Nor in Philadelphia. I hate to say it, but the previous poster on this topic is ignorant of the number of people who depend on Public Transport in cities, especially where poverty is an issue (aka: every major city).Not in Chicago
1. When you factor in time having to get to the airport, go through security, and wait around for a plane, fly, land, and then get to the middle of a city, versus being able to take a train from city-center to city-center, I think you'd find that for many routes, trains would be faster, especially real high-speed rail (not the ACELA).tlmadden73 said:1) SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than flying (to make up for the more time it takes (even at high speeds, it will take a while to travel hundreds of miles by train).
2) Significantly faster than driving (which it should be simply due to the fact it doesn't have to stop overnight).
2. Again, as someone pointed out, new HIGH SPEED rail would make a trip from say Philly to Orlando in like 5 hours or so, whereas a drive is 16. Or, another option would be to do sleeper trains like they have in Europe and Asia, with 6 berth couchettes as well as smaller number of beds. I gotta be honest, being able to hop a train in one city and wake up in another several hundred miles away is a pleasure I wish more Americans experienced.
Last edited: