Um, you don't know me.

I've flown exactly once in the past 7 years.

The truth of the matter is, both the airlines that closed here in Hawaii were mismanaging their funds.  Aloha had been bailed out by the government once before and they were relying on someone saving their ass again.  When the governor refused another bailout, they went under.

ATA was subsidizing their low ticket prices with big contracts.  They apparently were teetering so close to the edge that the loss of a single contract brought them down as well.

Sorry, that's just being bad businessmen, it isn't anyone else's fault.  Even though the average price of a ticket to/from Hawaii has gone up over $100 since these 2 airlines closed, the tourism numbers are not dropping.  People are spending less money when they're here, but the flights are still selling, regardless of price.

Trying to get the best price possible doesn't make the consumer the bad guy.  

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

400mph isn't completely crazy - a prototype French TGV was able to clock 357 mph in 2007. While we're not there yet, if we put a Manhattan project amount of money into high speed rail development, we could probably get there soon enough. The will is what's lacking, not the technology.

I agree we could do better and maybe even hit 400 mph for stretches of the trip.  But there's a whole bunch of geographic features in between that straight line measurement between LA and NYC -- stuff like mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, not to mention the occasional city and town.  And that's not even taking into account stops so that passengers could disembark or get on the train at stops in between.  Thus, I got to believe even if we pour the substantial amount of dollars to fund such a system that you'll ever be able to travel from coast to coast in under six hours.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

There is now a maglev train being built in China. This technology is very reasonably expected to allow for travel at 300mph. You wouldn't design these things to stop in Tulsa--that would be a waste of their speed. Ideally, you'd build maybe 6 stations in the whole country as regional hubs--Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. Los Angeles to Atlanta is just about 2100 miles, which divided by 300mph, is 7 hours. I was off by barely 15% travel time, not too shabby for a number I pulled completely from my ass.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The one in China is costing approximately US$5 Billion to build--not much more than two modern football stadiums--and it takes only about 3 miles to reach top speed as opposed to the current standard 11 miles.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

That's in China, a country not noted for dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's for occupational safety (or safety of any sort) traversing mostly flat coastal country.  So, if we're talking about expanding that project a bit here in the States, you can bet money the cost of doing this goes straight up.  Seeing as how we're just yanking figures out of our posteriors, let's say the cost involved in this project go up by 20% (higher labor costs plus much higher environmental rules and OSHA regulations in the US, that turns into a $6 billion figure to build 105 miles worth of maglev.  But, you're not talking about a system that only goes 105 miles; you're talking about a system that goes 20 times as far just to build your LA to Atlanta route.  That would cost $120 billion to build, nevermind the additional factors of having to cross large stretches of desert, mountains, valleys, mesas and numerous rivers.  That would not only drive the cost way up above $120 billion and also require the maglev train to probably have to throttle back way below that 300 mph top speed the maglev is capable of operating at.  Then you add the other lines which have to be laid between the four other hubs in your basic system, toss in the costs of maintaining and operating the system and you've got a $1 trillion investment just to give you ability to get across the continent within ten to twelve hours (more likely than your seven hour guess).  And who pays for this?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Conveniently, the US already has a railroad system. Presumably, if we were serious about a TGV (my preference, since it's got a much more proven track-record - even the French do some things right, once in a while) or maglev type solution, at least some of those right of ways could be re-used - it's not like they would need to blaze completely new trails. France has TGV lines all throughout the country - presumably if they can afford that, we could too, if the will was there.

A couple of notes about the TGV and the french rail system.  First off, I lived in France for years and my uncle used to own a company which laid the rails for the TGV.

The line have to be incredibly straight and the turns are huge (I think around 2km in diameter), and you have to remove all the level crossings.   Also, the rights of way have to be fenced and need to be around 300m wide.  All the rail and ballast need to be replaced with dedicated, continuously welded rail and very heavy ballast.   Plus, the rail line all need to be electrified with high-power gantries.  And in France, the TGVs are powered by their nuclear power plants (which generate 75% of the electricity used).

So, to sum up, in order to do this in the US you would have to:

1. Buy rights of way to straighten and widen the rail corridors
   
2. Lay continuous rail and new bedding across the country
   
3. Build bridges and/or tunnels every time there was a road
   
4. Develop an electrical supply that could sustain these trains, across the country
   
5. Electrify all the rail lines

Sorry, but above 500 miles, the plane wins, no matter how you slice it.  

There might be a case for high speed rail on the coasts, but someone once calculated that a TGV corridor in the Northeast would cost around $3 trillion.  The cost of just upgrading the existing infrastructure is on the order of $10 billion.  And that's just the Northeast where Amtrak owns the tracks.   Of the 21,000 miles of passenger rail line in the US, Amtrak owns less than 700 miles of it.  The rest is owned by freight companies and they don't really want to share it with passengers....

Chris.

Thus, I got to believe even if we pour the substantial amount of dollars to fund such a system that you'll ever be able to travel from coast to coast in under six hours.

I would happily take six hours coast to coast on a train over the six hours in a plane, particularly for the uncomfortable red-eye.  Last time I was on an Amtrak, the seats felt decadent in comparison to plane seating where I count my blessings if somebody's fleshy thigh isn't giving off body heat right next to my thigh.  Ugh.

"Last time I was on an Amtrak, the seats felt decadent in comparison to plane seating"

My last train trip was a shorty, from Cleveland to Akron on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railway.  A few hour trip, and very close to home.  Great fun!  You are right, sir, the seats are big and comfy compared to the way you're stored like cattle in an airline.  Want even worse?  Fly in Mexico.  Last time I went there, they didn't have anything resembling assigned seating.  It was a mad dash for seats, and I'm afraid that's coming here, too.  

A friend of mine and her husband took an AmTrak from Cleveland to Seattle a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Dining cars, sleeper cars, what's not to like about that?  It was three days there, and three days back.  They got to see lots of countryside that you're not going to see from a plane at 35,000' in the air.

I got to fly to lots on places from Cleveland... New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, Arizona, Minnesota, and probably many more that skip my mind at the moment.  Maybe it's because I'm a bit (OK, lots) older now, but I'd rather take a train.

there's only one way to find out...

It was a mad dash for seats, and I'm afraid that's coming here, too.

Otherwise known as flying during the holiday season.  The amount of overbooking on the plane that I took from SF to NY right before Christmas was crazy...the poor people trying so desperately to get on one flight or another.