I'm actually very skeptical about Hyperloop, but it seemed a good way of getting my point across. USA doesn't build stuff not because of technological viability but purely for political reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File...
(Or if you prefer something more recent, have a look at: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas...)
Pretty obvious which areas are ripe for HSR. Except for the mid-Atlantic corridor and arguably coastal California, nothing in the US really is.
It's the same thing when people go abroad then come back and complain how backwards cell phone service is here. People really don't appreciate how underpopulated the U.S. is relative to the rest of the world. (Conversely, it's also why we could accommodate practically an unlimited # of refugees compared to Europe, if we really cared to.)
Even a train that drops you off in the middle of Los Angeles could leave you many hours from the actual place in Los Angeles you want to be.
This argument ignores the new and existing population clusters that form and grow along a transportation link. You only have to look at interstate highway system and how new population clusters formed and existing clusters grew along the links once interstate hwy were built. Just reviewing the I-35, I-10 in Texas will show you that. Same can be seen with local subways and light rails systems. The clusters near stations grow faster than rest of the city.
Also, when people in the US say "high speed rail", they usually seem to mean 180mph. That does not qualify as high speed rail overseas.
Upgrading the current low speed system to medium speed 180mph rail would mean that taking the train would actually be faster than driving (and for short air routes, faster than airport+flying).
My guess is that many existing routes would then become financially viable.
[1]: typical example -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Curve_(Pennsylvania)
[2]: For a detailed example of what's possible & what isn't with existing corridors, you can look at this independent engineer's study of how to upgrade a rail route through Northern California: http://zierke.com/shasta_route/
You mean "start a gold rush".
Nobody is traveling from Paris to Rome by high speed train, flying is cheaper and faster. But Paris to Lyon, Lyon to Milan and Milan to Rome, train wins. Why not in the USA?
Because of the distances involved, air travel is much more economical in much of the US. Almost all of my trips to random cities in the US are at least a thousand kilometers; I think there is only one major city within a thousand kilometers, and that is connected by rail which people use.
High density population centers separated by low density farmland and open space should be nearly ideal for high speed rail. There are huge swaths of land where there's nothing to tear down, there are fewer property owners to deal with, and there are usually fewer obstacles to route around.