Why is passenger rail service so useless for much of the US?

[bcla]

Consider yourself lucky your airline options aren't more expensive. It can be over $4k for my family of four to get to FL from the west coast.

I've always been pleasantly surprised when going by rail. You often see a lot of things you don't normally see by car.
But I agree, it's sorely lacking compared to many other countries. It's just not enough of a priority to make it more accessible.

I've actually seen the Amish or Mennonites. I wasn't riding on the same train but saw quite a few at the Emeryville station that's the terminus for the California Zephyr.

And apparently they come in large groups to go to Baja California for less expensive medical care. I hear that most orders strongly discourage flying (although I've heard of Amish missionaries flying to Asia) but rail or bus may be OK.

 

[bcla]

There’s no high speed rail in most of the country except the northeast corridor. Plus you will still need a car on the other end when going to most places. I would not want to spend that much time in a train when I can fly a lot faster.

I remember a coworker who said he arrived in Silicon Valley by Amtrak. Rode from his grad school in Ohio to take a job in California. He was hired by remote interview and got a relocation bonus for everything. Said that on short notice it was a lot cheaper than a flying. And he booked a bedroom. Rail travel prices tend to stay the same as long as there's still space, but last minute airfare will often have punitive prices because that's how business travelers tend to book their travel.

 

[greeneyedchick]

I was looking at options to get to Ft Lauderdale/Miami from Atlanta.

The four of us can fly for $450-$1500 depending on ultra low cost, low cost, or full cost airline.

I have always been interested in passenger rail. We have taken trains many times while in the UK and Europe. Often times finding the fare cheaper than flying and comparable to flying in travel time, just slightly longer.

Driving is 10.5 hours, not accounting for any stops. We really don't like driving more than 7-8 hours.

So I priced out Amtrak.

To take Amtrak we would have to leave 2 days early to account for the 42 hours 32 minute travel time from Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale. The return trip also takes 2 days with a travel time of 44 hours 25 minutes.

The total cost for the roundtrip is $1720 for four in coach. So more than flying which even accounting for driving to the airport, getting there early, and the flight, is under 5 hours.

I even tried having us drive to Savannah, GA to start and end our journey there to keep from having to ride to Virginia to get to Florida. That cuts a huge amount off the train travel time, 11 hours there 13 hours back, even adding in the 4.5 hours from our home to the Amtrak station in Savannah the total travel time is 16 - 18 hours. But the train times are really inconvenient, 4:37am or 6:49am departures are the only two options out of Savannah.

So again we would actually need to leave an extra day early to ensure an arrival on the date we want. The price is atleast closer to flying at $740.

Why are passenger rail options so horrible for so much of the US?

I wonder the same. European rail travel is so convenient and affordable. I don't know why the US can't have the same. Regarding Atlanta to FL, have you tried Frontier? I flew from MCO to Atlanta for $19 each way on Frontier.

 

[Skywalker3]

No choices here in middle Tennessee, extremely little anywhere else in the Deep South . When my son lived in Chicago,I’d hoped to take a train to visit him. Id have had to had driven 3 hours to Memphis , leave car and go from there. Or maybe drive to Indianapolis, 5 hours, and finish the rest from there. Just no options here at all .
Would be such a great option ti get around . I guess since air travel got so crazy cheap,train and bus travel just going by the wayside in a lot of areas. Id love to have the options they have in the Northeast.

 

[NotUrsula]

The primary problem, as was touched on earlier, is that in the US railroad transit (and track and signals and rights-of-way) were set up as private businesses instead of public services; they were expected to finance their operations out of profits and received very little tax support except during wars. When passenger service stopped being profitable with the rise of the private automobile and then by air travel deregulation, the railroad companies were happy to drop it. We now get passenger rail mostly as an afterthought to where the freight loads need to go, and the freight trains get first dibs on the tracks, so that passenger trains often have to pull off on a sideing to let them pass.

The automobile industry, OTOH, is propped up by public moneys garnered from taxes on fuel and vehicles, and enjoys huge subsidies for road projects and fuel research. Pretty obvious which mode of transportation is going to stick around for us.

