Not to presume to speak for others, but I think the point is that slower rail is more likely to get built for reasons of cost. If so, it might become a case of being able to see distant relatives at all... or not.

Hard to imagine there being enough money and resources around to build and maintain 300mph bullet trains to everywhere.

I believe that true high speed rail is down our list of priorities and will not be suitable for many routes for decades to come.

OTOH, "faster than driving" rail is often quite doable at reasonable prices (see Edmonton-Calgary).

Best Hopes,

Alan

I'd be happy with "as fast as driving" or "nearly as fast as driving." Why? Well, when I'm driving, I have to pay attention to the road (not as if everybody else does, but oh well) and as a result I cannot read a book on the way to my destination. (Or do something more mind-numbing such as watching a show/movie, playing a game, etc.)

Another benefit is that it's not a potentially deadly scenario if I were to fall asleep in transit. :) (That's something that my body likes to do.)