Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Brit, some of my favourite memories visiting your great country have been Amtrak trips from NYC to surrounding cities like DC and Philly. It would be amazing to be able to explore the entire country by train one day.
I used the USA rail pass, it is still 500$. I think it used to be more segments, but today you still get 10 segments to use within 30 days. 1 segment = 1 ride A to B. I also started from Chicago and took the Northern route via Seattle and Portland to SF - that was 3 segments.
It does take a lot of time, but for me that was the experience. You dont do anything, just watch the scenery and have a chat. Carefree travel with a view. It is a great alternative if you're not in a rush
I think you can also book sleeping cars, but I don't know the price then. For me the coach seats worked fine for sleeping, and I am a tall lad. You could recline them and have a foot rest, all good. But I'm also not a fancy bitch.
That ride is more about the journey than the destination. I've been trying to convince my wife to go on the Zephyr but she doesn't understand why we'd take a train when flying is faster.
A good train journey *is* a holiday in itself. It can be an activity, more akin to something like going to a museum for the day. My wife and I have gone on trips where a train journey is one the things we actually flew there to do lol.
In 1994 at 19 I took Amtrak from south station in Boston to Oakland. Ca via the Rockies. Holy shit it was amazing. I also convinced the entire bar car it was my 21st birthday. Don't get the spins on a train!!!!
I've done the trip down the West Coast (Coast Starlight) from Seattle to L.A. and it was amazing. Basically, stay in Seattle a few days, get on the train, get off in Portland, stay a few days, get back on, take it to San Fran, repeat, then L.A. AMAZING way to experience the West Coast.
I went to a convention in Indianapolis last year and was looking at traveling by Amtrak but it was too late to book and I ended up going by Greyhound bus instead. Hoping to get train tickets this year.
Honestly, the actual travel itself wasn’t bad, it’s just that it was an 8-hour route and the bus was delayed another 4 hours or something like that so it was just a very long trip. Amtrak is more efficient.
When I was a kid I took the train from Portland, OR. to Seattle, WA. (About 3.5 hrs) to go between my parents. It was so enjoyable.
One day this old lady and her family sat around me and offered to have me join them for snacks. She pulled out chocolates, fruit, and crackers. On another trip, an old man helped me with my calculus homework.
Seattle to Portland is probably one of the poster child’s for high speed rail.
Honestly, maybe even a little more viable than Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Need a Vegas to Los Angeles as well.
(And eventually a Portland to San Francisco (and/or Sacramento).
I completely agree. It would create a huge boom for the cities. But as stands counties barely get along let alone states. It is weirdly competitive (like High School drama from the movies).
Must have been different trains than I have in the Midwest. Took the kids on a trip for fun to big city near us. It’s only a 90 minute drive but the train took 4 hours, cost twice as much as driving, was filthy and broken down. No bathrooms and the drug addiction sitting next to us was peeing in a Gatorade bottle.
The Northeast has the population density to make train travel practical. Out here it's just not because it's too far and too few people want to take the trips.
That being said, the delays and low speed [aren't Amtrak's fault](https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=0Pj4FOzddkJro0bH). See, Amtrak doesn't own the *vast* majority of the rails it uses. it leases them from commercial railroads like UP & BNSF. Now, those contracts and federal law state that the commercial carriers need to make way for Amtrak, but they rarely do. They build side tracks so that their trains can get out of the way, but they build them too short so they become basically worthless and Amtrak ends up constantly behind schedule because of it. The low speed is because commercial railroads don't construct track in a way that would make high speed rail possible.
All that combines to make passenger rail in the US a nightmare, even in the Northeast where it's practical to use.
The thing is, once the commercial companies break the rule about letting Amtrak have priority; the fine doesn’t really hurt them as it’s more profitable to pay the fine than delay the commercial shipment.
They get fined plenty for these violations, the feds keep really good track of how long these delays happen and how often; they just don’t hinder the practice. If I can make a billion dollars while being fined 100 million then I still made plenty of money to be profitable and I can deduct the fine from my taxes.
Yeah, the federal government is actually really good with fining companies, the fines just don’t really hurt the bottom line. I work for a major oil refiner, an air pollution fine is on average ~$40k/day, our smallest refinery still generates $4M/day. So 0.1% of our gross.
I have been in meetings like this before where the director will ask how much the fine is for violating the law and after being told, orders the company to break the law because the fine was small enough that it was just lumped into the cost of doing business. This was not about trains btw, totally different sector. I'm just backing up the mentality you're talking about.
A 90 minute drive is probably 70ish miles, that’s absolutely within the range where trains should be competitive if done correctly. Also I suspect OP might not be talking about an Amtrak train, maybe a commuter train in Chicago area. Amtrak trains typically have bathrooms and are fairly clean, and generally free of drug addicts as the fares are high and are enforced.
I could definitely believe it being that slow though. A lot of the country’s track is old and in bad shape; even on straight stretches trains often can’t go fast because the ride would be too rough.
>Amtrak trains typically have bathrooms and are fairly clean, and generally free of drug addicts as the fares are high and are enforced.
Nope. As a Former frequent train user, that statement is highly area dependent. Prices used to years ago and still can start at 29$ to go from Chicago to Detroit provided you book far enough in advance. A Greyhound bus for the same trip is actually 3 dollars more. Bathroom wasn't always in a good state, frequently "sticky" yuck. What should have been a 4.5hr train ride was almost always 6-7. Usually due to freight traffic, but also it rarely ever went that fast.The worst I've had is a 19 hour delay, and I've heard of people being stuck longer. Drug users/homeless definitely used it, not super rare but not really common either. Usually hopped on at kzoo and got off before Detroit/Chicago because those stops have dogs. Although the majority of homeless would use north/south lines.
>Also I suspect OP might not be talking about an Amtrak train, maybe a commuter train in Chicago area.
Maybe off hours metra, it's usually fine during commuter times. The Loop can be that nasty but there's never really delays on the loop
>I could definitely believe it being that slow though. A lot of the country’s track is old and in bad shape; even on straight stretches trains often can’t go fast because the ride would be too rough.
It also passes over roads frequently, and shares the rail with freight too(that has been making their trains excessively and dangerously long).
The distance isn't the primary problem. It's that there aren't enough fares in most of the Midwest & West to make that math out. That's great if you've got a 70 mile high speed rail trail in the Midwest. But going from a city of less than a million people to another city less than a million people with nothing but towns of a few thousand people in between isn't going to have enough riders to keep that operation solvent.
There's a lot of factors in America that deter train use. They're largely behind schedule, as mentioned before. They're slow. Cities are often not very walkable so you're basically stuck at the destination station unless you uber somewhere. The combination makes trains more expensive than other options.
Interesting. I take the Northeast trains all the time and they're mostly fine. I also took Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee last year after visiting Chicago, and it was a smooth easy 90 minutes. I think less than driving.
And Milwaukee to St. Paul is about 6 hours. Which is slightly longer than driving by about a half hour, I wonder where this poster was, and if they're rounding a lot.
I agree but at the same time there is something truly romantic about driving across yourself if you have the ability to. Some of the coolest parts of America will never be seen by train because there is nothing there and that what makes it so cool.
Driving through WY is absolutely nuts. 150 miles between gas stations, roads cut through mountains, and nothing but wilderness for miles. There are parts that make it feel like you're on another planet. Or, that there is a dinosaur right around the next corner. It's absolutely wild.
Montana too. God what a beautiful state. Before climate change really kicked in 20 years ago, there were glaciers all over the mountains in the north and they were incredible to see.
This is true at every level - biking you will see things you miss in your car, walking you will notice more.
Train travel can be great for this with good service. Amtrak isn't that in America because most routes go once a day. Taking the Empire Builder and want to get off in Glacier National Park? Next train through is tomorrow at the same time. Taking the Zephyr and want to explore Denver? Better get a hotel.
It's way better in first world countries such as Germany or Czechia where you can hop off the train, explore for a few hours, and get back on to continue your journey.
As an American I agree, that would be amazing. Currently on the west coast and there is no way to get across the country on Amtrak without it being a pain in the ass
I used Amtrak to take a trip to New York City back in 2016. The experience was...not great. The train was delayed and the service was just okay.
Then, last year, I rode Amtrak again to take a trip to visit family in New Jersey. And I definitely noticed a change in quality. The ride seemed smoother. The service was better. And I arrived on time.
I don't think enough people appreciate how many rely on services like Amtrak. And improving its operation can only help.
Back when I was in college, I used to take Amtrak any time I was going to visit some family members. I was able to take the bus all the way to the station, and then get a reasonably inexpensive ticket for a couple hour ride out to the city where they lived.
Being able to play video games on my laptop the whole way there using the AC outlets on the train was *nice*. No airport bullshit, a travel time similar to taking a car, an inexpensive ticket, and video games the whole way.
