Why trains instead of planes for long distance?

[Bluejet]

The time argument is always interesting to me. Chicago to LA for example “why take a 2 day train trip when you can be there in a few hours!”

Chicago to LA is going to take up a full day of your time if you choose to fly, unless you take an overnight. It’s not some magical teleportation service.

Likewise, rail travelers who don’t fly usually act like flying is this crazy hassle which it really isn’t. The TSA is what it is. Just like the grumpy Amtrak crews, you play the game and get where you are going.

The difference is, our country has invested heavily in passenger air infrustructure. It would be great if we had better and more frequent rail service to both compliment and compete with air service.

While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.

 

[ehbowen]

While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.

First off, let me say that I love what Japan and others have done with High Speed Rail. If we could replicate some of that success in this country, I'm all for it. But we've already proven (try to reserve a sleeper space on the California Zephyr at the last minute in summer!) that there remains a substantial market for 79/90 mph passenger rail over freight tracks in this country...IF it's done right, IF the equipment is there, IF the dispatching is handled professionally, and lastly IF people know about the service and consider it consistent and reliable!

You can speak of more government takeovers (of the ROW, etc.) all you wish, but my preferred solution is to change the incentives by tax policy and an equalization subsidy to make it attractive for the private railroads, or contractors which they choose and have a good working relationship with, to provide passenger services which they are responsible for from top to bottom and to make (gasp!) an actual profit at if they do a good job. It may not be "cheap" in the Washington sense, but...well, the old saying is that the worst possible waste of money is on a second-rate military service....

 

[crescent-zephyr]

While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.

4.5 hour flight is going to be a 7 hour process though.

I totally disagree with you. The market is there. The trains are not there to serve the market.

Also... has been said many times, it’s not just people with a phobia of flying. There are serious medical conditions that prohibit otherwise healthy people from flying.

As for California HSR... yes it will cost money. It’s a massive project.

 

[jis]

4.5 hour flight is going to be a 7 hour process though.

Not always. I have done ORD to SFO in less than 5.5 hours curb to curb. It all depends, like with everything else.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Not always. I have done ORD to SFO in less than 5.5 hours curb to curb. It all depends, like with everything else.

Curb to curb and from O’hare? That’s impressive. I’m guessing the plane was a bit early into SFO?

To be fair, I allow lots of extra time in the big airports, I’ll cut it way closer at airports I’m familiar with.

But still 5.5 curb to curb is still a good chunk of a day... I’m not arguing it’s faster. I’ve flown out to California when the timing didn’t work out... but the way I calculate time the Chief really doesn’t take up that much more of my time than flying from Chicago would.

 

[jis]

Curb to curb and from O’hare? That’s impressive. I’m guessing the plane was a bit early into SFO?

To be fair, I allow lots of extra time in the big airports, I’ll cut it way closer at airports I’m familiar with.

But still 5.5 curb to curb is still a good chunk of a day... I’m not arguing it’s faster. I’ve flown out to California when the timing didn’t work out... but the way I calculate time the Chief really doesn’t take up that much more of my time than flying from Chicago would.

BTW, what does the Chief have to do with San Francisco? I thought we were talking about ORD to SFO?

Anyway. Even for ORD to LAX, using your numbers, you are essentially claiming that leaving Chicago at 3pm CST and arriving in Los Angeles before 8pm PST the same day (7hrs - 2 hrs. time difference) vs. leaving Chicago at 3pm CST on day 1 and arriving in Los Angeles after two nights and a day early in the morning of day 3 somehow takes up the same amount of your time by some calculation? Is it because the day in the middle is vacation day to enjoy basking in the train instead of spending with friends in Los Angeles and nights one sleeps anyway?

Just for a reality check of available flights United has a flight departing 3:54pm arriving 6:27pm, and another at 5:50pm arriving at 8:23pm. So close enough.

Admittedly quite puzzled...

 

[crescent-zephyr]

BTW, what does the Chief have to do with San Francisco? I thought we were talking about ORD to SFO?

