3 ms·

If cross-country trains were a viable alternative I'd choose them over flying in a heartbeat.

• distract8901 3y ago
  Man, I'm still mad that a flight from Kentucky to DC cost less than a train. There was an Amtrak station within walking distance of my house, but it was cheaper to drive an hour to an airport and take a flight. Also the train was like 6 or 8 stopovers and changes. Absolute insanity.
• dzhiurgis 3y ago
  Let’s say they are but 10x time and 10x the cost but 1.5x comfort - would you?
  • dadoomer 3y ago
    In that case they wouldn't be a viable alternative, would they. A train can go 500+ km/h, and with good planning they don't have to cost 10x, so you're premise does not stand.
    • dzhiurgis 3y ago
      Can you give examples where they are “viable”? In Japan they are still several times more expensive and slower (over long distance, as OP suggested).
  • tavavex 3y ago
    In this case, I would not. But in the real world, trains hit none of these criteria. Sure, they're slower, but the ideal case scenario is one where they can replace short- and medium-haul flights, where the difference in speed can be made up for the extra hours spent at an airport. Nor are they more expensive - trains are cheaper to run per person and can carry a ton of people at once. And while this depends on the train service, the comfort is generally much better - there's more legroom and the seats are more comfortable, and if they serve food on board, it's superior to in-flight food. And that's not even mentioning other benefits like no limits on luggage weight or not having to throw out all drinks before boarding.
• mcntsh 3y ago
  It took over 24 hours by train from Seattle to San Jose.... and that was a direct train, no transfers. Absolutely shameful.