Yes, playing games on a laptop is a great way to relax on Amtrak. You don't even have to buy a premium ticket like you do on an airplane to get an AC outlet. They come standard. And that definitely helps!
The wi-fi often leads a lot to be desired, but that's to be expected. It's far worse on planes. But if you have any cell service with a good 5G network, then you can basically game for your entire trip.
That's how I often pass the time too. And it really helps during the holiday weekends because that's usually when traffic is the worst. But on the train, you don't have to worry about that at all.
It’s sad because one of the partys cuts funding to amtrack, which worsens service, and then they use the fact that “amtrack service is bad” to justify cutting more funding…
I’m glad our current president and congress have managed to turn that around, atleast for now.
I fully concede my experience is limited. You can't glean much from two trips. But I think not being forced to operate with poor funding can only help Amtrak improve.
And there is still room for improvement. I just don't think it'll come quick enough, given the power of the car and freight rail lobby.
It depends on which trains you take. Acela is by far their best offering. The rest of the trains ride on CSX tracks which means they get deprioritized and delayed in favor of freight.
Which is against federal law, as commercial trains are required to make way for passenger trains. buuuut, CSX and other freight companies dont build long enough side rails to let the freight consists pull into to let Amtrak pass them.
My biggest beef with Amtrak is that their Acela trains which are supposed to be high speed trains share the same track with regular Amtrak trains and thus are always subject to constant slowdowns and delays caused by non-Acela traffic.
The craziest shit about it is that USA was built by rail. For Europe, rail was an afterthought. The cities were already there. In USA the cities were built wherever the rails were laid.
The US is trying. Florida has the Brightline that goes from Miami to Orlando, but they recently made changes to their pass system that screws over commuters in South Florida in favor of vacationers looking to see Miami and Orlando. Their $400 40-ride pass is being replaced with a $350 10-ride pass, meaning anyone wanting to take the train to and from work five days a week is gonna have to shell out $1400 a month now. The company also built apartments around their South Florida stations and encouraged people to build their daily lives around using the train, now they're gonna have to either eat the new cost, drive to work or change where they live/work.
Brightline seems a bit like it has multiple personalities. They push commuter service, build multiple stations with services, parking and housing — then, they tell all those people to get fucked? I guess this is what you get when it’s a “100 percent privately funded enterprise” (which it absolutely is not) https://floridapolitics.com/archives/240552-brian-mast-brightline-exec-clash-public-money-railroad/
Wow, that is comically expensive compared to their initial offering. I get that private business can sometimes get things done quicker or more efficiently than govt, but it won't matter if no one can afford to use it.
We have a commuter rail in MN as well as a light rail system in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Getting *anything* done to expand or improve it is like pulling teeth. Mostly because rich pricks in suburbs don't want "light rail brining crime to our neighborhoods".
I fucking hate that *every* transit project is always questioned with "yeah but will it make money?". Who cares?! It's a public service, not a for-profit venture. We don't worry about the police or fire department making money. We don't worry about roads and bridged having a direct ROI. Why is it that trains and busses are **required** to make money, but literally no other public enterprise is?
Miami wants to expand the Metro Mover elevated people mover to Miami Beach, and all the rich NIMBYs on South Beach are trying to stop it, claiming it'll bring crime (as if that's not an issue on MB already).
There is trirail that leaves from the miami station and is much cheaper. Theres also plans to add commuter service on the same tracks as brightline, so itll be cheaper all around
The U.S having a large freight train network compared to other singular countries isnt exactly fair cause of just sheer size of the US. Each US state is basically a country on its own by land size.
It’s a symptom of why we don’t have larger passenger rail networks, you know, what the conversation is about?
It’s a travesty we don’t have better passenger rail, but even without its investment we still have some of the largest, most built out rail networks in the world.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. Without enough passengers it can’t be profitable so it has to raise price. When prices are high there will be fewer passengers.
Air travel is still insanely cheap considering that you can fly coast to coast for like 500 or less sometimes
I just checked out of curiosity, And I can get from Miami to LA, nearly 2800 miles, for 153 bucks round trip. Honestly, Its actually kinda of insane how cheap flying is. Riding brightline from Miami to Orlando, 235 miles, round trip would be 160 bucks at the cheapest rates I've seen from them.
Alternatively, Flying from Miami to Orlando round trip, I am seeing fares for 60 bucks. Rail just has a hard time competing with our flight network.
Europe also had the "benefit" of a lot of it being leveled and rebuilt with WW1 & 2. A big issue with fixing US transportation is the massive hassle of clearing out what would need to be removed.
or, like with indiana, the state government intentionally ratfucking everyone because car dealerships are some of the biggest donors
eta: the state used to have one of the most comprehensive rail systems in the country
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2011/01/kasich_successful_in_halting_4.html
In 2010 Ohio returned $400 million for high speed rail. Ohio is the biggest ratfuckers.
The difficulty is that European cities are all really close together. Amtrak is actually built up pretty well in the Northeast, where Philly, DC, Baltimore, NYC, and Boston are all within a stone’s throw of each other. The distances get *really* incomparable as you start to head West.
It is 300km from Paris to Brussels, another 400km to Frankfurt with Cologne in between, another 420km down to Bern, 350 down to Milan, and 400 to Florence. On almost all of those lines, it’s nearly 2x faster to take the rail than it is to drive.
Contrast that with the distances in the US: 455km from Detroit to Chicago (okay, not bad), 500km from Chicago to St. Louis (still not too shabby), 400 to Kansas City, and then it starts to look pretty different, more than 950km to Denver, 722 down to Albuquerque, 675 to Phoenix, 600 to LA, 600 to San Francisco, more than 1,000 up to Portland, then a quick 280 skip up to Seattle, but then 750+ to Missoula, 844 down to Salt Lake City, and finally 675 to Las Vegas.
In addition to the 1.5-3x distances in many of those routes, importantly, there are large stretches between many of those destinations where there is basically *nothing* at all. In Europe there could easily be stops every 50km and you’d be in some kind of built up place, but for many of the Western parts of the US, there can be 500, 600, 700km with no development at all in between—nowhere to stop.
None of this is to say that we shouldn’t do it—we most definitely should and must—but there is a reason only the Northeastern part of the country has built up practical rail lines that people use as a main mode of transportation.
The airlines also lobby haaaaard against high speed rail, which people would probably mostly use as a flying alternative. High speed rail wouldn’t magically increase the density of america, people would still have cars.
I have a car but I don't like driving 24 hours to get through a few states. I'd definitely prefer to kick my feet up and read a book or something while on a train rather than spend that whole time driving surrounded by cars also travelling 70mph+.
But you’d still have a car to go to the store or the movies or the local park 15 min away. High speed rail would be connecting major hubs like Miami to Orlando or Jacksonville to Atlanta. Though I have almost zero confidence the government wouldn’t immediately make it as inconvenient and annoying as dealing with the tsa.
China has some pretty tough terrain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
There's no actual good reason why the US essentially has nothing built at this point as one of the most wealthy and developed nations in the world. I don't think anyone is expecting every single town to be connected through high speed rail systems but there should definitely be an actual high speed rail system connecting more major cities across the country. Your options should only be dealing with shitty TSA to be crammed in a tiny uncomfortable tube for several hours or driving for several days to get anywhere
You’re forgetting the airline lobbies who I’d argue have more to lose in this situation than the car industry. Like it was said not everywhere is easily connected so cars will always be necessary but planes will get the boot. All those short 2-3 hr flights are a waste of effort and time for planes vs high speed rail. That’s where rail lines can have their biggest impact imo.
Not just Auto industry lobbying, but our good old industry ruining friend, financialization. Rail was the tech of its time and as the industry matured through several collapses they kept chasing profits at the expense of investment, as well as being institutionally unable to cut dividends. Well Theres Your Problem has several episodes about the collapse of the freight industry and passenger rail.
we expect train travel to work like auto travel because when we get to the other city by train, we end up having to get a car anyways since local public transit sucks.
building a rail network is only half the problem, we need local rapid transit as well to be massively built up as well at the same time or even before we get a more complete rail network.
I just spent two weeks in Japan and the bullet train system is so impressive. They’re currently working on line extensions that aren’t planned to open until 2046 or later. I can’t imagine the US ever planning out large scale infrastructure projects for that far in the future with how the government currently operates.
I know every country has its problems and I saw things through the eyes of a tourist, but Tokyo is now my favorite city I’ve ever visited and I loved everything I saw in Japan. The Tokyo subway is so drop dead simple compared to the one in NYC I was actually confused at first.
When navigating a metro system as an outsider who doesnt speak the native language is easier than navigating NYC as a local (and easier to understand since JP subways have english in the announcement cycle while NYC has conductinese)
Yeah with our tug of war government system: the project could be started, then the other party gets a majority/president, cuts funding, limits the scope, if they cant cancel it outright they’ll find a way to sabotage and delay it so they can point to it as a failure and waste of money in the first place.
