Maybe I'll call this idea 'a high-speed train' and propose that California build one between LA and SF... oh wait.
Cabin is an even worse example of HSR demand because it travels when roads are underutilized.
China has been able to build out a high speed network fairly quickly. Why is it that? Is it just because they're cutting corners?
From a legal perspective eminent powers can be exercised quite efficiently. They haven't been exercised efficiently in California because of politics. HSR officials spend far too long haggling with farmers and pay much more than a court would require in an attempt to minimize negative media attention. But it has backfired by drawing things out and ballooning costs.
Only the first line was built in the 1960s.
The latest lines to be built are the Hokuriku Shinkansen (completed 1997-2015), Kyushu Shinkansen (built between 1991-2011) and the Hokkaido Shinkansen (construction strted 2005, still under construction). And of course the maglev Shinkansen has now started construction.
What? There is absolutely recourse, such as "sue them and at a minimum tie the project up in lawsuits for years". Or "be furious and rally with lots of other furious land owners/interested citizens and vote the bums out" because focused single interests, even as minorities, often can exert a great deal of political influence in a democracy. Or even illegally resisting through various means, which might not affect this area of California specifically but is a real threat in some parts of the US.
Eminent domain has an important place and has be used well, as well as abused. But whether justified or not its use, particularly in modern, is frequently fraught with controversy and political/legal battles.
The power as written is pretty powerful and has only gotten more powerful and broad every time it's challenged in court. Since it's hard to argue that building a high speed rail isn't "public use", the only thing you'd be suing over would be the "just compensation" part.
I believe in that case, the government can take and use first, and you can lawsuit afterwards over how much money you think it's worth which really doesn't stall anything.
If the government can use eminent domain successfully take over land to give to private developers to build a mall, or even take it just to increase city revenues, it sure as hell can use it to build a train.
"As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-five states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic"
And in the end, they didn't even use her property as intended:
"In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year)[citation needed] was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.[2] In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene, the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation."
Likewise, in American areas with good rail transport, you see business boom around it. The net gain in commerce, sales tax revenue, etc. cannot easily be measured, but it's significant and American could benefit greatly with better rail transport. You'd see America begin to collapse in and become less spread out within less than 50 years (especially in urban spaces).
Both have the same answer: because there's a whole lot of lobbyists that don't want it built. And it's not a secret - even the first segment they're building is just a screaming indicator of how little they want this thing to come to life.
Neither the airlines nor the car manufacturers nor the petrochemical companies nor billionaires like the Kochs want the thing to happen, so they're happy to shut it down at every possible turn - just look at every propaganda piece the "Reason Foundation" keeps pumping out against the project.
France and Italy are covered in high speed rail projects that make this one seem almost trivial by comparison, but we can't do it because politicians are too happy to take a few campaign dollars and enjoy some free filet mignon medallions and expensive red wine than represent the people who elected them.
We'll see, it's not like this service has proved viability yet. As other's have pointed out, this is about twice the price of an hour and 40 minute flight. While some commenters are arguing that there are some folks who would take it to skip the hassle of the airport, I think pretty much the only people who would take this are those with a pretty severe fear of flying.
Demand was never the biggest problem.
No major region or state in the US can do high-speed rail as easily or cheaply as Texas and they're still struggling to push through comparably modest roadblocks there. They're looking at more than a decade on a very simple line just from Dallas to Houston. It looks increasingly like the Texas line has a good chance of being constructed. However if it was that difficult for Texas, California can forget about it (unless the Federal Government gets involved and becomes belligerent, which I would favor).
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/high-speed-rail-proj...
If it were as straight-forward as spending a reasonable sum of money and building the rail, the US would already have numerous prominent high-speed rail routes.
Plus, the LA-SF routes on the Coast Starlight aren't overnight.