Since this is a topic I'm studying/researching heavily at the moment (it's at the heart of my new startup), I'd like to comment on some of Sam's passages:
> If we unclog our infrastructure we can spread out to more of the state and increase the supply of developable land. There is lots of land in this state, but only a small amount is close to jobs.
I disagree. The trick is not to simply increase the supply of "buildable" land. That way, the main effect would be to increase sprawl. Jobs are usually in already-dense areas, in which most land has already been developed.
A different, perhaps smarter plan could be to do what some small companies are doing in Barcelona: allow buildings to add 1-2 floors at the top. It increases density, and housing supply.
> If we make it easier to quickly travel longer distances in/out of work hubs, the intense demand for housing can be diffused to communities that can handle it.
I don't see how this passage is related to the previous one. Alleviating traffic? Good luck. Until we have 90% or more driverless cars, traffic is not going to change.
> We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead. This will allow people to live in more affordable housing and have a better quality of life.
Yes, $68 Billion can be spent much better, I agree. But investing them in a generic "infrastructure" is not going to solve the problem at all.
I'll give you one of many possible examples: when you build an additional highway lane, traffic temporarily goes down. On average, after 6.5 years, traffic is back to the original level (everything else being equal).
You can actually reduce traffic by REDUCING the amount of roads available, as long as the resulting roadmap is "simpler" to navigate for human drivers. Sometimes, you get less traffic accidents by REMOVING road signs. Etc. Etc.
> A lot more people need this more than they need a train from LA to SF. In any case, the train is yesterday’s technology. By the time it’s completed, we will have new and much better technology, like high-speed self-driving cars, electric airplanes, and maybe even Hyperloops.
We already have one of the best transportation systems that could be invented, in terms of price-performance: bicycles. We don't need to trouble HyperLoops and the like.
But I agree that investing in trains is not the right thing to do.
In essence, what Sam is suggesting is to divert that $68B to something smarter: on this, I wholeheartedly agree.