3 ms·

You're correct in the sense that eventually train security will approach airline security and take just as long, but trains still have the advantage of being ab

You're correct in the sense that eventually train security will approach airline security and take just as long, but trains still have the advantage of being able to load and unload faster (there are more doors and they are generally more spacious) and baggage doesn't have to be handled by a crew... each passenger can carry on his own bags and stow them. Also, once you are on a train, the crew doesn't have to spend as much time doing pre-departure stuff like checking seatbacks/belts/tray tables and running through the safety instructions that no one listens to. Lastly, they have a slight advantage (when run well) of being pretty darn consistent on departure and arrival times, meaning riders don't have to leave as much fudge time. In my experience, if you only have a carry-on, you can catch a plane by showing up an hour early, but you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early (I'm thinking of the Eurostar, where security is similar to an airport). Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. There is more space, you can stand/sit/walk at will, and there is actually something to look at besides a white ocean of clouds. Not to mention the bathrooms aren't the size of high school lockers.

jrockway 18y ago
you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early In the US and Japan, I have done even better than this -- you can show up right at the scheduled departure time, and as long as you make it through the doors, everything is fine. (The train in the US wasn't high-speed, FWIW.) This works nicely in Japan, especially, as the train frequencies on the Shinkansen are almost the same as commuter trains. If you don't have a reservation, you can just get on whatever train you like. This convenience would obviously never work for airlines. Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. I think the convenience is that trains can go to the city-center. Everywhere I go, it always adds an extra hour on each end to get from the city center to the airport. (Chicago Midway and NY LaGuardia are a bit different in this respect.) Even with not-that-high-speed trains, this seems to make it convenient enough to consider using. I know the Boston/Washington DC corridor benefits from this. (They are all short flights, but it is a pain to go from the city center to the airport, wait a while, spend 30 minutes on the plane, and then go from the airport to the destination city center. If you take the train, you cut out all the waiting and needless travel, you arrive at your actual destination.)
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  Amtrak from Boston to NYC is a pleasant experience but it is very slow and expensive. Even with getting to and from the airport, the plane is faster. The fastest ground transport between the two cities is the Chinatown bus and it only costs $10. I'm all for more trains but as someone else pointed out, SF to LA is a weird route. Once you get to LA, what do you do? Rent a car? The other direction makes more sense but I wonder if there are many people who actually go from LA to SF on a regular basis. I actually do, and it only costs $40 on Virgin America and hardly anyone is on the plane. It would make more sense having high speed rail going from SF->PDX->SEA->VAN... at least once you get to those cities you can get around without a car.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    It would make more sense having high speed rail going from SF->PDX->SEA->VAN... at least once you get to those cities you can get around without a car. Yes, very good point. Even only connecting Portland / Seattle / Vancouver would be fine. That is a short enough distance for rail to be competitive, and there is definitely demand on that route. (Last time I needed to go from Seattle to Portland, flying was actually cheaper than Amtrak. And the flight was out of Boeing Field, so there was no security to deal with.)

jrockway 18y ago

you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early In the US and Japan, I have done even better than this -- you can show up right at the scheduled departure time, and as long as you make it through the doors, everything is fine. (The train in the US wasn't high-speed, FWIW.) This works nicely in Japan, especially, as the train frequencies on the Shinkansen are almost the same as commuter trains. If you don't have a reservation, you can just get on whatever train you like. This convenience would obviously never work for airlines. Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. I think the convenience is that trains can go to the city-center. Everywhere I go, it always adds an extra hour on each end to get from the city center to the airport. (Chicago Midway and NY LaGuardia are a bit different in this respect.) Even with not-that-high-speed trains, this seems to make it convenient enough to consider using. I know the Boston/Washington DC corridor benefits from this. (They are all short flights, but it is a pain to go from the city center to the airport, wait a while, spend 30 minutes on the plane, and then go from the airport to the destination city center. If you take the train, you cut out all the waiting and needless travel, you arrive at your actual destination.)

menloparkbum 18y ago
Amtrak from Boston to NYC is a pleasant experience but it is very slow and expensive. Even with getting to and from the airport, the plane is faster. The fastest ground transport between the two cities is the Chinatown bus and it only costs $10. I'm all for more trains but as someone else pointed out, SF to LA is a weird route. Once you get to LA, what do you do? Rent a car? The other direction makes more sense but I wonder if there are many people who actually go from LA to SF on a regular basis. I actually do, and it only costs $40 on Virgin America and hardly anyone is on the plane. It would make more sense having high speed rail going from SF->PDX->SEA->VAN... at least once you get to those cities you can get around without a car.
- jrockway 18y ago
  It would make more sense having high speed rail going from SF->PDX->SEA->VAN... at least once you get to those cities you can get around without a car. Yes, very good point. Even only connecting Portland / Seattle / Vancouver would be fine. That is a short enough distance for rail to be competitive, and there is definitely demand on that route. (Last time I needed to go from Seattle to Portland, flying was actually cheaper than Amtrak. And the flight was out of Boeing Field, so there was no security to deal with.)