6 ms·

This is a beautiful visualization, I still wish we invested more into this infrastructure. Taking the train seems to double the duration of my trip over drivin

by burcs 3y ago

This is a beautiful visualization, I still wish we invested more into this infrastructure. Taking the train seems to double the duration of my trip over driving. Not having to drive is not a bad trade off though, if I have the time to relax.

banannaise 3y ago
It is worth remembering that traveling by train has essentially zero overhead aside from the trip time. You arrive anytime before the train leaves, you get on the train, you get off the train, you don't have to think about considerations such as parking.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  But (outside of the NEC) you do have to worry about 10+ hour delays (the most extreme delay I had an interaction with was being delayed by 2 hours because yesterday's train was in front of us and delayed by about 24 hours.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    If you’ve ridden any long distance trains you’ll die on the rails eventually where they just give up, put everyone in a bus, and you go to the other direction train which they just turn around.
- fellowniusmonk 3y ago
  The problem in the US though is that once you get to your destination you are probably in a city dependent on cars because of such poor walkability and public transport, so now you have to rent a car as well. Looking at travel from Austin to SF, taking a train is a longer duration trip and costs more. One way on Oct 20th, Kayak has a flight for $119 and Wanderu has a train trip for $662 that is 3 days and 8 hours in duration. If I could take my car on this train it might be worth it, from a cost and logistics standpoint train pretty much always loses. I say this as someone who grew up enjoying the metro in dc and ny and use rail and ferry's when overseas. Until infrastructure, subsidies and other externalities are addressed train travel will not be competitive, I have far more hope for level 3 self driving cars than I do for walkable cities and train travel parity.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Amtrak has an auto train route from ~DC to ~Orlando.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      It was (and may still be) Amtraks only profitable long distance line.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > ... you are probably in a city dependent on cars because of such poor walkability and public transport [ .... ] If I could take my car on this train it might be worth it ... Take your bike!
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Yeah so I'm not going to take my 2 year old and 1 year old and all associated baggage to the hotel on my bike.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Would you try to do that on public transit, if it was better?
        ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
        Europe here, and yes, that's what people do.
        rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
        France here. I do take my bike everywhere (RER, TER, TGV… I've never had a car and rented <10x in my life, at 37 y-o). But it's getting difficult to find/book a place in most fast trains, especially between Paris and Loire Valley as there are too few racks available and biking is becoming more popular. I wish all major train stations had 24/7 bike renting service, including for bikepacking.
tempusr 3y ago
I take the Capitol Limited(Chicago <-> DC) most of the time when I go back to home. Pros: + Comfort. You basically get a first class seat with cafeteria access. You can also purchase a whole room, but is less affordable than a plane ticket if you're traveling alone. + Regularity. The train leaves at the same time everyday both from DC and Chicago. + It reaches parts of the country not easily accessed by an Airport. If you need to visit someone in middle of nowhere USA, Amtrak might just be a better option. + Price. Book it in advance and you'll be saving ~$200 in airfare. + No TSA to check your luggage, some trains allow you to bring your bike, and there's always plenty overhead space. + Easy access to outlets for charging devices. Cons: + Long! Chicago to DC takes 17 hours. Chicago to San Francisco can take two days. SW Pennsylvania is snaking route that feels like forever. It's really a question of how much you value your time. + No WIFI on most trains, so bring a book if you cannot scrum up a hotspot.
- monksy 3y ago
  The time it takes isn't that bad. It's a relaxed and more comfortable experience. You are experiencing parts of the us you normally wouldn't see. 17 hours is fairly quick. But the timing is fantastic. Amtrak leaves after work in Chicago and arrives at hotel check-in time in DC the next day
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Sleeper cars are nice
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    Quick? That's 1100km in 17h. 65km/h average. Regular, non-high speed should be able to do max 160-200 km/h, achieving average speed - including stops - over 130km/h, which is 2x faster.
    - monksy 3y ago
      It has a lot of stops, also theres issues with track speed limits. Additionally, it's running on freight rail, not passenger rail. So theres no hope of hitting 130km/h. (80mph in freedom units) On top of that our cars are grandfathered in and can't be replaced at the moment.
izzydata 3y ago
If it were just a matter of time being longer I would do it more often. However, it is also way more expensive when traveling with two or more people.
jdwithit 3y ago
I used to take the Amtrak Acela from Boston to NYC a few times a year for business travel and it was very enjoyable. I always looked forward to the ride, which is absolutely not something I would ever say about driving or flying these days. Comfortable, scenic, quiet, possible to work (or just relax and watch a movie) in your seat, reasonable food and drink available in the dining car. Step off the train and you're in the heart of the city. That said it would be much tougher to justify if work wasn't footing the bill. A single round trip is up around $500 per person unless you are willing to leave at the crack of dawn. Doing this regularly, or with a family, would get prohibitively expensive for most people. I definitely wish rail travel was more viable and accessible in the US, it's got so much going for it.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I agree with most of your post, but just out of curiosity: how far in advance were you making your NYC<->BOS bookings? I've done the NYC<->WAS Acela dozens of times in the last decade and NYC<->BOS maybe a dozen times, and my roundtrips are typically $250 if I book around a month out.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    I was looking at NYC<->BOS for the beginning of November, and was shocked to see $20 each way available if you're willing to get to the station at 6am.
  - jdwithit 3y ago
    To be honest my job changed during the pandemic so I have not made the trip in several years. Before making my post I went on the Amtrak website and priced out a trip in mid October. It was about $225 each way before tax etc. If you were willing to get on the 6am train it was a few bucks cheaper. I'm happy to concede that you could get better deals booking further out etc, I didn't spend time checking. Hell, I'd love to be wrong. Because again, I enjoy traveling by rail. If I somehow accidentally priced the literal worst case, that's good to know.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
crooked-v 3y ago
> Taking the train seems to double the duration of my trip over driving. Part of this is that there's zero enforcement of the theoretical legal authority that Amtrak trains have over freight transit. Everything ends up slow and delayed almost everywhere because of incredibly predictable issues with passenger trains stuck behind much slower freight trains.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The only real way to enforce this would be to forbid freight trains that are longer than the longest siding within 30/60 miles.
wolverine876 3y ago
Would you pay higher taxes for it?
- burkaman 3y ago
  I would. We could tax everyone like $20 a year and basically double federal Amtrak grants. Or we could reallocate existing money, maybe stop subsiding people to grow corn to make gas and spend that money on improving railroads. Or buy one fewer F-35 every year or something. Lots of options, we don't spend very much on Amtrak right now.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The subsidy is about $2b, or $7 per person or $15 per household. Some of that subsidy also indirectly goes to the freight railroads.

