Hendryk
Banned
I second that assessment. On distances of less than roughly 1,000 km, a high-speed train is quite competitive vis-à-vis air transport: even though the trip itself may be shorter by plane, the gain of time is more than offset by the hassle of getting to the airport, going through security checks, etc., not to mention the problem of congestion which often requires planes to circle around until they're clear for landing. With the train, you just go to the station, which is usually conveniently located downtown, get onboard, and you're on your way. So with the right policy of investment and infrastructural upgrades, I could very well see the US east of the Mississippi and West of the Rockies use rail transport in the same way as Europe. Admittedly, in the flyover states, it's a different situation.I've done a bit of reading on this in the last few days, and there are possibilities. By the 70s airports started to lose ground in the trip time, with the hour or more at the start and hour at the end of each trip with check-in, security, baggage claim and all the rest. In addition many airline flights are delayed, cancelled and diverted etc, and airports are usually out in the boondocks, and getting there is another hassle. This means that on certain distances a 100+mph train is faster from city centre to city centre than flying, and as airports become more congested and paraniod this distance creeps up and up.
So this could be part of AMTRAKs strategy, finding key routes which are too far to drive easily but not far enough to warrant waiting in airports for 3 hours and push these with advertising/education. As airports become more and more of a hassle these distances go up and up which cuts into the cars convenience too. A bit of govt support wouldn't go astray either, they love throwing cash at airports and roads.