Flying is such a miserable experience from start to finish that I would opt for rail every time if it was viable, even if it took 3-4 times as long.
Comment on Is America's quest for high-speed trains finally picking up steam?
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 1 year agoI mean, NY is already connected to Texas www.amtrak.com/plan-your-trip.html
Assuming all of those tracks (or comparable ones) are upgraded: It would still likely not be something someone wants to take as opposed to a direct flight. Because the train would likely need to stop in New Jersy, DC, Virgina, Charlotte, and Atlanta before you change trains to get to Houston or Dallas.
Which… is normal. That is how trains work. I always reference it, but Makoto Shinkai’s works LOVE the imagery of someone frantically trying to navigate an imperfect public transportation system to get to the one they love. And… that is reality. Even in Japan (basically the gold standard for public transportation) you are changing trains pretty regularly, have a LOT of stops along the way, and may need to do the last leg on a bus route that only runs twice a day.
bilb@lem.monster 1 year ago
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean, the good news is that you basically already can
Quick check says amtrak from NYP to LAX is 67.5 hours long. Or about 2.79 days
Which is a lot more than a six hour flight. But… that is six hours plus an hour or so on each side (at least) AND is a direct flight, so “one day” is how I would classify that. You aren’t doing much in a day when you fly from NY to LA.
Which… is the 3-4x as long that you were asking for.
But hey. Maybe you are cool with spending the vast majority of a week long holiday in a train. I doubt your employers are fine with you spending three days to go to a conference on the west coast.
fuzzzerd@programming.dev 1 year ago
The problem today is that it’s an order of magnitude longer. Chicago to LA by airplane is 4 hours. Chicago to LA via Amtrak is about 56 hours. I don’t know that high speed rail is going to fix that problem, sure it might get it down some, but even a 24 hour train is six times longer than flying.
I say this as someone that takes Amtrak at every opportunity because I enjoy trains and want to see them become viable for more people.
GurrenCentauri@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re looking at it from a coast to coast perspective when it should really be an intra-state one.
People aren’t regularly traveling from Chicago to La on a daily basis, even by plane. They are traveling within the same state or to nearby states instead.
Dallas-Houston, SF-LA, Miami-Orlando are all distances that people have to drive/fly to on a daily basis that could easily be replaced by hsr.
uis@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Even in Japan (basically the gold standard for public transportation) you are changing trains pretty regularly, have a LOT of stops along the way, and may need to do the last leg on a bus route that only runs twice a day.
In Europe it considered the worst PT. Bus once a day on a tiny island? Sounds insane. Japan still base their PT operation on schedules instead of intervals.
have a LOT of stops along the way, and may need to do the last leg on a bus route that only runs twice a day.
No… Even regular intercity train Moscow-Belgorod train makes about 5 stops in regional centers. High-speed like Sapsan(or a lot of similar trains) that stops only on last stop 650 km apart.
twotone@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The problem is that Amtrak doesn’t own most or even any of those rails, instead having to pay for the right to use them. The reason why this is a problem is that it’s hard to upgrade rails to high speed when you don’t own them. Amtrak trains also often have to stop and give passage to freight trains, which is unlike what you’d see in Japan where passenger trains are on their own, dedicated rails.