This is a very good first step to partially introduce high speed (not TGV very high speed) type passenger rail systems in USA.

Of course, many more similar programs would be required to catch up with Europe, Japan and future China planned systems.

European TGV style e-tains are much more efficient (more than twice) than those shown on the supplied graph.

Why couldn't USA, with very distances and large population, have a comprehensive network of very high speed TGV style e-train?

This makes one think that perhaps our state governments and other presidents and the congress were asleep while the rest of the world was developing high speed rail. Or, they were bought off by special interest, i.e., the short haul airlines. The U.S. is at least 40 years behind Europe and Japan in high speed rail as a result. Shame on our broken government who are being run by special interest!

I am sorry, but trains, high speed or otherwise, are outmoded technologies with outmoded operating models -- large boxes scheduled to carry mass of passengers with infrequent runs on expensive, but little used right of way, then stopping at every possible stop because 1 person wants on or off.

Reduce the vehicle size, the rail size/weight, automate the system with fewer stops (fewer 1 person needs), have on-demand schedules. That will produce high usage, lowerer unit costs (thus even more usage), lower capital costs, and potential profit.

In other words, use the Personal Rapid Transit approach with the newest technology, small cars (not more than 12 passengers, and perhaps less). They can be electric, and made of composites rather than steel and the size of a barn.

I like the network approach and an alternative to air and autos, though.

JMartin:
The Personal Rapid Transit approach would have more merit in local travel. In long distance so high speed travel aerodynamics becomes critical. Small cars have a high drag (high frontal area) per passenger and so do not score well in this area.

I am passionately pro-environment but very unconvinced that high-speed rail is the model for the U.S. outside of the NorthEast corridor. For people going from Washington D.C. to Boston, I see the advantages and economics. That allegedly is a profitable rail route today, owing to the population density all along the way, and the long-since paid-off infrastructure.

I voted against the California high-speed rail ballot initiative because of the inherent energy costs of laying 500 miles of tracks, and the dubiousness of the project ever earning back its costs. Drive = 8 hours. Train = 3 hours. Plane = 1 hour. Trains would have to charge more than planes for decades to break even, if ever they do, as Amtrak attests.

@eji: have you heard about bridges and underpasses?

@healthybreeze: one hour on the airplane only count the flight, you have to take into account check-in and security times, and baggage reclaim, plus the transfer between the airport and where people actually leave. In europe, a distance that can be covered by train in less than 4 hours is competitive with the plane (around 500km)

@Alessio,

I agree that rail is competitive in high-density areas and that long queues at airports may give rail a slightly longer radius of competitiveness. I think that radius will be inadequate for California.

Also, in California only one city (San Francisco) has a subway to feed in commuters. Los Angeles has almost 2,000 square miles of sprawl, with very poor mass transit. Sacramento, the Bay Area, L.A. and San Diego have 9 major airports, which would be more accessable for most. Population density for the 350 miles between San Jose and Los Angeles is comparatively low, so this seems like a scenario where air travel has an inherent advantage.

Given the problems posed by building more airports and runways, we might as well give high speed passenger trains a try.

Problem is, how will they be propelled? By electricity? That will require overhead electric wires, and that's costly. The old Pennsylvania railroad never expanded electrification west of Harrisburg.

Great Britain had high speed Diesel trains years ago, using Paxman Valenta high speed Diesel engines. But would they meet contemporary emissions requirements?

The old Milwaukee Road Hiawatha trains were capable of speeds well over 100 miles per hour, but nowadays will people be willing to accept 100 MPH trains blasting through their neighborhoods?

Very high speed (TGV Type) e-trains, on dedicated tracks, are (4X most aircraft) the most energy efficient transport mode to move people around with very high established safety standards. The number of car is totally variable to accomodate the traffic load.

Of course there should be no level crossings. We can have a look at Europe if we don't know how to build the infrastructures and trains required. The technologies have been around for 20+ years and are operating very successfully in many countries.

Try riding the superb Japanese Bullet train or the French TGV you may change your mind about high speed rail.

On the west coast only an airplane/~3 hours [$300](kayak.com), I-5 at 1,382 miles/21 hours [~$100 @~$2pg](Google maps), and the PCT 2,650 miles/~3 months [>$300](pcta.org) will get you non-stop border to border. There would seem to be a market for an efficienct rail system to bridge the gap(s)inbetween.

Another dumb project from the megalomaniac. It won’t work for two major reasons:

1) not enough people who do not own cars on this side of the pond;
2) US urban public transportation sucks. One can travel fast on high-speed train, but what would you do afterwards? Wait for local bus?

There are things which should be done first: light rail transit from airports to downtown, and subway in densely populated cities. Without dense subway system in major cities (like it is done in, say, Paris), fast rail lines are bridges to nowhere.

Andrey:
That's why I like the platooned PRT idea; you use the same system 'intracity' as you do 'intercity.' Between cities it works like a train while in the city it works like a driverless taxi.

David:
Keywords - "current technology." Platooning has already been shown to work at highway speeds (truckers convoy all the time to save fuel and routinly split up without slowing up & the highway department tested platooning on cars for their automated highways program) so platooning at greater speeds should only require incremental development.