So the argument would be "they tried it in Taiwan and it ended up with all the problems opponents predicted it would have, so we have to reproduce it in California"? Having HSR is not a goal. It's a tool. The goal should be having efficient (both monetarily, time-wise and people suffering wise) means of getting people from point A to point B. If California spends $100b of taxpayer money and doesn't get closer to the goal - that means every single person in California just because couple of thousands bucks poorer just so somebody could be proud of California having HSR. Thanks but no thanks.

The article gives a good reason for why it works in Taiwan, despite its problems:

> Taiwan’s high-speed rail system proved reliably profitable — and popular, with 64 million riders last year.

Aside from talking about the (potential) cost, you didn't make any other point for why there shouldn't be a HSR. It's fine if you don't think we should have one because it's becoming too expensive, but I don't see any argument for why it wouldn't be useful.

At this point I just assume anywhere else in the world have better pubtrans than anywhere in the western US.

Yes? There's more than 200 bus routes, many with frequent service, versus ~80 routes for all of Santa Clara County, many of which have very infrequent service. There's a functional regional train system with more frequent service than Caltrain... A functional regional bus system that is far better than e.g. Greyhound...

Plus, Taichung is building a metro which will open mid-next year...