by burcs 3y ago

banannaise 3y ago

It is worth remembering that traveling by train has essentially zero overhead aside from the trip time. You arrive anytime before the train leaves, you get on the train, you get off the train, you don't have to think about considerations such as parking.

aidenn0 3y ago
But (outside of the NEC) you do have to worry about 10+ hour delays (the most extreme delay I had an interaction with was being delayed by 2 hours because yesterday's train was in front of us and delayed by about 24 hours.
- bombcar 3y ago
  If you’ve ridden any long distance trains you’ll die on the rails eventually where they just give up, put everyone in a bus, and you go to the other direction train which they just turn around.
fellowniusmonk 3y ago
The problem in the US though is that once you get to your destination you are probably in a city dependent on cars because of such poor walkability and public transport, so now you have to rent a car as well. Looking at travel from Austin to SF, taking a train is a longer duration trip and costs more. One way on Oct 20th, Kayak has a flight for $119 and Wanderu has a train trip for $662 that is 3 days and 8 hours in duration. If I could take my car on this train it might be worth it, from a cost and logistics standpoint train pretty much always loses. I say this as someone who grew up enjoying the metro in dc and ny and use rail and ferry's when overseas. Until infrastructure, subsidies and other externalities are addressed train travel will not be competitive, I have far more hope for level 3 self driving cars than I do for walkable cities and train travel parity.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Amtrak has an auto train route from ~DC to ~Orlando.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It was (and may still be) Amtraks only profitable long distance line.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > ... you are probably in a city dependent on cars because of such poor walkability and public transport [ .... ] If I could take my car on this train it might be worth it ... Take your bike!
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Yeah so I'm not going to take my 2 year old and 1 year old and all associated baggage to the hotel on my bike.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Would you try to do that on public transit, if it was better?
      - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
        Europe here, and yes, that's what people do.
        rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
        France here. I do take my bike everywhere (RER, TER, TGV… I've never had a car and rented <10x in my life, at 37 y-o). But it's getting difficult to find/book a place in most fast trains, especially between Paris and Loire Valley as there are too few racks available and biking is becoming more popular. I wish all major train stations had 24/7 bike renting service, including for bikepacking.

