As I write this, I’m sitting in Newark airport, waiting for our airplane to emerge from its holding pattern and land so that we can board and get on our way. We’re already 5 hours delayed (might be a new record for me), and 
its Christmas Eve, so at this point, I’m just glad there is some end in sight to the waiting.
As I’m sitting here, I’m thinking about my other options to Chicago if the flight were to be cancelled. Flight-wise, there isn’t much. A bus takes about 18 hours, so thats not really feasible. A train isn’t much better — it takes around 12 or so when you factor in all the stops. So really, its fly or nothing.
In Japan and parts of Europe, people have another viable option for quick and efficient medium-distance travel. The high-speed trains in these areas can travel 300km/hr (186mph), which would get me from NY to Chicago in under 4 hours. A flight is 2.5 hours in the air plus another 2 hours or so of security and delays, so 4 hours by train certainly gives air travel a run for its money. There are other advantages too — a train can take far more people at at time, so on really high-traffic routes (like NYC to Chicago), plenty of seats are available and they can [conceivably] be sold for a lower price. Weather isn’t nearly as much of a concern, and congestion during crowded times can be solved by simply adding more cars to the train, instead of trying to pack more planes into a finite amount of runway and airspace.
Energy efficiency is a huge upside as well. When oil was above $140/barrel, the airlines couldn’t raise fairs and cut costs enough to make money. Trains don’t have nearly the same voracious energy demands — to put it in perspective, a freight train move 1 ton of cargo 423 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Admittedly, there is a definite difference between a diesel freight train and a electric magnelev train, but the scope is similar. A story on inhabitant.com (linked below) says that these trains use 1/3 of the energy of planes and 1/5 of the energy of cars. The greenhouse gases that a network of trains would save is huge, and the benefits would go beyond just environmental.
Obviously the main concern with building such a system is the huge cost of creating such an infrastructure. The solution? Start small. California recently approved 800 miles of high-speed rail that will connect every major city in the state. How about a similar system for the east coast? Connect very high-traffic routes between DC, NY and Boston. These routes are heavily trafficked by business travelers, and airline routes such as the Delta Shuttle between New York and Boston are consistently among the most profitable routes in the industry. Replacing a 1hr plane ride subject to delays and security hassles with a 1.5 hour train ride that is essentially “hop on, hop off” will certainly be attractive to many or most of these travelers. Once these routes are established and profitable, build out capacity to other cities.
Air travel ultimately is an inefficient means of transportation for short distances. Allowing a plane to use an airport slot for a 500 mile trip is a very poor use of resources, and certainly something that could be improved upon. As the government looks for the best possible ways to productively spend money to stimulate the economy, rail improvements should be near the top of the list.
