• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      I want to take the train.

      But the train price is, at best, the same as the airline ticket. and are often, from what i’ve seen when price comparing, much worse… especially if you’re gonna be on the train for over night, or multiple nights, and want a bed.

      Plane gets you there in a couple hours, add another hour for security. Just an inconvenient portion of a day.

      Train gets you there in a couple days, you do get to enjoy a incredible view watching scenery roll by, but its a long time to be in a train, especially if you couldnt afford a bed and the privacy/get-away-from-people-ness that personal room provides… and not to mention Amtrak isnt exactly known for its punctuality, with delays being delayed hours, even tens of hours, and so common that you’re told to factor in a delay when you’re planning your trip… and the meals and snacks being expensive since you’re a captured audience with no alternative. Which means you could be facing another hundred+ dollars in food and drink costs in addition to the ticket costs (unless you got the ticket that included meals, but again, thats gonna be more expensive).

      train travel really needs to be like…1/4th the price. and hte private rooms need to be even less than that.

    • nforminvasion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      36·
      2 days ago

      And so incredibly polluting. Past a certain point, your trip produces more greenhouse gases than a plane flight. It’s so wasteful, and flying is so much quicker.

      • lentildrop@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        2 days ago

        That’s completely false lmao, per passenger the train is way lower for any reasonable length trip.

          • lentildrop@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 hours ago

            If you read the article it literally only applies to a cross-country, 2,000 mile train trip. The vast majority of people who take Amtrak do so for much, much shorter distances (they even say so in the article, 300-400 miles) where even a diesel train is easily the lowest carbon footprint option.

            • nforminvasion@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              8 hours ago

              Completely fair. I am not advocating for planes instead, I want good trains so bad. But even from Chicagoland (home) to Massachusetts, where my family lives, is so expensive and slow, and I believe passes over the distance where it becomes more polluting. Climate Town has a video about Amtrak where he mentions that a journey from Chicago to Boston is unfortunately more dirty than a flight of that distance.

              I have an EV that I drive the trip in, which is cheaper than flying (even before the Iran War). I know I’m still contributing micro plastics through tire wear, so it’s not a 0 impact trip of course. But if I could do high speed, electrified trains for that trip, I absolutely would.

              • lentildrop@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                3 hours ago

                I would love for there to be a high-speed electrified line from the east coast to Chicago or NYC to Chicago and I think in an ideal world it would be built but it is worth noting that the distance from Boston to Chicago is just under 1000 miles, definitely exceeding the distance threshold for most people to simply fly even with modern, electrified high speed rail. The equivalent distance in this case in Europe would be something like Berlin to Marseille, a journey that still takes 12 hours by high speed rail. I don’t disagree that it’s possible to improve on that time (it certainly is), just that for the Amtrak long-distance trains flying is often the “better” option even if the routes were upgraded to modern technology.

                The place where rail is most competitive, and where high speed rail can make the most impact, is on routes where the driving time is under 9 hours- San Francisco to LA, Dallas to Houston, Boston to DC (slightly over but there’s so many huge cities along the way), etc.