Anyway. Even for ORD to LAX, using your numbers, you are essentially claiming that leaving Chicago at 3pm CST and arriving in Los Angeles before 8pm PST the same day (7hrs - 2 hrs. time difference) vs. leaving Chicago at 3pm CST on day 1 and arriving in Los Angeles after two nights and a day early in the morning of day 3 somehow takes up the same amount of your time by some calculation? Is it because the day in the middle is vacation day to enjoy basking in the train instead of spending with friends in Los Angeles and nights one sleeps anyway?

Just for a reality check of available flights United has a flight departing 3:54pm arriving 6:27pm, and another at 5:50pm arriving at 8:23pm. So close enough.

Admittedly quite puzzled...

My original post that bluejet quoted was Chicago to LAX.

For me, a day of travel is a day of travel. And I don’t count the overnights. So the extra time Chicago to lax is the first day.

My general point was... people usually say it’s 2 days vs. 4.5 hours. To me it’s a 2 days vs. 1 day. A day of travel feels like a day of travel to me either way.

Maybe that’s a silly point to make. For me, connections are easy to make at LA as well. Getting to my hotel by the Anaheim convention center is a $10 surfliner ticket vs. a $30 shuttle or $50 Uber from LAX or Ontario. (Well not anymore.... Uber doesn’t serve Ontario I’ve heard).

so my personal experiences are all being thought of, and each persons experience is different.

 

[jis]

OK. I get it. So my personal experience of traveling from Rosemont, where my hotel for the first conference was to Long Beach where my next conference is will be very different from yours, and in my case even with your strange counting of time, the plane will win out. Makes sense. Thanks.

Interesting that you do not count the day of arrival in Los Angeles as a day of travel, eh?

 

[ehbowen]

My original post that bluejet quoted was Chicago to LAX.

For me, a day of travel is a day of travel. And I don’t count the overnights. So the extra time Chicago to lax is the first day.

My general point was... people usually say it’s 2 days vs. 4.5 hours. To me it’s a 2 days vs. 1 day. A day of travel feels like a day of travel to me either way.

Maybe that’s a silly point to make. For me, connections are easy to make at LA as well. Getting to my hotel by the Anaheim convention center is a $10 surfliner ticket vs. a $30 shuttle or $50 Uber from LAX or Ontario. (Well not anymore.... Uber doesn’t serve Ontario I’ve heard).

so my personal experiences are all being thought of, and each persons experience is different.

I have to agree. If I'm traveling from Houston to L.A., the day is essentially shot. The choice is between a night at home, a day spent arranging ground transportation, TSA lines, and flying; and then a night in a hotel to be ready for the next day. If I take the train then I leave Houston at dinner time (or should...reliability and OTP is a thing), have a day to spend relaxing, watching scenery, reading a favorite book or listening to music; and then I arrive in L.A. before breakfast ready to take care of business. It is (or, at least, should be) more competitive than you might think.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Interesting that you do not count the day of arrival in Los Angeles as a day of travel, eh?

Waking up in my roomette and arriving in Union station? No I don’t count that as a day of travel. If I was waking up in coach after a terrible night of little sleep... I would have to count that day as a recover day!

Certainly the plane wins sometimes. For me as well. My last trip To California I simply had to fly because of the timing. And it was fine. Other times the train made as much if not more sense.

 

[Qapla]

When you factor in the cost of road construction and maintenance as well as airport construction and maintenance - those forms of transportation are not as "cheap" as they seem - but, since they are covered by a "Department" their "subsidy" is not as apparent as that of passenger rail. If the amount of money used to build, expand and maintain the nations highways was "granted" in the same way as Amtrak's funds - the amount of "subsidy" would baffle many who think Amtrak should receive less that they currently receive ... not to mention that the nation's highways do not generate any direct revenue - let alone be profitable - like they want Amtrak to be/do.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left.

Today's minimal airline staffing, long security lines, and tiny regional jets have made what could be a simple process take a lot longer than it should. When it comes to no-status coach passengers (the majority of travelers on any given day) you're leaving out a couple hours of check-in, luggage tagging, security screening, airport restroom use, and luggage retrieval. You're also leaving out a couple hours of connecting time for anyone who doesn't have a daytime price-competitive nonstop option. Most travelers do not have priority status, are not flying in a premium cabin, and do not have security pre-clearance. That extends their travel time a lot more than frequent fliers and airline staff seem to realize.

