• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I fly because it’s fast, not because I like airplanes. Even the fastest train is way too slow to replace a plane for a long-distance trip. Then for shorter distances cars win out because of how convenient they are. There’s no niche for passenger trains except for commuting into urban areas with no parking.

    It doesn’t help that in the USA train tickets seem to cost more than plane tickets. I think I’d still usually fly even if the train was free, so I’m certainly not going to pay extra for a slower method of transportation even if it is a little more comfortable.

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I fly because it’s fast, not because I like airplanes.

      Guess I’m the opposite.

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Depends what you are thinking of as long distance. NY to LA? Sure. NY to Chicago would be 4-4.5 hours, downtown to downtown, with a proper train (typical French TGV speeds of 330 kmh / 205 mph). Faster than flying when you count the time and cost of getting to the airport etc., and that’s by no means the fastest train. The fastest lines of the Shinkansen and the next generation TGV they’re planning in France are over 1.5 times as fast as that.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Exactly this. People too often compare price and time of “train ride” vs. “flight”, which the flight often wins. You need to compare the full travel, and train travel has a lot less overhead, which means a train travelling 100-200 km/h usually wins on stretches below 500 km.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          But 500 km (or rather 310 miles since I’m in the USA) is at the upper end of the distance I’d drive. There isn’t a distance for which a train is better than both flying and driving.

          • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            So in most Western European countries I think that limit is actually more like 1000km, or if it includes crossing France even more than that, or if you’re not close to the airport too. Beyond about 7 hours of train, flying starts to be faster and more convenient, most people around here find, but you can get quite far with a train in that time. I appreciate the current situation in the US isn’t the same and it would cost money to upgrade the network, but I think the rest of the world does show that it’s actually worthwhile.

          • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            With what I’ve heard about the train infrastructure in the US, that doesn’t surprise me. Personally, I only ever use a car if I’m travelling into the mountains or transporting a lot of luggage. I never drive if I’m travelling between cities with little luggage, if only because it’s much less of a hassle to just hop on a train and get where I’m going.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    No turbulence while taking a piss or shit

    Train bathrooms seem specifically designed to discourage using the bathroom while riding a train.

    Also I had a laptop die from the constant vibrations destroying the hard disk drive.

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Also I had a laptop die from the constant vibrations destroying the hard disk drive.

      Well, that’s pretty much an issue of the past now.

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          This seems highly unlikely. Modern HDDs are extremely resilient.
          But I don’t know the details of your situation, obviously, and it’s not impossible.

            • filcuk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I would be more surprised that you yourself would withstand vibrations extreme enough to kill a hard drive, for 8 hours at that.

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                … I hope you keep good backups, if you think it takes a hammer-blow to kill a hard drive. The heads float half a dick-hair above spinning metal. They’re good at pulling away when it seems like they might get bumped together - but all it takes is one miss.

        • remon@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ok, but it’s rather specific case if you were still using a laptop with an HDD last year.

          • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            There are still a few use cases… mainly price. A 4TB 2.5" HDD can be had for less than a bottom-of-the-barrel 2TB NVME.

            But I would definitely hesitate to bring spinning drives on a bumpy ride.

    • Chakravanti@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well, technically, you’re not because no one is. America is dead. Some corporate fraudster (redundant to say that, I know), tricked zuckers into fucking anything at all didn’t matter, broke the machines with the cracker, generated his fraud of success (like every corporation, ever), then threw away half the votes so that those idiots discoverrs could fight with those calling out the cracker instead of realizing that they agree that:

      That “person” is NOT the president. Never was, but that’s a whole other corporate sham. When no one stopped them, they’re dismanted the whole gorram gov and Auctioned it out after smuggling anything that mattered to the other place doing the same damn shit pretending we’re any fucking different from his trick.

  • InfiniteHench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m a huge train and transit advocate and I try to take Amtrak every chance I get. But “tickets are cheaper” does not feel like a blanket statement we can make. Maybe on very specific, usually short legs, like Chicago to Milwaukee. Someone correct me if I’m wrong or there’s more nuance but once a trip goes past 3 or 5+ hour mark, the price seems to skyrocket past airfare.