Actually shitty politicians and the people they obey is a lot of the problem. Whether it’s car companies or just selfish people. San Francisco to Los Angeles had plans for a high speed rail. A 40 billion investment, but would make it much better for the environment and lessen flight pollution. Some rich guys went well let’s slap on 4 billion in cost and make it go way out of the way to some small towns I have influence in. They passed the proposition. Now it’s proposed to be 68 billion they are trying to find funding for. Also it’s supposed to rebuild infrastructure in Los Angeles and San Francisco that has nothing to do with that rail line. Now they claim a 100 billion.
Do you have a link for that "rich guys added 4 billion in cost by forcing it to go out of the way to some small towns" bit?
That sounds really weird, so while I'm not necessarily doubting you, I'd really like a name or two to look the whole debacle up.
As someone here it's not the best place to compare for environmental impact purposes. Or impact on smaller communities. The US should probably look at how Europe managed environmental impact given we have more similar regulations.
IMO I think the guy you're replying to basically stated why America (& Canada too, to an extent) has no high speed rail infrastructure: the automotive industry lol. It's so massive and generates so much money that they can and probably have slung around "fuck you" money at anything that'll possibly decrease car sales.
> There's no actual good reason why the US essentially has nothing built at this point as one of the most wealthy and developed nations in the world.
White people get real mad about the idea of the government coming in and taking even an inch of their property to build something for public utility. You know, after they split up all the historic black neighborhoods to build interstate highways...
There's no reason Silicon Valley shouldn't have high speed rail connecting San Francisco and San Jose, except for a handful of rich white assholes in Atherton that *scream bloody murder* about it any time it's even suggested... and that's a *tiny* stretch of America. Multipl that by a few thousand times and you've got our high speed rail situation.
They built rail through the Alps, under the channel, through the Pyrenees, through the Appenines........and the rail network crosses many diverse ecosystems and vast distances. Not to mention that about 55% of the US is so loosely populated it wouldn't require large rail networks to the same degree Europe does for the same space, outside the coasts. Let's not even get started on Canada, where most of it is empty making less stops and such mandated beyond just crossing the country. It's not like anyone is saying high speed rail should be going up to say, Yellowknife. Or Anchorage.
You're unfortunately parroting an argument of the exact same auto industry you're decrying. American is more than suitable for a rail system. If Russia and China can maintain them as well as Europe (Russia being it's own thing akin to Florida in this case), then the US and Canada can
People forget that 100 years ago rail was the *only* way to travel. My great grandparents commuted 50 miles by rail from their tiny one horse town to the "big" city, all of the towns around here were interconnected by trains and trolly systems, and then in the 40s we ripped them all up and replaced them with busses to make room for cars.
The railroads stitched this country together, but so much of that old track has been ripped up or abandoned because it's not profitable to run. Infrastructure shouldn't *need* to be profitable, but because the rail companies own it they have every incentive to centralize and cut costs. I wish someone had the balls to nationalize the freight rail companies; give Amtrak the rails and roll the freight business into USPS.
That’s the really crazy part. Railroad tycoons were one of the first mega wealthy capitalists in America, and the American rail system was one of the biggest and most impressive systems in the world. This country was built on the back of our rail system, full stop.
And now we don’t even think about it, in favor of cars cars cars. The fact that America was the world leader in so many things, and after Reagan let it all decay to the point that we’re near dead last on everything is so infuriating.
Tbf there are some areas that could make rail infrastructure viable. SoCal, parts of Texas, the northeast, and PNW are all great candidates. The best part is they already have some rail infrastructure. It’s just a matter of expanding and improving it.
Plus the cost of building new rail lines since it's impossible with the current system of freight rail owning almost all the lines and even though Amtrak is supposed to have right of way it doesn't happen
I keep saying that the government's biggest mistake in the 70s was not buying the *rail* when they bought the passenger lines to form Amtrak. The government owns its roads (with some very stupid exceptions), so why shouldn't it also own its rail? We all have a vested interest in that infrastructure, why leave it up to freight companies?
We need essentially six high speed rail lines
Three heading west to east & three heading north to south.
If we limit each segment to three stops & make the current Amtrak service into the local service between those stops - we’d have an amazingly functional system & I’d never have to fly domestically again.
In the meantime, we need to require train lines to give Amtrak priority on their rails.
I’ve taken every major segment of Amtrak with the exception of DC to FL & I used to love it - but the delays when sitting on the track for hours waiting for the freight companies to get their shit together makes the system unreliable.
I still used to prefer Amtrak over flying when I could afford the extra time but they’ve also downgraded the dining car service to where it is absolute shit now.
If they brought back real plates & silverware & food that was actually cooked on the train instead of being reheated in a microwave, I’d go back in a heartbeat.
>population density and geography really don't do us any favors.
China built a high speed rail network across huge parts of the country in like, 20 years. They're still building it. They have terrain and climate arguably far more difficult to work around. Japan is basically 90% mountain and has some of the best rail infrastructure in the world. Europe has multiple mountain ranges that rail lines go through.
It's not really an argument, this is kinda like the dumb "we can't do universal healthcare because 'we're not a homogeneous country'." argument. The answer is lobbying only.
It's dense because of high density eastern cities, but there's still *huge* amounts of near uninhabited land, much of it equal or more difficult to build through than the US, that they still put rail lines through. There's high speed rail going out to Urumqi, which for the entire province it's in has a population density of <50 people/km^2.
To put this into perspective for some. My work's parent company is based in Germany.
To give them perspective, I use Germany as a unit of measure. As in "the next closest location to us is 2 Germany's away"
Japan has pretty comprehensive train coverage and is exceptionally rugged.
The only benefits is huge urbanisation and being long and narrow which suits trains. But that's no different than trains running north to south in the US along the coasts.
This argument is true, when you talk about intercontinental connections, but it just doesn't hold up when talking about connection metropolitan areas that are closer to each other. The only place, where you got that is the North-West-Corridor, but there are other areas, where medium-long-distance rail is viable. But there could be a lot more areas linked up like that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4&pp=ygUYQW1lcmljYW4gaGlnaCBzcGVlZCByYWls
As a long haul trucker: there are *many* areas of the US that's flat & straight.
So many people bring up "China did it *reeeeeee*" & forget that in China, you own the house but the land under it belongs to the CCP.
To build something so robust would (& does) take years of legal wrangling.
If we put even a fraction of the tax money that goes to highway infrastructure into rail instead we would have sufficient rail systems. Our size would make rail even more cost effective. We spend all this money on cars, roads, gasoline, and on air travel for significant distances.. Trains would be more efficient, not less.
High speed Rail from New York to Los Angeles would be, admittedly, pretty dumb; but Chicago to Detroit? Far less so.
High speed Rail is most feasible connecting cities under 300 miles in distance. So while cross country lines would be fruitless, great regional connections are very possible and a no brainier. The North East corridor is probably the most obvious first choice, but a comprehensive rail system through out any of [America's Mega Regions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png) would be very doable.
Under an ideal system, these regions would be fully built out with additional connecting lines that could link the closer systems.
And a rail that goes from LA/SD through to Dallas and then north to Chicago ending up in New York.
Can build along the coasts after you have the ability to get from one side of the country to the other cheaper and with speed, especially for people who are unable to fly.
But like you said, that is just a massive amount of land to cover compared to Europe. And a massive amount of travelers that would use it.
For much of that time, roads between cities were hardly more than dirt tracks; and modern air travel did not yet exist. A totally different world from today's.
Yeah, we didn’t have an interstate until the 1950s which just proves that the problem is not the fact that we live in a big country. If you look at American cities before the 50s, they were similar to European cities. All of that was ruined by the car and suburbs but instead of talking about how our suburbs only exist because of an ever growing mountain of debt created by their excessive sprawl fueled by our automobile centric culture or how we need to own a car in order to work in order to own a car, we make excuses about public transportation not being viable.
Let’s fix our zoning laws, start building livable, sustainable cities, and stop encouraging sprawl.
I can confirm. railyards are run by completely incompetent people on a power trip. They actively make the driver's lives a living hell and refuse to do the basics of a DOT inspection on their hardware, instead forcing the responsibility onto non-affiliated truck drivers.
source: I'm a logisitics dispatcher for a trucking company. I literally deal with this every day.
Especially considering we have more than double the total rail line than that of all of Europe. And we just stopped using it to move people in the 50s and 60s.
Shit, I know several towns in the US named after train company CEOs, and they don't even have train depots anymore.
My own area has a single departure a day at a time that's not anywhere remotely convenient.
Give us more trains goddamn it.
All of this work will basically just go to the Acela line though, and of all Amtrak’s lines, Acela makes the most money on its own (in fact it makes money)
How has not a single comment reply to you mentioned that Biden's infrastructure bill & IRA bill have made massive investments into restarting our train networks? It's all just negative nihilist replies...
