I can make a number of good arguments for a well planned and cost effective high speed rail component, as part of a passenger rail system for California, which would be fully integrated with our successful regional and intercity network.

That case would be for a high speed rail system that is affordable, sustainable, and actually meets clearly identified travel demands. That case would be more likely to look to more realistic and affordable top urban speeds of 110-125 based on actual cost benefit criteria. That rail passenger system would then focus on real implementation planning, with properly phased incremental improvements and operable segments. This high speed alternative would be implemented by an agency that uses proper contracting and oversight procedures, works well with others, is realistic, listens, and is actually held accountable for how it uses taxpayer monies.

Of course, this more realistic high speed alternative, which I could find easy to defend, is not anything like the bloated, gold plated, poorly planned boondoggle, so poorly managed by what has been a largely unaccountable agency, meeting few real mobility needs, without any regard for realistic costs or benefits, which the project CHSRA is currently proposing.....