If the planes are full between Chicago and St. Louis, so then will be HSR.
That doesn't logically follow. Planes are flexible, you need the airports at both locations, and aircraft to service the route, but if the route doesn't fill all the planes scheduled for it, they airlines will shift them to other routes.
Rail doesn't just need the stations and rolling stock, you have to specifically lay out all the rail between the two locations. If a route doesn't get as much use as expected the passenger miles per dollar invested in setting up that route go down.
Also aircraft are faster, even with time for security checkpoints the trip takes less for many of the longer routes (while on the shorter routes trains compete with cars).
It might makes sense for some routes. The north east corridor (if it would actually be high speed rail, rather than "just slightly faster rail) in particular, maybe connecting CA's larger cities. But for most locations it doesn't make sense with our population density and existing interstate highway system. (China not only has higher population density, and a clustering of its large cities that fits rail travel better, it also has a lot less highway and air infrastructure and equipment per person.)
The plan isn't for Fargo to Rapid City, but it does have a a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Indianapolis corridor, a connection from Buffalo to Albany, one from New Orleans to Meridian Mississippi to Birmingham to Atlanta (with only the last being a fairly major city).
fra.dot.gov
and
fra.dot.gov
are also questionable.
LA to Vegas might possibly make sense, but isn't included in the initial list of routes. |
