There's a lot of empty space in between the West and the East, which is where plane travel is the most compelling, and train travel would still likely not be.

There is a lot more travel North-South in the USA than there is East-West. Just look at the way the US highway system is setup. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/1926us.jp...

Note: Number of lanes paints a much stronger picture, but I can't find a good map of that.

Thanks a lot for this, it's a really cool map. Note that this is just the US numbered routes, so it's pre-Interstate.

I'm quite fascinated by the interstate system; I think it's one of the more amazing things this country's managed to accomplish in the last century. I admit that I draw my sample set from just my experience -- I grew up in the SF Bay Area, go to school near Chicago, and spend summers in Seattle, so all my travel is huge E-W distances -- but I think even if you're right, you have a good argument for N-S rail systems and there's still enough E-W travel that air travel is still quite necessary.

I don't think there's many places were a train is a good substitute for a 5+ hr flight.

I live in Washington, DC and Washington, DC -> NYC is a common trip. The train is a much better way to go. From Washington, DC, it's a short metro ride to get to union station. The train takes about 3 hours to NYC but it gets you right into Penn Station. This is much better than having to go to a suburb to get to the airport and landing in another suburb and having to get downtown. I'm a fan of trains. And... rail travel isn't dead time at all. I'm able to work on my laptop and I don't have to worry about the person in front of me putting their chair back full tilt crushing my opened screen.

No but for replacing quick hops trains make a whole lot of sense. Drastically less messing around at each end and train stations are often right in the centre of the city. Add to that the increased comfort a train provides and it is an easy argument to make.