> HSR is more of a more efficient airplane - spacious & can walk around & get a drink.
Much as I love HSR and curse its absence when in the USA the economics are not quite as clear. Air routes are more flexible than rail routes.
Of course that flexibility isn't necessarily desired by all; the stations on a rail network provide hysteresis which can keep otherwise unprofitable cities alive and even vibrant. New York beat out Boston because the Hudson was more navigable than the Charles, Boston Harbor's benefits notwithstanding. Chicago grew because it was at a confluence (literally!) of cheap transshipment points near farmland. Both cities do well even though their original reasons for existing are lost (neither are major freight hubs but have a lot of other transit links).
And rail, even underground rail, can be abandoned.
Much as I love HSR and curse its absence when in the USA the economics are not quite as clear. Air routes are more flexible than rail routes.
Of course that flexibility isn't necessarily desired by all; the stations on a rail network provide hysteresis which can keep otherwise unprofitable cities alive and even vibrant. New York beat out Boston because the Hudson was more navigable than the Charles, Boston Harbor's benefits notwithstanding. Chicago grew because it was at a confluence (literally!) of cheap transshipment points near farmland. Both cities do well even though their original reasons for existing are lost (neither are major freight hubs but have a lot of other transit links).
And rail, even underground rail, can be abandoned.