Not sure why you think there would be more passengers on LA-SF versus SaoPaolo-Rio: Greater populations, shorter distances and lower costs ($17 vs 68 billion). Brazilians may be poorer today but they are catching up fast.
Sure there will be private contractors but is there really any private interest in building and/or operating high speed rail in CA? Perhaps Hyperloop will change things but so far it has been government led and financed.
> Not sure why you think there would be more passengers on LA-SF versus SaoPaolo-Rio
More potential passengers in the latter, more potential passenger revenue in the former.
> Brazilians may be poorer today but they are catching up fast.
Per capita GDP in Brazil is less than 1/3 of that in California, and is increasing at about 1.7%/annum (2.7% GDP growth, 0.9% population growth); assuming no growth in California GDP per capita, it would take Brazil more than 65 years to catch up.
People in Sao Paolo and Rio are about 40% richer than average Brazilians which reduces the gap somewhat. And GDP growth in Brazil has averaged 3.1% since 1991 with Sao Paolo growing faster. Costs are expected to be much lower for construction ($17 vs $68B) and probably operation. Also they expect it to take 5 years to build versus 15. Not sure how it would all shake out but does not seem to be a clearly worse project.
It's probably moot comparison anyway as best I can tell the Brazil HSR is not going to happen. There have even been giant protests over transportation and government spending.
I'm also pretty skeptical that CA HSR will actually get built - numbers don't add up and popularity is declining. If they can build and operate the Bakersfield to Fresno segment on schedule and budget it might have a chance - but I have doubts they can even do this.
Sure there will be private contractors but is there really any private interest in building and/or operating high speed rail in CA? Perhaps Hyperloop will change things but so far it has been government led and financed.