I’ve read various studies and analyses that convincingly argue that the US could be much, much more efficient with rail transport, both in cost and capacity over flying and driving, than it is now… but I can’t help but suspect that a big part of my advocacy for rail is that I love traveling by train and hate traveling by plane or car.
I don’t see a good PR future ahead for advocating yet one more way to cram hundreds of strangers together like sardines for hours.
Just for larfs, take a look at a few pages from the fabulous “zeerust” site Tales of Future Past and it’s views of the cars/highways of (their) tomorrow:
http://davidszondy.com/futurepast/future-car.html
or for that matter, the “future” of rail travel:
http://davidszondy.com/futurepast/future-transport.html
Have you ever actually been on a train? :dubious:
The Future Car one is pretty interesting. Is that cop taking a picture with a smart phone? And what’s that Star Wars ship doing in the background sky? Whitewalls? Roman numerals - this is supposed to be the future? 
No. Are you going to tell me that they have only 1 or 2 or so people, like my car?
My point is that public mass transit–no matter what kind–is now the road to Coronatown.
Which virus will be part of history before any High Speed rail is finished.
That’s just page 1, click next at the bottom of the page to see more.
Seems I never challenged the idea that planes are quicker than trains.
I regularly travel by both plane and high speed rail, and I will choose the latter hands down where both options are available.
I can go from sitting in my home typing this, to sitting on a high-speed train, leaving the station, within 40 minutes.
Meanwhile it takes substantially longer than that just to get to the airport (because it’s right at the edge of the city), and then you have bag check-in, security check etc. I generally arrive 2 hours before my flight time, and even then there have still been times where I’ve had “Final boarding call for Mijin” because I was unlucky with the queues. No way would I risk showing up later than that.
You can also be unlucky with the flight itself; perhaps the plane circles before landing because the terminal is busy. Or there’s a long taxi-ing, or delay for the stairs to come. Then you’ve got to collect your bag. And finally you’re at the far edge of your destination town.
Putting all factors together, for me, the total journey time is at least twice as long, usually more like 3 times.
In your example taking HSR makes sense - the origin and destination are close enough to make the train the superior choice. However, as distance between origin and destination increase, the benefits you describe start to erode, and there is a point where the airplane starts to make more sense. In CA, the two most often cities to be discussed for HSR are San Francisco and Los Angeles. There is no train in the world or in anyone’s imagination that will connect those two cities faster than a jet airplane.
Huh? We’re talking about high speed rail. Those cities are only 347 miles apart (thank you, google). There’s no way within such a short distance a plane can claw back the time difference of all the things that I listed. 
This has been well studied.
The projected journey time of SF to LA is 2 hours and 40 minutes.
There is no way the projected time is realistic. There are two mountain ranges to cross, two major metros as well to go thru - in each you will not be able to have a high speed train going full speed. Additionally, cities in the Central Valley, where the train could reach high speeds for long distance, will demand having a stop (Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.) and for every stop the train will need to slow, stop, ramp up speed again, shaving off valuable time. The projected time put out there by CAHSR people is just a dream.
Meanwhile at the airports, the flight is about 1 hour, and if you add on 2 hours at the origin and an hour (being generous) on the destination, it is difficult to imagine a train besting flight times and convenience between any NorCal/SoCal combinations.
I’ve been on a HS rail train once - the bullet train connecting Shanghai to Beijing. And yeah, it was really friggin’ cool. We accidentally got there a little late (the cab trip took longer than we anticipated and there was confusion at the terminal), but we were able to board immediately upon arrival. The ride was about 4 hours I believe, and was very smooth and comfortable. So yeah, that’d be cool to have in the US, buuuuuuuuuuuut entirely impractical. It wouldn’t happen, because to connect cities large distances away, you need to have every state in-between do their part and agree to allow the rail to pass through. Just one state decides not to play ball, and the rail has to be diverted, adding time to the trip. When flying is so common, most people just have no interest in rail travel. Which is unfortunate, but also understandable.
Bakersfield wouldn’t DARE to ask for a stop.
Tokyo to Osaka is 310 miles. It cuts across the largest metro area in the world, plus a few more. The Nozomi express makes the trip in 2 hours 30 minutes, including 4 stops along the way.
And that’s the existing track that was originally opened in 1964. They are now constructing a new one scheduled to be completed in 2037, and will shorten the trip time to 1 hour 7 minutes. (It’s a maglev.)
Why would it be harder to build than a Canadian-owned crude oil pipeline that spans across 9 states?
The Wikipedia article says the new line was estimated at 9 trillion yen in 2011, or about 83 billion dollars. The US doesn’t seem wiling to do such expensive infrastructure projects. Heck, the need for a new Hudson River rail tunnel has been recognized for years and it’s still not proceeding.
Edited to add, it doesn’t help that the US doesn’t do long term planning very well or at all. Things change every four or eight years depending on who is in the White House.
Here is a list of planned stops and slowdowns on the CA HSR project North to South:
[ol]
[li]San Francisco[/li][li]Millbrae/SFO[/li][li]San Jose[/li][li]Gilroy[/li][li]{Coast Ranges mountains crossing}[/li][li]Madera[/li][li]Fresno[/li][li]Kings/Tulare[/li][li]Bakersfield (yes!)[/li][li]{Tehachapi mountains crossing}[/li][li]Palmdale[/li][li]Burbank[/li][li]Los Angeles (downtown)[/li][/ol]
2 hours 40 minutes may be possible for a non-stop with gentle to flat terrain between SF and LA, but adding all those stops AND the mountain crossings AND suburban areas where full speed will not be allowed/possible will slow things down substantially - to the point that taking an airline will end-up being faster.