With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.

So far as I am aware the 500 mile limit is little more than a hypothetical sweet spot that has never been seriously tested in the real world. If people are willing and able to fly 18+ hours, with no ability to leave the aircraft while in flight, I see little reason to assume comfortable and modern HSR service cannot reach into thousands of miles of range. Californians of all types voted for HSR. The governor said he was forced to scale the schedule back after numerous court delays, legal battles over carbon credits, increasing construction costs, and the Federal government's decision to rescind funding. It's hard to gauge the objective suitability of a project that has been as legally sabotaged and politically subverted as CAHSR has been.

 

[jebr]

Waking up in my roomette and arriving in Union station? No I don’t count that as a day of travel. If I was waking up in coach after a terrible night of little sleep... I would have to count that day as a recover day!

Then all travel days aren't equal, and so simply having to travel on a day doesn't necessarily mean that the whole day is written off. Having to deal with very late trains here in MSP, there's not a lot of trips that I can take that don't either require arriving in the middle of the night (per schedule) or having to write off the entire day - a trip from MSP to Portland, for example, could be on time (10:10 AM arrival on the third travel day) or could be multiple hours late, thus requiring me to cancel at least any afternoon plans. Even something as short as MSP - LSE may require writing off the whole day if the train is severely late (which is far more common than when I fly.) If I was doing CHI - LAX, I'd probably still have to write off at least a half-day; between the potential for a late train, still needing to check into a hotel, etc., that would likely make it difficult to plan anything before lunch time.

On the flight side, there's a lot more options for me to take that don't require writing off even one full day of travel. For the Gathering this past year, I did a 6 PM flight MSP - DFW. That only required taking a couple hours off of work (I took off at 2 PM to be on the safe side) and was ready to go the next morning for any activities. Sure, I had to write off the evening, but I'm not huge into night life, so that wasn't a big deal for me. Even an early morning flight isn't too bad; I usually at least can do something in the afternoon before I'm really wanting to go to bed. That's all in coach, occasionally checking a bag, with the only priority line that saves time being TSA Precheck. Rarely do I feel the need to write off an entire day for travel if I'm flying, at least domestically, but I almost always need to write off multiple days each way if I'm taking the train due to very limited routes, late trains, and poor options for recovery during IRROPs.

Now, if there was a comprehensive rail network, with numerous daily frequencies and decent speed, a lot more options would open up for taking the train. Maximize that with HSR and that becomes a much more realistic option, even on 500-1000 mile routes. Sure, NYC - LAX might not be competitive, but it doesn't need to be if there's a lot of short-to-medium distance options that open up (for me, even as far as DEN, DFW, or ATL seems semi-realistic to replace with a HSR train if it was fast enough.)

 

[jiml]

Time to agree to disagree? Flying works in certain situations and trains in others. While it is possible to fly from the Northeast or Chicago to the West coast and still conduct a day's business, the reverse is not true unless using a "red-eye". A lot of the discussion is predicated on non-stop flights, which are not available between many city pairs in today's hub-and-spoke reality of airline operations. HSR - if we see it in North America in our lifetimes - will make a difference in short-haul examples and will add some city pairs to the list that rivals air travel, just as some current rail service already does in the NEC and VIA corridor. Until then there is no rule that applies to every situation.

 

[Bluejet]

Today's minimal airline staffing, long security lines, and tiny regional jets have made what could be a simple process take a lot longer than it should. When it comes to no-status coach passengers (the majority of travelers on any given day) you're leaving out a couple hours of check-in, luggage tagging, security screening, airport restroom use, and luggage retrieval. You're also leaving out a couple hours of connecting time for anyone who doesn't have a daytime price-competitive nonstop option. Most travelers do not have priority status, are not flying in a premium cabin, and do not have security pre-clearance. That extends their travel time a lot more than frequent fliers and airline staff seem to realize.


So far as I am aware the 500 mile limit is little more than a hypothetical sweet spot that has never been seriously tested in the real world. If people are willing and able to fly 18+ hours, with no ability to leave the aircraft while in flight, I see little reason to assume comfortable and modern HSR service cannot reach into thousands of miles of range. Californians of all types voted for HSR. The governor said he was forced to scale the schedule back after numerous court delays, legal battles over carbon credits, increasing construction costs, and the Federal government's decision to rescind funding. It's hard to gauge the objective suitability of a project that has been as legally sabotaged and politically subverted as CAHSR has been.

