My understanding and part of why I support the high speed rail project is this.
Airports in California coastal cities are near max capacity. And expansion is either very expensive[1] or near impossible. And would face even more community objections than the high speed rail project. So the airlines likely wouldn't try to compete with high speed rail. Instead they would try to attract more national and international travelers. Paradoxically to high speed rail would increase the airports area of service. Because one could then take the train + cab to the airport rather than drive 100 miles or take a puddle jumper.
[1] I offhand remember, between 500 million to 2 billion _each_.
Even if the airports are near max capacity (and I think that's probably only LAX) there could be a lot more passenger-miles.
Right now most SFO-LAX flights are on nothing larger than a 737 or A320, and on LAX-SJC I seem to wind up on some abominable regional jet.
There's a lot of room to increase capacity by flying wide bodies if the demand exists. Compare to the SYD-MEL route, a similar distance, where you're likely to wind up on an A330 or 767.
I was trying to be conservative. But yeah. Take the six or so coastal airports times a couple of billion each for expansion. And add that Bakersfield and Fresno are undeserved. That adds up to a big chunk of the money needed to build the Bay Area to LA Basin part of the project.
Airports in California coastal cities are near max capacity. And expansion is either very expensive[1] or near impossible. And would face even more community objections than the high speed rail project. So the airlines likely wouldn't try to compete with high speed rail. Instead they would try to attract more national and international travelers. Paradoxically to high speed rail would increase the airports area of service. Because one could then take the train + cab to the airport rather than drive 100 miles or take a puddle jumper.
[1] I offhand remember, between 500 million to 2 billion _each_.