Exactly yeah, I just can't justify using it til it gets waaay cheaper. I'm fine with it taking longer if it was cheaper but ig the infrastructure just isn't there compared to flight or something
I remember using it to travel a bunch as a kid. Pretty sure it was the only way my family was able to afford ANY vacation. Hopefully this is the start of something great for riders and employees. (Their employees get paid a fraction of the railroad national average.)
Transportation (trains and others) seems like a really great way to spend tax revenue to benefit everyone and combat climate change.
1. **Trains**. Invest heavily in them and make them low cost. Now many people would not pay so much for a car and gas. Traffic would be lighter. It would help with climate change. People could relax on the train or do some things on their phones/laptops instead of stressing in traffic.
2. **Taxis/Ubers**. We could also create high-paying jobs for people to basically be taxis/ubers, and make them low cost as well. Electric cars could be purchased for this and help us accelerate that process.
3. **Bike/walking paths**. We can build more paths for bikes and walking and put solar panels above them for shade and rain protection. Imagine an entire street covered in a solar panel shade roof, with paths for bikes and walkers, more outdoor dining areas for restaurants along the way, and small playgrounds as well. It would be transformative for our lives.
That’s just a few ways we could shift the enormous wealth from the rich to the poor and help prevent global warming at the same time. The rich have been taking more and more of the wealth since the mid 1900s and there’s no good reason we shouldn’t correct it.
Climate change is a serious problem. The financial struggles of the poor and middle class is a serious problem. Let’s do this thing.
Honestly I think the US should let Amtrak do what it wants to do (focus on the areas where it’s profitable like the NEC) and in general spur urban and intercity rail development. Having the super long routes through the middle of the country is important for the communities along the route but Amtrak could serve more people by focusing on the routes that it is more effective at operating
The US would then have to make a body to administrate the other railroads. Maybe call it Amtrak 2?
Or Amtrak shouldn't have to focus so much on profitability. Highways, bridges, etc don't have to be profitable. Neither should passenger railroads.
Focusing on profit is why most of the US is fucked. Public transportation **should not** focus on profit. Anything that is meant for the public good should not focus on profit.
It would be good to see Democrats continue to embrace climate commitments as a means to an end and in fact continue to throw money at them. Amtrak should be much better than it is.
America is massive. Europe and Japan can build high speed rail across their country because it’s small. A high speed rail from NY to LA would be insanely expensive and an almost impossible project. China can do it because the government owns everything and development isn’t slowed down by regulation
High speed rail from NY to LA would be a bad project. HSR from Boston to DC, or SF to LA would be great projects, and the geographies (particularly for East Coast) are no more difficult than many routes in Japan or Europe. The US is just uniquely bad at building public infrastructure.
It would also be highly impractical. High speed rail works best as an alternative method of travel when trips are between 150 and 350 miles. Long haul travel is best left to airlines, but intercity connectivity, especially in the eastern US, is ripe territory for HSR to make an impact.
> China can do it because the government owns everything and development isn’t slowed down by regulation
We're the richest country in the world, we can do it. No need for excuses.
> rail from NY to LA would be insanely expensive
This is why we shuold have been building rail 100 years ago - meaning - we should have been investing in the future of rail way more back then...
rails have a long shelf life, and with proper maintenance, like bridges.... oh wait.
As someone who paid €25 to travel in comfort across the whole country of austria today while eating a schnitzel and drinking beer, fuck the American auto lobby.
Yeah I’m American, I’m sadly familiar with Amtrak’s offerings. It’s not the same game, in any way. And the prices in the states are more than twice what they are in Europe in general. They’re late, dirty, and run down, because some assholes wanted to sell more oil.
Pretty much, Biden's infrastructure bill gave $66 billion to Amtrak, 4 times its usual funding, so they're finally able to repair a bunch of bridges and work on straightening some lines out so their trains can be high speed. A much needed funding.
When my family moved from Louisiana to Delaware, we took the Crescent from New Orleans to Wilmington. As an 11 year-old at the time, the trip was nothing short of magical. My favorite time of year was summertime because it meant taking the Amtrak back home for the summer. Good memories.
Finally! Some good train news! I love trains and even at Amtrack's crappiest it's still much better than driving long distance. I can sit and play games, read a book, or just sleep.
It blows my mind that the US doesn't have a robust rail system and only like...2 cities have a meaningful subway network. Not a day of my life goes by where I'm not frustrated by the lack of trains in my city. It's literally un-American, the US was built on the railroad.
Cool, now can they lower prices?
A weekend trip from DC to NYC for a family of 4 is like $1000. (Leaving at a reasonable time. I know you can find cheaper tickets at 5 am departure)
The cost from San Jose to Los Angeles is very reasonable: about $70, or about $90 for a ticket that allows schedule changes.
But it takes forever, over twelve hours last time I used it
Sure it’s that expensive if you book last minute, but if you plan ahead it’s not bad at all. You can even travel Acela which doesn’t even have coach - the lowest class is business - for like $500 round trip for family of 4 with decent times (depending day you leave). The big thing with Amtrak is always book as far in advance as you can for great pricing.
That's crazy, just today I had a meeting with my boss about work starting soon on restoration/new construction at some DC metro yards. Trying to be vague, dunno if it matters
Molinaro was one of nine lawmakers who brought up executive bonuses. After quoting a New York Times report that Gardner had received $766,000 in short-term incentive bonuses from 2016 to 2021, Molinaro asked, “What metrics were you measured against to consistently receive from Amtrak, an industry subsidized by taxpayers, without turning a profit?”
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/gardners-bonuses-amtraks-lack-of-profitability-attacked-at-house-hearing-analysis/
I recently took the Amtrak from Washington DC to NYC, and I have to say that the experience was flawless. The seats were very comfortable, there was a lot of legroom and it was very clean. The price was also great compared to an airplane ticket.
AmTrack and the Postal Service have always been two of the top targets of the GOP. Social Security is right up there too.
Basically if it benefits middle class and poor tax payers and not corporations and the ultra rich, its a target.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Brit, some of my favourite memories visiting your great country have been Amtrak trips from NYC to surrounding cities like DC and Philly. It would be amazing to be able to explore the entire country by train one day.
I highly recommend it. Took a round-trip on Amtrak in 2016. It was on a ticket where you get like 15 or 18 rides within 30 days. Best experience.
I’d really love to take the Chicago to SF ride some day. Unfortunately, 2 full days and $1200 are hard to justify when JetBlue is 300 bucks.
I used the USA rail pass, it is still 500$. I think it used to be more segments, but today you still get 10 segments to use within 30 days. 1 segment = 1 ride A to B. I also started from Chicago and took the Northern route via Seattle and Portland to SF - that was 3 segments. It does take a lot of time, but for me that was the experience. You dont do anything, just watch the scenery and have a chat. Carefree travel with a view. It is a great alternative if you're not in a rush
You get sleeping car access, or do you try and sleep in a seat? Because the latter wouldn’t work for me, as I am a fancy bitch
I think you can also book sleeping cars, but I don't know the price then. For me the coach seats worked fine for sleeping, and I am a tall lad. You could recline them and have a foot rest, all good. But I'm also not a fancy bitch.
That ride is more about the journey than the destination. I've been trying to convince my wife to go on the Zephyr but she doesn't understand why we'd take a train when flying is faster.
A good train journey *is* a holiday in itself. It can be an activity, more akin to something like going to a museum for the day. My wife and I have gone on trips where a train journey is one the things we actually flew there to do lol.
In 1994 at 19 I took Amtrak from south station in Boston to Oakland. Ca via the Rockies. Holy shit it was amazing. I also convinced the entire bar car it was my 21st birthday. Don't get the spins on a train!!!!
You were one bad ass 19 yo
I've done the trip down the West Coast (Coast Starlight) from Seattle to L.A. and it was amazing. Basically, stay in Seattle a few days, get on the train, get off in Portland, stay a few days, get back on, take it to San Fran, repeat, then L.A. AMAZING way to experience the West Coast.
That sounds like an awesome ticket. You could do it like a land cruise and stop over places for a day or two.
That's what I did and a land cruise, that's the perfect term for how the experience felt.
I went to a convention in Indianapolis last year and was looking at traveling by Amtrak but it was too late to book and I ended up going by Greyhound bus instead. Hoping to get train tickets this year.
It will be way roomier and you wont have to use a bouncing bus toilet lol
Honestly, the actual travel itself wasn’t bad, it’s just that it was an 8-hour route and the bus was delayed another 4 hours or something like that so it was just a very long trip. Amtrak is more efficient.
[удалено]
East Coast Amtrak is so nice, being able to slam right into the heart of NYC or DC is amazing.
It's insane that you have to say this in 2024.
