[catlover76]

Why? Isn't Amtrak that, but just geographically-scoped? Isn't Caltrain workable? Subways also function fine in NYC, DC, Boston, and even LA

(to be clear, I don't think the other poster is correct that having trains would satisfy the desire of the guy who wants a self-driving Rivian. I consider his want/need there to be fundamentally different)

[jdprgm]

It's comically (and extremely variably) priced. A trip from DC to NYC and back would be ~$25 in electric costs with a typical electric car versus Amtrak could easily be $300+ though possibly as cheap as $50 if you are flexible to awful hours like depart at 4:30am or something.

[square_usual]

You should factor in the time/stress/wear costs but yes, I've found driving to be significantly cheaper than even the DC Metro most days.

[habnds]

the actual cost of a trip between times square and the national mall is about $200 all things considered based on the ~0.80 federal mileage reimbursement rate for 250 miles. that train corridor is overwhelmingly successful as well so the idea that amtrak isn't a good deal is at odds with reality.

[pishpash]

That's assuming you don't already have a time-depreciating asset in your possession. Per mile cost is about halved if you drive significantly more than average.

[habnds]

People in and around the acela corridor drive significantly less than the national average.

[JeremyNT]

Amtrak (where it exists) is often deprioritized for freight travel, and other times is often limited to extremely low speeds, resulting in extremely slow travel. Your road trips are only possible if you have extremely relaxed time constraints and specific destinations in mind.

Fees are also very high for such a slow option.

As for the future, well... it is bleak. This administration is actively trying to block transit expansion, presumably due to their undying affection for the fossil fuel industry, going so far as to withhold funding from already awarded grants to regional rail.

So while the northeast can sort-of pull it off due to its relatively compact nature and history of more progressive policies, this leaves the vast majority of the country in a no-mans land.

[Karrot_Kream]

Amtrak simply leases the lines in the West from freight providers rather than owning the track outright. The reason Amtrak can offer so much better service in the Northeast Corridor is because they own the track. Incidentally the NEC is the only part of Amtrak operating at a profit.

[JuniperMesos]

It's better if trains prioritize freight travel and car-focused roads prioritize passenger travel, than the other way around. Human beings have more pressing time constraints than nearly all shippable physical goods.

[Karrot_Kream]

Amtrak started out as a holding company for private passenger rail companies that went bankrupt. It's never had a static amount of funding (until the Biden admin, Amtrak had to renegotiate its budget regularly) and many of its stations are just pet projects for rural Congress reps who want to give their district a way to leave their area, so Amtrak runs many trains at a loss.

Building new rail projects in the US is very hard because of capital costs and regulations like NEPA (and CEQA in California) which require environmental review for everything. Brightline in Florida was able to get around this by working in an existing highway ROW.

[xnx]

> Brightline in Florida was able to get around this buy working in an existing highway ROW.

And will probably go bankrupt this year: https://www.wlrn.org/business/2026-01-23/brightline-business...

[Karrot_Kream]

Oof their debt is now considered junk bonds huh. They missed some loan interest payments? Yeah not looking good...

[xnx]

I tried to ride it a few times, but could never find a way it made logistical or financial sense.

[ssl-3]

The remaining dregs of Amtrak are the result of the nationalization of the failing private passenger lines in the US.

We used to have passenger rail. Even the desolate nowhere of semi-rural Ohio was well-served. Street cars to get around town, inter-urbans to get between nearby towns, and proper passenger trains to get to points far-away.

It didn't work out. There's reasons why it didn't work, like the literal conspiracy between General Motors and Firestone Tire that deliberately sought to destroy it.

Whatever those reasons were, they are are behind us. So it may seem superficially easy to just put it all back... but it isn't.

When the lines stopped being used, we tore them out. They're gone. And where the lines are gone, old stations are also mostly gone. Cities had once been built around (and because of) rail, but were subsequently built for cars as time marched forward and things continued to expand.

In some cases, whole communities have disappeared in the transition away from rail. In many other cases, we let our central stations decay and rot or demolished them to make space for things like convention centers.

So what's left is what we have: We have cars.

It's easy for me to see a future where I can buy a car and curl up in the back seat with a movie (and maybe a cocktail) while it ferries me from A to B.

That's a future I might actually live long enough to see, and it appears to be inevitable.

And I'd love to be freed of the chains of having to drive myself from A to B.

But I'll be dead and buried before we get passenger rail to be even 1/10th of what it once was.

So I choose to dream practical dreams. I can only play the hand I'm dealt.