• Next, in No. 13, we'll look at a particular much-discussed alternative to the rail system California is considering, namely the "Maglev" system like those in use in Shanghai, various Japanese rail lines, and elsewhere.

• Then, in No. 14, I have some other angles in store. Leading up to No. 15, where I will present the way this all nets out, according to me.

For now, let's go to the readers.

1) "I do not agree that our state should live in backwardness." A reader in Northern California writes in response to a previous reader who said that, realistically, Californians will always prefer to drive or fly rather than take even very fast trains:

I want to register a contrary opinion. I travel frequently from San Francisco to Southern California to visit an elderly parent. I cannot count the number of times my plane is late. This time, like the last time, it was 3 hours late. I commented to someone seated next to me in the crowded unpleasant lobby that when high speed rail goes in, I will never fly to Southern California again. The airport is always crammed, there is never a power outlet available, the planes are crammed as well as late, and the whole experience is awful. My airfare on Southwest is usually closer to $250 each way than $130—speaking as someone who actually flies this route (to San Diego). San Francisco's runways are too small and it gets fogged in. The fog would not impact the train. I do not agree that our state should live in backwardness, under development, and inefficiency because there are folks who don't believe in state investments in infrastructure. I suggest that these folks take a look out the window the next time they actually do fly in California. Look for the dams, in particular. The feat of engineering that is the California Water Project is what makes our lives here possible. I am beyond annoyed that there are people who have appointed themselves as judge and jury that public infrastructure cannot work by definition. It is a willful and selective blindness. I do not appreciate these attempts to undermine our collective future.

2). More on the practicalities of the commute. An official with a well-known California tech company writes to tell about his travels. I've left in all the details because they're important for the case he wants to make:

I commute from LA to SF weekly to commute to a job in Silicon Valley (Redwood City, actually). I bought a house close to LAX (in Mar Vista) to facilitate the move. I don't want to be any closer because of aircraft noise. I can make it from my house to the Parking Spot on Sepulveda in 15 minutes at any time of day (quick cruise down Centinela). I need to budget 3 1/2 hours door to door to make the trip. I leave 1 hour before my flight departure time, which breaks down like: 15 minute (drive to Parking Spot on Sepulveda)

15 minutes (wait for shuttle and then wait for the spin around the congested LAX access roads to United Terminal 6)

10 minutes (get through security—I'm United Premier 1K and TSA Pre—and then walk to gate)

15 minutes (they close aircraft doors 15 minutes before departure now)

5 minutes extra (more if I have a larger roller-bag that means I need to take advantage of Zone 1 boarding rather than showing up at the last minute) The flight is generally scheduled at 1 hour 30 minutes, even though the flight time is about 50 minutes. This is because there are frequently ground delays on the route due to congestion. There is always some issue. On the SFO end, I then have to walk to the AirTrain and take it to the car rental center, walk directly, and pick up my car (I'm Avis Preferred) and then drive thru the checkout gate (where there is generally a line) and then drive the 10 miles to my office. Traffic is usually fairly congested on 101. This takes about another hour. I spend about $150-$250 on airfare, plus about $120 on the rental car in SF, plus $35 for 2 days of parking (I usually stay overnight in SF). This is a very optimal LA-SF commute, with both destinations close to the airports. My employer is as close to SFO as any tech firm in the Bay Area. Out of my 3.5 hour commute time, about half of it is usable. The wifi on the plane is very spotty at best. I can't use my laptop during takeoff & landing and my iPad doesn't run a real version of PowerPoint. With CA HSR, I would lose an hour of transit time (2.5 hrs vs. 1.5 hrs). I could probably make up 20 - 30 minutes of that by getting off CA HSR at one of the mid-Peninsula stops and avoiding the traffic snafu at the 101 & 92 exchange where everybody is trying to get on/off the San Mateo bridge. If security is faster (perhaps since it is harder to divert a train to run into an office building) and they wouldn't require you to be on board early, maybe you could make up another 10 minutes. You have more usable time on a train, since you can basically get on an HSR train (I've taken them in Europe a lot) and plug in your laptop and start working. The time to load/unload a train is much better than on a plane (many more doors). Anyway, from the point of view of time efficiency, I think it is pretty clear that CA HSR for my commute will be a wash when it is done. There are enough new subways going to LA Union Station that I will have a much broader section of neighborhoods to choose from (and many cooler ones) within a few minutes walk to the subway as opposed to the 15 minute drive and 15 minute park at LAX with the same time before departure. Metro is projecting a 25 minute trip to downtown from Westwood on the Purple Line to Union Station, and it will be done before HSR. In terms of quality factor, eliminating the lines I wait in for security, and both to board and disembark from the aircraft, will be the biggest pluses. I think CA HSR can really get the edge over flying in the following situations: * people who want to get off farther down the Peninsula (e.g. Googlers going to Mountain View). San Jose Airport has many fewer flights so that's not a good option either. * coordinated schedules with Caltrain with ZipCar's available at the train station so I can avoid the rental car * nicer amenities (e.g. more legroom, bigger tables) * if the HSR folks get their act together and arrange for high-speed internet connectivity on the high-speed rail, that would make HSR an easy choice over the flights. It seems like you should be able to do way better in bandwidth on the ground than in the air, although the European HSR lines aren't particularly good at Internet connectivity right now.

3) If the Northeast can do something, surely California can do something more. A reader in Oregon backs up this preceding reader's point:

I hope this succeeds. Anyone who's traversed between cities in the DC-to-Boston Corridor knows that Amtrak, with all its flaws, is a lot better that a) driving; b) flying [and going to/from the airports]; or c) walking. And the London-Paris Chunnel is incredibly fast, comfortable, and convenient. My only wish is that we could get high-speed rail between Portland and Seattle, too.

Just to hammer this home: In case anyone reading has not personally compared rail, train, and car times in the Northeast Corridor, the experience reinforces how much more efficient even ordinary rail service can be. Amtrak's Boston<->DC service isn't exactly high-speed, and the onboard wi-fi service, though better than it used to be, barely qualifies as normal-speed.