10 ms·

If only we had a choice in the U.S. Flying across the country costs about the same as taking a train with amtrak. It takes 5 hours to make that flight or so, ca

If only we had a choice in the U.S. Flying across the country costs about the same as taking a train with amtrak. It takes 5 hours to make that flight or so, call it 8 hours dealing with the airport. The train ride on the other hand is 3 days, like its still the 1800s. The train could also face big delays.

jeoqn 4y ago
In Spain taking a train costs much more than taking a plane. Take all the “here in the eu” comments as what they are: anecdotes of a certain country or plain propaganda.
- lm28469 4y ago
  The main reason is that airlines and their operations are heavily subsidised, it's not an immutable law of physics
  - jeoqn 4y ago
    I’ve been reading about it and it seems that most “subsidies” are tax exemptions - those should be extended to train transport then.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      Most of the european rail systems are at least semi-nationalized.
    - filleokus 4y ago
      Most of the exemptions are for e.g taxes on fuel, or land taxes for airports etc. Taxing flights the same way e.g cars are taxed would make trains more competitive, but wouldn't really lower the price for trains. In many places train infrastructure is also heavily subsidised. The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times). With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
      - sagarm 4y ago
        Tracks form a network that can be used to reach more than just the directly connected cities. Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows. On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high. So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Uhm. Is this propaganda? https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-medium-distance-trains-will-be-free-this-autumn-thanks-to-a-windfall-tax https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-m... https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-trains-in-spain-september https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-tra... https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-for-free-by-train-for-all-of-2023/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-f...
  - jeoqn 4y ago
    That’s only for short distances (where you wouldn’t catch a plane) and it will only be this year.
    - hinata08 4y ago
      it wasn't a discussion about price. It was about the service that is offered Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them (Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business) Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips. Plane is a bit more expensive. but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend. Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates. It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages
bobthepanda 4y ago
To go from coast to coast even with a dedicated high speed train would easily take a day or two. It’s just not competitive over 1000km.
- comte7092 4y ago
  Definitely, there’s a ton of low hanging fruit to be picked in the US, in both the NE and the Midwest alone. Pretty much everywhere east of the Mississippi is a prime target for high speed rail.
  - Operyl 4y ago
    Brightline is giving us a decent high speed rail in Florida, and I’ve heard they’re doing something on the west coast too. I can’t wait for it to be connected state wide, all the Disney trips … heh.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      Beightline travels at the normal federal limit of 79mph. The _lowest_ internationally accepted limit for high speed rail is 125mph. Even if Beightline ever actually upgrades to 110mph that still won’t be real HSR. They also have a real problem with Florida drivers being Florida drivers. True high speed rail is fully grade separated (no road crossings)
      - Operyl 4y ago
        Sorry, I thought I put that in quotes when I posted. It’s high speed compared to everything else here, and better than what we had before. That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando: > Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Disney specifically said no (so far) because Brightline said yes to Universal.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Passenger jets travel about 500 miles an hour or faster. Bullet trains (which we don't even have in the US) are around 100-200mph at best. That's still a huge difference unfortunately, especially going 2500+ miles across the entire country.
- anaganisk 4y ago
  That's a bad way to compare. You are obviously not factoring in the checkin,boarding,de-boarding, and travel to airport times, which will almost add up to similar times. Japan has literally bought major cities in commute distance with bullet trains. What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains. You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully. If America is serious about trains, all it has to do is add more sleeper cars, and you will see how liberating train travel is.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    It's not a bad way to compare when looking at flights traveling 2500+ miles...
    - anaganisk 4y ago
      If US like the rest of the world, make trains popular and brings the costs down for trains and actually has more connectivity. The distance will quickly not become a problem. Like I said all we need is a sleeper coach, and we just have comfortable nap to the destination over night. India is able to transport millions of people in 2500+ KMs routes a day, you are looking at the people who are forced to pay and travel in those forsaken airliner comfort. Trains will only bring more people together when they connect more and make it affordable.
      - areyousure 4y ago
        In case anyone is curious, India has a single train route over 2500 miles long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_Vivek_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_... It runs twice a week and takes over 3 full days. Meanwhile, the fastest train in India averages under 60 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express
burkaman 4y ago
Also, the bike situation is much worse than in Europe. Here's how it works on Amtrak in my experience: 1. Show up to the train station with your bike. 2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train. 3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car. 4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall. 5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close. That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Conversely, I’ve had this experience: - show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it. - get on train. - get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride. Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    Nice, that sounds great. I guess like everything else it always depends where in the country you are.
    - 8note 4y ago
ActorNightly 4y ago
Honestly, I like the ability to drive in US for comparable distances that you would take the train in EU. Everything happens on my own schedule without having to deal with people when I drive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  As with many tradeoffs in life, awesome for the individual in the present (assuming they can afford it), terrible for the collective and the future.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pif 4y ago
  Sure, I like driving to places, too, but having more trains would not hinder your journey by car.
- 8note 4y ago
  I think of driving as near constantly dealing with people. They're around you the whole time, more or less aggressive, skilled and less skilled, and more or less caring about their own life while operating their own deadly machine. Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
- earthling8118 4y ago
  I don't get any control over my schedule when driving long distance. I have to drive. A constant focus on keeping myselr alive. If I was on a train I could read, code, play games, or do whatever I felt like.
tomjakubowski 4y ago
Los Angeles to New York is 2800 miles. That's about the same distance as from Lisbon to Moscow. That trip if done entirely by train takes 4 days, according to Google. https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8 https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8
- burkaman 4y ago
  LA-NYC on Amtrak right now can be done for $251 in 70 hours. If you want a sleeper car it's $1500+, though you can split that with another person.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
That's a terrible excuse. Most flights in the US aren't to cross coast to coast. If you take the top 10 most used flight routes in the US: LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel. JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better. So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.
- bsder 4y ago
  Many of those "take a train" routes aren't really your destination, though. For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator. Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.
uoaei 4y ago
Amtrak is supposed to get first priority, but lines are still owned by freight companies who culled many passenger-heavy lines for "efficiency" and run extremely long trains that clog up traffic for hours, again for some spreadsheet-worthy target metric of "efficiency". Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74
dzhiurgis 4y ago
So the market found equilibrium where trains are much more fit for cargo. Why should we regulate it otherwise?
Fatnino 4y ago
Try actually booking a train from San Francisco to Chicago that doesn't involve travel on a weekend. It just doesn't exist.
- ac29 4y ago
  The California Zephyr goes from the Bay Area to Chicago every day and its a ~2 day journey.

