A couple of thoughts on the map. It looks like they took an AMTRAK map and just highlighted lines that they thought could be HSR. But it's really misleading. It looks like the map is saying that you can go from San Francisco to Denver in 6 hours. Can HSR go through mountains at 220mph? I know it can with a lot of tunneling but making a line that requires long tunnels through the Sierras and Rockies seems pretty unrealistic. I doubt that the people who drew up the map have ever traveled across the country by train car or bus. Seeing it from the ground is the only way to get a feel for what the challenge will really be. Flying over the country or sitting in Washington drawing lines on a map does not make for good decision making. Just because a line is drawn on a map does not mean that it is feasible.

Is there really a big demand for service from Quincy IL? How about Reno to Sacramento? Cheyenne to Juarez? Like CAHSP going from Merced to Bakersfield, in theory it was easy to build but now it's grossly over budget and the end product will be a line between cities that do not have a large amount of travelers going between them. Just because a line is easy to build does not justify it being built. Simple fact. A transportation system that does not meet transportation needs is a waste of money.

Creating HSR on routes that won't support airline service is pretty un-realistic. As originally proposed CAHSR sounded like a good idea. San Francisco to LA via San Jose is a route that has a lot of airline flights per day. There looked like there was a good chance of syphoning off travelers and getting them on the train. But I and most of the people who voted for it thought they would run it down the I5 corridor. Who would have thought that they would be wandering all over the state before heading to LA? Big shocker that they are now saying that the train will not get you from SF to LA as fast as proposed. People will no ride it if it takes as long by rail as driving.