If you've ever visited the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and toured the Pioneer Zephr, you know that Americans *could* have fast and efficient rail service if we really still valued it, because we had it back in May of 1934. (The Pioneer Zephyr completed a record speed run from Chicago to Denver in 13 hours. The Streamliner trains of the 1930s were capable of running at 129 mph, though the usual top speed was 79 mph. Today's average speed for AmTrak anywhere outside of the NE corridor tops out at that same 79 mph, hasn't changed one bit. In fact, a whole lot of them go slower, because they have to be able to try to stop for private-vehicle idiots who like to run crossings. (In the Northeast Corridor, which of course connects the US' main corridors of legislative and commercial power, fewer people own cars and more money is invested, which lets the Acela trains hit speeds over 110 mph.)

You can't cross the SE on Amtrak's Crescent Limited now because Katrina wiped out a chunk of the track -- in 2005. There have been plans and studies, and studies and plans, but service has yet to reliably restart along the Gulf Coast, never mind down into Florida on the Gulf side, where the need to move orange juice to market once made Henry Plant very rich and the average southerner very happy when it came time to hop a train to a few days on a Florida beach. My DH's parents traveled by train in 1951 to their Daytona Beach honeymoon from Missouri; his dad had just completed Army basic and had one week's leave before he had to report to Ft. Benning, GA. for add'l training. He rode the train home from Basic in FT. Riley Kansas on Friday, they got married early that Saturday afternoon in St. Louis, took the "Seminole Ltd" overnight sleeper train to Florida's east coast, and arrived late Sunday to get a nice night's sleep before starting their fun on the beach on Monday. On Friday afternoon he took the Crescent to Ft. Benning while she got back on the Seminole and made it home in plenty of time to spend Sunday moving in with her in-laws before going back to her clerical job on Monday morning. Back then you could board that train in St. Louis in the early evening on Saturday, go to sleep in your private compartment, spend the day watching the South roll by, and arrive in Jacksonville just in time to have a late bite on Sunday night. It ran daily in both directions. Today it would be impossible to manage that mileage on those routes in under a week and still have any actual "fun" time left at your destination.

If I want to take the train to Florida now, I have to first take a train to Chicago and another across to DC via Indiana before heading south; the trip is 22 hours longer than it was in 1951. Given that my DH only gets 2 weeks of vacation time each year, spending $288 and 48 hours each way going to and from Florida makes no sense at all, when we normally can fly there in around 2.5 hours on SWA for under $200.

 

[NYCgrrl]

Once when my kids were still young the ex and I decided to travel from coast to coast via train. I think part of the trip would have been traveling thru Canada, probably past Chicago. I think once we left San Fransisco the idea was to use the Southern route passing thru N.O. before heading North again.
Probably this was in the early 80s but the idea came to naught for various reasons. Sorry it never happened.

Was able to live part of the dream by traveling from NYC to Orlando via Amtrak a few times.
Thanks Mickey!

More money than plane travel but also more relaxing and allowed us to pick up family members further down the route and bring them with us.

Much like our postal service I don’t think the privatization of the rail lines was a well thought out idea.

 

[GAN]

I was looking at options to get to Ft Lauderdale/Miami from Atlanta.

The four of us can fly for $450-$1500 depending on ultra low cost, low cost, or full cost airline.

I have always been interested in passenger rail. We have taken trains many times while in the UK and Europe. Often times finding the fare cheaper than flying and comparable to flying in travel time, just slightly longer.

Driving is 10.5 hours, not accounting for any stops. We really don't like driving more than 7-8 hours.

So I priced out Amtrak.

To take Amtrak we would have to leave 2 days early to account for the 42 hours 32 minute travel time from Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale. The return trip also takes 2 days with a travel time of 44 hours 25 minutes.

The total cost for the roundtrip is $1720 for four in coach. So more than flying which even accounting for driving to the airport, getting there early, and the flight, is under 5 hours.

I even tried having us drive to Savannah, GA to start and end our journey there to keep from having to ride to Virginia to get to Florida. That cuts a huge amount off the train travel time, 11 hours there 13 hours back, even adding in the 4.5 hours from our home to the Amtrak station in Savannah the total travel time is 16 - 18 hours. But the train times are really inconvenient, 4:37am or 6:49am departures are the only two options out of Savannah.

So again we would actually need to leave an extra day early to ensure an arrival on the date we want. The price is atleast closer to flying at $740.

Why are passenger rail options so horrible for so much of the US?

Admittedly, it’s pretty sad. Anyone who has travelled in Europe understands how easy and convenient it is, and should be here…

 

[tony67]

Well lots of reason.

