NIMBYs on the San Francisco Peninsula (Palo Alto, Menlo Park...) got their pitchforks out for a High Speed Rail project that would use the existing right-of-way

NIMBYs on the San Francisco Peninsula (Palo Alto, Menlo Park...) got their pitchforks out for a High Speed Rail project that would use the existing right-of-way and they managed to downscale the project dramatically. HSR wouldn't disturb them in any way, it would even make things better compared to the existing diesel CalTrain operation. Do you think they will be happier with a series of concrete pylons? Rail viaducts exist, and people are not exactly thrilled to have one in their backyard. Following the highway network is great (and Germany largely does it for HSR) but the highway system is designed with very different constraints. That might be possible in largely desert or rural places without a lot of topography, but highways have curves and slopes incompatible with high speed as soon as you hit a significant topography. The cost of right-of-way skyrockets in urban and dense environments that are exactly the ones you want to serve with HSR/HyperLoop. Both systems are on par in the regard. The mile-long tunnel to bring HSR in the heart of San Francisco is expected to cost several billion dollars. The cost of the technical equipment of that infrastructure for conventional rail is marginal compared to the cost of digging the tunnel itself. Sure we could solve that, with strong eminent domain powers for the state for instance. But I'm not sure anyone wants that, nor that the Supreme Court would let it happen.