@realjohnboy,
Lots of confusion on this subject. Many folks don't make the distinction between "High Speed Rail" (an intercity passenger rail system) and "Urban Light Rail" (a misnomer in that the wheel loading is usually higher that others, but basically covers urban mass transit systems like the Washington Metro, Atlanta's MARTA, BART in the Bay Area, the LA Metro and many others.)
Specifically, "high Speed rail" refers to the 100mph plus interurban rail systems, chiefly in Europe. These involve special roadbeds with welded rails, advanced, sometimes banked roadbeds, with 100% grade-separated road crossings (for their entire length) operating electrically powered trains on routes ranging generally from about 80 to 300 miles between major stops. All of these systems in Europe are very expensive and heavily subsidized by their respective governments. The greater distances in this country make them far more expensive and less competitive with air travel than those in Europe.
The only close approximation to this in the USA is the AMTRAC Acela metroliner operating between Washington and New York. It operates at about 110mph (much slower than most in Europe) and is also heavily subsidized by the government (both directly in terms of government outlays and indirectly - in Europe - in terms of high gasoline and jet fuel taxes).
Urban rail (metro) systems are also very expensive ( over $200million/mile) and require extensive (and usually hidden) subsidies for their operation. (I pay about $500/year in a supplemental tax for BART as part of the property tax on my home).
A good case can be made for urban rail systems once they are built. Cities adapt to them and grow around the stations accordingly. However, it is exceedingly difficult and risky to invest in their construction because of the very high capital costs and the continuing (permanent) subsidies required for their operations.
Generally Democrats favor urban and high speed interurban rail systems and Republicans oppose them. Our last surge in urban rail construction occurred during the first term of the Clinton Administration. At the time I headed the infrastructure engineering & construction group in one of the major U.S. companies involved in the market, and we were heavily involved in the design & construction of urban rail systems in Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, Seattle, and Baltimore (as well as Taipei & Shanghai). Interestingly although the systems in Honolulu & Seattle and a fourth line in LA were designed (by the comnpany group I led) at great cost, they were never built because the local voters balked at the prospects of long-term subsidies, taxes and bonds. Even these projects have recently been resurrected. We also did research projects for advanced (MAGLEV) propulsion and high speed interurban rail projects, even then on the drawing boards.).
Now we are again seeing the Obama administration dragging out the same old rail projects, now labelling the high speed interurban rail projects (ludicrously) as "investments" in greater economic productivity. They are not investments at all and they will not improve our economic productivity (aircraft are faster and more efficient). They will benefit the companies that design and build them, the public bureaucracies that operate them. and the public employee unions that will staff them, but that's about it.
In fact the United States enjoys a very efficient cargo rail system that uses advanced methods to track cargos and modularize cargo handling at intermodal transit points (ports; rail-truck distribution points etc.). This truly is an investment in economic productivity. High speed Passenger rail is not.
Moreover Obama was probably wrong in suggesting there will be no TSA security pat-down. I'm sure if we build a 180 mph high speed rail line between LA and San Francisco we will see the TSA folks and all their chickenshit at each station.
Urban rail remains a potentially beneficial, but hard-to-get-voters-to-accept option. High speed urban rail is a boondoggle we would be wise to avoid.
