Reply #5: A coupleof points

[Nevernose]

A) IT would be more costly than air travel in the beginning, but only because the air travel infrastructure is already there. The price will come down.

B) The cost to build and maintain, especially in the city, would be high. But the same could be said for any infrastructure project. Any place you build a road in a city, you're going to have problems with building around freeways.

C) There just aren't a lot of weather delays anywhere for trains. And there won't be the issue of taxiing, getting stuck on the runway all the time, not being able to find a gate, a 30 or 40 minute boarding process. An HSR from LA to LV, for instance, is expected to go 150 mph and carry 1,000 people, far more efficient than air travel.

D) DO you have any idea how much government subsidizes our sir travel system? Far more than our rail system. Your city, county, state, and federal governments are all chipping in for the airports and the regional air traffic control, not to mention the safety inspections of 25,000 passenger planes in operation.

The road infrastructure argument is a good one. When gasoline gets too expensive, and there are too many cars on crumbling freeways, people will use it. Many people believe that the reason more trains aren't used isn't because of the excellent roadways, it's because of the lack of excellent trains.

Edited to add an interesting discussion of comparable population densities:
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/02/spain-ave-steals-show.html