This is probably the most common objection to high-speed rail in America—and it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what HSR is designed to do.
The key insight
High-speed rail doesn't replace transcontinental travel. It connects cities that are 100–400 miles apart—a distance where it beats both flying and driving.
The "too big" argument gets it backwards
Yes, America is big. That's actually an argument for HSR, not against it.
Being big means we have more city pairs in the ideal HSR distance range than almost any other country. Think about it:
Corridors perfectly suited for HSR
Nobody is proposing a high-speed train from New York to Los Angeles. That would take 10+ hours—obviously you'd fly. But New York to Boston? New York to DC? LA to San Francisco? Dallas to Houston? These are exactly the trips where HSR shines.
Other "big" countries figured this out
China is almost exactly the same size as the United States. They have over 28,000 miles of high-speed rail—more than the rest of the world combined. They didn't build one train that goes everywhere. They built a network of regional lines that connect nearby cities.
Spain isn't as big as the US, but it's big for Europe—and mountainous. They still built the second-largest HSR network in the world. France, Germany, Italy—all have extensive networks connecting their major cities.
The real question
The question isn't "can we connect New York to LA by train?" It's "why can't we connect New York to DC as well as France connects Paris to Lyon?"
The answer isn't geography. It's priorities.
America's size is an argument for HSR, not against it. We have dozens of city pairs in the ideal distance range. We just need to connect them.