Why high speed rail hasn’t caught on
What I find odd about this is that... Trains are the go-to means of intercity transport across much of Europe.<p>The term &quot;High speed rail&quot; isn&#x27;t strictly defined, but seems to kick in somewhere between 110 and 155 mph. Pretty much every intercity train in the UK is running at 125mph for at least some of their journey. Europe is full of functioning high speed rail networks - TGV, ICE, Eurostar, networks in Spain and Italy. If you include 125 mph networks then there&#x27;s loads of them - and those older, slower high speed networks have more or less been profitable.<p>Even the US has a high speed rail corridor in the North East.<p>The author tries to make the argument that there&#x27;s physical limits to high speed rail that mean it&#x27;ll never catch on. But the limits are far more political than physical.<p>If you live in the UK or Europe, rail is <i>the</i> go to method of travel between cities.<p>Edit to add: the distance between LA and San Francisco is 382 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as between either London and Edinburgh and London and Glasgow. There&#x27;s something like 22 trains a day on each route - more or less every half hour during the day. The time from city centre to city centre is better by train than plane or driving. That&#x27;s not even a proper &quot;high speed&quot; train - the routes they follow were laid out in the 1800s.