Lisa Schweitzer is a little bit more cynical about HSR in California than I am — I recently had a pin-up with her to talk about my project and the real sorts of impact the proposed rail line is going to have on the urban fabric. She doesn't oppose the project as much as worry about how it could negatively affect existing transit funds - especially since the ridership is likely to be on the upper end of the scale, at least at first. (This post at Yonah Freemark's blog smartly addresses the issue of ticket prices, comparing prices on Acela, ICE, AVE, TGV, &c.) Her editorial in the Sacramento Bee addresses this, as well as offering what I think are some smart alternatives for CAHSR to "help ensure that the state's support for everyday transit does not disappear in the stampede to build high-speed rail." I'm not such a big fan of the first ones (should airlines really be the model for anything?), but she has, like, a PhD and stuff.

At any rate, the comments are GOLDEN:

California today is nothing like Europe and Japan decades ago. We are spread out. We prefer our cars. Rail service would only help a small portion of the populace. The environmental challenges would be expensive and drawn out.

This is so wrong-headed it makes my head spin.

Umm, but the trains lose money and the people want their cars. To pay for that trip between SF and LA you would need to charge 3 times what plane fare would be.

You mean that subsidized plane fare? See also here.

Since when has high-density development boosted surrounding property values? An instant ghetto never does anything but drive people out of the neighborhood.

Density = ghetto, apparently.