> That's because intra-EU flights are also highly subsidized, especially around taxes for fuel.

okay, so by not taking money from them, we are... giving them money?

Why not just remove the subsidies for domestic flights that are 2.5 hours away by train instead of banning them?

It’s not fast enough any more. The fossil fuel companies were successful at preventing action for decades and in the intervening half century multiple generations of people have grown accustomed to cheap air travel. Making it more expensive will gradually reduce usage but that’s a slow process and there are a number of companies which didn’t even exist back when the science denial campaign started who would be trying their hardest to slow it down.

Given that almost all trains in America are powered by diesel, fossil fuel companies would not lose if passenger rail was more widely adopted. Passenger rail is not popular in America because cities are more spread out, not because of some fossil fuel company conspiracy.

Trains use less fuel and “almost all” is leaving out that Amtrak’s most popular service area is the electrified northeast corridor. Electric trains are also a century old and it’s a straightforward engineering task to confer them.

The reason passenger travel isn’t more popular has more to do with the trillions spent subsidizing private vehicle usage. People respond to economic incentives and for the last century the message has been that taxpayers will help you drive.

Even then it'd still be preferable to fly. a 2.5 hour flight is 20+ hours by train at American passenger rail speeds. Going faster would require expensive track upgrades, which would need to be paid for by more expensive tickets.