I am a fan of rail travel in Europe, but its not as perfect as people think.
In some cases its also not so cheap.

For the most part each country created their raiI system independently, so that is one reason they are much better - they created a system for very small countries compared to the US.
They are also subsidized for the most part by the state (or were) so that helped.
Ticket prices are somewhat low, again because of the subsidies in some cases.
I would guess they were also rebuilt after WWII - I'm guessing the marshal plan helped that - so they are a bit more modern.
They also have to compete with Ryan Air which is often cheaper.

Some of the problems, not all the systems are compatible. One example you cant get a train from Portugal (Faro) to Spain because the gauge is different. They are fixing it, and may in some places, but its a pain. So you must get a bus.

In many cases the buses are far quicker, surprisingly there are not always direct trains between big cities.
I recall one situation where the bus was just over two hours but the train was six because you had to go to Munich first and wait and change trains etc....

They also go on strike quite a bit, so that always adds to the excitement.

I've looked at taking a train down the east coast to Florida and I can fly for $79 each way on Jet blue - I've paid as little as $31 on Halloween. Its extremely rare that the train would be cheaper, and even if it is it takes way too long and has way too many stops and changes. It would be easier to drive.

That is also part of the issue, it just easier to drive to most places in the US.
Also gas is far more expensive in Europe.
Here - even going into the city - its not cheaper to take the train by the time you pay for parking and deal with the issues with commuter rail. If they want us to take trains they should make it more affordable and not charge an arm and a leg to park.

One last example - in Ireland to get from Dublin to Ennis - is far quicker to drive and the cost is less.
Again the bus is the better option. It can be cheaper to fly to a city in the EU than get a train to the west coast of Ireland. The trains are also almost always at 100% capacity, so you really have to plan ahead.
Oh and you cant get from the Airport to city center (or the train) easily. They still don't have a train.

 

[amylevan]

The short answer is because in the US, both highway and air travel are subsidized more than rail travel (and have been for a long while).

But honestly, we are a big country with a lot of real estate to cover. Our states are the sizes of European countries and we prioritized highway travel as the means for that interstate travel. I think it would be difficult to do both well (where would you put the tracks, our highways are in the way?).

Personally speaking I prefer the freedom of driving myself and choosing my own route and times. And I’m in the northeast where train travel does work, depending on where you’re going.

 

[amcnj]

I guess the interstate highway system and rise of the automobile helped lead to populations become rather dispersed and people became used to driving to destinations.

It can be really difficult, costly and time consuming to try and get somewhere on mass transit. Many remaining systems are geared towards commuting, moving people between suburbs and large population centers. And while those trips may be relatively easy to navigate, trying to go from one smaller town to another is not.

It wasn’t that many years ago that a few mass transit links (such as light rail lines) were added in my state so that all the rail lines were finally connected. Of course trying to get from place to another could involve lots of extra miles as you traverse the state along the rail lines rather than roads.

At one time I looked into trying to use the rails to commute. I would have had to drive 10 miles to a local station, take one rail line, switch to a light rail line, then either a bus or walk about a mile to my actual destination. I forget the figures now, but it was going to take a lot longer than driving. And there was also the problem of the train schedule coinciding with when I needed to travel.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

1. The U.S. hasn't made it a priority.
2. For high speed rail between cities to really work, the cities themselves need to have good transportation systems. They don't. Just think of the following corridor which could work. Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Valdosta, Orlando. Miami. Spur from Valdosta to Jacksonville. spur from Detroit to Indianapolis. Which one of these cities have good public transit. Chicago. Atlantas is ok. The rest are junk. Seriously, if you're going to Nashville for a week right, you're going to have to rent a car if you want to get anywhere. So you may as well just drive.
3. There aren't enough corridors that are profitable to make an entire system in the entire country work. The real problem is the mountain west. It's sparsely populated.

 

[NotUrsula]

1. The U.S. hasn't made it a priority.
2. For high speed rail between cities to really work, the cities themselves need to have good transportation systems. They don't. Just think of the following corridor which could work. Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Valdosta, Orlando. Miami. Spur from Valdosta to Jacksonville. spur from Detroit to Indianapolis. Which one of these cities have good public transit. Chicago. Atlantas is ok. The rest are junk. Seriously, if you're going to Nashville for a week right, you're going to have to rent a car if you want to get anywhere. So you may as well just drive.
3. There aren't enough corridors that are profitable to make an entire system in the entire country work. The real problem is the mountain west. It's sparsely populated.