    • AlreadyDefederated@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh, that is definitely true in the U.S.

      Also, I’ve found that rail travel is inconvenient in the U.S. I can’t confirm, but it seems like the Amtrak only comes through my (Midwest) area once a week, on Wednesdays or something like that. So, if I plan a trip, I need to plan around.

      Midwest to the East Coast is so much cheaper and faster by air. I want to travel by rail - and you’d think it should be cheaper - but it’s totally not.

      Part of it, I believe, is that Amtrak leases the usage of the rail lines from the shipping companies, so it must adhere to their schedules of shipping freight. The USA spends so much on upgrading its highway system; if they used a fraction of that money towards rail travel we would be set. But certain companies keep lobbying Congress to keep us locked in a model where we are totally reliant on cars and gasoline.

      • cmhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Also true in many cases in Europe.

        You can get a flight ticket for under 20€ between Germany and UK (RyanAir), and have to pay tenfold that for a train ticket.

        Or a 30€ ticket to Romania per plane. Booking a train to Romania is much more difficult and expensive and also easily over 100€.

        I would wish that train tickets are cheaper than plane tickets, but if you cross country borders, booking train tickets becomes expensive and difficult in Europe.

        • spookex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not even going international on a train can be more expensive.

          It cost me almost the same price to take the ICE (not that one yanks) from one part of Germany to another, to visit my mom than it was for me to fly from Germany to Latvia on Ryanair

    • bier@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      In Europe when you book ahead of time and are not too specific about the dates you can fly much cheaper. If I want to go from Amsterdam to Barcelona I can get a much much cheaper flight. Why would I go for the option that is slower and more expensive?

      I wish trains where cheaper I’d take them more often.

      I once heard someone make the argument flying is cheaper because a plane can fly from one airport to almost any other airport. So when you own a plane you can use it in a much more flexible way. A train can only go over a fixed track, yes you can use switches etc. But when you build an airport basically any plane can go there immediately. For trains it doesn’t work like that. Make matters even worse in Europe usually train operators are national and most trains don’t cross borders beyond a few stations.

  • TheSlad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Americans can’t do trains because it requires public infrastructure (rails), which apparently we are allergic to.

    • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      it requires cooperation with the project across all of these counties that the railway runs through. and they’re all corrupt or subject to democracy or whatever

    • kieron115@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve read articles in the past about high speed trains and/or just new train lines in general would get held up by little towns who didn’t want to lose the commuter traffic since it was the only thing keeping them afloat. There are too many towns that exist literally just to serve motorists and now nobody wants to get rid of them.

      • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        They are just very short sighted. Just lobby to have a station and a have commuter stops and people will flock to those “cheaper” areas to live bringing in tons of tax revenue and boosting the local economy.

        • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          These small towns would still be an hour+ away from large cities, even with European speed high speed rail.

          Like for me, the nearest “big town” is about 100 miles from me, which is about a 2hr drive. And, at least from some quick googling, it looks like most commuter rail in France tops out at about 100mph. A train would not bring in more people haha

          • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            You’d be suprised how many people commute more than an hour by car. The prospect of having affordable housing with more job opportunities will certainly bring in more people.

            • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              France spends ~$15 million/mile for high speed commuter rail. Which means that line would cost $1.5 billion.

              I don’t think it’s bringing in that many more people. Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities it would go through

              • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Implying the line would stop at the town and not carry on to the next. Also, how much is being spent on building and maintaining freeways?

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, while I’m a huge advocate for an American Shinkansen, there’s really 4 zones of America for train speeds. East of the Appalachians its fast and easy and rail already works easy. West of them but east of the Mississippi, you’re gonna need high speed rail, but it’ll be somewhat similar to Europe. Between the Mississippi and the west coast, you’re gonna need high speed rail and quite a bit of patience. And on the west coast, you’ll hit up small cities, but honestly it’d be a great second high speed line after the New York-Chicago

      • dmention7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        That is so odd… I’ve only ridden Amtrak a few times, but I was amazed at how many stops were just some small town that happened to lie on the rail line.

