Promoting trains in order to be anti-technology? Heh, heh. I'd say surely you jest, but I'm afraid you aren't. And even if you aren't jesting, it's still funny. (All the world is NOT a plot, no matter how you filter what YOU see. Good lesson to remember, if one can learn it in the first place.)

Nope. The only reason to make train travel feasible would be to take the pressure off travelers on shorter routes. It takes about as long to check in to go from NY to Wash. D. C. as it does to go from NY to Seattle. On a short hop that's a significant length of time.

12 to 15 years ago when I was travelling a lot, anything around 200 miles took as long to get portal-to-portal by flying as driving. If it were shorter, it took longer to fly. And I was able to just about head to the airport and walk onto the plane in those days.

And unless the gov't subsidizes airlines very heavily the planes will get more expensive, too

The US subsidizes all forms of travel. Subsidizing trains on the shorter, busier routes makes sense to me. And the last reason I would have come up with is some anti-technology plot.

Arf (and I thought Lindy took some strange turns, my friend.)