The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.

The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.

Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.

To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia. Until that works, there's nothing to build off of.

The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.

The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.

Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.

To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia.

The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.

The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.

Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.