jeoqn 4y ago

In Spain taking a train costs much more than taking a plane. Take all the “here in the eu” comments as what they are: anecdotes of a certain country or plain propaganda.

lm28469 4y ago
The main reason is that airlines and their operations are heavily subsidised, it's not an immutable law of physics
- jeoqn 4y ago
  I’ve been reading about it and it seems that most “subsidies” are tax exemptions - those should be extended to train transport then.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Most of the european rail systems are at least semi-nationalized.
  - filleokus 4y ago
    Most of the exemptions are for e.g taxes on fuel, or land taxes for airports etc. Taxing flights the same way e.g cars are taxed would make trains more competitive, but wouldn't really lower the price for trains. In many places train infrastructure is also heavily subsidised. The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times). With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
    - sagarm 4y ago
      Tracks form a network that can be used to reach more than just the directly connected cities. Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows. On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high. So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Uhm. Is this propaganda? https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-medium-distance-trains-will-be-free-this-autumn-thanks-to-a-windfall-tax https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-m... https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/ https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-trains-in-spain-september https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-tra... https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-for-free-by-train-for-all-of-2023/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-f...
- jeoqn 4y ago
  That’s only for short distances (where you wouldn’t catch a plane) and it will only be this year.
  - hinata08 4y ago
    it wasn't a discussion about price. It was about the service that is offered Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them (Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business) Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips. Plane is a bit more expensive. but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend. Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates. It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages

bobthepanda 4y ago

To go from coast to coast even with a dedicated high speed train would easily take a day or two. It’s just not competitive over 1000km.

