Agreed! I would love to take trains more often, but when a flight takes 2 hours and a train ride takes 24, it's harder to justify also spending 1.5x as much for the train ride.
Source: Visiting family in California via California Zephyr vs planes.
Hmm. Why do Americans take trains at all, then? Only thing I can think of is "fear of flying", but is that enough demand to make trains worth running? Thanks in advance.
- There is no TSA gauntlet to run at Amtrak
- Trains do a decent job of serving nearby cities,
e.g. Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-DC and similar-distance commuter type traffic
- (most importantly) Train depots are in the center of cities, airports
generally 20-30min away
I think passenger traffic is run at a huge loss, which is only partially offset by freight income.
I take a train every year or so, from Los Angeles to Flagstaff, where my brother lives. It's an overnight trip that arrives at an annoying hour (5 am), but I always enjoy it nonetheless. I've take longer trips on the east coast, ATL to DC or Baltimore.
A large part of it, honestly, is the people. It's not really cheaper than flying for most trips, so what you mostly get are people who aren't really in a hurry.
There's something sort of meditative about a train ride, the swaying and the clacking lull you. And with the very roomy seats (or sometime affordable cabins), you feel relaxed and open. I've always had much more open and revealing conversations on a train than on planes. Plus, you just have longer. There's no rush. Just pleasant getting-to-know you conversations. Strangely, it feels very American.
When I was 21, I did the Eurail-backpacking summer thing. Three months of wandering around Europe on trains with far too little money. It was the same sort of thing, though, great leisurely conversations getting to know people from all over. Definitely one of the better experiences of my life.
I suppose to some extent my Amtrak journeys are attempts to recapture that summer, and to some extent, it works.
The Northeast Corridor metro areas (Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-DC; dense, 4mm+ pop centers all located within a few hours of one another) and a handful of other regional short-haul routes (San Diego-LA, Boston-Portland, etc) account for almost all Amtrak traffic; the long-haul cross-country routes are basically tourist attractions subsidized by the commuter rail segments of the system.
There are some routes where trains are more efficient, especially if you consider delays and time waiting in the airport. It's just that most of them are on the east coast, where you have a lot of large, dense cities that don't require cars packed closely together.
When people talk about passenger rail in America, they tend to forget that cities are pretty far apart. Milwaukee to Minneapolis, from the parent post, is still over 300 miles - about the same as Paris to Frankfurt. Even with high speed rail, Paris to Frankfurt is ~$160 for a 4 hour train, vs. $140 for a one hour flight.
(Source: I just looked up prices on the internet, regular travelers of that route may know better ways).
Trains don't always cost more than flying. Trains between some areas are cheaper than flying, especially if your flight involves a layover (personal example: I travel between Pittsburgh and Albany often. I need to fly from Pittsburgh to Baltimore before I can get a flight to Albany, and it costs a fair bit, usually around $150. It'd cost me about $60 to take a bus to NYC then Albany, but it'd take about 2-3x as long). Also, at the airport you need to get through security, pray your flight isn't delayed and deal with a bunch of people who board very slowly. Despite these issues, it's usually pretty clear when the time savings of flying makes it worth the hassle.
Generally, I find the more challenging travel choice to be bus vs train. The bus is cheaper, but has a higher chance of being delayed unexpectedly and taking longer than the train. Otherwise, they take about the same amount of time.
I don't think people making cross-country train trips are doing so for the convenience or to save money. As you can imagine, it's sort of a cool way to "see America" from the romantic perspective of how the West was first reached by Americans. A friend of mine did it this past summer, and though he said he would never do it again, it was a cool experience. A lot of the US between the Mississippi and the West Coast is still pretty untouched.
I might be somewhat of a special case, but even though the train takes longer, since I'm 6'5" tall, the extra leg room is very worth it, especially if I'm not in a huge hurry to get wherever I happen to be going.
The train is a more pleasant, relaxing experience for medium-length trips, such as along the Northeast Corridor. There's no ridiculous security theater, extremely limited chances of getting stuck on the tarmac for hours...
Fear of flying, not wanting to deal with the TSA, enjoying the scenery (the train trip itself can be part of the experience on a vacation), and there are some places where it is actually more efficient or cost effective.
My friend and I took a train from Austin, TX to NYC once. ~54 hours on a train, with an 8 hour layover in Chicago. Definitely glad I did it, but maybe not something I would do again, especially without a friend.
Source: Visiting family in California via California Zephyr vs planes.