Comment by blacksmith_tb
1 day ago
US infrastructure is increasingly terrible, true. But high-speed rail isn't probably what I'd point to as the most glaring problem. No doubt the TGV and Shinkansen are impressive, but the longest route in Japan (Tokyo-Aomori) is 675km compared to 4000km from Los Angeles to NYC (assuming you could it make a straight line, which you couldn't). Not to say I wouldn't be delighted to even have service from San Diego to Seattle, a mere 1800km.
The longest high-speed line is 2,760 km (in China; Beijing to Kunming). I actually don't think an LA to NYC line is _that_ absurd an idea; at 350km/h you'd do it in 11 hours (in practice somewhat more with stops). But east coast and west coast lines would be more plausible.
You can just switch trains in Tokyo and continue on to Fukuoka on the Nozomi Shinkansen. That's another 1000km. 8 hours travel time, with a 10 minute layover is quite nice, I've taken most of that ride (Aomori to Hiroshima). That would be like what, Miami to NY? Or Houston to Chicago.
If you’re going to do HSR you have to think smaller than coast-to-coast. Think of that as the final stretch goal from a well laid out network spanning the places that it makes sense because past a certain distance you’re never going to outcompete airplanes and we have an extensive array of airports all across the country. Even Los Angeles to San Francisco should have been the stretch goal rather than the original goal, with the original goal to build Los Angeles to San Diego, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, then Los Angeles to Santa Barbara and Los Angeles to Bakersfield.
Maybe in parallel you could also: improve the trackways between San Francisco and San Jose, maybe build Sacramento to San Francisco, Sacramento to Stockton (and maybe extend that to San Jose and Fresno, with a San Jose to Santa Cruz stretch goal). Other stretch goals: Sacramento to Redding, Fresno to Bakersfield.
Instead we’re building the Central Valley segment first, in part due to the insistence of the Obama administration when Los Angeles to San Diego would have made way more sense and been up and running and in revenue service sooner.
> Maybe in parallel you could also: improve the trackways between San Francisco and San Jose
They did, sort of, but not to HSR, just by electrification.
https://www.caltrain.com/testing
https://www.caltrain.com/?active_tab=route_map_tab¢er=-1...
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/caltrains-switch-to-elec...
https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/electrific...
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c01096
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/04/07/caltrain-ridership-in...
I know, but that was outside the specific scope of HSR so I excluded that to keep the discussion focused.
2 replies →
Everything east of the Mississippi could be connected by high-speed rail.
Chicago to NYC is about the same distance as Beijing to Shanghai (1200 km), and that only takes 4.5 hours in China.
The fact that HSR doesn't make sense between LA and NYC is no excuse for not building it in the large parts of the country where it makes sense.
yeah exactly, the first benefit of trains is to substitute for short but frequent flights between major cities.
I think of this, every time it takes me more than 4 hours to "fly" 150 miles to the Chicago airport, when you count all of the overhead at the two ends, plus average delays and cancellations.
Actually, I take the intercity bus.
Most US HSR routes are envisioned planned along similar corridors as the EU ones.
DC - Philly- NYC - Boston
SF - LA - SD
Chicago - Detroit - Toronto
Miami - Orlando - Jacksonville
but why would you build such a long route ? just build train along the coast lines should have plenty benefit.