Many times I took vacation in order to ride a train. Years ago, I took Amtrak out to Los Angles and back and was on the train most of the time. We were quite late into LA so I did not get to zip down to San Diego and back like I had planned. I just bummed around Union Station watching commutes come and go for a few hours while they cleaned the Sunset Limited and turned it around. Then I got back on to return home.
I don't think long distance high speed rail will ever work in the US, but that doesn't mean regional high speed rail can't work. The ideal situation for American transportation is cars/mass transit/commuter rail for trips less than 100 mile, High speed rail for 100-600 miles, and plane for 600 miles plus. Lets face it, regional plane service is a big money loser for many airlines, regional flights cause delays for long distance travel, and security lines are always flooded with regional business travelers. If we could build effective regional rail systems that are well connected to airports, we could reduce airport congestion by eliminating shorter flights and replacing them with rail service. Rail is more economical in a regional environment then planes. Air is more economical for long distance. High Speed Rail could be viable in the US. From what I have seen, no one is proposing a long distance HSR network, but all the plans that do exist are regional plans. i.e. L.A.- SAN FRANCISCO, PORTLAND-SEATTLE-VANCOUVER, BOSTON-NEW YORK-WASHINGTON D.C., CHICAGO-DETROIT, CHICAGO-ST. LOUIS, ATLANTA-CHARLOTTE-RALEIGH-RICHMOND- WASHINGTON D.C., ORLANDO-TAMPA-MIAMI ETC. For example, the southeast high peed rail corridor has two major airports in Atlanta (busiest airport in US), Charlotte (7th busiest airport in US), a lot of this traffic is regional flights, if we could connect the surrounding smaller cities by rail, we could eliminate lots of congestion in our airports.