comte7092 4y ago
Definitely, there’s a ton of low hanging fruit to be picked in the US, in both the NE and the Midwest alone. Pretty much everywhere east of the Mississippi is a prime target for high speed rail.
- Operyl 4y ago
  Brightline is giving us a decent high speed rail in Florida, and I’ve heard they’re doing something on the west coast too. I can’t wait for it to be connected state wide, all the Disney trips … heh.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Beightline travels at the normal federal limit of 79mph. The _lowest_ internationally accepted limit for high speed rail is 125mph. Even if Beightline ever actually upgrades to 110mph that still won’t be real HSR. They also have a real problem with Florida drivers being Florida drivers. True high speed rail is fully grade separated (no road crossings)
    - Operyl 4y ago
      Sorry, I thought I put that in quotes when I posted. It’s high speed compared to everything else here, and better than what we had before. That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando: > Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Disney specifically said no (so far) because Brightline said yes to Universal.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Passenger jets travel about 500 miles an hour or faster. Bullet trains (which we don't even have in the US) are around 100-200mph at best. That's still a huge difference unfortunately, especially going 2500+ miles across the entire country.

anaganisk 4y ago
That's a bad way to compare. You are obviously not factoring in the checkin,boarding,de-boarding, and travel to airport times, which will almost add up to similar times. Japan has literally bought major cities in commute distance with bullet trains. What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains. You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully. If America is serious about trains, all it has to do is add more sleeper cars, and you will see how liberating train travel is.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  It's not a bad way to compare when looking at flights traveling 2500+ miles...
  - anaganisk 4y ago
    If US like the rest of the world, make trains popular and brings the costs down for trains and actually has more connectivity. The distance will quickly not become a problem. Like I said all we need is a sleeper coach, and we just have comfortable nap to the destination over night. India is able to transport millions of people in 2500+ KMs routes a day, you are looking at the people who are forced to pay and travel in those forsaken airliner comfort. Trains will only bring more people together when they connect more and make it affordable.
    - areyousure 4y ago
      In case anyone is curious, India has a single train route over 2500 miles long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_Vivek_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibrugarh%E2%80%93Kanyakumari_... It runs twice a week and takes over 3 full days. Meanwhile, the fastest train in India averages under 60 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express

burkaman 4y ago

Also, the bike situation is much worse than in Europe. Here's how it works on Amtrak in my experience: 1. Show up to the train station with your bike. 2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train. 3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car. 4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall. 5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close. That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.

kasey_junk 4y ago
Conversely, I’ve had this experience: - show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it. - get on train. - get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride. Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Nice, that sounds great. I guess like everything else it always depends where in the country you are.
  - 8note 4y ago

ActorNightly 4y ago

Honestly, I like the ability to drive in US for comparable distances that you would take the train in EU. Everything happens on my own schedule without having to deal with people when I drive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 4y ago
As with many tradeoffs in life, awesome for the individual in the present (assuming they can afford it), terrible for the collective and the future.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pif 4y ago
Sure, I like driving to places, too, but having more trains would not hinder your journey by car.
8note 4y ago
I think of driving as near constantly dealing with people. They're around you the whole time, more or less aggressive, skilled and less skilled, and more or less caring about their own life while operating their own deadly machine. Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
earthling8118 4y ago
I don't get any control over my schedule when driving long distance. I have to drive. A constant focus on keeping myselr alive. If I was on a train I could read, code, play games, or do whatever I felt like.

tomjakubowski 4y ago

Los Angeles to New York is 2800 miles. That's about the same distance as from Lisbon to Moscow. That trip if done entirely by train takes 4 days, according to Google. https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8 https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8

burkaman 4y ago
LA-NYC on Amtrak right now can be done for $251 in 70 hours. If you want a sleeper car it's $1500+, though you can split that with another person.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

That's a terrible excuse. Most flights in the US aren't to cross coast to coast. If you take the top 10 most used flight routes in the US: LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel. JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better. So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.

bsder 4y ago
Many of those "take a train" routes aren't really your destination, though. For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator. Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.

uoaei 4y ago

Amtrak is supposed to get first priority, but lines are still owned by freight companies who culled many passenger-heavy lines for "efficiency" and run extremely long trains that clog up traffic for hours, again for some spreadsheet-worthy target metric of "efficiency". Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74

dzhiurgis 4y ago

So the market found equilibrium where trains are much more fit for cargo. Why should we regulate it otherwise?

Fatnino 4y ago

Try actually booking a train from San Francisco to Chicago that doesn't involve travel on a weekend. It just doesn't exist.

ac29 4y ago
The California Zephyr goes from the Bay Area to Chicago every day and its a ~2 day journey.