[jakelazaroff]

China’s new high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai — about the same distance as between New York and Chicago — takes a little less than four and a half hours. That’s about two hours longer than a flight between the two cities. If you include the time spent arriving early, going through security, etc, it probably comes out about even.

[missedthecue]

It's worth noting that at least in China, you must go through security checks before boarding bullet trains which include ID verification, X-rays of passenger and their luggage, and some liquid checks (staff may ask you to take a sip of your drink to confirm it's safe). Depending on the time of day, it is a bit quicker.

The main time saver is that the train stations are much more central. Say you you need to leave your office in Beijing's financial district and meet a client at their office in Shanghai's financial district. The station in Bejing will be 6km from your office vs the airport (30km), and you'll get off the train 9km from your client (instead of 45km at the airport).

[alephnerd]

And the region between Beijing to Shanghai is fairly flat and densely populated (Tianjin, Shandong, Jiangsu, Hebei), which makes it easier to justify and build out the associated infra, as plenty of other slower lines can also be run concurrently - specifically by connecting Tianjin (one of the most important cities in China)

Meanwhile, the only major population centers between NY and Chicago are Pittsburg and Columbus - both of whom combined have a fraction of the population that Jiagnsu or Shandong have.

Furthermore, land acquisition is different in a country like the US versus China. Mass expropriation or eminent domain of land is politically untenable in the US, but something that is easier to implement in China as a significant amount of land remains under local municipal ownership instead of private ownership.

[jakelazaroff]

If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit.

Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything.

[alephnerd]

> If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit.

Which

1. Already exists

2. Leads to the same problem as before - the population size just does not justify those investments, nor is there any business demand when a flight will always remain faster.

> Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything

I support building infrastructure that solves an actual problem - and public transit connectivity between NY and Chicago isn't one of those.

It will remain slower than flight transit (so most business and plenty of personal travel will remain flight based) and car ownership remains high in the US, so for personal travel, the independence of driving would still outcompete rail.

Those billions of dollars on such a hypothetical are better spent on plenty of other alternative programs - for example the local transit expansion grants which the Biden admin bundled as part of the IIJA, which helped expand bus and local rail transit instead.

Even China has stopped financing these kinds of mega-projects becuase of tightening financial due dilligence, and tries to tie investments with an actual business case [0]. Heck, now prices are roughly the same between a domestic flight and HSR on the major lines in China.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/china-bullet-tra...

----------

The only network that could even justify a high speed rail is the DC-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston corridor (so an extended Acela Line), but are you also fine with the federal government expropriating land to speed up development OR spending decades democratically building consensus.

And even then DCA to JFK or Logan will remain time competitive for business travel

[jakelazaroff]

> car ownership remains high in the US, so for personal travel, the independence of driving would still outcompete rail.

I mean, this is the catch-22 that prevents a lot of public transit projects from being built. Car ownership is high largely because in most places there is no viable public transit. Then people oppose building public transit because car ownership is high!

[rayiner]

> Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything

Correct.

[iamtheworstdev]

You really just hurt the feelings of Cleveland there

[addaon]

> If you include the time spent arriving early, going through security, etc, it probably comes out about even.

Yeah, but that only lasts until someone figures out a clever way to use a train as a weapon, in which case you get to add the same security time to the front of the trip -- or even longer, since we've actually managed to get the airport security time down a bit over the past two decades. It would seem optimistic to try to scale usage of rail without accounting for the (time, safety, etc) costs that come with increased usage of rail...