You’re arguing with me about cramped coach seats, multiple leg itineraries etc, but really you’re data mining the worst potential situation instead of looking at the most realistic one. I’m guessing that roomette costs more then a buisness class airline fare, so lets go ahead and use that. We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.

As far as long range HSR, it’s just too expensive. A sub 500 network in California is gone because of the price tag, 50+ billion dollars. Now you want to have transcontinental HSR? It’d cost trillions, plus hundreds of billions of dollar in yearly maintenance, and it’d still be far slower then aviation.

Long range trains at this point are simply a boutique way of traveling, likely accounting for less then 1% of travelers between major city pairs on the coasts. If it works for you then great, but if you compare apples to apples in terms of how much you’re paying etc, I still don’t see it as competitive outside of some very unique personal situations.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.

Business class doesn’t exist on most of those flights. It’s domestic first class or some form of premium coach.

I’m pretty sure no domestic first class gets you lounge access to any airline... maybe a couple lax to nyc flights but nothing out of Chicago afaik.


In order to land at 10 am, your have to be at the airport at least at 4 am local time. You’re using the time zones in your favor which you can do, but what time I land doesn’t matter if I’ve been awake for 8 hours before even checking into a hotel.

Of course if you can sleep on the plane that can help counter that.

 

[Bluejet]

Business class doesn’t exist on most of those flights. It’s domestic first class or some form of premium coach.

I’m pretty sure no domestic first class gets you lounge access to any airline... maybe a couple lax to nyc flights but nothing out of Chicago afaik.


In order to land at 10 am, your have to be at the airport at least at 4 am local time. You’re using the time zones in your favor which you can do, but what time I land doesn’t matter if I’ve been awake for 8 hours before even checking into a hotel.

Of course if you can sleep on the plane that can help counter that.

Domestic first is more then adequate for the 4.5 hour flight time. A 7:19 am flight gets you into LAX by 9:50, get to the airport on your premium fare by 6:00 and you’d be quite ok. The domestic first class fare is $505 on American for next Monday, a roomette is $770, so yes you need to buy club access but you still have plenty of money left over for that and any Uber/ cab needed to get downtown.

 

[jis]

Frankly, who needs Club access when you are trying to minimize time within the system? I do have Club access multiple ways at almost every airport that has reasonable Clubs, in the world, but I seldom use a Club at the originating airport when catching a 7am or earlier flight. A more typical scenario in which I use the Clubs is when I am done with the days work at 5pm and my flight out is at 9pm. The other use of clubs is at connecting hubs, but if it is a major hub depending on whether eating is involved or not, and what eateries are available in the concourse, I may or may not use a Club.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Domestic first is more then adequate for the 4.5 hour flight time. A 7:19 am flight gets you into LAX by 9:50, get to the airport on your premium fare by 6:00 and you’d be quite ok. The domestic first class fare is $505 on American for next Monday, a roomette is $770, so yes you need to buy club access but you still have plenty of money left over for that and any Uber/ cab needed to get downtown.

You're the one who said Business Class and free lounge access... now you're trying to make this a numbers game. I'm not saying air travel doesn't make sense, it certainly does for me sometimes. My last trip to the west coast had to be air travel because of the timing.

Your opinions on rail travel and HSR are simply that... opinion. I have a different opinion than you.

 

[Bluejet]

You're the one who said Business Class and free lounge access... now you're trying to make this a numbers game. I'm not saying air travel doesn't make sense, it certainly does for me sometimes. My last trip to the west coast had to be air travel because of the timing.

Your opinions on rail travel and HSR are simply that... opinion. I have a different opinion than you.

I sais buisness class before because I thought united and American had still run a fair amount of wide bodies (mostly for reposition purpose) between ORD and LAX. It seems they have likely W routed a lot of those flights now between their hubs and international markets instead of using positioning flights.

