[Stasis5001]

I started looking at the map in the article and realized I had just booked a flight where there was an existing rail line ! So I checked out the Amtrak site, and what's 1h20m by plane is 14h40m by train -- and 8h by car. Maybe by getting a sleeper cabin I could have had an enjoyable trip by train, but as the trip scales things get dramatically worse.

Of course, maybe this is exactly what the future of transportation should look like: more localized travel on modes that can be powered by renewable sources or nuclear.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

It's a mixed bag, really.

Compare the journey from my small village in New Mexico to Chicago, about 1200 miles. We just happen to have an Amtrak station 5 miles away. The drive time is about 18-20 hours without stops, which is long enough that an overnight stop is going to be likely. The flight time is only about 3 hours, but that requires first driving 40-70 minutes to the airport, spending time waiting in the airport, and then arriving at O'Hare, and then the 50 min metro journey back into the city.

The Southwest Chief, however, arrives here around lunch time, and arrives in Chicago about 24 hours later.

If you were optimizing for minimum travel time, you'd probably fly. If you were optimizing for cost, you'd probably drive. But if you want a nice journey, the train is fantastic and faster than driving if you're going to stop.

So, there are variations on the theme, and sometimes the train wins, sometimes the train loses.

[brandonmenc]

> If you were optimizing for minimum travel time, you'd probably fly. If you were optimizing for cost, you'd probably drive. But if you want a nice journey, the train is fantastic and faster than driving if you're going to stop.

Train fans vastly overestimate the number of people who will optimize for "sitting in a train and staring out the window for days".

[anaerobicover]

> optimize for "sitting in a train and staring out the window for days".

I'm acknowledging that it's not for everyone, but that's not really a fair depiction. I get a lot of work done on a train -- the atmosphere is similar to a coffee shop in some ways. Other people enjoy going to the common car and chatting and playing cards with strangers. Or reading. Or just watching Netflix on their devices, like they'd probably be doing at home anyways. We were also talking about an overnight trip, not "days".

[spc476]

I work in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The home office is in Seattle, Washington. I've made it clear at work that I'm not about to fly to the Seattle office [1] (not that I've ever needed to, but others in my office have). On a lark, I decided to see what it would cost to travel by train. On the plus side, there is train service between Ft. Lauderdale and Seattle. On the down side, it cost about $2,000 one-way. No way my company would spring for a ticket than costs more than first class air line ticket, but I wouldn't have mined the week travel one-way, as long as there was decent Internet connectivity (so I could continue to work).

[1] I don't have a fear of flying. I don't fly because of the security theater and the "presumed guilty" attitude. Also because of the declining comfort and service because people are prioritize the bottom line. It sucks.

[ghaff]

Especially given that, if it's business travel, I expect a lot of companies aren't that big on you adding a couple days of travel time because you feel like taking the train.

In the case of the parent's scenario, it seems pretty reasonable in that you're really only talking about maybe an additional half day of travel. But that's probably about the upper limit.

[loonster]

Grand Rapids to Orlando:

Driving: 18 hours, 1269 miles x $0.56/mile = $710 each way (IRS millage rates as proxy)

Train: 55 hour travel, $209 each way (no refund)

Flying: 2.5 hour flight, $68 each way on a budget flight. Double both time and price for non-budget.

I would love to take a train, its just not practical.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

This seems like a demonstration of routing issues, more than anything else. I have no idea how many changes that journey would involve, but there's no way that 55 hours to cover 1269 miles is representative of the time a train (even a clunky Amtrak train) would take to cover that distance. So this would seem to be an argument for increasing routes/services, rather than an argument that the train can't ever work.

OTOH, the flight is hard to compete with in that instance, so I suspect even with a better route, you'd likely still fly between those two places. Others might not, and the new service/route would benefit people making shorter journeys along the way.

[jpindar]

OTOH, how many of us sometimes happily sit in a chair and stare at a screen for days?

[dreamcompiler]

I love the Lamy-to-Chicago train. I've taken it several times. You get to sleep through Kansas (where there's nothing to see anyway; no offense to Kansans!) and you wake up crossing the Mississippi River. There's 110v power and cell service for most of the trip.

(I always get a sleeper; without that it wouldn't be worthwhile.)

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Good guess at Lamy! But it could have been Las Vegas or Raton too :)

Are you close by?

[dreamcompiler]

Didn't guess; your bio says Galisteo ;-)

I'm near Golden.

[colinmhayes]

I travel form Chicago to Detroit pretty regularly. The train takes 4.5 hours, driving takes 4, and flying takes 1.5. Flying ends up being the slowest though because you have to spend 1.5 getting too and from the airport plus waiting at the airport. The train costs $25 which is cheaper than driving and I get to get work done. It's by far the best option imo.