> We have a big-ass country. We like to move about it. Many of us don't want or need to live on top of each other. That is all.
Japan is about the size of the entire Eastern Seaboard. Japan has safe, fast, comfortable and competitively-priced high-speed rail through highly mountainous, earthquake-prone terrain.
What's the USA's excuse? No one is asking for a 4500 km-long railway from Los Angeles to New York. But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do.
Forget that, not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already).
The US has no political will to up its public transport game, and your comment epitomises it.
Huh? You can take a train from New York to Washington. It’s not high speed rail but it’s not even a day trip. You could go there and back in one day and still get stuff done at the other end. It’d be a bit of a long day but nothing outrageous.
In fact, the Eastern seaboard is one of the few places in the US where rail travel is a valid option much of the time.
Acela from NYC to Washington is a piss-poor excuse of """""""high speed rail""""""", certainly rock bottom dogshit tier travel times when you compare it to other city pairs with similar GDPs and similar distances
> Convenient trips from the Big Apple to the Big Easy. With service from New York City to New Orleans, the Crescent gives travelers a unique window to the beauty and heritage of the American South. You can tour Monticello or enjoy a wine tasting in the charming Virginia college town of Charlottesville. Or enjoy a stroll through the vibrant shopping and dining scene of Underground Atlanta. As you travel further south, you'll reach New Orleans, where you never run out of things to do. From jazz clubs to Cajun restaurants to Mississippi riverboat rides, the city was simply built to entertain.
So you'll have to change trains in NY to get to Boston, but one can definitely go from Atlanta to Boston by train.
In the end though, practically nobody would take a train from Atlanta to Boston. Even if you made it 200mph HSR, a direct flight would still be faster. And until both ends of that journey really make the city more walkable you're probably going to want to rent a car at your destination anyways so being at an airport at the edge of town versus the train station closer to downtown it doesn't make enough impact for most people.
Don't gete wrong I'm generally pro-train for good city pairs, but chances are I'd never take a train from say Dallas to Phoenix or Denver or Chicago. Flying will just practically always be faster. I'd take one to Houston or Austin or San Antonio though.
Japan is about the size of the entire Eastern Seaboard. Japan has safe, fast, comfortable and competitively-priced high-speed rail through highly mountainous, earthquake-prone terrain.
What's the USA's excuse? No one is asking for a 4500 km-long railway from Los Angeles to New York. But a 1500 km-long one from Atlanta to Boston? Nope, can't do.
Forget that, not even a 700 km-long one between Washington DC, New York, and Boston (where many people arguably 'live on top of each other' already).
The US has no political will to up its public transport game, and your comment epitomises it.