Adding lanes to freeways only encourages and perpetuates such lack of density. Cars will do just as well with the current number of lanes. Induced demand is a real thing.

> The country is simply way too spread out to implement something that resembles rail systems in EU and Japan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

The only thing that’s lacking is political will to invest in public infrastructure.

Well I would argue that there’s also a significant cultural difference. The American car culture is not going to go away. People here love their cars. In addition, people in China didn’t have broad access to cars until 1990s. Even now, it’s likely below 30% per HH. So in that sense investing in alternative transportation infrastructure makes a lot of sense. I just think we are expecting almost an insurmountable change in our culture if we were to actually utilize a fully flushed out rail system.

This is a tautological argument that can always be used to defend the status quo. No one loved rural electrification, social security, medicare, or even car culture itself until those things were in place and made part of our cultural fabric. It’s all “if you build it, they will come.” Do you think high speed rail wouldn’t integrate itself into American life were it put in place?

There are numerous feasibility studies in regards to high speed rail system connecting the Pacific NW corridor. You can go see for yourself. Just because you build a rail network doesn’t mean people will stop driving cars. In fact, proliferation of autonomous cars eliminates any prospect of high speed rail in the US. We are talking about investing in a system that could be made obsolete in 20 years.

Autonomous cars are wildly inefficient compared to high-speed rail and would likely require similar sized infrastructure upgrades and ongoing maintenance in order to operate at scale. Assuming the 20 year timeline us actually feasible, their better suited for short distance trace anyway.

I generally agree that one-off projects are a bad investment and that we should be building a nationwide network of high speed rail. But your original comment was to the broader concern of high speed rail’s viability relative to the size of the IIS.

Correct! The numbers are clear not enough people use rail to make it viable and the are numerous examples of the same experiment: dump a few billion into public transport because “if you build it, riders will come”. They don’t. It’s the opposite of green or progressive, it takes tax funds from poor people and gives it to engineering firms to build vanity projects that nobody uses.

The only comparable example to rail networks are rail networks in other wealthy countries, which are great, heavily used systems (barring maybe the UK, where conservatives intentionally sabotaged the system through a badly-implemented privatization scheme).

The infrastructure in the US, especially the NW, is built to accommodate automobiles, which means it is not that dense.

I-5 will still be there. They are talking about adding a $100bn lane to the highway vs a stated cost $50bn bullet train.