Conventional rail is, of course, a lot cheaper than high-speed rail; this isn't a revelation.
It's also a one train per hour service. CHSR:
> In addition, the achievable operating headway between successive trains must be less than 5 minutes
While CHSR _is_ definitely on the expensive side for high speed rail, it's a little silly to compare it to the Florida system, which is a fairly standard intercity rail.
Incidentally, I'm not saying there's anything _wrong_ with the Florida system; I've no idea of the background, but it may be that the expected ridership didn't justify a high-speed high frequency system. It's very much not comparing like for like, though.
That's not a high speed service. There _was_ a planned high-speed service with a similar route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_High-Speed_Corridor), but it was killed.
Conventional rail is, of course, a lot cheaper than high-speed rail; this isn't a revelation.
It's also a one train per hour service. CHSR:
> In addition, the achievable operating headway between successive trains must be less than 5 minutes
While CHSR _is_ definitely on the expensive side for high speed rail, it's a little silly to compare it to the Florida system, which is a fairly standard intercity rail.
Incidentally, I'm not saying there's anything _wrong_ with the Florida system; I've no idea of the background, but it may be that the expected ridership didn't justify a high-speed high frequency system. It's very much not comparing like for like, though.