Europe wants a high-speed rail network to replace airplanes
cnn.com
cnn.com
Rail is absolutely fantastic for commuting and short haul city to city, but air still reigns for medium to longer distances. The key advantage flight has is you don't need to maintain much infrastructure between the termini apart from radars, ATC and other such stuff. Trains need rail, signalling, bridges, tunnels, power, fences, flora control, flood management, etc. Flights are also quicker, which means fewer pilots, less crew, fewer planes, less maintenance, etc.
That makes long distance rail quite expensive by comparison, if left to the free market. The only way this works is huge government subsidies, but my gut feeling is that'd be better spent on developing zero emissions flying, as I don't think flying is going anywhere. I'm guessing biofuels, synthetic fuels or maybe hydrogen will replace fossil fuels in flight.
That being said, I love travelling around by rail and I'm generally a train nerd, so more investment in the rail would make me personally happy.
I agree carbon neutral aviation fuel is likely going to need to part of future transportation plans, but it's likely going to be really expensive per passenger km, so would be better saved for truly necessary cases like crossing oceans. I'm not sure there is a sustainable way to continue our current level of short and medium haul flight usage.
for 400€ I can do Paris Beijing…