With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.
You mean if the government used my argument? Well thats not necissarily true. There are private roadways. The government building of the interstate system affected whether the private market did so. I think if there was sufficient demand for such a thing (which I believe there was), it would have been built. And more importantly the costs would have been distributed to those who use it, isntead of the current inefficient system.
Actually the fact that such highways exist disproves your certanty.
Not really. You said that if there was sufficient demand for such a thing, which you believe there was, it would have been built, with costs distributed to those who use it. But that wasn't done, the government had to do it. Sure there is demand NOW, because everyone uses Interstates. But there wasn't THEN. The government built it, and now it gets used.
Your last line there makes no sense.
One big difference to point out to the proponents of this plan is that, from what I know of Europe, with most of the cities connected by HSR, it is relatively easy to get around without a car once you step off the rail. It isn't that way with cities in America. Travelling within a large city without a car here in America is either a pain in the ass, expensive, or both. For that reason alone, many people in America will continue to drive those particular journeys rather than take the rail. Even if the travel time between cities is quicker and more comfortable on the HSR, travel within the cities is easier with your car. Where the difference would lie is with people who travel by plane, because they would face the same difficulties WITHIN the cities as the rail riders. So if the HSR would be cheaper, faster, and more convenient than a plane ride, then
it would be successful.
My two cents, from someone who lives in a small NC town which will never, ever have to deal with this particular issue.