Please read what I have been saying here and on other HSR posts.
My point is and always has been, everything has its place.
For regional rail service up to 200 miles between stops, often running on rails shared with freight and local transit, rapid rail is more a cost effective option than HSR.
The speed advantages of HSR over short distances on traffic congested rails does not justify the added expense. Acela is a great example of the waste of a perfectly good train capable of doing 150 mph running on rails with slower traffic and doing multiple short range stops. The Northeast Regional, a conventional diesel electric train that runs the same route as Acela, does it in just 18 minutes slower Boston to NYC. It cost a third the price tag of Acela to buy and is 75 percent less expensive to operate.
The only reason Amtrak makes money on the northeast corridor is because the Northeast Regional makes the over all numbers look better. Acela on its own is a money sucking waste.
As I have said before, HSR running on dedicated rails is great for distances over 200 miles between stops where its speed is used to full advantage.
Not a single currently proposed HSR plan in the US uses dedicated rails. That is the essential root of my opposition to HSR as currently proposed in the US. Running HSR on a patchwork of upgrades, as the California plan does, is doomed to fail. Like Acela.
Bottom line. If you are not going to do it right, do not bother. It will be a huge waste of money like Acela.
