As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.
Amtrak is hands-down the worst passenger rail service I've ever used, out of services in four different countries. I will say I've never used Amtrak in the Northeast which I understand is somewhat better than the rest of the country, but that's not saying much.
It's not going to magically get replaced by a better service if it disappears. The way I see it they have limited capital and no shortage of antagonist political forces. The NE corridor was often worth riding despite other options, and the train connecting portland with seattle was pleasant as well, for me.
I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
Don't forget to add airport overhead and potentially the time it takes to get to airport over train station (if you live in the city), getting through security, boarding the plane, waiting to depart, etc. Might not even be a time savings when it's all said and done.
For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying.
Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station):
1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city
2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic
3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc.
And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too.
It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.
The Northeast corridor is one thing, but the rest of the country has an entirely different experience with Amtrak. I once took a train from Pittsburgh to Chicago which was scheduled to depart at 8 AM. Instead we ended up boarding at noon, and apparently this is a completely typical delay. I hate airports, but the unimaginable volatility of Amtrak will more than erase the benefit of not trudging through airport security, as well as make it impossible to schedule any connecting transport at your destination.
As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
I assume the NEC is a pretty special case for Amtrak. It would be interesting to see what % revenue for Amtrak comes for the NEC, too. It's such a cornerstone to NE travel. Sold out often, etc.
> (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.
Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach.
Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of time you don't have to spend when you take the train.
Roll all that together, and I'm not sure that the train is much slower. And it costs less, and the scenery is better. So from where I sit, it doesn't look like a no-brainer at all.
One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times.
That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.
On the east coast Amtrak is doing this thing where they pull the dining cars off of long distance trains and have snack cars only and offer lower roomette fares in return. Reviews are mixed.
How can the food be worse than airline food? I haven’t been on a flight in years that had anything other than prepackaged snacks available at any price.
> Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.
That really depends on where you are. You could do a lot worse than waiting for a train in Chicago [1] [2]. Amtrak sold development rights to a parking structure across the street from Union Station and got a boatload of money, which they are spending on upgrades and restoration, including a 400-room luxury hotel on the roof of Union Station that will give them a nice continuous revenue stream to continue developing rail projects.
Well I have experience using it on the west coast too, and I think it's a decent alternative if you aren't so pressed for time. Travelling from Los Angeles to San Jose by train costs about the same as flying economy, but takes about 8x more time, and in return you get roomy seats, less hassle due to security screening, nice views outside the window, the freedom to walk around and stand up basically any time. It's totally not a no-brainer.
I don't know what your expectations are but I've been taking it for 20 years in the Midwest. It is great every time. Usually I get two seats. It's clean, the seats are pretty comfortable, the conductors are friendly as well as the fellow passengers. I can crack a beer, watch a movie in peace or do some work. What else can you ask for?
I commuted on Amtrak for two years between DC and Baltimore. The train was routinely 15 minutes late, and regularly 1 hour+. Destroying it might allow something else to be built in its place.
MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the nose.)
also MARC and Amtrak have different endpoints in DC. even though it's more expensive, Amtrak may put an arbitrary person closer to where they need to be.
It was mostly a joke, I ride the Amtrak multiple times per month. It's pretty awful. Unless you're taking the Acela you need to budget 2+ hours for the inevitable delays.
On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.
Why?