Yes, our population density, unlike Japan's, is very unlikely be able to support "high-speed" rail as a profit-making enterprise. (I use the quotation marks since I believe that California's plans are to actually use what most of the world would call slow rail to implement their "high-speed" system.)
There's a very good report from Reason, CAGW, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association at The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report on the fundamental folly of the CHSRA proposal.
Probably the most cogent argument that they make is on a technical basis:
Travel Time, Speed and Train Design
Based upon international HSR experience, it appears that the CHSRA speed and travel time objectives cannot be met. As a result, HSR will be less attractive as an alternative to airline travel and is likely to attract fewer passengers than projected. Notably, the CHSRA’s anticipated average speeds are not being achieved anywhere in the world, including on the most advanced systems.
Additionally, incomplete consideration has been given to California’s urban and terrain profiles where HSR trains must operate more slowly than circumstances allow in, for example, France.
This study, by assuming realistic speeds, estimates that a non-stop San Francisco–Los Angeles trip would take 3 hours and 41 minutes—59 minutes longer than the statutory requirement of 2 hours, 42 minutes. In the future, the CHSRA’s travel times may be further lengthened by train weight and safety issues and also by political demands to add stops to the system.
The proposed HSR system appears unlikely to provide travel time advantages for long-distance airline passengers. It is likely that HSR door-to-door travel times would be greater and there would be considerably less non-stop service than air service. Moreover, HSR would be unattractive to drivers in middle-distance automobile markets because little or no door-to-door time savings would be achieved and costly local connections would often be required (rental cars or taxicabs). Another convenience factor is that California urban areas lack the extensive local transit infrastructure that connects with HSR systems found in dense Asian and European urban areas. The HSR system will experience disadvantages and commercial challenges in competing with air and auto travel that have been understated in CHSRA documentation.
No existing European or Asian HSR train capable of meeting the speed and capacity goals of the CHSRA system can legally be used in the United States. The CHSRA’s intention to share tracks with commuter and freight trains complicates designing a train to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety and crashworthiness standards that are considered the toughest in the world. The necessary regulatory approvals of an overseas train are unlikely to be achieved without substantial changes in design and weight.
The CHSRA has yet to decide on basic design specifications for a train and has based studies on inconsistent seating capacities of 450-500, 650, 1,175, 1,200 and 1,600 per train. Also, a train redesigned for the U.S. will become much heavier and is thus unlikely to reach promised speeds. In short, the Authority does not have a usable train design and the eventually required modifications could substantially impair operating performance.
Because of the above circumstances it is fair to state that the CHSRA’s train may become the world’s longest and heaviest HSR train—yet be expected to operate at the highest speed current technology permits. It is likely that a series of designs, tests, prototypes and safety reviews never before achieved anywhere in the world must succeed for the CHSRA’s train to become a reality.
Any degradation in performance would negate the CHSRA’s assumptions on which it has based travel times, ridership and revenues, energy requirements, GHG emissions, noise generation, capital and operating costs, and overall system financial performance.
The technical issues appear to make the current CHSRA proposal unconscionable folly.
International experience also shows that it is critical to keep HSR times under 3 hours; trips going over 4 hours guarantee that more people will fly rather than ride a train.
I remember driving on the freeway in LA (that’s right, California, free way), and looking over at some far off very long train going MUCH slower than me, 14 or 16 car length train —— and seeing about 6 riders total inside the whole thing,
and thinking, Jeeeez wonder how much that operation is losing ???
I was less politically savvy then that I am now.
ALL train scams incl Japan, California, and France, are political scams and lose money.
When it is not your money (ie government morons designing everything) then you will find such delights as no parking allotted, no bathrooms, dirty bathrooms, no porters (too degrading I guess) overcharging porters (can you say $10 PER bag to carry them 50 feet???) and on and on and on.
Truly, riding on most trains in the world is not a pleasant experience.