Frank, average speed means that stops and delays have been already factored in. See wikipedia about that if interested - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_t... Train goes from downtown to downtown, while it takes 3 means of transportation if you choose to fly. One can work or relax in train, instead of driving or going through security. And it is still cheaper, even when carbon tax is not implemented. Train can be 100% electric (actually it is in the developed parts of the world), while plane is hardly even close to that.

Assessing trains based on their direct economic sustainability is an unfair concept by itself. When was the last time somebody has assessed the direct profitability of highways? They are just built on tax dollars to support public infrastructure. A better approach would be to compare the costs of transporting the necessary mass of people by a highway and a railway, both build from scratch and maintained over 50 years.
Or, even wider, what is the business need to work in downtowns?

Still your numbers do not add up. Let's compare apples to apples and talk about populated part of Ontario, or connections between urban centres. In this case we'll have a much closer pictures: cities with population of over a million at distances measured at hundreds of kilometers in both cases. ____With even lower population density the train link between Moscow and St.Petersburg (650 km) is served by 20-30 trains daily (mostly overnight, 15 cars per train, 36-60 passengers per car). Prices vary by service and level and time and still are lower but comparable to air travel. Train is very convenient when it connects to other means of public transit. The same link is served by at least 15 planes as well.

Also, to me a high occupancy day train consists of 10 cars with about 150 passengers each, or 1,500 passengers per train. Even with a 200 passengers I wonder how have you arrived at 29000: 200*365*24*2=3,504,000. With 1500 passengers the same ridership can be reached with jus 7 trains a day, which is roughly the level at which GO Transit profitably operates in the GTA.

Nevertheless, I agree with your very last paragraph - a key to a more enviro-friendly living is price at the pump. The European way of taxing petroleum has resulted in infrastructure-rich cities, while North-American way generates endless countryside, huge cars and enormous unihabited homes, 'cos everybody is driving somewhere most of the time.

Will this continent ever be urbanized!?

Andrew, check your math!
I was surprised to read your Opinion about high-speed train project in Alberta. Based on some "consulting research" you argue that train may not divert substantial number of 300 million drivers from the highway.
A simple math shows that this number is hardly realistic:
1. A regular year has 525,600 minutes (365*24*60)
2. A safe distance between cars of 40 m at average speed of 80 km/h results in 1.8 second interval between cars or 33 cars per minute. This a maximum theoretical capacity per lane.
3. At 75% highway load of maximum capacity a 4-lane highway (2 in each direction) we shall have 52,560,000 cars per year

Though the above assumptions are already stretched beyond reasonable the result is still way below 300 million. So unless the highway in question has 8 lanes and each car carries 3 passengers it is difficult to imagine how 300 million trips between Calgary and Edmonton per year. Practically, I think a max number of 25 million trips is much closer to reality.

Here goes your main point in highway vs train comparison.