6 ms·
This works better in Europe than it does in America. As most trips here on train or car take multiple days. Where as you can fly anywhere in the country in one
by city41 13y ago
This works better in Europe than it does in America. As most trips here on train or car take multiple days. Where as you can fly anywhere in the country in one day. Once you cross into multi-day territory, the train is often too impractical to be used. Which is a real shame, as I really enjoy travelling by train.
- mathattack 13y agoFor Northeast travel in the US, the train is more practical. Pretty much anything from DC to Boston is less painful on the train. You get a seat an continuous alone time. This holds less on broader travel.
- Pxtl 13y agoExactly. The American/Canada east coast and great lakes region is dense enough that an upgrade rail network could really work for us - Chicago, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, Detroit, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa... each of these places have another major city about 3-4 hours drive away. Investment in the local passenger rail network could be worthwhile.
- eli 13y agoNot cheap, though. The train from DC to NY can cost twice that of a plane, depending on the specifics.
- mathattack 13y agoI may be wrong, but I put the medians at a similar price. Both systems can go cheaper or more expensive. This is a little frustrating because 1 hour between major metro areas can cost 50-100x the 1 hour subway ride from the Bronx to Coney Island. In part this is because the train sets it's prices based on competition from airplanes.
- nine_k 13y agoMTA is heavily subsidized (it only covers ~50% of its expenses from its operational income), AmTrak is probably not. Also, a train e.g. from NYC to Philadelphia looks inside much more like a plane (seats, tables, power sockets, wifi) than like a subway train, and obviously moves much faster. This all ought to cost more, even at zero profit point.
- eli 13y agoAmtrak gets federal subsidies too, though I imagine they're far less than 50%. It certainly isn't a profitable enterprise.
- mathattack 13y agoAnd most people don't use the subway for an hour, it's usually less mileage per person. But the extremes do show a big case of opposites.
- JackFr 13y agoWhy not have the best of both worlds? Rail based hypersonic transportation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
- ultimoo 13y agoThe US is huge! My mother back home in India still has a hard time believing that there are 4 time zones between San Francisco and New York.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deepdog 13y agoActually he's right. There's four: PST, MST, CST and EST.
- dragonwriter 13y agoThere are four time zones from one endpoint to the other including the end points, three time zone transitions between the end points, and two time zones that are between the time zones containing the endpoint. I'd be hesitant to call any of those numbers wrong when offered as the number of timezones between SF and NY, either three or four probably match the most common uses specifically related to timezones, though two would probably best match the usual use of "number of Xs between Y and Z".
- msrpotus 13y agoIn part because America is much larger: NYC to Los Angeles is similar in distance to a trip from London to Baghdad. At that scale, trains are always going to be inconvenient. Now, that's not to say trains in the US are good, but they are never going to be the best form of transportation for a 3,000 mile trip.
- saalweachter 13y agoI also blame our two-weeks-off-a-year culture. If we had six weeks off, going four days each way in a train to spend two or three weeks somewhere could be a great vacation.
- drzaiusapelord 13y agoThe US is large but our trains really do suck and up until the 2010 elections we were on track to build a regional fast speed train system that would connect Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and then east to DC and NYC. Tea Party governors and other GOP obstructionism killed it, especially in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida. NYC to LA shouldnt be our metric for everything. A lot of travel is regional. Why do I need to get up at 5am in Chicago to get on a 10am flight that lasts 2 hours to DC? Or the 30 minutes to milwaukee? Or the 1.5 hr flight to Kansas City? With all the hassle of TSA, airport madness, restrictions, and the horrible crampedness of flying? Chicago > DC is about the same distance as Madrid to Paris. Sure, the train will take longer, but it sure beats flying.
- clarkmoody 13y agoLess politically-biased information about rail at Wikipedia[1]. Politically biased opinion: the Dems could have done anything from 2008-2010, and they chose healthcare. TSA didn't get any better, nor were trains built. More stringent mileage requirements were handed down, for those eco-friendly types out there, but we are not aggressively pursuing nuclear/fusion power generation like we should. I would love to be able to grab a train from Houston to Dallas, as it would certainly beat the air travel experience, as other comments have mentioned the additional time required for check-in, security, etc. But the cost of new rail is in the billions per route, and we have lots of land to cover in America. We are too cheap for high-speed aircraft, but we can (hopefully) do something to rid us of TSA and the accompanying security theatre, which would make air travel so much better. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States#Current_discussion_2008-2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_S...
- Gmo 13y agoWhat I always find funny with this type of discussion is that, when an article talks about the state of broadband connection in the US, someone (usually more than one person actually) will inevitably use the argument that the country is too sparsely populated and that's why we can't compare to Europe. While when an article talks about a possible train corridor between some major regional hubs, someone will inevitably mention that there are too many houses on the way and it's not practical :)
- rayiner 13y agoIt depends entirely where you are. Within the northeast corridor (Boston to DC, population of about 50 million, not too much smaller than France) there is almost no point in flying (unsurprisingly, Amtrak has captured 70% of the market between DC and NYC and 50% between NYC and Boston). The hour and a half flight from DC to Boston becomes a 4 hour exercise in self-flagellation versus a very comfortable 7 hour trip on the Acela.
- bzbarsky 13y agoIf you can afford it. The Acela will run you $400-$500 round-trip BOS to WAS unless you take the 5am ones (and then it'll be $330 or so). Flying from BOS to DCA nowadays is $220 round-tip on JetBlue, say, at reasonable times of day. If you happen to be traveling as a family, the price situation is even worse, of course. At some point driving actually starts to look pretty attractive...