tempusr 3y ago

I take the Capitol Limited(Chicago <-> DC) most of the time when I go back to home. Pros: + Comfort. You basically get a first class seat with cafeteria access. You can also purchase a whole room, but is less affordable than a plane ticket if you're traveling alone. + Regularity. The train leaves at the same time everyday both from DC and Chicago. + It reaches parts of the country not easily accessed by an Airport. If you need to visit someone in middle of nowhere USA, Amtrak might just be a better option. + Price. Book it in advance and you'll be saving ~$200 in airfare. + No TSA to check your luggage, some trains allow you to bring your bike, and there's always plenty overhead space. + Easy access to outlets for charging devices. Cons: + Long! Chicago to DC takes 17 hours. Chicago to San Francisco can take two days. SW Pennsylvania is snaking route that feels like forever. It's really a question of how much you value your time. + No WIFI on most trains, so bring a book if you cannot scrum up a hotspot.

monksy 3y ago
The time it takes isn't that bad. It's a relaxed and more comfortable experience. You are experiencing parts of the us you normally wouldn't see. 17 hours is fairly quick. But the timing is fantastic. Amtrak leaves after work in Chicago and arrives at hotel check-in time in DC the next day
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Sleeper cars are nice
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  Quick? That's 1100km in 17h. 65km/h average. Regular, non-high speed should be able to do max 160-200 km/h, achieving average speed - including stops - over 130km/h, which is 2x faster.
  - monksy 3y ago
    It has a lot of stops, also theres issues with track speed limits. Additionally, it's running on freight rail, not passenger rail. So theres no hope of hitting 130km/h. (80mph in freedom units) On top of that our cars are grandfathered in and can't be replaced at the moment.

izzydata 3y ago

If it were just a matter of time being longer I would do it more often. However, it is also way more expensive when traveling with two or more people.

jdwithit 3y ago

I used to take the Amtrak Acela from Boston to NYC a few times a year for business travel and it was very enjoyable. I always looked forward to the ride, which is absolutely not something I would ever say about driving or flying these days. Comfortable, scenic, quiet, possible to work (or just relax and watch a movie) in your seat, reasonable food and drink available in the dining car. Step off the train and you're in the heart of the city. That said it would be much tougher to justify if work wasn't footing the bill. A single round trip is up around $500 per person unless you are willing to leave at the crack of dawn. Doing this regularly, or with a family, would get prohibitively expensive for most people. I definitely wish rail travel was more viable and accessible in the US, it's got so much going for it.

woodruffw 3y ago
I agree with most of your post, but just out of curiosity: how far in advance were you making your NYC<->BOS bookings? I've done the NYC<->WAS Acela dozens of times in the last decade and NYC<->BOS maybe a dozen times, and my roundtrips are typically $250 if I book around a month out.
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I was looking at NYC<->BOS for the beginning of November, and was shocked to see $20 each way available if you're willing to get to the station at 6am.
- jdwithit 3y ago
  To be honest my job changed during the pandemic so I have not made the trip in several years. Before making my post I went on the Amtrak website and priced out a trip in mid October. It was about $225 each way before tax etc. If you were willing to get on the 6am train it was a few bucks cheaper. I'm happy to concede that you could get better deals booking further out etc, I didn't spend time checking. Hell, I'd love to be wrong. Because again, I enjoy traveling by rail. If I somehow accidentally priced the literal worst case, that's good to know.
wahnfrieden 3y ago

crooked-v 3y ago

> Taking the train seems to double the duration of my trip over driving. Part of this is that there's zero enforcement of the theoretical legal authority that Amtrak trains have over freight transit. Everything ends up slow and delayed almost everywhere because of incredibly predictable issues with passenger trains stuck behind much slower freight trains.

bombcar 3y ago
The only real way to enforce this would be to forbid freight trains that are longer than the longest siding within 30/60 miles.

wolverine876 3y ago

Would you pay higher taxes for it?

burkaman 3y ago
I would. We could tax everyone like $20 a year and basically double federal Amtrak grants. Or we could reallocate existing money, maybe stop subsiding people to grow corn to make gas and spend that money on improving railroads. Or buy one fewer F-35 every year or something. Lots of options, we don't spend very much on Amtrak right now.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The subsidy is about $2b, or $7 per person or $15 per household. Some of that subsidy also indirectly goes to the freight railroads.