PVWB's comments about 90% of the LAX SFO market for high speed rail are utter nonsense. One of the problems with the ludicrous proposals by the CHSRA are delusional self serving assumptions like this. The SFO-LAX, at this point, would be one of the least competitive markets for improved passenger rail in California. Eventually, maybe, but it certainly should not be the focus of our initial investments, with our limited resources. Investments which are additive to the long term goal and support our burgeoning regional and intercity services and improve time competitiveness, equipment utilization, and efficiency of those system components should recieve first priority.

I am very well versed on the Spanish and other European passenger rail "systems" including the high speed components. The high speed and very high speed lines were built to upgrade already significant demand in much closer city pairs. The TGV, German, Spanish, and Eurostar services were built to upgrade systems to meet demands in corridors that already had astromincal ridership on more conventional service, and as significantly, had a well established network of hubs and feeders, to make it work as part of a rail passenger system.

In California we need to build on the success of our more conventional regional and intercity services in a sustainable, cost effective, and systemic manner. I am more likely to support the bond measure now that the amendments have been made which can allow for this more realistic approach. Elimination of the dysfunctional CHSRA and transfer of the State Rail programs to a responsible and responsive agency, that is not a political "slop trough" for political hacks and wired consultants, is the next step. Realistic achievable steps and reform of a poor process will help to deliver rail passenger service that is worth the investment and works in California.