Japan is a postage stamp compared to the USA, and the interconnecting distances between cities in Europe are similar. High speed rail is simply impractical in a country this size.
The infrastructure will be HUGELY EXPENSIVE compared to air service, and once (if ever) built, will be grossly inflexible with changes in demand.
Fuggedaboutit!
ok, nevermind. How much will it cost to go to Mars?
Yeah it's expensive...there's plenty of wasted money, less "Civit Cat Anal Gland research grants and welfare spending might help.
USA has never shied away from a challenge...this is just another...let's DO IT!
if it were practical, it would be here.
of course, our interstate system, subsidized by tax dollars, offers shippers a cheaper alternative to rail, in the way of trucks. further, trucks damage the roads proportionally to the SQUARE of the axle weight, while license plate fees are linearly proportional to the axel weight. therefore, truckers get a double subsidy. there is a side of me that thinks if the interstates were turned over to private industry we would see more rail traffic because it would be practical.
Uh, we're talking California here, which is almost exactly the same size as Honshu (the main island of Japan).
As for the rest of the country, intercity rail is practical if done overnight. At present technology speeds, that limit would translate to about 2500 miles per city pair. Denver-Chicago certainly qualifies, as does Chicago-Washington, Chicago-Minneapolis, Seattle-LA, etc.
Proponents of more passenger rail in this country believe that we have the required population density. Only problem is, they don't think in terms of people per square mile, they think in terms of how stupid the public would be to pay for this nonsense. Bakersfield to Sacramento? Gimme a break!