[austenallred]

New York to LA is 4,500 kilometers so comparing to Paris/Lyon might be just a bit apples and oranges.

Paris to Baghdad is about the same distance.

Cities in the US are too far apart for trains to generally make sense. Trains are for freight.

[fshaun]

Every thread about high speed rail seems to have this response to an argument no one is making. NY-LA doesn't make sense, but it is nationally embarrassing not to have the BosWash corridor connected.

[mikeash]

But it is connected.

[TheCoelacanth]

By a train that averages 55 mph. That is a national embarrassment.

[mikeash]

I found 70MPH, where did you see 55?

[TheCoelacanth]

I misread the comment as Boston-New York like the route in the article. Boston-New York is slower than the rest of the route. South Station in Boston to Penn Station in New York takes 3:46[1] and those stations are 212 miles apart[2] which is an average of about 55 mph.

[1] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Pennsylvania+Station,+New+Yo...

[mikeash]

I see. Not that 70MPH is particularly great either.

[the_mitsuhiko]

The comparison was Ney York to Boston.

[umanwizard]

This all is really only true west of the Mississippi. Trains are quite widely used in the densely populated Northeast.

[TheCoelacanth]

Good thing there are many major American cities closer to New York than LA, such as nearly every single one.