The point of high-speed rail connections is to cut down on domestic connecting flights, which in Europe means short to medium hops. Such flights use way more energy per passenger-km because capacity utilization tends to be low.

The main reasons we don't have more of them are:
(a) massive NIMBYism against the construction of new lines
(b) high infrastructure cost, typically borne by taxpayers
(c) cross-border rail traffic remains severely hampered by national organizations and incompatible technical standards

Cervus

I'm sure it would take billions to fix the rail infrastructure. I suspect that rail infrastructure in the US has suffered from the same neglect that it has here in Australia for the last fifty years. You run something down for long enough and it becomes much harder and more costly to fix.
It's worth fixing because it's energy efficient, accessible to all (with connecting buses, light rail or park and ride), and it's a hardwired investment for the future in preparation for peak oil and climate change constraints. The cost needs to be compared to the cost of new freeway. I have read that that it costs $100m per mile in LA.
Rail will never beat the car for sheer flexibility or planes for outright speed of travel but it is efficent and sustainble in the long term if it is run well.

Passenger rail has unbeatable advantage over any other mode of transportation on routes from airport to city center, and between city centers. The main reason: it is not subject for traffic jams, like taxi. The problem in N. America is that all our public transportation projects are overpriced at least by factor of five.

Critta:

The reason why passenger rail has suffered so much is that there is no profit in it. Freight rail, on the other hand, is undergoing something of a renaissance here. If passenger rail was a profitable enterprise then there would be no infrastructure problems.

Awesome breakthrough. Mass transit saves a lot of carbon emission

Cervus

you're right. I am speaking from a different context in Australia and hadn't factored in that rail track is funded privately in the US. Rail infrastructure has historically been publicly funded here so the profit motive isn't everything. I still think that it's a chicken and egg argument though. If you don't spend the money getting it up to scratch then it isn't profitable and it's not profitable because the infrastructure isn't up to scratch. For example, the whole Melbourne signalling system runs on computing power far less than that of a mobile phone. No wonder there are always signalling failures leading to timetable chaos. I wonder what the French would think of that?
I recently made an interstate overnight train trip and was stopped in the middle of the night for two hours because of a signalling failure. It doesn't motivate you to travel by train.

"If you're going from London to Paris, it's just a couple hours on the train. But from LA to San Francisco is 450 miles. Driving is often more convenient."

I don't get this. I would think it is more convenient to travel longer distances in a high-speed train than in your own car. You can sleep in a train, read, have access to restaurants and toilets etc... And it is faster.

Driving will take you right to your door, for starters, instead of wherever the closest train station is. You also get to pick the start and stop times for your trip. And your traveling companions.

I read that they spent millions preparing the section of track, the wheels and cars and used two locomotives to break the record. It obviously does not show something that is real world practical. But maybe with all the layoffs at Airbus, they were looking for a nationalistic boost.

I want to bring back Stage Coaches. That was a natural technology without all this artificial "steel monster's spewing recyclable emissions.

If you want your 1830s' technology I can wan my 1630's technology.

Now all we have to do is get the government to pay subsidies for you and me. But subsidized Oats is probably less costly but more efficient than diesel or direct current.

Moving a vehicle of 300-400 tons to transport a mostly empty, or a dozen or so nostalgic railroad buffs seems eminently fair. By comparison a crude Suburban SUV carries that same half dozen with only 4.5 tons of accompanying metal.

But its Just so plebeian and inefficient, and American... so de classe`!

And its theoretically efficient too.

Oooops Stan,
I think you were misinformed somewhere in the process.
The "empty", transporting "a dozen or so nostalgic railroad buffs", vehicles are, at least in France, overcrowded, doubled-decked, two-coupled trainsets, separated by 3-minutes time windows with a capacity of 1300 and an occupancy rate of more than 80% (in fact, some lines are now close to saturation); each time I ride on these, I wish I'd have the privilege of not having a neighboring passenger, or at least that she's a gorgeous girl...

Here in France, TGV is everybody's concern because you'll hardly find someone who never rode it, and practically 70% of the population ride it at least once a year...So far, TGV has rode 1.2 Billion nostalgic french buffs in 26 years ; you can understand why we don't REALLY care that it was done with taxpayers money : who cares when ALL taxpayers get their money back?

My favorite example : I just love the idea that I left my home in Marseille one morning and was sipping a coffee on the Champs-élysées less than 4 hours later (distance Marseille-Paris : 500 miles, 800 km)..I'm just DYING of being able to do Marseille-Paris in LESS than 3 hours instead of three hours dead right now.
Good luck with your HSR projects...it's worth the money, really!