How would it compare with high speed rail?
The economics of HSR are usually terrible as well. In most of the US, HSR is just not a feasible mode of transport, because the country is too large and too spread out. For most of us, the car or air travel is more useful.
Consider where I live--Orange County, CA. There is a HUGE link [especially for tech workers] between the LA metro and the SF/Silicon Valley metro areas. And it's a close enough distance that it is feasible for vacationers, weekend trips, etc.
For me to fly:25 minute drive to John Wayne Airport
About an hour parking/security/waiting for flight (it's a small enough airport that you don't need to burn 2 hrs)
An hour flying to either SJC or SFO (both are well-located)
Uber or mass transit within the city
Total transit time: About 3 hours, give or take.
Cost: ~$200 round trip if I find decent fares, not counting parking or uber. Sometimes better. Sometimes worse. That's per-person though.
Schedule: About a dozen flights each way daily.
For me to drive:About 388 miles to downtown San Jose. 430 to downtown SF.
Transit time: Depends highly on departure time. 5 1/2 - 6 1/2 hours assuming little traffic, but getting through LA is a bitch, so that's probably closer to 7 - 7 1/2.
Cost: ~$160 r/t gas costs in the Flex. Can be amortized over up to 7 passengers in the Flex though. Realistically driving is the "low-cost" option as long as it's two or more people.
Schedule: Up to me.
HSR:Drive or Uber to Anaheim from home (25 minutes). Assume 20 minute buffer (to ensure I'm there on time) before boarding first train. Take Metrolink from Anaheim to Los Angeles. Change trains to take HSR from Los Angeles to San Jose, all on dedicated HSR tracks, but with stops in Burbank, Palmdale, Bakersfield, Tulare, Fresno, Merced, and Gilroy. Change trains again to go from San Jose to SF on existing or upgraded CalTrans tracks. Conservatively
assume minimum of 10 minutes at each stop on the HSR, and we'll say 20 minutes for changing trains.
Transit time: 25 minutes driving plus 2 hrs 10 minutes for time where trains are stopped or I'm waiting for the next train. Already at almost 3 hours. Assuming transit time (aggressively) of 2 1/2 hours in between all those stops, we're already at 5 1/2 hours. That's fantasy, however, as apparently the expected maximum speed of the train is 220 mph
Cost: Really tough to identify actual cost and how much is "fare" vs how much is subsidized. I'm seeing somewhere on the order of $86 one-way fare, plus $29 from Anaheim to LA, and optional $22 more if I'm terminating in SF rather than San Jose. So we're looking at >$200 round trip, not including cost of parking or Uber. And of course that's per-passenger, so cannot be amortized across multiple passengers like a car trip.
The economic assumptions that HSR advocates include are always INCREDIBLY rosy about ridership. So whether they can offer the number of daily trains they want, at a fare people will accept, with the knowledge that the total transit time is probably 2x air travel, is probably complete fantasy.
This is particularly true due to the ease of the route via air. I've mentioned that there is a huge business travel component here. I've gone from Orange County to San Jose several times on the 6:45 AM flight, and come back same-day on an evening flight. Given I always target the back of the plane on Southwest, I can't tell you how many times I've been sitting in the row in the evening with the same people I was sitting in the row with on that morning flight. Same-day round trip travel is common on this routing, and for business travelers, that's completely blown up with a 6+ hour total transit time.
For business travelers, flying is the only option. For a single person or a couple vacationing for whom transit time is more important than cost, flying is the better option. For a couple or family pinching their pennies, driving is the cheaper option with similar transit time.
Conclusion:HSR is likely more expensive than flying while being slower. It's more expensive to MUCH more expensive than driving [depending on number of passengers] despite being similar overall transit time, even including traffic. It's not feasible for business travelers, who are the mainstay of the route, and too expensive for vacationing families with no benefit. And this LA/SF route is considered one of the "better" HSR routes economically outside of the DC/NY/Boston corridor. It fundamentally makes very little sense.
Assuming the technical feasibility of inductive wireless charging and autonomous driving be satisfied, I don't know if the cost per mile would be higher or lower than HSR. But I think the overall economics would greatly favor the wireless charging and autonomous driving, and the users would prefer it. The freedom and scheduling makes much more sense, and if the route could be set up with cars basically becoming trains at high speed [100+ mph] and with close following distances to reduce air drag, the speed and lack of traffic jams dramatically improves the user experience of driving, as does the autonomous aspect [less fatigue/etc, safer in general].
So IMHO
electrified autonomous driving makes a great deal of sense if we can work out the technical/cost aspects. I think the wireless inductive on-road charging may never occur, but that's
NOT even critical to the advantages of autonomous driving with cars communicating with each other (increased speed / reduced air drag). It's just a nice bonus.
And either way, HSR is silly.