3 ms·

When people compare train travel in the US to Europe, they tend to forget the huge differences in distance. Washington, DC to Miami is five times the distance

by dworin 13y ago

When people compare train travel in the US to Europe, they tend to forget the huge differences in distance. Washington, DC to Miami is five times the distance as Rome to Florence. Trains are a better value than flying when the difference between the two trips is only an hour or two, so that the advantage of not having to go through security and getting dropped off downtown actually pays off. For longer trips, the fast that a plane travels five to ten times faster really shows. That's why the North East Regional service, especially the shorter routes (i.e. DC to New York or New York to Boston, and points in between) is much more effective than flying. They also have free WiFi (with middling reliability), more comfortable seats, and outlets in every row. As an addition, I've also found that most people overlook how convenient, affordable, and quick intercity bus service is in the US. On most routes, a bus will offer more departures for about 1/5 the cost of the train and 1/10 the cost of flying. The seats aren't as comfortable, but for short routes, it's only a little bit slower.

bane 13y ago
I think outside of the Big Northeast cities, train travel in the U.S. is problematic because of the distance to stations and the lack of facilities at those stations to handle long-term parking. Other transit options aren't much help as well. Buses don't cut it for most of the U.S. outside of urban and semi-urban centers for similar reasons (transit to/from the stations). Taxis "work" to fill this in, but are very expensive. To give an idea in my area, I live about 35 miles from D.C. in a pretty normal suburb (no boondocks). I have a commuter bus I can take at 5:30am that's not far from my house (about 3 miles and semi-walkable but there's no way I can take luggage). On the return trip, if I don't make it back to the commuter stop by 4:30pm I have to spend the night in the city or take a taxi (very expensive). Driving takes about 2-3 hours in traffic, and there's no long-term parking at reasonable rates (parking is available near the station at about $27 a day). A taxi would work, but it's the same distance as driving and probably north of $100-150 for the trip each way. There are two Amtrak stations a bit closer than the city, but not much and the transit options are either drive and have no place to park at all or taxi. Even if I moved in closer to the city, unless I'm within walking distance to one of the D.C. metro I'm still largely in the same boat with slightly less time and money penalties. So even if I wanted to take the train on a trip that had comperable time to air travel (say to New York on the Accella), the time and cost involved make it far less convenient. I have taken intercity bus services before because the cost is remarkably cheaper. D.C. to NYC for <$50 in about 4.5 hours. But still with the same issues as the train.
- dworin 13y ago
  That speaks to the problem of train travel on the opposite end: it's really only feasible in the half-dozen or so American cities that have highly reliable, built-out intra-city public transportation. If you need a car when you get there, the train doesn't work. That's one of the reasons I'm so skeptical about any high speed rail that terminates in LA. Many of the inter-city buses also stop at Park-and-Rides outside of the downtown cores, so that people can both drop off their cars and get picked up by people who have them.
  - bane 13y ago
    California is a very strange place to consider for rail, especially an LA<->SF line. LA is a car focused mess with useless public transport and huge sprawling connected cities and SF, though better downtown, has a huge Bay Area with similarly craptastic public transport (though not quite as bad as LA).

by dworin 13y ago

bane 13y ago

I think outside of the Big Northeast cities, train travel in the U.S. is problematic because of the distance to stations and the lack of facilities at those stations to handle long-term parking. Other transit options aren't much help as well. Buses don't cut it for most of the U.S. outside of urban and semi-urban centers for similar reasons (transit to/from the stations). Taxis "work" to fill this in, but are very expensive. To give an idea in my area, I live about 35 miles from D.C. in a pretty normal suburb (no boondocks). I have a commuter bus I can take at 5:30am that's not far from my house (about 3 miles and semi-walkable but there's no way I can take luggage). On the return trip, if I don't make it back to the commuter stop by 4:30pm I have to spend the night in the city or take a taxi (very expensive). Driving takes about 2-3 hours in traffic, and there's no long-term parking at reasonable rates (parking is available near the station at about $27 a day). A taxi would work, but it's the same distance as driving and probably north of $100-150 for the trip each way. There are two Amtrak stations a bit closer than the city, but not much and the transit options are either drive and have no place to park at all or taxi. Even if I moved in closer to the city, unless I'm within walking distance to one of the D.C. metro I'm still largely in the same boat with slightly less time and money penalties. So even if I wanted to take the train on a trip that had comperable time to air travel (say to New York on the Accella), the time and cost involved make it far less convenient. I have taken intercity bus services before because the cost is remarkably cheaper. D.C. to NYC for <$50 in about 4.5 hours. But still with the same issues as the train.

dworin 13y ago
That speaks to the problem of train travel on the opposite end: it's really only feasible in the half-dozen or so American cities that have highly reliable, built-out intra-city public transportation. If you need a car when you get there, the train doesn't work. That's one of the reasons I'm so skeptical about any high speed rail that terminates in LA. Many of the inter-city buses also stop at Park-and-Rides outside of the downtown cores, so that people can both drop off their cars and get picked up by people who have them.
- bane 13y ago
  California is a very strange place to consider for rail, especially an LA<->SF line. LA is a car focused mess with useless public transport and huge sprawling connected cities and SF, though better downtown, has a huge Bay Area with similarly craptastic public transport (though not quite as bad as LA).