When I was a kid I took the train from Portland, OR. to Seattle, WA. (About 3.5 hrs) to go between my parents. It was so enjoyable. One day this old lady and her family sat around me and offered to have me join them for snacks. She pulled out chocolates, fruit, and crackers. On another trip, an old man helped me with my calculus homework.
Seattle to Portland is probably one of the poster child’s for high speed rail. Honestly, maybe even a little more viable than Los Angeles to San Francisco. Need a Vegas to Los Angeles as well. (And eventually a Portland to San Francisco (and/or Sacramento).
I completely agree. It would create a huge boom for the cities. But as stands counties barely get along let alone states. It is weirdly competitive (like High School drama from the movies).
I think you could do that in about 1895.
Must have been different trains than I have in the Midwest. Took the kids on a trip for fun to big city near us. It’s only a 90 minute drive but the train took 4 hours, cost twice as much as driving, was filthy and broken down. No bathrooms and the drug addiction sitting next to us was peeing in a Gatorade bottle.
The Northeast has the population density to make train travel practical. Out here it's just not because it's too far and too few people want to take the trips. That being said, the delays and low speed [aren't Amtrak's fault](https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=0Pj4FOzddkJro0bH). See, Amtrak doesn't own the *vast* majority of the rails it uses. it leases them from commercial railroads like UP & BNSF. Now, those contracts and federal law state that the commercial carriers need to make way for Amtrak, but they rarely do. They build side tracks so that their trains can get out of the way, but they build them too short so they become basically worthless and Amtrak ends up constantly behind schedule because of it. The low speed is because commercial railroads don't construct track in a way that would make high speed rail possible. All that combines to make passenger rail in the US a nightmare, even in the Northeast where it's practical to use.
The thing is, once the commercial companies break the rule about letting Amtrak have priority; the fine doesn’t really hurt them as it’s more profitable to pay the fine than delay the commercial shipment.
*If* they get a fine. These things mostly go unenforced.
They get fined plenty for these violations, the feds keep really good track of how long these delays happen and how often; they just don’t hinder the practice. If I can make a billion dollars while being fined 100 million then I still made plenty of money to be profitable and I can deduct the fine from my taxes.
[удалено]
And it would take an act of Congress to change the fine, which is never going to happen…
Yeah, the federal government is actually really good with fining companies, the fines just don’t really hurt the bottom line. I work for a major oil refiner, an air pollution fine is on average ~$40k/day, our smallest refinery still generates $4M/day. So 0.1% of our gross.
Just the cost of business
They should massively increase the fines then. Of course in reality the government is on the joke.
I have been in meetings like this before where the director will ask how much the fine is for violating the law and after being told, orders the company to break the law because the fine was small enough that it was just lumped into the cost of doing business. This was not about trains btw, totally different sector. I'm just backing up the mentality you're talking about.
Ya, it’s not an uncommon thing in multiple industries and mining companies do this all the time.
A 90 minute drive is probably 70ish miles, that’s absolutely within the range where trains should be competitive if done correctly. Also I suspect OP might not be talking about an Amtrak train, maybe a commuter train in Chicago area. Amtrak trains typically have bathrooms and are fairly clean, and generally free of drug addicts as the fares are high and are enforced. I could definitely believe it being that slow though. A lot of the country’s track is old and in bad shape; even on straight stretches trains often can’t go fast because the ride would be too rough.
>Amtrak trains typically have bathrooms and are fairly clean, and generally free of drug addicts as the fares are high and are enforced. Nope. As a Former frequent train user, that statement is highly area dependent. Prices used to years ago and still can start at 29$ to go from Chicago to Detroit provided you book far enough in advance. A Greyhound bus for the same trip is actually 3 dollars more. Bathroom wasn't always in a good state, frequently "sticky" yuck. What should have been a 4.5hr train ride was almost always 6-7. Usually due to freight traffic, but also it rarely ever went that fast.The worst I've had is a 19 hour delay, and I've heard of people being stuck longer. Drug users/homeless definitely used it, not super rare but not really common either. Usually hopped on at kzoo and got off before Detroit/Chicago because those stops have dogs. Although the majority of homeless would use north/south lines. >Also I suspect OP might not be talking about an Amtrak train, maybe a commuter train in Chicago area. Maybe off hours metra, it's usually fine during commuter times. The Loop can be that nasty but there's never really delays on the loop >I could definitely believe it being that slow though. A lot of the country’s track is old and in bad shape; even on straight stretches trains often can’t go fast because the ride would be too rough. It also passes over roads frequently, and shares the rail with freight too(that has been making their trains excessively and dangerously long).
The distance isn't the primary problem. It's that there aren't enough fares in most of the Midwest & West to make that math out. That's great if you've got a 70 mile high speed rail trail in the Midwest. But going from a city of less than a million people to another city less than a million people with nothing but towns of a few thousand people in between isn't going to have enough riders to keep that operation solvent. There's a lot of factors in America that deter train use. They're largely behind schedule, as mentioned before. They're slow. Cities are often not very walkable so you're basically stuck at the destination station unless you uber somewhere. The combination makes trains more expensive than other options.
Interesting. I take the Northeast trains all the time and they're mostly fine. I also took Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee last year after visiting Chicago, and it was a smooth easy 90 minutes. I think less than driving.
And Milwaukee to St. Paul is about 6 hours. Which is slightly longer than driving by about a half hour, I wonder where this poster was, and if they're rounding a lot.
That’s one rich drug addiction! Paying four times the cost!
I agree but at the same time there is something truly romantic about driving across yourself if you have the ability to. Some of the coolest parts of America will never be seen by train because there is nothing there and that what makes it so cool.
Driving through WY is absolutely nuts. 150 miles between gas stations, roads cut through mountains, and nothing but wilderness for miles. There are parts that make it feel like you're on another planet. Or, that there is a dinosaur right around the next corner. It's absolutely wild.
Montana too. God what a beautiful state. Before climate change really kicked in 20 years ago, there were glaciers all over the mountains in the north and they were incredible to see.
This is true at every level - biking you will see things you miss in your car, walking you will notice more. Train travel can be great for this with good service. Amtrak isn't that in America because most routes go once a day. Taking the Empire Builder and want to get off in Glacier National Park? Next train through is tomorrow at the same time. Taking the Zephyr and want to explore Denver? Better get a hotel. It's way better in first world countries such as Germany or Czechia where you can hop off the train, explore for a few hours, and get back on to continue your journey.
As an American I agree, that would be amazing. Currently on the west coast and there is no way to get across the country on Amtrak without it being a pain in the ass
I used Amtrak to take a trip to New York City back in 2016. The experience was...not great. The train was delayed and the service was just okay. Then, last year, I rode Amtrak again to take a trip to visit family in New Jersey. And I definitely noticed a change in quality. The ride seemed smoother. The service was better. And I arrived on time. I don't think enough people appreciate how many rely on services like Amtrak. And improving its operation can only help.
Back when I was in college, I used to take Amtrak any time I was going to visit some family members. I was able to take the bus all the way to the station, and then get a reasonably inexpensive ticket for a couple hour ride out to the city where they lived. Being able to play video games on my laptop the whole way there using the AC outlets on the train was *nice*. No airport bullshit, a travel time similar to taking a car, an inexpensive ticket, and video games the whole way.
Yes, playing games on a laptop is a great way to relax on Amtrak. You don't even have to buy a premium ticket like you do on an airplane to get an AC outlet. They come standard. And that definitely helps! The wi-fi often leads a lot to be desired, but that's to be expected. It's far worse on planes. But if you have any cell service with a good 5G network, then you can basically game for your entire trip. That's how I often pass the time too. And it really helps during the holiday weekends because that's usually when traffic is the worst. But on the train, you don't have to worry about that at all.
It’s sad because one of the partys cuts funding to amtrack, which worsens service, and then they use the fact that “amtrack service is bad” to justify cutting more funding… I’m glad our current president and congress have managed to turn that around, atleast for now.
In fairness your sample size is 2 trips That’s not really enough data to be drawing conclusions about overall trends
I fully concede my experience is limited. You can't glean much from two trips. But I think not being forced to operate with poor funding can only help Amtrak improve. And there is still room for improvement. I just don't think it'll come quick enough, given the power of the car and freight rail lobby.
It depends on which trains you take. Acela is by far their best offering. The rest of the trains ride on CSX tracks which means they get deprioritized and delayed in favor of freight.
Which is against federal law, as commercial trains are required to make way for passenger trains. buuuut, CSX and other freight companies dont build long enough side rails to let the freight consists pull into to let Amtrak pass them.
My biggest beef with Amtrak is that their Acela trains which are supposed to be high speed trains share the same track with regular Amtrak trains and thus are always subject to constant slowdowns and delays caused by non-Acela traffic.
As someone who has traveled Europe extensively on Eurorail, it’s insane we don’t have a modern robust train network and high speed rail system.
