This is a question I've seen countless times, mostly from North Americans, and I guess I'm not the only one to have seen it on travel forums. Over the time I have learnt that if the answer is no, that I should add "but you should take the train anyway because it is faster, cheaper and more comfortable" to my reply (where appropriate). Many people seem to understand, but it sometimes take a lot of effort to explain really basic things. Like the one time response was "Really, I thought it was just a one hour flight?". I then had explain that yes, it is a one hour flight. But the gate closes 20 min before departure, and you need to add time for going to and from the airports and security as well. And no, you don't need to be at the station 2 hours before the train departs.
The same with cars to a certain extent. Both within cities and between cities. I once tried to explain to a US woman that is was a bad idea to rent a car at the airport just to drive to Stockholm and then use it to get around the city.
So, now that we all are at home and a bit bored I thought I should take the opportunity to ask, since there are many North Americans here. Is the concept of a train actually being the best option to get from A to B and not just something you take because of the views or because it is quaint really that strange? Or the idea of public transport in cities in general?