Originally Posted by dhuey
I so no reason to think you would get on this supertrain any easier or faster than an airplane. I've seen from other threads that security screening on Eurostar, for instance, is very similar to that at airports (with similar delays).
I'm not sure why it would be any different from Acela, though, which is much easier and less stressful to board than planes. Eurostar is a particularly attractive target because of the tunnel, not because it's a mode of transport.
Regarding the "time to get to wherever in that city you are going", that's the chief advantage of the nine airports. A train would be much more restictive on where you could go. If you extend the line to Orange County with stops in LA, Burbank and San Jose, for instance, convenience goes up, but you're starting to add tons of travel time.
Local stops are one of the biggest draws for Acela Express, and they don't add much travel time at all. The first southbound Acela leaves downtown Boston at 5:20am, completes its stop at Back Bay (another stop in the city) at 5:25, completes another stop at Rt. 128 (the first ring highway around Boston) at 5:34, and is ready to leave Providence, RI (40-some miles away from Boston) by 5:54am. Thirty-four minutes for nearly fifty miles of travel and three intermediate stops really isn't bad. A five minute turnaround -- or less -- at intermediate stations is entirely realistic.
The fact is, north-south air shuttles in California are frequent, cheap and convenient. Is it possible to improve on the status quo? A little, I suppose, but I can think of better uses for tens of billions of dollars.
I fear that north-south air shuttles will be a lot less cheap and convenient in twenty years when fuel prices continue to skyrocket and airports like SFO and OAK are stretched beyond their breaking points. Aside from just not having all your eggs in one basket, the fuel flexibility of electric trains makes an excellent hedge to a mode of transport as petroleum-bound as planes.