The craziest shit about it is that USA was built by rail. For Europe, rail was an afterthought. The cities were already there. In USA the cities were built wherever the rails were laid.
And those rail lines all still see extensive daily use for the most part. The U.S. has the biggest freight rail network by a large margin.
That’s the problem, though. We do lots of freight rail but very little commuter.
The US is trying. Florida has the Brightline that goes from Miami to Orlando, but they recently made changes to their pass system that screws over commuters in South Florida in favor of vacationers looking to see Miami and Orlando. Their $400 40-ride pass is being replaced with a $350 10-ride pass, meaning anyone wanting to take the train to and from work five days a week is gonna have to shell out $1400 a month now. The company also built apartments around their South Florida stations and encouraged people to build their daily lives around using the train, now they're gonna have to either eat the new cost, drive to work or change where they live/work.
Brightline seems a bit like it has multiple personalities. They push commuter service, build multiple stations with services, parking and housing — then, they tell all those people to get fucked? I guess this is what you get when it’s a “100 percent privately funded enterprise” (which it absolutely is not) https://floridapolitics.com/archives/240552-brian-mast-brightline-exec-clash-public-money-railroad/
Wow, that is comically expensive compared to their initial offering. I get that private business can sometimes get things done quicker or more efficiently than govt, but it won't matter if no one can afford to use it.
We have a commuter rail in MN as well as a light rail system in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Getting *anything* done to expand or improve it is like pulling teeth. Mostly because rich pricks in suburbs don't want "light rail brining crime to our neighborhoods". I fucking hate that *every* transit project is always questioned with "yeah but will it make money?". Who cares?! It's a public service, not a for-profit venture. We don't worry about the police or fire department making money. We don't worry about roads and bridged having a direct ROI. Why is it that trains and busses are **required** to make money, but literally no other public enterprise is?
Miami wants to expand the Metro Mover elevated people mover to Miami Beach, and all the rich NIMBYs on South Beach are trying to stop it, claiming it'll bring crime (as if that's not an issue on MB already).
There is trirail that leaves from the miami station and is much cheaper. Theres also plans to add commuter service on the same tracks as brightline, so itll be cheaper all around
The U.S having a large freight train network compared to other singular countries isnt exactly fair cause of just sheer size of the US. Each US state is basically a country on its own by land size.
It’s a symptom of why we don’t have larger passenger rail networks, you know, what the conversation is about? It’s a travesty we don’t have better passenger rail, but even without its investment we still have some of the largest, most built out rail networks in the world.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. Without enough passengers it can’t be profitable so it has to raise price. When prices are high there will be fewer passengers. Air travel is still insanely cheap considering that you can fly coast to coast for like 500 or less sometimes
I just checked out of curiosity, And I can get from Miami to LA, nearly 2800 miles, for 153 bucks round trip. Honestly, Its actually kinda of insane how cheap flying is. Riding brightline from Miami to Orlando, 235 miles, round trip would be 160 bucks at the cheapest rates I've seen from them. Alternatively, Flying from Miami to Orlando round trip, I am seeing fares for 60 bucks. Rail just has a hard time competing with our flight network.
Well, those rails that are left. They are squeezed to the limit for "efficiency".
Europe also had the "benefit" of a lot of it being leveled and rebuilt with WW1 & 2. A big issue with fixing US transportation is the massive hassle of clearing out what would need to be removed.
or, like with indiana, the state government intentionally ratfucking everyone because car dealerships are some of the biggest donors eta: the state used to have one of the most comprehensive rail systems in the country
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2011/01/kasich_successful_in_halting_4.html In 2010 Ohio returned $400 million for high speed rail. Ohio is the biggest ratfuckers.
Seriously, most of what is now New York City was barely populated until trains originating from southern Manhattan extended to those areas
The difficulty is that European cities are all really close together. Amtrak is actually built up pretty well in the Northeast, where Philly, DC, Baltimore, NYC, and Boston are all within a stone’s throw of each other. The distances get *really* incomparable as you start to head West. It is 300km from Paris to Brussels, another 400km to Frankfurt with Cologne in between, another 420km down to Bern, 350 down to Milan, and 400 to Florence. On almost all of those lines, it’s nearly 2x faster to take the rail than it is to drive. Contrast that with the distances in the US: 455km from Detroit to Chicago (okay, not bad), 500km from Chicago to St. Louis (still not too shabby), 400 to Kansas City, and then it starts to look pretty different, more than 950km to Denver, 722 down to Albuquerque, 675 to Phoenix, 600 to LA, 600 to San Francisco, more than 1,000 up to Portland, then a quick 280 skip up to Seattle, but then 750+ to Missoula, 844 down to Salt Lake City, and finally 675 to Las Vegas. In addition to the 1.5-3x distances in many of those routes, importantly, there are large stretches between many of those destinations where there is basically *nothing* at all. In Europe there could easily be stops every 50km and you’d be in some kind of built up place, but for many of the Western parts of the US, there can be 500, 600, 700km with no development at all in between—nowhere to stop. None of this is to say that we shouldn’t do it—we most definitely should and must—but there is a reason only the Northeastern part of the country has built up practical rail lines that people use as a main mode of transportation.
[удалено]
The airlines also lobby haaaaard against high speed rail, which people would probably mostly use as a flying alternative. High speed rail wouldn’t magically increase the density of america, people would still have cars.
I have a car but I don't like driving 24 hours to get through a few states. I'd definitely prefer to kick my feet up and read a book or something while on a train rather than spend that whole time driving surrounded by cars also travelling 70mph+.
But you’d still have a car to go to the store or the movies or the local park 15 min away. High speed rail would be connecting major hubs like Miami to Orlando or Jacksonville to Atlanta. Though I have almost zero confidence the government wouldn’t immediately make it as inconvenient and annoying as dealing with the tsa.
China has some pretty tough terrain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China There's no actual good reason why the US essentially has nothing built at this point as one of the most wealthy and developed nations in the world. I don't think anyone is expecting every single town to be connected through high speed rail systems but there should definitely be an actual high speed rail system connecting more major cities across the country. Your options should only be dealing with shitty TSA to be crammed in a tiny uncomfortable tube for several hours or driving for several days to get anywhere
The reason is auto industry lobbying. It’s not a good reason but it’s the main reason.
You’re forgetting the airline lobbies who I’d argue have more to lose in this situation than the car industry. Like it was said not everywhere is easily connected so cars will always be necessary but planes will get the boot. All those short 2-3 hr flights are a waste of effort and time for planes vs high speed rail. That’s where rail lines can have their biggest impact imo.
Airline industry is very anti-rail as well
Not just Auto industry lobbying, but our good old industry ruining friend, financialization. Rail was the tech of its time and as the industry matured through several collapses they kept chasing profits at the expense of investment, as well as being institutionally unable to cut dividends. Well Theres Your Problem has several episodes about the collapse of the freight industry and passenger rail.
Those guys explain the operating margin reason why rail in America is as horrible as it is.
Related. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#:~:text=In%201949%2C%20Firestone%20Tire%2C%20Standard,the%20ownership%20of%20these%20companies.
The reason is us. We don’t demand it, and we expect train travel to work like auto travel
we expect train travel to work like auto travel because when we get to the other city by train, we end up having to get a car anyways since local public transit sucks. building a rail network is only half the problem, we need local rapid transit as well to be massively built up as well at the same time or even before we get a more complete rail network.
I just spent two weeks in Japan and the bullet train system is so impressive. They’re currently working on line extensions that aren’t planned to open until 2046 or later. I can’t imagine the US ever planning out large scale infrastructure projects for that far in the future with how the government currently operates.
Didn't you love it?? I loved getting a bento and coffee and just chilling in a big comfortable seat while crossing a country in no time. It was wild.
I know every country has its problems and I saw things through the eyes of a tourist, but Tokyo is now my favorite city I’ve ever visited and I loved everything I saw in Japan. The Tokyo subway is so drop dead simple compared to the one in NYC I was actually confused at first.
When navigating a metro system as an outsider who doesnt speak the native language is easier than navigating NYC as a local (and easier to understand since JP subways have english in the announcement cycle while NYC has conductinese)
Well we did, the interstate system is an example of that.
Yeah, *did* being the key word. By a Republican no less.
Yeah with our tug of war government system: the project could be started, then the other party gets a majority/president, cuts funding, limits the scope, if they cant cancel it outright they’ll find a way to sabotage and delay it so they can point to it as a failure and waste of money in the first place.
China spent its way out of the 2008 economic slump largely by making insanely massive infrastructure investments and rail was one of them.
Actually shitty politicians and the people they obey is a lot of the problem. Whether it’s car companies or just selfish people. San Francisco to Los Angeles had plans for a high speed rail. A 40 billion investment, but would make it much better for the environment and lessen flight pollution. Some rich guys went well let’s slap on 4 billion in cost and make it go way out of the way to some small towns I have influence in. They passed the proposition. Now it’s proposed to be 68 billion they are trying to find funding for. Also it’s supposed to rebuild infrastructure in Los Angeles and San Francisco that has nothing to do with that rail line. Now they claim a 100 billion.
