[valas]

"it would be as slow as conventional rail" - citation?

Even Reason Foundation (which is as biased as it gets - it's funded by Koch brothers and ideological critic of almost any government investment) claim SF to LA times will be 3:30 to 4:40, which is faster than any train today.

[nradov]

That's barely faster than driving, once you account for the time spent moving between your origin/destination and the train station as well as transferring luggage.

[chipotle_coyote]

An under-four-hour train trip still sounds like a win over a six-hour-with-good-traffic drive. Especially for people who don't really like making that drive, which I suspect is a substantial subset of the population. (I like driving, personally, but that trip is decidedly less than a thrill.)

[baldfat]

In the near age of driverless cars I think this might be its biggest demise. If cars are automated people wouldn't need a train. It will be cheaper and less confining to a schedule and to a destination.

I think air travel for short to medium flights will fall off. By the time I leave my house and get to someplace that is 8 hours by car it would take 5 hours to check in and check out and you still need to rent a car.

[Frondo]

3 and a half hours is way faster than driving. And for the comfort of being on a train? Worth it!

[kbenson]

And taking the light rail north of SF to the ferry and then the Embarcadero in SF takes longer than driving when my brother commutes, but he still chooses that method. Perhaps there are factors other than time that go into his calculation.

People would take HSR even if it took the same time as driving. They would likely take it if it took an extra 20%, as the time has more utility to them when used for a train ride. That it's actually faster than driving just makes it more attractive.