All projects do take compromises, but most projects have identified a real and achievable goal...which the CHSRA has failed at in some pretty major ways. Or, "What are we doing, and why are we doing it?", as Dr. Deming used to say.....

Interesting response: "Tejon, I-5, Altamont..." It might make sense, if you are primarily interested in ultra high speed service to directly compete in the LA-SFO market with direct air service. But, is this where the travel demand for HSR really is?

Back in '94 when Quentin and company began work on this fiasco, they postulated a 30-50% increase in intra-state aviation demand as a justification for HSR. This was based on aviation demand "forecasts" that "predicted" this increase, not based on much sound economics assessing market forces like costs or prices, but because that is what the growth had been for the last 20 years. This growth had been caused by real factors like larger population, more income, falling fares, more service, from more efficient aircraft, from cheap fuel, and from real competition after deregulation, but no one bothered to base the "forecast" on changes in these real factors.

So was this "forecast" true?

Or, has intrastate aviation demand essentially been flat since the mid 90's....?

Well guess what, it's been flat. Yes, up slightly in good times with cheap fuel, and down a lot in bad time and when fuel spikes...., but mainly flat or zero growth. So like Quentin Kopp there are some who would appear also to believe in the "build it and they will come" school of planning. In these cases, only with their particular arbitrary definition of "high speed, and their preferred alignment. But, regardless of real need or economic viability. Or as It was once observed: "To every complex problem there is always a simple solution....."?

Ironically though, I actually do agree with some parts of that suggestion, not for the methodology, but, because several of those routing options could serve real demands.

A seven mile tunnel under Altamont makes some sense, it would eliminate miles of grade and could even be partially financed by including a design for multiple tracks to allow freight access through a public private partnership. From there you don't go down I-5, because no one lives there, instead you go straight east to connect to the 99-and San Joaquin corridors. This would have the effect, even with conventional services, of immediately cutting almost two hours off of trips from the Valley into the Bay. This would take people from where lots of folks actually live and work, much more quickly and directly, to where lots of folks actually live and work, paralleling actual congested freeways in horribly congested corridors.

A similar proposal, for a HSR tunnel route into LA, by Sup. Antonovich at the LACMTA, if properly designed, could shave off twenty miles of circuitous routing, allow under 1 hour service to Palmdale, where real freeways are screwed. And, with a lot more creative thinking, could potentially be built with a freeway toll tunnel bypass to the 5/14 IC nightmare in a shared tunnel. Which would almost certainly be a potential candidate for private financing.

Finally, Tejon, even from Palmdale to Bakersfield (like the 1817 proposed ATSF alignment?), clearly makes more sense than Tehachapi. But, not serving the rail travel demand that would be generated by nine million folks in center of the Valley, with congested roads and poor air access, makes no sense at all.

There are fixes..... And, they can work. These solutions could even do a lot to give us a viable and versatile rail passenger system, as a real and viable alternative for short and mid distance travel. This would require compromises, ones hopefully based on much more realistic planning, which the current process of "build it and they will come" political trough slopping has failed to achieve, thus far.

When aviation distillates reach $8 or $9 dollars a gallon, then we can finally connect directly up I-5, and bypass the Valley. And, if and when that ever occurs, it could probably be privately financed, too.

Of course, without some serious change and sensible reforms in our HSR processes and priorities, which should focus initially on the shared use corridors that will be needed to access the metropolitan areas, none of this private investment will ever likely happen.

And, if those changes are ever to happen, it will take a lot more work than @#$%& about it, or watching dubious politicians show how "manly" they are by chopping up HO F units.....