It&#x27;s hard to compare price because it is very rare for two means to compete directly.  It&#x27;s often apples and oranges.  A train that moved as fast as plane isn&#x27;t going to be very fuel efficient.  They can be electric (insert source debate) but planes can also run on biofuel (another debate).  And when comparing plane-train, a plane burns much of its fuel taking off and climbing to altitude.  Once there (10,000m) it is remarkably fuel efficient in terms of passenger&#x2F;mile at a given speed.  And there are times when rail simply won&#x27;t ever be an option (over large water).  The head of RyanAir gave a great presentation a couple years ago about highspeed rail.  His point was that, while great if you live in london and vacation in Paris, most people don&#x27;t live downtown, that planes can land in places much closer to actual destinations --&gt; reducing total-journey emissions.<p>I&#x27;d love a high-speed rail from Vancouver BC to Calgary Alberta, or Prince George (both places I go every year).  But building such a structure is a monumental task (10s of billions) and a fast train would take a vast amount of energy covering that distance.  Imho trains just cannot compete in such markets.