Big issue with HSR is whether it's purely point-to-point (at which time you get the "high speed" advantage) or whether it has to make a bunch of stops (at which time you don't).
I.e. there's a rail from the Stockholm airport to the city center. It was point-to-point and tops out at 200 kph (~120 mph). It was a joy, especially since it dropped me off a block from the hotel in the city center.
That's where it could potentially make sense for LA->SF. If you could make it from LA Union Station to Downtown SF (or even SFO and transfer to BART) in <3 hours, it starts to be competitive with flying. But if you're stopping a bunch of times, and it's now a 5 hour trip, it's too expensive and too slow to compete with either driving or flying.
However, part of the idea is that you're serving the central valley. And if trains just run through at 200 mph and never actually stop to pick up passengers there, it kinda defeats the point.
So they're going to have to balance how many express trains they run a day vs actually serving those in between. And if it's too few, or if they are sometimes getting delayed due to routing around the other non-express trains (and thus not meeting theoretical transit time), it kinda screws the deal. Especially for someone like me who can MUCH more easily get to SNA and fly direct, or someone out in the IE who can get to Ontario and fly direct, or someone closer to Long Beach or Burbank, who can fly direct w/o having to get to downtown LA somehow. And if the ridership doesn't justify that many express trains, then you won't get many express trains, and the failure will feed on itself.
This is a very important point.
My local example is the Cleveland RTA. That line I mentioned before has the roughly 11 mi trip from CLE to Downtown broken into 11 legs so the stops are something like 1mi apart. From my perspective as someone who lives beyond the terminus and only ever takes the thing the whole way, that is WAY too many. Also, anything like HSR is obviously impossible when the train has to stop every mile.
OTOH, I think that the intention of the designers was for the system to be "walkable". Ie, if you look at the 3rd and 4th outer-most stops (West Park Station and Puritas), they are
1.6 mi apart as one would walk (per google). That only makes sense if you are intending the system to be, as I said, "walkable". Everybody who lives within a couple of miles of the line is within no more than about a 2 mi walk from a train station. That serves the purpose of making the system walkable but it also makes it incredibly slow. As noted in my upthread example, the full Red Line trip from CLE to Downtown Cleveland (Tower City) takes 38 minutes despite being <12 miles by car. 12 miles in 38 minutes suggests that they are averaging about 18 MPH. That includes stops but still, it is incredibly slow.
To actually work in practice I think HSR has to be designed to work with the local RTA/MARTA/BART systems.
I don't know, but I *THINK* you'd need a stop basically at the end of the local RTA/MARTA/BART system (which might be extended and speeded up to make this work) both entering and exiting a metropolis. I know that slows things down but it cuts down on the extra distance problem that otherwise would exist.
An example:
Suppose that Ohio had HSR running point-to-point at 200 MPH from Downtown Cleveland (Tower City) to Downtown Columbus (I used the Ohio Statehouse). Per google that is a drive of 149 mi which takes 2:15. At 200 MPH a train should be able to make it in about 45 minutes which is great. That saves 90 minutes but only if you actually need to travel that distance.
Now suppose I'm going to Columbus for a football or basketball game (tying in to this message board). I'm in Medina (hence the name) so I'd need to get in my car and drive North (the wrong way) to downtown Cleveland. Then I'd need to find and pay for parking. Then I'd need to walk to the station, then buy my ticket, then walk to the platform, then wait for the train.
My drive to downtown Cleveland takes 39 minutes (per google), then if I could park and get to a train in 20 minutes that would probably be an accomplishment so one hour into my trip I'd START heading South at 200 MPH. Thus, I'd arrive at the Ohio Statehouse at 1:45 into my trip. Then I'd need some form of transportation from the Statehouse back North to Campus. Per google this is a 6.4mi drive that takes 11 minutes but since I wouldn't have my car I'd be on a bus which, per google takes half an hour. So I'd get to Campus 2:15 after leaving. That is slower than driving, example:
- Leave my house at noon and either drive S to get to Campus or North to take the train.
- 12:39: if I head S I'm now about 40 miles down I71 (roughly Ashland). Via the train I'm just getting to Downtown Cleveland.
- 1:00 PM: If I head S I'm now about half-way between Mansfield and Delaware so approaching the far Columbus exurbs. If I take the train I'm just getting rolling from Cleveland.
- 1:28 PM: If I head S I'm now roughly at the Northern I270/I71 interchange. Via the train I'm a little better than half way from Cleveland to Columbus.
- 1:34 PM: If I head S I'm now at the exit that I usually use for Campus. Via the train I'm now 11 minutes out from downtown Columbus.
- 1:45 PM: If I head S I'm now parking at either the Stadium or the Arena. Via the train I'm arriving in downtown Columbus and I'm still a half hour bus ride from Campus.
The fact that it doesn't make sense for me as an individual isn't important. The problem is that there are inherently going to be a lot of people similarly situated in that they don't actually need to start or end or both downtown. If you (
@betarhoalphadelta ) have a meeting in San Jose, at least getting to downtown LA is the same general direction as your meeting but if the train then takes you to downtown San Francisco you've overshot your destination by about 50 miles. Even at 200 MPH that is a waste of 15 minutes and you now have to make the return trip likely at a much lower speed.