It's a boondoggle!
It is an economic case for 90% of Americans. If you live anywhere but the densest part of a city, or don't work in an extremely dense/expensive area, it just doesn't make sense. Not because we're selfish, because we're cheap.
Unless I live adjacent to a station, I will have to walk or ride a bike, do I then have to have a change of clothes? Will I have to shower? Is my neighborhood safe? Or will I have to take a bus to get to the train?
There are only about 5 urban areas in the US where you can reasonably live without a car. So I won't be saving insurance, I will certainly not be saving time. Is it more peaceful? Perhaps, but only because right now in most cities no one rides it!
Most businesses, except for finance, government, white collar jobs don't want the added expenses of being in urban areas. So jobs will never be concentrated there. This is good, not bad, that means companies are being productive.
Long distance trains make even less sense. Right now some train alignments in the US are not even that slow, some over 100mph. They have their place, but, they are heavily subsidized and they still don't make sense for most travelers.
Let's think about the mythical LA-Vegas HSR. Who would be interested? Let's say it is $100 round trip (unlikely to be that low, actual cost $150). Who goes to LV alone? Almost no one, so $200 for two people. So 600 miles is less than $150 (20mpg, but most sedans get more than that on the highway), so it's $50 cheaper (that's if you sacrifice mobility and don't rent a car) to drive. Buy or bring the food you want, more comfortable, more flexible etc. The identical analysis is true for the California HSR proposal as well.
This stuff is "green" hokum!
Eliminate business travelers, because by the time they have to arrange for a dropoff and a pick-up when they come back and a rental car when they're there, why bother? Take a plane and at least save time. So
