6 ms·
Whats the price point? Trains have always had similar prices to flying. Nice thing about flying to SF is that i can fly in the morning and fly back out in t
by adrr 3y ago
Whats the price point? Trains have always had similar prices to flying. Nice thing about flying to SF is that i can fly in the morning and fly back out in the evening.
- alephnerd 3y agoStop downvoting this guy. It's a fair point.
- objektif 3y agoWhat is the fair point? At this point we should be welcoming alternate form of transportation at any price point in my opinion as long as it is not 5-10x.
- alephnerd 3y agoThe money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport. There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure. Investing on enhancing and integrating the Capitol Corridor, ACE, Caltrains, BART, Muni, and VTA into a unified system has a better RoI than a 400-500mi rail line that will most likely have a train leaving on an hourly cadence. It's a similar story for Los Angeles and San Diego. Flights cost around $100-200 for a round trip and take around 3 hours even factoring in security and commute to and from the airport. It would be the same length of time commuting from a railway station to the other, the railway would take 2 additional hours, and the price would be roughly comparable.
- 1024core 3y ago> The money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport. > There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure. Exactly. The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else. That is the most useful metric. If spending $100B on SF to LA (400mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, then that's 400M passenger-miles, or 250 dollars per pax-mile. But if spending $5B on (say) SF to SJ (50mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, which is 50M passenger-miles, then it is 100 dollars per pax-mile, a much better tradeoff.
- alephnerd 3y ago> The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else San Jose to SF (Caltrain) has a yearly ridership of 5.5 Million. Los Angeles to SF has a yearly ridership of 2.2 Million. I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently.
- 1024core 3y ago> I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently. I live in California, chief. You know what they say about making ASSumptions? And I was using round numbers to make the calculations easier and the point easier to understand.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoReplies are less likely to be downvoted when they aren't judgmental against those with dissimilar views as the poster.
- phailhaus 3y ago> Trains have always had similar prices to flying. They shouldn't though, it's absurd that they are that way in the US.
- brodouevencode 3y agoHot take: trains do not appeal to the American culture in the same way it does to other cultures.
- r14c 3y agoSpeak for yourself pal. Trains being politically difficult doesn't make them unappealing, train lovers just don't have the industrial weight of aviation and big car behind them.
- philwelch 3y agoThe US had a massive, federally subsidized passenger rail industry since the 19th century. The first transcontinental railroad was one of the defining achievements of the country. The reason Americans abandoned passenger rail for airlines and cars wasn’t because of lack of support for railroads, it’s because airlines and cars rendered passenger rail obsolete. Freight rail still makes sense though, and the US uses more freight rail than any other country.
- jerlam 3y agoHot take: Americans don't love flying either. Airplanes are just the most cost-effective, reliable, and fastest method to get around for long-distance travel in the US. Train service is often so bad that people would rather drive their cars and sit in traffic for long periods of time, because train travel is still worse. Make train travel cheaper, reliable, comfortable, and to places that people actually want to go, and people will take them. Of course some of these problems are much harder to fix than others.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
- paxys 3y agoThey don't on the east coast. For example depending on the timing you can do NYC - DC or NYC - Boston for like $15 one way on Amtrak. There are 50+ trains a day, and they all go full. SF - LA is only slightly longer, and there's no reason for it to cost hundreds.
- alephnerd 3y ago> NYC - Boston for like $15 one way Bullshit. I went to school in Boston. To get a one way like that I'd have to book weeks in advanced and it would be in the middle of the night. I'm on the Amtrak website right now and if I book a one way trip from South Station (boston) to Penn Station (NYC) for today, it is $250 (tbf, it would be a last minute booking). If I book one for weeks in advance, it's still at $40-100.
- oogali 3y agoNYP-BOS May 7, 7:50pm-12:15am $20 [X] Weeks in advance [ ] Middle of the night
- alephnerd 3y agoWhy would I commute from NYC to Boston at 8pm on a Tuesday? The fact that this is one of the few counters you could find only proves my point.
- idunnoman1222 3y agoRide is already too long to use as a commute
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoHmm, maybe it's middle age catching up with me, but a train pulling in South St at quarter after midnight feels like the middle of the night to me.
- philwelch 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- angmarsbane 3y agoSimilar in price, but difference in experience. I would much rather travel by train with kids <5 than by a plane.
- raydev 3y agoWhat's the total door-to-door commute time for you, including getting to the airport and going through security?