I don't know why we're still stuck on the Berlin <-> Madrid topic, but I'll bite :-)

I added up the population of all those cities: 6.13 million. The population of Berlin and Madrid alone is 6.86 million, and our theoretical journey would take us through several cities of 1m+ along the way: Cologne, Brussels, Paris... The dense parts of Europe have 500k+ cities basically overlapping.

As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I would absolutely love this theoretical train, but I'm not surprised it doesn't exist (yet)!

> I added up the population of all those cities: 6.13 million.

Well just Boston (where it would presumably start) is over 4 million (and whole Massachusetts is almost as dense as Belgium). Minneapolis is another ~3 million. Chicago is over 8 million. I didn't even look up the other cities... yeah it's lower but really not as much as you're implying.

Oh if we're talking about metro area population, then the EU route is also significantly higher (for example, Paris goes from 2 million to 13 million). I was just looking at city limits in both cases.

Honestly I agree with your sentiment. We should connect all these urban areas with passenger rail. But I don't think that this is the first step. Most American cities have atrocious public transit, which needs to be fixed first. No one will take a train from Chicago to Minneapolis if they just have to rent a car once they get there anyway. It would be a shame to invest billions in connecting cities with high speed rail, only to have low ridership because it still doesn't compete with flying/driving.

> Oh if we're talking about metro area population

I was just looking at the urban area. The official population of many cities in the US is almost entirely meaningless in this context.

It's a bit misleading to claim: "The dense parts of Europe have 500k+ cities basically overlapping.", while pretending that Chicago doesn't have 6M+ additional people in its immediate suburbs who would also be able to use this hypothetical train. The US and EU structure administrative units a bit differently, so using the Urban or Metro populations for both is a better metric for population served.

I agree that Europe is more densly populated than US, so there would be longer stretches without a stop in the US. But that's OK - the long-distance trains in the EU don't stop at every station along the way anyway, it would just be a different structure of "locals" and "through trains" to service the poulations.

I disagree however that population density is even all that relevant. All the cities in the US that I've mentioned have rail through them already. It's used profitably for freight all the time. I think the US doesn't have good passenger rail service because of a heck of a lot of other factors - subsidies favoring cars and planes over rail for transit, infrastructure having been created around getting everyone an automobile, a huge amount of FUD from various lobbies against rail (including arguments about population density), and a dozen others probably have more actual impact than "people per square mile is different on average".

Sure, all mega cities have even larger metro areas. I'm not pretending Chicago doesn't have a huge metro area. But my point stands: the European route has much higher catchment than your proposed USA route, even if you include metro areas. Population density is not the only argument, although I think it's pretty clear why the US and EU are not comparable: https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/38.51/-51.06 Most of the US looks more like Spain and less like Central Europe.

There needs to be local public transportation infrastructure. This is where the US should be focusing efforts, no long-distance high-speed trains. It works in Europe because there are huge catchment areas (see population density) that funnel riders to regional hubs that are then connected with high speed trains. I don't think the first step to making rail work in the US is connecting metropolises with high-speed trains. Until there's a better local public transportation story, it's expensive and impractical once you arrive at your destination.

> all mega cities have even larger metro areas

But that not the point. Many of these borders are arbitrary e.g. it's like saying that Paris has a lower population Berlin even though such a claim would make no sense at all.

The US has like 6 Super-Metro complexes that are all perfect for trains.

- Great Lakes

- North East

- Texas Triangle

- Florida Super City

- Bay Area

- Southern Cali

And of those the Lakes and the North East are perfect to connection. In all of them trains are massively underused.

Frankly some of these couldn't be more perfectly placed for trains.

But I do agree with your point. You need good local public transport. Or in more general terms, land use. Infill development, bikes and reliable bus system that is not designed to serve only poor people that don't have other options.

I think this is the core of the issue. People are getting hung up on Madrid -> Berlin and coming up with things like New York -> San Francisco as a comparison. I don't know how many people regularly need to go 6 states across a vast continent...

Really, what it seems the discussion should focus on is those shorter (but still quite long!) journeys that people would likely want to do. Train lines in California seem to make a lot of sense. A quick look on Google Maps suggests there's no train between San Francisco and Los Angeles which seems insane to me!

In terms of a sane transpiration policy, what you should actually do is have a priority list of focus or a reverse pyramid.

1. Walking (including wheel chair and friends)

2. Biking (including some slow electric stuff)

3. Rail based transport (trains, metros, trams as appropriate)

4. Buses

5. Private vehicles

> Most of the US looks more like Spain and less like Central Europe.

Spain has spent a decade building out its high speed rail network.