The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.

Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield.

So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?

Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut.

Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA

I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus.

> the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets.

So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars so they can remove those flights? Sounds like we already have a system that works and is subsidizing other flights as well.

> So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars

Because adding comparable capacity to SFO and LAX would be $100B+