Trains are also less efficient

In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.

Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.

The problem with nationwide rail is:

• Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
• Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration.
• The overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.
• Extremely low average population density and long distances between the top 25 population centers.

The nemesis of trains in America never was air transportation. It was always highways and interstates. THIS IS HOW MANY SHINKANSEN-SPEED TRAINS YOU'D NEED TO MAKE IT ALL WORK IN THE US. The cost would be in the trillions.

Trains are also less efficient

In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.

Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.

The problem with nationwide rail is:

• Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
• Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration. *The overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.
• Extremely low average population density and long distances between the top 25 population centers.

The nemesis of trains in America never was air transportation. It was always highways and interstates. THIS IS HOW MANY SHINKANSEN-SPEED TRAINS YOU'D NEED TO MAKE IT ALL WORK IN THE US. The cost would be in the trillions.

Trains are also less efficient

In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.

Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.

The problem with nationwide rail is:

• Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
• Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration. *The overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.
• Extremely low average population density and long distances between the top 25 population centers.

Trains are also less efficient

In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.

Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.

The problem with nationwide rail is:

• Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
• Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration.
• And the overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.
• Extremely low average population density and long distances between the top 25 population centers.

Trains are also less efficient

In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.

Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.

The problem with nationwide rail is:

• Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
• Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration.
• And the overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.