>I don't quite get how you're coming to 2/3 of revenue between MTC and SCAG regions

I said "to either", not "between". I also didn't suggest cutting out intermediate stops, but I did allow them to move outside of the town centers. In other words, most travelers from SJV are going to either MTC or SCAG, not within SJV, and in particular this is not directly analogous to the 19th century because of the extensive road network and the popularity of cars. Similarly, putting the rail corridor 30-60 minutes from the town is probably OK since the majority of residents of those towns will probably be driving to the train anyway, while doing that in a horse-and-buggy economy will of course doom ridership.

From page 5 of your link:

LA-Bay = $735M

LA-SJV = $355

SJV-Bay = $346

...

Within SJV = $29

total = $2355

to [LA or Bay] = 735 + 355 + 346 = $1436 or 62% of total.

So over 90% of ridership from SJV is going to either SCAG or MTC or further. The data seem to comport with my estimate that in order to start recouping costs you need, at the very least, service to one endpoint. This doesn't mean you should remove intermediate stops but it does support the idea that SJV HSR customers are mostly traveling long distances and might not mind leaving town to get to the train. This is particularly true if parking fees can be reduced by moving the train station out of town, since the current projection is $12 which I'm afraid might be "per day" (nearly as bad as the airport!) and people hate that.

The report I linked notes that the projection is for cars to continue accounting for 93% of intra-regional travel demand: i.e. while "the world is local" as your link states I have a hard time believing that market insights from a world without cars will translate readily to one with cars. Additionally, while some New Urbanists have started to try to build car-free cities, this goes against the wishes of the general public (including me) and I doubt it'll be popular in the politically conservative Central Valley. In this light, driving the train through the middle of Bakersfield as opposed to the outskirts looks like an attempt by the state to implement a vision of Bakersfield's future that the residents of Bakersfield did not really ask for. The majority of Central Valley customers will be driving, rather than walking/bussing, to the train even under the current plans. I'd also like to point out that, while there is an environmental motive for reducing our dependence on gasoline via cars, I personally expect electric cars to arrive sooner than a restructuring of the infrastructure of Central Valley cities that deprioritizes cars in favor of public transit. It could happen, but I'm not betting on it. So this:

>intermediate stations will always be a veritable monopoly for rail.

doesn't seem as clear to me as it does to you. And while as you mention the projections may have underestimated ridership in the (less-infrastructure-keen) non-city regions, they also assume a 50% real increase in the cost of auto travel, which as noted may be softened or reversed by the adoption of battery-powered vehicles. Therefore, Dionysus Lardner's observation that the median trip in 1846 was about 15 miles long probably would not apply in 2025.

As you've probably inferred, most of my background in this area is political and personal rather than technical. So, for example, I don't really know if moving the train line out of Tulare actually results in a significant savings on land and/or a reduction in construction time (especially this!), without which my whole point is moot. But I do not think that Fresno is analogous to a city in Germany, nor do I have a desire to turn it into one. Americans like cars, despite the powerful people with professional social networks who want to control us.'

edit: agh this is a bit of a mess, I hope it isn't too confrontational, and I appreciate you sharing your expertise.