This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

It's $5B over its rebudget by SixShutouts66

I think you're falling into the trap of looking at the rebudget or rebudget with reduced scope cost and not the proposed cost. I beleive that the original proposed cost of $10B is up to $105B. You're right that if the rail is successful, cost and schedule will be forgotten.

Knowing what I do now, high speed rail in California is problematic. The train need rail with a minimum amount of curvature for very high speeds. The route out of California requires going through or over some mountains and you add in the tectonics of the reqion, there are significant technical challenges.