[lhopki01]

The distances between cities in California or the upper East coast isn't. Both places have a high enough population density to support a good train network.

No one is suggesting that you take train from New York to LA but rather that you take a train from LA to San Francisco or Boston to New York. Similarly in Europe most people don't take a train from London to Rome but people will often take a train from London to Paris or Barcelona to Madrid. Any flight of 3 hours or less is usually faster and more comfortable as a train ride.

[ghaff]

For those who don't know, people take trains between cities in the US Northeast Corridor all the time. In fact, that's pretty much Amtrak's only profitable region (money that it then loses in the rest of the country). And Amtrak actually has significant modernization plans in part because some routes are at capacity during busy times.

[TheCoelacanth]

There would be even higher usage if Amtrak service in the region was actually good instead of just passable. The fastest service between New York and DC averages only 82 mph and it's even slower if you go past either of those cities. The allegedly "high-speed" service between New York and Boston averages only 66 mph. That's not even hitting the upper end of highway speeds.

[gamblor956]

There is very low population density between the LA and SF metro areas, which are roughly 350 miles apart (400 miles from city center to city center). This is one of the reasons that a HSR has been such a hard sell.

[ant6n]

Big cities with nothing in-between is a good sell for HSR. Europe's two largest countries that have that population distribution pattern (France, Spain) rely heavily on very fast HSR (300-350km/h). The countries with more distributed, but also more dense population (UK, Germany) rely more on fast networks with more stops, but less maximum speed (200-250km/h).