6 ms·

> Trains have always had similar prices to flying. They shouldn't though, it's absurd that they are that way in the US.

by phailhaus 3y ago

brodouevencode 3y ago
Hot take: trains do not appeal to the American culture in the same way it does to other cultures.
- r14c 3y ago
  Speak 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 ago
    The 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 ago
  Hot 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
    Yes, but as you say they're faster and about the same cost. > 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. How?
alephnerd 3y ago
Have you ever seen how big the US is?!? Rail systems work in Europe because densities are extremely high. The closest city to the Bay Area is Sacramento which is 90mi/150km - which is the maximum distance that a commuter rail system can work between two metropolitan areas while still being cheaper than flying. San Francisco to Los Angeles is 620-700km - so from Cologne to Prague. Unlike that route, you'd need to be building through multiple mountain ranges in California AND there are very few cities in between to justify ridership.
- joshmaker 3y ago
  Tokyo to Kyoto is 280mi/445km and it's an extremely fast and comfortable train ride.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    In between Tokyo and Kyoto you have Nagoya Metropolitan Region, which has a population of 10 million. There is no similar sized city in between the Bay Area and LA MSA. This impacts the incentives to build in the US. Metropolitan Areas in the Western United States are VERY far from each other. And this isn't because of sprawl. Take a look at a satellite map of the Western US sometime.
  - ilickpoolalgae 3y ago
    The trip from Tokyo to Kyoto goes through several cities that have >200k people living in them, several of them being larger than Sacramento. Your point about Tokyo -> Kyoto doesn't change the previous issue of economics of trains due to lack of density. Stops (and Population) on Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kyoto: Yokohama: 3mm+ Odawara: 200k+ Hamamatsu: 700k+ Shizuoka: 600k+ Nagoya: 2mm+
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      ... and let's not forget that if you ride that same train for another 50 miles you get to Osaka (~3M) and then Kobe (~1.5M).
- 3y ago
silotis 3y ago
This isn't limited to the US. For the trip distances we're talking about here European trains are often just as expensive as flying if not more so.
- hadlock 3y ago
  European trains will take you from city center to city center with little to no security line. If you go by air, first you need to leave the city to go to the airport, hand off your luggage to a stranger with the promise it will be reunited with you, go through dense security, wait an hour for your plane to arrive, funnel through a single door, sit in a tiny cramped seat, then wait for the whole plane to exit through a single door, go find your luggage, then find ground transportation to the city center. Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process. More if you are planning to go to the airport during rush hour.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process I show up 30 minutes before boarding at my small American airport. Add 20 minutes for travel to the airport and 45 for getting out and you’re sitting comfortably at 90 minutes + flight time door to door to anywhere in the world. In Europe, I agree, it was closed to 90 minutes pre and post flight plus travel time to and from the airport.
    - hadlock 3y ago
      How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use I show up to JFK about 45 minutes before boarding in the early weekday AM, or, if I have the misfortune of having to check a bag, about 75 minutes before. (Same for SFO, PHX and IAD.) American airports are far more efficient, for frequent fliers, than European ones are for Europeans. For good measure. They get it right. If you're rich in Europe, take the train.
ilickpoolalgae 3y ago
In Japan, it's often significantly cheaper to fly than take a train. You can fly from Tokyo to Osaka one-way on budget airlines for <$50 but a one-way train on cheapest shinkansen is about 30% more (even more for a reserved seat)

> 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 ago

Hot take: trains do not appeal to the American culture in the same way it does to other cultures.

r14c 3y ago
Speak 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 ago
  The 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 ago
Hot 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
  Yes, but as you say they're faster and about the same cost. > 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. How?

alephnerd 3y ago

Have you ever seen how big the US is?!? Rail systems work in Europe because densities are extremely high. The closest city to the Bay Area is Sacramento which is 90mi/150km - which is the maximum distance that a commuter rail system can work between two metropolitan areas while still being cheaper than flying. San Francisco to Los Angeles is 620-700km - so from Cologne to Prague. Unlike that route, you'd need to be building through multiple mountain ranges in California AND there are very few cities in between to justify ridership.

joshmaker 3y ago
Tokyo to Kyoto is 280mi/445km and it's an extremely fast and comfortable train ride.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  In between Tokyo and Kyoto you have Nagoya Metropolitan Region, which has a population of 10 million. There is no similar sized city in between the Bay Area and LA MSA. This impacts the incentives to build in the US. Metropolitan Areas in the Western United States are VERY far from each other. And this isn't because of sprawl. Take a look at a satellite map of the Western US sometime.
- ilickpoolalgae 3y ago
  The trip from Tokyo to Kyoto goes through several cities that have >200k people living in them, several of them being larger than Sacramento. Your point about Tokyo -> Kyoto doesn't change the previous issue of economics of trains due to lack of density. Stops (and Population) on Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kyoto: Yokohama: 3mm+ Odawara: 200k+ Hamamatsu: 700k+ Shizuoka: 600k+ Nagoya: 2mm+
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    ... and let's not forget that if you ride that same train for another 50 miles you get to Osaka (~3M) and then Kobe (~1.5M).
3y ago

silotis 3y ago

This isn't limited to the US. For the trip distances we're talking about here European trains are often just as expensive as flying if not more so.

hadlock 3y ago
European trains will take you from city center to city center with little to no security line. If you go by air, first you need to leave the city to go to the airport, hand off your luggage to a stranger with the promise it will be reunited with you, go through dense security, wait an hour for your plane to arrive, funnel through a single door, sit in a tiny cramped seat, then wait for the whole plane to exit through a single door, go find your luggage, then find ground transportation to the city center. Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process. More if you are planning to go to the airport during rush hour.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Any trip that involves air travel instantly adds 3 hours to the process I show up 30 minutes before boarding at my small American airport. Add 20 minutes for travel to the airport and 45 for getting out and you’re sitting comfortably at 90 minutes + flight time door to door to anywhere in the world. In Europe, I agree, it was closed to 90 minutes pre and post flight plus travel time to and from the airport.
  - hadlock 3y ago
    How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > How true is your experience at a major international airport, which most travelers use I show up to JFK about 45 minutes before boarding in the early weekday AM, or, if I have the misfortune of having to check a bag, about 75 minutes before. (Same for SFO, PHX and IAD.) American airports are far more efficient, for frequent fliers, than European ones are for Europeans. For good measure. They get it right. If you're rich in Europe, take the train.

ilickpoolalgae 3y ago

In Japan, it's often significantly cheaper to fly than take a train. You can fly from Tokyo to Osaka one-way on budget airlines for <$50 but a one-way train on cheapest shinkansen is about 30% more (even more for a reserved seat)