I think the post touches on some good points, but the overall tone strikes me as a little bit negative -- add the trains, and nobody will ride -- without looking at specific corridors. The writer was fairly critical of the California High Speed project's cost, but failed to consider the environmental impact of all the flights between San Francisco, LA, and points thereabout which would be well served by high speed rail. People have shown a willingness to leave their cars and accommodate their schedules to planes for several generations, so the point that folks would not do so for timely, well maintained trains is questionable at best.
The concluding comments about the northern LD train service is instructive in describing the cost to start up, but seems more thrown out to illustrate how expensive it is to run a train. Yes, initial cost estimates are very high; they include new equipment and infrastructure to get the route going. Should it be done? That's entirely a political decision, if this is the most important route that could be added among many that could be added.
The one positive I would grant this is that it does point out that there is a need to focus some serious money if we are to get high speed rail up and running, and not create a bunch of northeast corridor routes that have fast looking trains but inadequate infrastructure to support true high speed operations. But not every route will justify high speed rail; there is a role for conventional rail on other routes.
