>>59959Trolling, I know, but this bears pointing out:
1) Air traffic in the US is incredibly overloaded. Major airports are constantly stuck in delays, and new airports and runways are in perpetual demand. There's no real limit to demand for high-speed intercity travel, but there is a limit to how much space America can give to airports and runways. A backup system is necessary, especially for shorter distances.
2) Airports are usually stuck way outside the cities they serve. Since it's impossible to carry a car with you on your flight, some system is needed to either get people from airports into cities, en masse, or to move people directly from city center to city center without extra stops (airships?).
3) Air travel is severely hampered by weather. Snow, rain, fog, and even high wind can screw up a flight. Furthermore, if weather is bad enough, airplanes can lose control and crash, which usually results in the death of everyone on board. A safer system of travel which can operate in any weather is needed.
4) Current airplanes are incredibly polluting, and the airports they use have catastrophic effects on local ecosystems due to the immense runoff from the runways. A less disruptive, clean system of travel is absolutely necessary for the future of the country.
As it turns out, high speed rail would 1) relieve the load on air travel, providing a far faster system with virtually no delays for short distances, 2) operate directly between city centers, 3) operate safely in any weather (the only time a Shinkansen was derailed was during an earthquake, with no casualties), and 4) operate on electric power which could be provided by a host of different, cleaner sources (geothermal, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc.).
Anything I missed?
