Treating rail like an outdated and obsolete technology is weird. American rail infrastructure is, in many cases, outdated and obsolete. Rail as a technology is

Treating rail like an outdated and obsolete technology is weird. American rail infrastructure is, in many cases, outdated and obsolete. Rail as a technology is not. For freight, it is far more efficient than basically any other land transportation technology, even in the present state. For passengers, it is also more economically efficient than road travel, although the present quality of infrastructure often makes it impractical, and it lacks the aggressive subsidies of road travel. > Other than a few retirees who have time to kill, who would be interested in taking an Amtrack train from Chicago -> LA? This trip, which is an extreme example, takes 43 hours today (per the Amtrak ticketing portal). Driving this route (which people do) takes 30 hours and must be split up over 2-3 days due to fatigue. Greyhound takes 46 hours. Megabus does not serve California. Even with the current (bad) state of rail infrastructure in this country, the only more efficient travel method for this trip is flying. An upgraded conventional railway (similar to the Acela Express) would cover that distance in about 30 hours. An average high-speed rail would take about 15-20 and could be done in a day. Also, why are you pretending that this infrastructure doesn't serve shorter trips as well? A plane from Chicago to LA only serves Chicago and LA. The Amtrak route also serves Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff. The route you were referring to (the Texas Eagle, 66 hours) serves Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, and dozens of smaller cities.