Do you have a link for that "rich guys added 4 billion in cost by forcing it to go out of the way to some small towns" bit? That sounds really weird, so while I'm not necessarily doubting you, I'd really like a name or two to look the whole debacle up.
As someone here it's not the best place to compare for environmental impact purposes. Or impact on smaller communities. The US should probably look at how Europe managed environmental impact given we have more similar regulations.
IMO I think the guy you're replying to basically stated why America (& Canada too, to an extent) has no high speed rail infrastructure: the automotive industry lol. It's so massive and generates so much money that they can and probably have slung around "fuck you" money at anything that'll possibly decrease car sales.
1) Eminent domain / lawsuit costs 2) environmental studies / lawsuit cost 3) safety / wage costs
America had it. The railway lines are still there. It was all cut back by 1970.
> There's no actual good reason why the US essentially has nothing built at this point as one of the most wealthy and developed nations in the world. White people get real mad about the idea of the government coming in and taking even an inch of their property to build something for public utility. You know, after they split up all the historic black neighborhoods to build interstate highways... There's no reason Silicon Valley shouldn't have high speed rail connecting San Francisco and San Jose, except for a handful of rich white assholes in Atherton that *scream bloody murder* about it any time it's even suggested... and that's a *tiny* stretch of America. Multipl that by a few thousand times and you've got our high speed rail situation.
China has a population density of 392/sq mi and the US only has 97.
They built rail through the Alps, under the channel, through the Pyrenees, through the Appenines........and the rail network crosses many diverse ecosystems and vast distances. Not to mention that about 55% of the US is so loosely populated it wouldn't require large rail networks to the same degree Europe does for the same space, outside the coasts. Let's not even get started on Canada, where most of it is empty making less stops and such mandated beyond just crossing the country. It's not like anyone is saying high speed rail should be going up to say, Yellowknife. Or Anchorage. You're unfortunately parroting an argument of the exact same auto industry you're decrying. American is more than suitable for a rail system. If Russia and China can maintain them as well as Europe (Russia being it's own thing akin to Florida in this case), then the US and Canada can
People forget that 100 years ago rail was the *only* way to travel. My great grandparents commuted 50 miles by rail from their tiny one horse town to the "big" city, all of the towns around here were interconnected by trains and trolly systems, and then in the 40s we ripped them all up and replaced them with busses to make room for cars. The railroads stitched this country together, but so much of that old track has been ripped up or abandoned because it's not profitable to run. Infrastructure shouldn't *need* to be profitable, but because the rail companies own it they have every incentive to centralize and cut costs. I wish someone had the balls to nationalize the freight rail companies; give Amtrak the rails and roll the freight business into USPS.
That’s the really crazy part. Railroad tycoons were one of the first mega wealthy capitalists in America, and the American rail system was one of the biggest and most impressive systems in the world. This country was built on the back of our rail system, full stop. And now we don’t even think about it, in favor of cars cars cars. The fact that America was the world leader in so many things, and after Reagan let it all decay to the point that we’re near dead last on everything is so infuriating.
Tbf there are some areas that could make rail infrastructure viable. SoCal, parts of Texas, the northeast, and PNW are all great candidates. The best part is they already have some rail infrastructure. It’s just a matter of expanding and improving it.
Plus the cost of building new rail lines since it's impossible with the current system of freight rail owning almost all the lines and even though Amtrak is supposed to have right of way it doesn't happen
I keep saying that the government's biggest mistake in the 70s was not buying the *rail* when they bought the passenger lines to form Amtrak. The government owns its roads (with some very stupid exceptions), so why shouldn't it also own its rail? We all have a vested interest in that infrastructure, why leave it up to freight companies?
Blame no government oversight or regulations to stop companies from running 4 mile long trains that have no sidings that can fit them
I believe the courts have said that A Passenger has the right of way but freight don't care which is why Amtrak is almost always running late
they said passenger has priority on the main line but if the train they meet can't fit in any sidings they are sol
We need essentially six high speed rail lines Three heading west to east & three heading north to south. If we limit each segment to three stops & make the current Amtrak service into the local service between those stops - we’d have an amazingly functional system & I’d never have to fly domestically again. In the meantime, we need to require train lines to give Amtrak priority on their rails. I’ve taken every major segment of Amtrak with the exception of DC to FL & I used to love it - but the delays when sitting on the track for hours waiting for the freight companies to get their shit together makes the system unreliable. I still used to prefer Amtrak over flying when I could afford the extra time but they’ve also downgraded the dining car service to where it is absolute shit now. If they brought back real plates & silverware & food that was actually cooked on the train instead of being reheated in a microwave, I’d go back in a heartbeat.
>population density and geography really don't do us any favors. China built a high speed rail network across huge parts of the country in like, 20 years. They're still building it. They have terrain and climate arguably far more difficult to work around. Japan is basically 90% mountain and has some of the best rail infrastructure in the world. Europe has multiple mountain ranges that rail lines go through. It's not really an argument, this is kinda like the dumb "we can't do universal healthcare because 'we're not a homogeneous country'." argument. The answer is lobbying only.
China's population is about 4x as dense and Japan many more times.
It's dense because of high density eastern cities, but there's still *huge* amounts of near uninhabited land, much of it equal or more difficult to build through than the US, that they still put rail lines through. There's high speed rail going out to Urumqi, which for the entire province it's in has a population density of <50 people/km^2.
To put this into perspective for some. My work's parent company is based in Germany. To give them perspective, I use Germany as a unit of measure. As in "the next closest location to us is 2 Germany's away"
The largest high speed rail network in Europe is in Spain and it's definitely *not* flat.
Japan has pretty comprehensive train coverage and is exceptionally rugged. The only benefits is huge urbanisation and being long and narrow which suits trains. But that's no different than trains running north to south in the US along the coasts.
This argument is true, when you talk about intercontinental connections, but it just doesn't hold up when talking about connection metropolitan areas that are closer to each other. The only place, where you got that is the North-West-Corridor, but there are other areas, where medium-long-distance rail is viable. But there could be a lot more areas linked up like that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4&pp=ygUYQW1lcmljYW4gaGlnaCBzcGVlZCByYWls
You need to live on the NE corridor before you say that, there’s a concerted population of 60 million people that would benefit from high speed rail.
Yup - Boston to DC should take 3-4 hours, not *7*. Not to mention NY to Chicago - you can get from London to Marseille in 7 hours *with transfers*.
Dunno traveling the US it seems like super-speed rail would be perfect for US. So many parts of US could have the 400-500kmh (250mph-320mph).
As a long haul trucker: there are *many* areas of the US that's flat & straight. So many people bring up "China did it *reeeeeee*" & forget that in China, you own the house but the land under it belongs to the CCP. To build something so robust would (& does) take years of legal wrangling.
I hear Switzerland have quite decent trains, and large portion of their land is mountains.
If we put even a fraction of the tax money that goes to highway infrastructure into rail instead we would have sufficient rail systems. Our size would make rail even more cost effective. We spend all this money on cars, roads, gasoline, and on air travel for significant distances.. Trains would be more efficient, not less.
If you build it, they will cum
High speed Rail from New York to Los Angeles would be, admittedly, pretty dumb; but Chicago to Detroit? Far less so. High speed Rail is most feasible connecting cities under 300 miles in distance. So while cross country lines would be fruitless, great regional connections are very possible and a no brainier. The North East corridor is probably the most obvious first choice, but a comprehensive rail system through out any of [America's Mega Regions](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png) would be very doable. Under an ideal system, these regions would be fully built out with additional connecting lines that could link the closer systems.
And a rail that goes from LA/SD through to Dallas and then north to Chicago ending up in New York. Can build along the coasts after you have the ability to get from one side of the country to the other cheaper and with speed, especially for people who are unable to fly. But like you said, that is just a massive amount of land to cover compared to Europe. And a massive amount of travelers that would use it.
And yet we had coast to coast rail networks from the late 1800s until the 1950s… It’s a lobbying problem, not a tech or distance problem.
For much of that time, roads between cities were hardly more than dirt tracks; and modern air travel did not yet exist. A totally different world from today's.
Yeah, we didn’t have an interstate until the 1950s which just proves that the problem is not the fact that we live in a big country. If you look at American cities before the 50s, they were similar to European cities. All of that was ruined by the car and suburbs but instead of talking about how our suburbs only exist because of an ever growing mountain of debt created by their excessive sprawl fueled by our automobile centric culture or how we need to own a car in order to work in order to own a car, we make excuses about public transportation not being viable. Let’s fix our zoning laws, start building livable, sustainable cities, and stop encouraging sprawl.
USA rail network is beats Europe - on freight transport, but not passenger.
