France's new high-speed train has Americans asking: Why can't we have that?

Translation tangent (TGV & idioms)

• Several comments debate literal vs idiomatic translation: “train à grande vitesse” maps cleanly to “high‑speed train”; “train of/at great speed” is seen as misleading.
• French speakers note that the preposition “à” often marks a defining property (as in “avion à hélice”), not something easily mapped word‑for‑word into English.
• Similar complaints are made about over‑literal explanations like “al dente = to the tooth”; some argue such glosses confuse rather than teach.

Cost and convenience: trains vs cars (and planes)

• One side argues US rail is mainly a “novelty” and more expensive than driving; they emphasize flexibility of cars and poor US last‑mile transit.
• Others counter that people drastically underestimate total car costs (fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking, depreciation, externalities).
• European examples show wide variation: in some places annual public‑transport passes are clearly cheaper than car ownership; in others (e.g., Switzerland with a full “GA” pass) cars can be cheaper depending on usage.
• Time and “freedom” are framed differently: trains allow work, rest, and comfort; cars require constant attention but offer door‑to‑door travel.

Geography, density, and where rail works

• Debate over whether US size and low density truly preclude HSR.
  • Critics say this is exaggerated “cope”: there are obvious dense corridors (NE corridor, West Coast, Texas triangle, Midwest routes) where rail would be viable but isn’t built.
  • Others stress that outside major metros, both in the US and Europe, public transit is thin and car dependence is high.
• For distances <600–1000 km, many argue high‑speed rail can be as fast or faster door‑to‑door than flying, but this depends heavily on station placement and local networks.

US political, institutional, and cost barriers

• Repeated theme: the core obstacle is not technology but US governance, regulation, and fragmentation.
  • Multi‑layer permitting, environmental review, land acquisition, and litigation drive costs and delays.
  • Federal–state–county fragmentation makes it hard to fund and align on interstate projects; localities often oppose lines that don’t directly benefit them.
• Some point to entrenched car/oil interests, decades of highway subsidies, and cultural car preference as reinforcing factors.
• A few highlight how “hyperloop” and similar ideas were used politically to undermine California HSR support.

Comparisons: Europe, Japan, China, and within Europe

• Commenters stress that even Europe’s HSR network is patchy, often expensive for passengers, and strongly centered on major cities; many regions still lack fast connections.
• Examples like France, Japan, and China show transformative effects where true high‑speed lines exist (city pairs under ~600 km), but also illustrate huge up‑front investment and political commitment.
• Some European countries (e.g., Austria, Ireland, Denmark) are used to show how geography, mountains, or historical underinvestment limit speeds despite rail being culturally accepted.

Specific US and other projects

• Amtrak Acela is noted as TGV‑derived but hamstrung by lack of dedicated high‑speed track.
• Brightline in Florida is cited as the most successful recent US intercity rail, though speed, safety at crossings, and cost are criticized.
• California HSR is intensely debated: some call it the best US rail project under construction; others dismiss it as stalled or misrouted, with route compromises made to appease regional politicians.