If there were high speed trains in the US would you use them over jets?

Question

More specifically if they connected two relatively near cities such as New York to Cleveland or Detroit to Chicago would you take the train over another mode of travel assuming the price was competitive?

Answer 1

Absolutely.

I'd propose a high speed or maglev network on dedicated rights of way, connecting all major cities, such as New York - Philadelphia - Cleveland - Chicago - Denver - Los Angeles, with stops at any such major city along the way.  Other lines would include Boston - New York - Baltimore - Washington - Atlanta - Houston, Los Angeles - Phoenix - Albuquerque - Houston, Chicago - Memphis - Dallas - Houston, and so on.  Eventually you would get a spiderweb of lines   At speeds of 400 mph, you could travel cross country in about 8 hours, which is about what you have with air travel, once you factor in having to be at the airport about 2 hours before departure.

The key would be frequent service, with trains leaving as little as five minutes apart.  Larger or smaller trainsets would be used, depending on traffic.  No reservations required, just show up and get on, like a city bus.  Electric power can come from sources other than fossil fuels.

I don't know how practical this all would be, but it's nice to think about.

Answer 2

When a train gets there as fast as a plane Americans will start using them.

Answer 3

if the price was competetive, i'd probably do it.  i like to fly, so i'd fly for longer trips, but for anything less than 400 miles away, i'd probably just take the train.

Answer 4

Absolutely.  The process for an airplane is getting so painful that you spend more time at the airport than in the air for any trip that doesn't cross an ocean.

Answer 5

Absolutely.  But here in California I'd even prefer them over the auto when traveling between SF and Sacramento, for example, if I had the choice.