Wojtek: one tired (half-good) example doesn't un-do the point. Anyway, I challenge you to a race. Meet me at 12 noon in the lobby of the Waldorf on a weekday; you take a train, I'll fly. First one to the line to get into the White House wins, okay? You might win now and again, but over time (having done it dozens of times myself) you'd see that it's possible to usefully day-commute to DC from NYC by plane but not by train.
No fair whining about how fast the NEC _could_ be ...
I'm not against trains; I dig 'em. But showing their superiority is another one of those Internet Flame Traps: next you'll mention how great they are in Europe (neglecting how long it really takes to get from Paris to Rome, Madrid to Berlin, or London to Zurich).
Or what happens when new markets open up (Southwest is particularly good at this flexibility), not even going to some of the particularly hideous examples (Buffalo->NYC, linking the two major population centers of a not terribly big state, 437 miles: 8 hours; San Francisco->LA, a mere 473 miles: 13 hours [yes, that's 36mph! Oops! San Francisco doesn't actually have Amtrak service, so those times are from Oakland]).
Ok, you said it depends on distance. How about a real example? I live about 3 blocks from the Berkeley Amtrak station, and my sister-in-law lives in Sacramento. It's about 1:15 to drive, a full 2:00 on the train (plus downtown-to-final-destination times, YMMV).
US trains have to get a whole lot better before they can be taken seriously.
> Not to mention traveling in civilised conditions vs being subjected
> to all kinds of searches, not being allowed to carry your weapon
> :), and being packed like a sardine.
http://www.amtrak.com/guide/faqs/baggage.html
] Dangerous or illegal items, including all firearms and weapons ] of any type, are prohibited on board trains.
But facts never stop you, do they? ;-)
/jordan