> For traveling from coast to coast there would be little point, but for shorter distances within the US high-speed rail should beat air travel.
Absolutely, which is why I pointed out that for the distance it wouldn't be a good idea: cross-continental high-speed rail makes little sense, the sweet spot currently tops out around 1000 miles (and even then it depends, it works well in Europe because train stations can be in the city center — where things happen and mass transportation is developed — versus airport being much further out in the suburbs or countryside, I do not know if it'd work as well in the US where the most affluent segments of the population tends to live in the suburbs rather than the city and cities are more often designed around car travel).
I've tried both, for the Sweden<->Germany route. I've usually been disappointed that the train was more expensive than a flight. The train has much fewer luggage restrictions, but lugging lots of luggage around when changing trains is also a hassle, while with flights they do that for you. With 4 hours of travel, you don't need to worry about food. With 15, you do. Though you can bring a full meal, including drinks and a knife, on the train. Plus, there's AC power for the laptop.
My break-even point is at about 6-8 hours by train, vs. a plane. That gets me to Hamburg.
