Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet.
Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work. That means you could live in downtown Philly and work in Manhattan, 30 minutes away. The world becomes a lot smaller.
Not really, because jets will go much more places that your single maglev line ever will. That's the problem with hi-tech trains. They are extremely costly to deploy in terms of infrastructure, they go over land that could be used for other purposes, and because of the large investment required they only go in very few places. Jets win everywhere else.
Of course they don't. Getting to an airport 60-90 minutes before a flight that's only 60-90 minutes doesn't make much sense
But the requirement to arrive 90 minutes before departure time is not a problem with the vehicle but the bureaucracy and security apparatus around it.
True Story: while I like to arrive well before a flight (just in case) when I was younger it was not unheard of to arrive at the airport _minutes_ before flight departure and simply stroll down the causeway, and onto the flight.
And the british airways cream tea was amazing as it should be for >£200
The article mentions Washington to Baltimore as the first segment to be built. The existing rail lines pass over a number of level crossings, and pass under some bridge spans that are fairly snug for the existing track. And the mile or two before you get to Baltimore's Penn Station are in tunnel. I doubt the tunnel has much width to spare--how much would it cost in 2014 to widen a couple of miles of tunnel under a densely built city?
73 miles of track, 40 stations, 26 miles of tunnel under London. £16bn ($27bn-ish). So, for your project, I'd handwave at $1-5bn.
This is not a good thing.