It highly depends on route and geography, but the answer is usually no, and no. Boston-NYC (equivalent to Paris-Antwerp), or NYC-DC (similar)? Take the train--it's not much slower since it's such a pain to get to/from the airports, and it's more comfortable than flying. San Francisco-Los Angeles (equivalent to Paris-Toulouse)? Take a plane (or drive). For some intercity travel (San Francisco - San Jose, for example, a similar distance to Amsterdam - Rotterdam, or San Francisco - Sacramento, a similar distance to Amsterdam - Antwerp), trains are a perfectly reasonable choice. For those distances though, many (most) will choose to drive. The city pair equivalents that I just mentioned above may put into perspective how large the distances we're talking about in the US are, which contributes to (but is far from the only factor in) the relative convenience of train travel. San Francisco-Boston, one of my other common routes back in the day? That's like from the top of Norway to the Strait of Gibraltar. No way I'd do that with a train. Buses? For travel between major metropolitan areas? They're certainly not my favorite way to traverse routes of the above mentioned city pairs. They're longer, less comfortable, and smellier. And even now that I live in the EU, there are still some city pairs where it makes more sense for me to fly than to take the train, unfortunately. I travel quite frequently between Brussels and Toulouse, and it's an 8 hour train ride at best (with having to change between Gare du Nord and Gare Montparnasse in Paris, on top of that), with a price that is usually (at least) double that of the corresponding flight (triple, if I'm willing to fly Ryanair to Charleroi, which is usually not worth the price savings), whereas the plane is only 1.5 hrs (3 even if you count travel to/from the airport) Are US trains notably cheaper or more convenient than airlines or buses?