        Most small towns that lie on a major highway and are supported by commuter traffic are only going to support a truck stop and a few fast food restaurants at best. Sure, a true high speed rail line would likely only stop in larger metropolitan areas, so those meager income sources may dwindle. But on the other hand if I were a rail commuter in one of those rural/suburban areas, I’d be much more likely to spend some time doing a bit of shopping or lingering in a restaurant during that transition from the train to my car after work, than if I were just passing through in my car.

        • kieron115@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ignoring trains for a minute, there are even examples of towns in America being against new highways for the same reason. Breezewood, Pennsylvania is the town you see in that one meme image of “america”. The state did some weird tax/federal funding loop shenanigans by routing a highway through some little pit stop town and, now that the laws have been relaxed, the county and the businesses don’t care to fix it.

          Although laws have been relaxed since then, local businesses, including many traveler services like fast food restaurants, gas stations and motels, have lobbied to keep the gap and not directly connect I-70 to the Turnpike, fearing a loss of business. In order for a bypass to be considered, Breezewood’s own Bedford County must propose it, which is “just not an issue that really appears on the radar for us,” Donald Schwartz, the Bedford County planning director, said in 2017.[1]

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        6 months ago

        Anybody who is making money off existing transportation is going to be against public transportation. Cab companies lobby against rail everywhere, from city to burbs or airport to downtown. Trucking, for obvious reasons. Passenger rail can carry cargo at night. And of course anybody selling fuel to the mass of cars, the petro industry.

  • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    Rail doesn’t work to solve most transit issues. I say this as someone in the area of NJTransit. I know why SEPTA is able to cut 45% of their train service - it doesn’t do the job.We just need a lot more buses, nationwide.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I really don’t think you should use a neglected regional US train system as a measure of the potential of trains.

      (I edited this comment for brevity)

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wow, I disagree with everything you said, that’s amazing!

      Buses suck, nobody wants to ride them because they’re slow. Buses work well as last mile transit to get to and from trains, but they’re poor as a transit backbone. If you only have buses, only the poor will take them since most vastly prefer driving to riding the bus, whereas trains actually attract people who would otherwise drive.

      The ideal is to have a good commuter rail line, a few light rail lines that connects to the commuter line, and bus lines that go wherever the light rail doesn’t. If the city is designed well, cut out a lot of the buses and put the main destinations near the rail lines, connected by good walking infrastructure.

  • daellat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    I recently went on a holiday using high speed rail in Europe (1100km). Flying was cheaper and faster. Sadly I have feeling of empathy and principles so I went with the train anyway. Wasn’t too bad though just did a lot of reading.

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    6 months ago

    As someone who boycotted the TSA for like 5 years and only took Amtrak, the tickets are not always cheaper. I mean sure, you can get across the country for like $100.

    Even when I was doing Boston-Baltimore on the Acela, it was routinely slightly cheaper to fly.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        6 months ago

        AmTrak is designed to suck. Freight lines own most of the rails, and while they are required to give priority to passenger trains, they avoid this in several ways. Like having the freight trains too long to fit on side rails so the passenger trains are required to stop instead to make way.

  • happydoors@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone else mention the real reason: America allowed private companies to buy and own the lands under the rails in the 1800s in order to deal with the massive distances across the US to connect the West and East. 150 years later and just a few companies own almost all the track and rail across America. Almost all private, not public land. Public citizens and communities have very little control over the railways going through their communities. These companies lobby against and make it difficult to introduce new, public rail lines for a multitude of reasons. This is one of very many examples of how corporations abuse law, monopolistic practices, and media to lessen the power of American citizens.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      That doesn’t even take into account that a lot of rails in the US are owned by Canadian companies.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    Is there any parody porn about TSA? I want to masturbate to it. As long as it’s not too noncon (like TSA in real life), I don’t really care about the details (I’m ok with any gender, large insertions/fisting, etc.).