> (a) the US is bigger, so infrastructure cost more [and flights scale easier],
In Europe at least, it's quite densely populated (relative to the US), so the land costs for building new railways is incredibly expensive. In the UK, more and more miles of track are being buried in tunnels (the High Speed 1 line has 3 of the top ten longest tunnels in the UK), and HS2 add to that.
In the US, you have thousands of square miles of empty land where you can just run a straight line 200mph train through it.
I don't think US politicians realise how transformational it would be to the economy to join up East coast cities and West coast cities with high speed rail. I suppose the airline lobby groups are keeping a lid on it.
European example: the Eurostar train from London to the French Alps, door-to-door, is practically the same, if not quicker, than driving to the airport, going through customs, getting the 90 minute flight, then the transfer to the ski resort. At the same time, the train is carrying over 1000 people, vs. a plane with only 200.
In Europe at least, it's quite densely populated (relative to the US), so the land costs for building new railways is incredibly expensive. In the UK, more and more miles of track are being buried in tunnels (the High Speed 1 line has 3 of the top ten longest tunnels in the UK), and HS2 add to that.
In the US, you have thousands of square miles of empty land where you can just run a straight line 200mph train through it.
I don't think US politicians realise how transformational it would be to the economy to join up East coast cities and West coast cities with high speed rail. I suppose the airline lobby groups are keeping a lid on it.
European example: the Eurostar train from London to the French Alps, door-to-door, is practically the same, if not quicker, than driving to the airport, going through customs, getting the 90 minute flight, then the transfer to the ski resort. At the same time, the train is carrying over 1000 people, vs. a plane with only 200.