<p><pre><code>  Thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially 
  energy efficient, but in actual practice such trains turn 
  out to be little more energy-efficient than the airplane. 
  What institution changes are needed to realize the 
  potential of rail&#x27;s inherent energy-efficiency are not 
  clear.
</code></pre>
Three things:<p><pre><code>  1. Render the skill set necessary for piloting any 
     aircraft down to a level of ease as trivial as 
     operating any train. This is not to say that operating
     a train is trivial. Nor that such a feat of 
     equivocation is even possible.

  2. Reduce the failure mode of every aircraft to failure
     modes on par with those of stalled trains, such that 
     a stalled aircraft merely risks mid-air collisions
     with other aircraft still in motion, with outcomes 
     similar to those of a moving train colliding with a 
     stalled train, stuck on the same track. This includes
     accounting for the level of inconvenience and options 
     available for re-routing and remediation of stalled 
     passenger flights, stranded in mid-air, as if they were
     trains stalled on a track. 

  3. Provide insurance coverage that promises that should
     the two preceding requirements not be met, when an air
     disaster does eventually occur, financial costs are 
     reduced to costs comparable to scenarios under which 
     a train might have suffered a similar scale of 
     disaster. Consider the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster [1], 
     for industrial incidents, consider passenger train 
     derailments occurring on bridges [2] for incidents 
     involving passenger fatalities. Obviously financial 
     compensation cannot redress the loss of human lives, 
     but only serve to bankrupt negligent operations that 
     fail to properly protect the lives of the passengers 
     and bystanders that entrust their territories and 
     well-being to said services.
</code></pre>
[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tangiwai_disaster" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tangiwai_disaster</a><p>Based on this, I would assume that a natural equilibrium in human motivation to take on roles either in rail transportation or air transportation would attract a similar or even interchangeable class of personnel, and thus provide similar capacities of efficiency to both sectors of the transportation industry, based on the relative equivalence in the quality of the staff occupying similar positions in each type of service.<p>Working on railroads is not as sexy as working in airplanes, both in terms of the perception of danger, as well as perception of implicit social status. Level the playing field between the task of operating railways with that of flying airplanes, and maybe people will be just as motivated to deliver super-efficient rail travel, as they are to deliver world-class airline service.