Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

As someone who travels occasionally--albeit somewhat infrequently--for both business and pleasure, I share the opinion that flying is not altogether pleasant. From arriving at the airport several hours early, to dealing with TSA, to sitting in the cramped aircraft seating, it's not a stretch to say that it's a somewhat miserable experience. For the amount of money one has to pay for a flight, especially if going to a less popular/metropolitan destination, the experience is very sub par.

Trains, however, are a joy to ride. There is no TSA (or any other form of security theatre), no having to show up several hours early, and the journey itself is pleasant while watching the world pass by outside. Delays are very infrequent. I've personally done some of my best thinking, coding, and writing while on a train.

There is, however, one major problem: trains in America are slow. Slow to the point that driving through Los Angeles (including traffic delays) is still about twice as fast as taking the Amtrak. There is probably some efficiency gain on longer trips, but who wants to sign up for a 72-hour train ride that could easily be a 36-hour drive or, more realistically, a two hour flight for the same cost?

I would welcome a revitalization of the rail industry in this country with open arms, but only if they do it right; after all, as a project that would likely be subsidized with tax dollars, I'd rather not pay for something that one one would use.

The future is going to involve self driving busses, self driving cars, self driving trucks etc.

The primary thing I enjoy about the train is the additional space. Fundmantally, that is the problem with trains too. If they jammed people on a train the way they jam them on a bus, it should drive the profits up. Amtrak sells out a lot of routes in the north east while competing with $20 bus tickets.

In 20 years, self driving busses should replace trains as the up front cost is lower and the market is freer.

I'd argue that any money considered spent on trains should be put to better use.

(Added)

I think it is safe to assume all vehicles will run on electric and batteries in the distant future, further reducing train advantages.

Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there.

Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the meantime. In fact, given 100 years of development, we might be able to construct a new ship that will only take 300 years to get to that planet. Which would mean it would overtake the first, and beat it by a hundred years.

In which case, why build the first ship at all?

That's the objection I've heard most recently against building high-speed rail in the united states. For instance, in the context of self-driving cars that might be able to organize themselves into "trains" on the road, or fit conditions where they would qualify for a higher speed limit, etc. While it may be true that we need high-speed rail now, is it going to be as true by the time they would actually get built?

Friction losses aren't significant. These cars are limited by aerodynamic drag power -- this scales as speed^3, and dominates all other losses.