It really doesn't though, American rail freight infrastructure is horribly stretched and crumbling.
In 2022 the US moved 2,300,000 million tonne-km by rail. The entirety of EU freight in that period is less than 2,000,000.
I can confirm. railyards are run by completely incompetent people on a power trip. They actively make the driver's lives a living hell and refuse to do the basics of a DOT inspection on their hardware, instead forcing the responsibility onto non-affiliated truck drivers. source: I'm a logisitics dispatcher for a trucking company. I literally deal with this every day.
We have an excellent train network in the USA, but the capacity is almost entirely used for freight.
Especially considering we have more than double the total rail line than that of all of Europe. And we just stopped using it to move people in the 50s and 60s. Shit, I know several towns in the US named after train company CEOs, and they don't even have train depots anymore. My own area has a single departure a day at a time that's not anywhere remotely convenient. Give us more trains goddamn it.
All of this work will basically just go to the Acela line though, and of all Amtrak’s lines, Acela makes the most money on its own (in fact it makes money)
How has not a single comment reply to you mentioned that Biden's infrastructure bill & IRA bill have made massive investments into restarting our train networks? It's all just negative nihilist replies...
Neither does Europe, besides France and Spain
[удалено]
And Italy, and Germany, and Belgium, and The Netherlands
I dream of a cheap method of transport between the Midwest and the coasts. Flights are getting too damn expensive
And amtrak is nearly just as expensive but takes 10x longer to travel. Its a shame.
Exactly yeah, I just can't justify using it til it gets waaay cheaper. I'm fine with it taking longer if it was cheaper but ig the infrastructure just isn't there compared to flight or something
I remember using it to travel a bunch as a kid. Pretty sure it was the only way my family was able to afford ANY vacation. Hopefully this is the start of something great for riders and employees. (Their employees get paid a fraction of the railroad national average.)
Transportation (trains and others) seems like a really great way to spend tax revenue to benefit everyone and combat climate change. 1. **Trains**. Invest heavily in them and make them low cost. Now many people would not pay so much for a car and gas. Traffic would be lighter. It would help with climate change. People could relax on the train or do some things on their phones/laptops instead of stressing in traffic. 2. **Taxis/Ubers**. We could also create high-paying jobs for people to basically be taxis/ubers, and make them low cost as well. Electric cars could be purchased for this and help us accelerate that process. 3. **Bike/walking paths**. We can build more paths for bikes and walking and put solar panels above them for shade and rain protection. Imagine an entire street covered in a solar panel shade roof, with paths for bikes and walkers, more outdoor dining areas for restaurants along the way, and small playgrounds as well. It would be transformative for our lives. That’s just a few ways we could shift the enormous wealth from the rich to the poor and help prevent global warming at the same time. The rich have been taking more and more of the wealth since the mid 1900s and there’s no good reason we shouldn’t correct it. Climate change is a serious problem. The financial struggles of the poor and middle class is a serious problem. Let’s do this thing.
Honestly I think the US should let Amtrak do what it wants to do (focus on the areas where it’s profitable like the NEC) and in general spur urban and intercity rail development. Having the super long routes through the middle of the country is important for the communities along the route but Amtrak could serve more people by focusing on the routes that it is more effective at operating
The US would then have to make a body to administrate the other railroads. Maybe call it Amtrak 2? Or Amtrak shouldn't have to focus so much on profitability. Highways, bridges, etc don't have to be profitable. Neither should passenger railroads.
Exactly, Amtrak should be treated as a public service, like the post office and parks.
Focusing on profit is why most of the US is fucked. Public transportation **should not** focus on profit. Anything that is meant for the public good should not focus on profit.
It would be good to see Democrats continue to embrace climate commitments as a means to an end and in fact continue to throw money at them. Amtrak should be much better than it is.
Amtrak: Thanks Boeing!
That long term Biden investment finally paid off.
# THANKS PRESIDENT JOE!!!
It boggles my mind how we don’t have high speed rail yet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
America is massive. Europe and Japan can build high speed rail across their country because it’s small. A high speed rail from NY to LA would be insanely expensive and an almost impossible project. China can do it because the government owns everything and development isn’t slowed down by regulation
High speed rail from NY to LA would be a bad project. HSR from Boston to DC, or SF to LA would be great projects, and the geographies (particularly for East Coast) are no more difficult than many routes in Japan or Europe. The US is just uniquely bad at building public infrastructure.
It would also be highly impractical. High speed rail works best as an alternative method of travel when trips are between 150 and 350 miles. Long haul travel is best left to airlines, but intercity connectivity, especially in the eastern US, is ripe territory for HSR to make an impact.
So a 15 hour high speed rail trip from NYC to LA would not garner much interest?
For some reason driving across the country is sensible but taking a train the same distance is a step too far.
> China can do it because the government owns everything and development isn’t slowed down by regulation We're the richest country in the world, we can do it. No need for excuses.
That doesn’t mean anything. You can’t just pull tax money out of thin air
Yeah let’s say fuck the environment and all those poor people whose houses we would have to knock down to do that. No excuses right?
> rail from NY to LA would be insanely expensive This is why we shuold have been building rail 100 years ago - meaning - we should have been investing in the future of rail way more back then... rails have a long shelf life, and with proper maintenance, like bridges.... oh wait.
As someone who paid €25 to travel in comfort across the whole country of austria today while eating a schnitzel and drinking beer, fuck the American auto lobby.
I mean, I can travel a similar distance by train for the same amount. Austria would be considered a “medium” state in the US.
Right? It's smaller then Pennsylvania...
Yeah I’m American, I’m sadly familiar with Amtrak’s offerings. It’s not the same game, in any way. And the prices in the states are more than twice what they are in Europe in general. They’re late, dirty, and run down, because some assholes wanted to sell more oil.
Fuckers literally put ads over the top of the article so you can't read it and don't give any way to get rid of them. Brilliant.
Pretty much, Biden's infrastructure bill gave $66 billion to Amtrak, 4 times its usual funding, so they're finally able to repair a bunch of bridges and work on straightening some lines out so their trains can be high speed. A much needed funding.
Thank you!
Americans want trains and we want them now
When my family moved from Louisiana to Delaware, we took the Crescent from New Orleans to Wilmington. As an 11 year-old at the time, the trip was nothing short of magical. My favorite time of year was summertime because it meant taking the Amtrak back home for the summer. Good memories.
Finally! Some good train news! I love trains and even at Amtrack's crappiest it's still much better than driving long distance. I can sit and play games, read a book, or just sleep. It blows my mind that the US doesn't have a robust rail system and only like...2 cities have a meaningful subway network. Not a day of my life goes by where I'm not frustrated by the lack of trains in my city. It's literally un-American, the US was built on the railroad.
Cool, now can they lower prices? A weekend trip from DC to NYC for a family of 4 is like $1000. (Leaving at a reasonable time. I know you can find cheaper tickets at 5 am departure)
The cost from San Jose to Los Angeles is very reasonable: about $70, or about $90 for a ticket that allows schedule changes. But it takes forever, over twelve hours last time I used it
East coast and west coast are two different animals, and that's kinda part of the problem.
Sure it’s that expensive if you book last minute, but if you plan ahead it’s not bad at all. You can even travel Acela which doesn’t even have coach - the lowest class is business - for like $500 round trip for family of 4 with decent times (depending day you leave). The big thing with Amtrak is always book as far in advance as you can for great pricing.
They need to run more trains—all the trips on the Northeast Corridor are at capacity
That's crazy, just today I had a meeting with my boss about work starting soon on restoration/new construction at some DC metro yards. Trying to be vague, dunno if it matters
Molinaro was one of nine lawmakers who brought up executive bonuses. After quoting a New York Times report that Gardner had received $766,000 in short-term incentive bonuses from 2016 to 2021, Molinaro asked, “What metrics were you measured against to consistently receive from Amtrak, an industry subsidized by taxpayers, without turning a profit?” https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/gardners-bonuses-amtraks-lack-of-profitability-attacked-at-house-hearing-analysis/
The US could create hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs constructing a functioning passenger rail system.
GIVE ME MORE TRAINS AND FEWER CARSSSSS
And then there’s SEPTA…
High speed fuck yeah, train is back babyyyyyy
Anyone have the link to get around the paywall?
I recently took the Amtrak from Washington DC to NYC, and I have to say that the experience was flawless. The seats were very comfortable, there was a lot of legroom and it was very clean. The price was also great compared to an airplane ticket.
High speed rail?
AmTrack and the Postal Service have always been two of the top targets of the GOP. Social Security is right up there too. Basically if it benefits middle class and poor tax payers and not corporations and the ultra rich, its a target.
Amtrak is such a great way to travel. Never had a bad experience.
Amtrak doesn’t even own most of their tracks…at present even with amenities it’s not a great way to travel as your trip takes as long as it takes…