I have to laugh at all the Southern California car potatoes on this thread.

Devotion to the automobile ruined your cities forty and fifty years ago, and now you're addicted. Deep down, you think you'll be nothing without your cars. You rail against spending "billions" for high-speed rail, but don't even blink at the billions it takes to build a highway of the same length.

HOV lanes? People cheat like crazy. Toll lanes? Empty. Buses? They suffer from a low class image, and most middle-class people won't ride them, erroneously imagining them to be full of criminals and crazies.

I actually made a car-free trip to Los Angeles a few years ago, traveling around exclusively by bus and subway, and you know, your system isn't bad. It's comprehensive and frequent, and instead of criminals and crazies, I found pleasant, hard-working people, even at night. Try it some time. Chances are very good that you will survive the experience.

The specifics of this rail project may be iffy, if the criticisms are true, but the concept of connecting major cities by rail is sound, and every civilized nation in the world except the U.S. seems to get it. As populations grow, petroleum gets expensive, and carbon emissions need to be lowered, it makes no sense to build more and more accommodations for cars and planes. At trips of 600 miles or less, a train is the most fuel-efficient way to travel.

The answer is not "no" high-speed rail; it's better high-speed rail with good connections within the cities.

To put the price into perspective, a billion dollars (Amtrak's current annual subsidy) is equivalent to four days of the Iraq War.

In absolute terms, it's not the money; it's what you choose to spend it on. America has consistently chosen to spend the largest chunk of its general fund on the military, even in peacetime, while other countries have chosen to build up their infrastructure.

You get what you pay for.