2 ms·
For 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
by mathattack 13y ago
For 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.