this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
14 points (73.3% liked)

Asklemmy

53983 readers
408 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Short answer: cities are too far apart and the USA is large. However, how much funding is there to really implement the same thing that exists in Japan but in the United States? Also, is there an incentive for that in the first place? What about population density? Japan is more compact regarding their population density while that's not the case for America plus both Osaka & Kyoto aren't too far from each other (but Miami & Washington DC are distant).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 51 points 5 days ago (3 children)

No. There are no passenger trains worth speaking of in the USA because the car industry likes it this way.

China is a very similar size to the USA and has an excellent and extensive high-speed rail network.

The USA could have this too, if it wanted to, but it doesn't.

[โ€“] chris@l.roofo.cc 6 points 4 days ago

Can confirm. Been to China, traveled thousands of kilometers by train, loved it. Better than a plane.

[โ€“] jacksilver@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

The difference everyone always ignores is that most of Chinese infrastructure is new. For the US they'd need to buy people out of their land, build new tunnels and bridges, and disrupt so many things to implement high speed rail.

You can't just leverage the existing rail network because they have curves and grades that are incompatible with high speed rail (northeast corridor has 30-40mph limits on some curves).

In addition you're competing with airplanes which are already proven and support current travel demands. And even if you could get the rail implemented there isn't any guarantee it'll be any cheaper than flight (meaning low usage). As it stands today going from major hub on Amtrak can be more expensive and takes an equal amount of time (when accounting for security/etc.)