The problem in the U.S. is that the labor unions control rail, and stifle all innovation.
Rail for moving humans is extremely inefficient almost everywhere on earth.
Additionally, any convenience gained by the user - relative to flight - is almost entirely due to security differentials. Harmonize security and those travel times fall in line right quick.
Apply a tiny fraction of HSR costs to speed up air travel security instead, and you'll see far greater rider convenience increases and save incredible amounts of money.
The security differential in the US is based in large part on the fact that airplanes can (a) be diverted by hijackers to alternate destinations, and (b) be used as weapons against arbitrary targets.
Since the risks aren't the same, why would you aim to harmonize security, except as a pure subsidy to the airline industry?
"The busiest high-speed lines in the world are capable of making money, Bel said, including those between Paris and Lyon, where about 25 million people ride the French TGV trains each year, and the Japanese Shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka, which draw about 130 million riders a year."
As for Spain, they've spent $60 billion dollars since 1980. That's less than one high-speed rail train in California and they've got almost 2000 miles of track.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE
We should dig up some other sources. They site that you provided doesn't seem like it's a great source. It doesn't say how much money is actually lost. Simply that it's not profitable.
Long distance rail competes with plane, light rail with autos.
Heavy rail at the distances for which HSR routes are planned in the US (such as California HSR) competes with autos more than air travel.
I think that one reason for that is that, for reliable connections, one needs a multiple-connected graph. Users must be able to 'go around' any disturbance that arises.
NY, the most subway-centric city, has the longest commutes in the US. LA, "the most car centric city" (probably not literally true) tends to have amongst the shortest.
Decommission those NYC subways and replace with private shuttles and busses. Bet you'll see dramatic drops in commute times for NYC. And it'll save incredible, incredible amounts of money.
Edit: Citation: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-yorkers-havelongest-...
The NYC subway system is also a red herring. The subway primarily serves Manhattan, The Bronx, and Brooklyn. Of those people who commute into Manhattan from another borough, a plurality come from Queens, half of which has no subway coverage at all; that's for people inside NYC proper and obviously excludes NJ, Westchester, and Long Island commuters.
NY has much, much higher population density than LA, which probably both explains why it was more subway-centric and why commutes are longer.
The fact that LA metro has such short commutes - despite being one of the largest and most car dependent big cities in the world - suggests that highways and private cars do, in fact, scale very well.
It'll never happen, as it's opposed by (1) Taxi operators, (2) Mass transit operators & unions, AND (3) Do-gooders who don't want private business to succeed where public service has failed.