I’m also not anti rail here. I actually use Amtrak as much as many members of this forum, often 2-3 times a month. Albeit always in the NEC between Connecticut and Boston.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I’m also not anti rail here. I actually use Amtrak as much as many members of this forum, often 2-3 times a month. Albeit always in the NEC between Connecticut and Boston.

Have you ridden amtrak for long distance?

 

[jis]

I sais buisness class before because I thought united and American had still run a fair amount of wide bodies (mostly for reposition purpose) between ORD and LAX. It seems they have likely W routed a lot of those flights now between their hubs and international markets instead of using positioning flights.

At least United and Delta (and possibly American too) deploy plenty of domestic configured wide bodies on domestic flights, some of them even with lie flat seats. But in domestic usage the front cabin is usually called First Class, and not designated as whatever they call the front cabin in two or three class planes in international configuration.

They also use international configured wide bodies and 757s for some short turn domestic flights, e.g. Newark to Orlando, in which case they sell the international lie flat business class seats as domestic first class.

 

[Bluejet]

Have you ridden amtrak for long distance?

I’ve ridden on long distance trains, but not over long distances. I’ve been on the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Portland, the Lake Shore Limited between Bos and Alb. Everyone has their own things they are adverse to, for me I gave up common shower rooms etc in college. I’m not judging, it’s just a personal preference. As such I understand aversions to flying, we all have our dislikes.

 

[Bluejet]

At least United and Delta (and possibly American too) deploy plenty of domestic configured wide bodies on domestic flights, some of them even with lie flat seats. But in domestic usage the front cabin is usually called First Class, and not designated as whatever they call the front cabin in two or three class planes in international configuration.

They also use international configured wide bodies and 757s for some short turn domestic flights, e.g. Newark to Orlando, in which case they sell the international lie flat business class seats as domestic first class.

Understood, the term buisness class is really a misnomer anyways. All the company’s except American are rebranding them anyways to try to differentiate their class products, hence Polaris, Delta One, Mint. Etc. I will say having ridden on all these services, they are quite good when available. As a commercial pilot I often get to ride in mint and overseas delta one... they are good products.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You’re arguing with me about cramped coach seats, multiple leg itineraries etc, but really you’re data mining the worst potential situation instead of looking at the most realistic one.

No, I’m merely countering your rosy best-case scenario with a more common example. Most travelers don’t have advance knowledge of all the various service shortcuts, don’t have a long list of rules and resolutions memorized in their heads, don’t have priority status, and don’t have security pre-clearance. What they do have are stressed nerves, cranky kids, confused pets, and questionable luggage traveling through airports unfamiliar to them.

I’m guessing that roomette costs more then a buisness class airline fare, so lets go ahead and use that. We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.

Out of hundreds of trips I’ve never once been offered "business class" to anywhere in the continental US. What I have been offered, far more often than not, are regional jets and connections. This is true even when traveling to major cities along either coast. I'm not sure what you're talking about with days being shot since I made no such statement. I fly when it makes sense but I would still prefer to travel by high speed rail when and where possible. Your industry is making money right now but it has also lost money for decades and it's especially damaging to the environment. I would prefer to have the option to travel by HSR instead of polluting the atmosphere with even more fossil fuels. My main city pair has lots of wind power generation along the way that could make for a much more responsible method of travel at a perfectly reasonable speed if properly implemented.

As far as long range HSR, it’s just too expensive. A sub 500 network in California is gone because of the price tag, 50+ billion dollars. Now you want to have transcontinental HSR? It’d cost trillions, plus hundreds of billions of dollar in yearly maintenance, and it’d still be far slower then aviation. Long range trains at this point are simply a boutique way of traveling, likely accounting for less then 1% of travelers between major city pairs on the coasts. If it works for you then great, but if you compare apples to apples in terms of how much you’re paying etc, I still don’t see it as competitive outside of some very unique personal situations.

CAHSR is not gone yet. It's been scaled back due to endless legal attacks and political sabotage. For some reason you keep ignoring this point and pretending it doesn't exist. If airports and airlines were under similar attacks they'd be just as difficult and expensive to defend from endless lawsuits and budget overruns. I could go on but you've made it clear that your primary reason for coming here is to bash long distance passenger rail and shill for the airline industry.