Why is he looking at China? I thought Japan's trains were the exemplary high-speed rail model for the world. I had thought Japan's railways were what inspired the high-speed rail project in CA.
Well, China's system is a failure, and he doesn't want the US to build trains, so ... it makes sense.
But something you have to keep in mind is the size of Japan versus the size of China and the US. The most popular Shinkansen route, Tokyo<->Osaka, is about the same distance between Chicago and St. Louis: a 6 hour conventional train ride, a 5 hour drive, or ... a 30 minute flight. So high-speed rail is kind of a hard sell: a 5 hour drive is not that long, and a 30 minute flight is worth the cost if you really need to be there fast. The middle ground, a 2 hour train ride, is not really that compelling, and a ticket would probably cost as much as flying. (The first time I took the Shinkansen, I had a little sticker shock. $200 to ride a train!?)
Rail does make sense for Tokyo to Osaka, though, because the airport in Tokyo is so far away from the city center. It's at least an hour and a half between Tokyo Station and Narita, and then you need to be there in time to navigate the terminal and board 30 minutes before departure. Then you have to do the same thing on the other end. So flying is a net loss between Tokyo and Osaka, which is why the Shinkansen is so successful. Lots of demand, and it's the quickest way to go.
But in the US, the places where high-speed rail will work already have high-speed rail. The other popular city pairs are too far apart -- New York to LA is popular, but that's going to be an awfully long train ride.
Huh? There is no HSR in the USA at present, the closest we have is the "higher" speed Acela service.
Edit: beaten
I find that hard to agree with. City center to city center in two hours, in spacious comfort with the ability to do things while I'm travelling (e.g. easily get a laptop out and work as normal, or even just read papers), is a lot more of an attractive proposition to me than five (Five! That's almost a whole working day!) driving or half an hour of cramped flying, with all the airport nonsense surrounding it. It's not for you?
The one place I'd agree a little is on the price - but that's just speculation, and for a lot of people (maybe most of the target marked, depending on expectations), a price compatible to flying is low enough to attract them anyway.
NYC to Philly: 90 miles
NYC to DC: 225 miles
The busiest train route is the country is between Manhattan and Long Island. Every day a few hundred thousand people are shuttled in and out of the city on very low-speed rail.
One time, I was in Seattle and needed to be in Portland. I could have taken the train, but the schedule was very inconvenient. I then discovered SeaPort airlines, which operates single-engine aircraft out of Boeing field and flies to PDX. It was $80. I showed up 20 minutes before the flight. The check-in agent greeted me by name (since I was the only person on that flight), and we walked out onto the tarmac and into the plane. No baggage X-ray. No TSA. No metal detectors. I don't think I even showed anyone ID!
I believe US Airways operates a similar service out of LGA, although they probably have more security since their planes are more expensive and seat more than 12 people. But it can definitely be done, and it's a lot cheaper than a high-speed rail line that nobody is going to ride.
Look, I'm the biggest railfan there is. But in a country where the most of the major cities are very far apart, and where everyone owns a car and pays for the interstate system, high speed rail is a hard sell. I'm completely in favor of it, but I expect it to be a gift from the government: it will never pay for itself, and most people won't even think to use it.
Huh? What do you consider "high speed"?