It’s not just slower than flying, it’s slower than driving in most cases.
Comment on USA Will Invest in High-Speed Train to Fight Climate Change
jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 months agoAmtrak is still a thing for passenger trains. It’s just that it’s slower than flying and just as expensive.
Flew my wife to L.A. for her birthday, easy peasy. Couple of hours by plane.
Amtrak?
Fastest is 26 hours and 13 minutes for $230 coach tickets. Private room for $580.
DrMango@lemmy.world 6 months ago
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I just punched in a random 7 hour drive in the US. Amtrak would take 16 hours and cost 3x as much as one would spend in gas to take oneself and their SO on a trip. This isn’t even accounting for costs and time associated with getting to/from the station where as the car is door-to-door, faster, and cheaper.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yeah, the LA flight I used as an example is 20 hours by car, I’ve done it, can’t say I’d do it again.
AA5B@lemmy.world 6 months ago
And Acela is useful. We have one intercity rail line that is useful, has high ridership, is profitable, people choose to use, demand far outstrips supply. And it’s not really fast enough to be called “high speed”
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 6 months ago
My parents once bought a private room on Amtrak. When they were shown to it, they literally thought it was a closet to store their bags not their room.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This is the core reason passenger rail has not become dominant in the US. The country is so physically large that planes do passenger rail’s job, but faster and at the same price point.
Instead, rail in the US is almost entirely bulk cargo as that makes a ton of sense. Cargo trains are cheaper than trucks/aircraft and the slower speed can be easily planned for.