and the 1 hour flight time... it's about the same 5 hours (give or take 15 min).
The difference is that I now have to only pack a day pack for the flight, rent a car or pay to UBER it to the burbs of LA (West Hollywood, sometimes Santa Monica), and flying is stressful. It is far cheaper to drive, I can leave when I want, no car rental or UBER costs, I can pack or not... plus once there I can drive to multiple destinations and leave when I want.
So, for me, driving is preferred. Destinations are so spread out that a car is needed at the destination (UBER or cabs are fine to get from my home to the airport and back).
I-5 is a nightmare because of semi-trucks. When one decides to pass another on I-5 the back up in the fast lane and resulting slow down can last for miles.
So, if it was up to me I would do one of the following:
Spend $5 billion on adding lanes to i-5 and wait as we all convert to electric cars (countering the greenhouse gas emissions argument)
or
Build the HyperLoop from, say, Hayward to LA and have a huge parking lot full of cheap electric rental cars at the two (and only two) endpoints. Elon??? Get busy!
Rail is so 20th century. And the cost of rail is spiraling out of control... and with the extra stops it isn't going to be all that fast and last but not least, it isn't going (current config) to anyplace all that useful.
= new reply since forum marked as read