Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we should have more security on the trains than we do.
I have been in the good car of a train - good legroom on seating or better yet the equivalent of a large restaurant booth... and I've been in the bad car, which was actually MUCH worse than an airplane for space, behavior and passenger activities - there's not an exchange of air like in a plane.
It would be of value for you to delve into your first sentence some more. We know there are many people scared of flying, surely they'd like a convenient land-based alternative.
It should be easy enough to have certain train runs that have fewer stops. When a 6-hour trip is effectively slowed by 15-20 minutes every hour to stop to pick up 2 passengers (Raleigh to DC). I've ridden the train 3x from Raleigh-CLT and enjoyed it because there was no traffic to deal with and 2 of the 3 times it was essentially the same trip time (+15 minutes each going to the station here and getting to my destination there)
There's no "bias," we're just rich enough to travel by air or our own personal cars.
Most countries in the world don't have that kind of luxury, therefore they have to pack together in public transportation like sardines and claim they "like it."
So...you don't think we pack into an airplane cabin like sardines????? I would much much prefer the highspeed trains than deal with cramped seats on planes....have you seen the seats on the highspeed trains in China? Go look.
I could take the standard Amtrak Surfliner from SD to LA for $38 per person, each way, it takes 2 hours 30 minutes (not bad), but once I get to LA, I still need to get to where I'm trying to go. Having a car and the freedom to go wherever you want at any time and go anywhere within your destination metropolitan region just makes too much sense for 99% of the country.
It's cheaper, quicker and more convenient to drive than it is to take a train. A round trip ticket for 2 comes out to $152 just for Amtrak. Driving would cost about $30 r/t and wouldn't need to hail Ubers all over LA, which can really add up.
Now, if I'm living in Connecticut and need to go to Manhattan, yeah I'm taking a train, there are very very few areas in the US where this makes sense though (and for good reason, not everyone wants to live in an Ultra Dense City, population densities 50,000 per square mile).
There's a bias against train travel in the US, especially of the high speed variety, for certain reasons.
If they existed in the US, would you take the high speed trains for trips under 500 miles (if they operated as advertised, meaning like how they run in Asia and Europe) or would you still prefer to fly/drive?
For trips like Boston to DC, Atlanta to Miami, LA to LV/SD/SF, I would much prefer train than flying. No TSA to deal with, more cabin/seat/leg space.
The US DOES have high-speed rail: the Acela, from Boston to NY to DC.
It gets lots of riders. It goes up to 150 mph, which qualifies as high-speed. New trains that are being introduced next year go up to 160. Sure, it could be faster, but its average speed is comparable with some European high-speed lines, too.
There's a bias against train travel in the US, especially of the high speed variety, for certain reasons.
If they existed in the US, would you take the high speed trains for trips under 500 miles (if they operated as advertised, meaning like how they run in Asia and Europe) or would you still prefer to fly/drive?
For trips like Boston to DC, Atlanta to Miami, LA to LV/SD/SF, I would much prefer train than flying. No TSA to deal with, more cabin/seat/leg space.
Depends.
When CA HSR was originally proposed it was supposedly around $50 a ticket. That was so long ago that probably it's $100 a ticket now. Flights from SF to LA run around $100-150 for economy, usually more towards the $150 end once you actually get through checkout/baggage fees. LA is right at that distance where I normally choose to drive rather than fly.
Driving takes 6 hours.
I'm farther from the airport now so it takes about 90 minutes to get to the airport, through security, park. Flight time is usually 2-3 hours since you spend at least 45 minutes taxiing and sitting waiting for a terminal to get off the plane. Then you have to go rent a car and rent a car which takes usually an hour from LAX to downtown. Easier to just drive. Burbank is better, I'll fly there sometimes particularly if I'm just going down and back up again where I can just get an Uber/Lyft from the airport rather than down there for a few days where I'd rent a car.
As some who does/did takes trains daily into NYC from NJ for work, they are absolutely the most unreliable form of transporation and I would never recommend a train.
There's no "bias," we're just rich enough to travel by air or our own personal cars.
Most countries in the world don't have that kind of luxury, therefore they have to pack together in public transportation like sardines and claim they "like it."
Nonsense. In many places the train costs more than an air ticket. Japan is one example. Now why would I want to spend more to take a 3 hour train ride from Tokyo to Osaka? Well it is a twelve hour drive so rule that out. The advantage is you can board in any one of the centrally located train stations, saving you the trip to the airport. You also avoid the checked bag thing and the security lines and the waits.
When you end up in Osaka you will arrive in the center of town with subway and trains that take you anywhere. Total trip is just over 3 hours by train you get to see Mount Fuji along the way along with the scenery of Fukuoka prefecture and it's rolling tea fields.
Airport is one hour there 2 hours in line, one hour flight, hour into town. The train isn't the poor man's choice that would be the bus.
It wouldn't work as well in America because once you get off the train you would be reduced to hitchhiking. Most places you go you need a car when you get there anyway so you might as well drive.
Sure ! Especially if they had a car that would be able to transport my truck and trailer. I'd much rather spend 45 minutes being transported to our rural cottage in Northern MI, than 4 hours in the truck.
I have a place in the UP. Shouldn't we be working on a bus system or any transport first? I just there is no through traffic there. That's what trucker randy was saying on the radio last time I was up there. Lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