I agree generally, but I think that rail has a place for intercity travel along short routes; trips that would take under 5 hours by car if you had a car (and accounting for traffic, because trains have an advantage there.)

Trains are also immensely helpful for populations that generally do not have their own cars, or for moving large numbers of people simultaneously to a single destination. I think that there should definitely be train service in every state from the flagship public university to all major cities in the state, for students and for sports fans.

Tourist destinations and retirement havens are another place where trains can hold their own. Florida has the right idea connecting major cities, beaches and theme parks by train, as it cuts down on tourists on the roads, thus easing traffic for local residents, and also allows more retirees to move safely around the state as the mood takes them.

 

[Mokat76]

I think there are two big factors that are interrelated:
1. Not much customer demand in most parts of the US.
2. The big regional freight train companies ( think BNSF, Union Pacific, etc.) own the railways. So when there’s a freight train on a schedule, passenger trains are shunted off to a side track to let them pass.
Amtrak might get better control/access if more people ride trains, but they don’t.
Another issue: the infrastructure isn’t there and it’s likely too costly/too late to develop it. The time it takes to cross vast swaths of the USA, makes trains impractical. Why burn days when one can fly in hours and to more convenient destinations?

 

[Lumpy1106]

I was looking at options to get to Ft Lauderdale/Miami from Atlanta.

The four of us can fly for $450-$1500 depending on ultra low cost, low cost, or full cost airline.

I have always been interested in passenger rail. We have taken trains many times while in the UK and Europe. Often times finding the fare cheaper than flying and comparable to flying in travel time, just slightly longer.

Driving is 10.5 hours, not accounting for any stops. We really don't like driving more than 7-8 hours.

So I priced out Amtrak.

To take Amtrak we would have to leave 2 days early to account for the 42 hours 32 minute travel time from Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale. The return trip also takes 2 days with a travel time of 44 hours 25 minutes.

The total cost for the roundtrip is $1720 for four in coach. So more than flying which even accounting for driving to the airport, getting there early, and the flight, is under 5 hours.

I even tried having us drive to Savannah, GA to start and end our journey there to keep from having to ride to Virginia to get to Florida. That cuts a huge amount off the train travel time, 11 hours there 13 hours back, even adding in the 4.5 hours from our home to the Amtrak station in Savannah the total travel time is 16 - 18 hours. But the train times are really inconvenient, 4:37am or 6:49am departures are the only two options out of Savannah.

So again we would actually need to leave an extra day early to ensure an arrival on the date we want. The price is atleast closer to flying at $740.

Why are passenger rail options so horrible for so much of the US?

I can answer this;
We took Amtrak from LA to Seattle. It took about a day and a half and was really a fun and enjoyable way to travel.

BUT....
We were frequently shoe-flied to yield to cargo rail trains. The conductor told us that was because the AMTRAK train was shorter and the long train would not fit on the shoefly track. That is technically true - but it tells you where the priority is also. Freight trains, and not passenger trains, make far more money. It is not uncommon for AMTRAK trains to be delayed for cumulative hours because of all these yield stops.

The other problem, and I am specifically referring to California HSR in this instance, is that the new rail line is routed by politics and not common sense. Take a look at a map of California and you tell me - why is the CA HSR going up Hwy 99, paralleling and crossing the existing towns, bisecting farms, andcrossing back and forth over the existing AMTRAK San Joaquin line the whole way, when the far more direct route is up I-5, where there are far fewer ROW issues and far more existing public ROW where the train could run? Reason is the representatives of the farming towns in Fresno, Modesto, and other (sorry, but let's be honest) meaningless stops would not vote to even put the project on the ballot without these stops. But here's the thing; those towns already are serviced by AMTRAK, and HSR is decidedly not "high speed" when it is stopped at all those towns. Common sense says it should stop in Bakersfield to make that connection to a currently very under-utilized San Joaquin line - but no. And this ridiculous politicking has wasted tens of billions of dollars so far, without a single mile of track laid, and what public confidence it had, eroded to all but the most ardent supporters.

LSS - politics have made CA HSR untenable, and I am certain that is not the only example. Even Brightline, that has received largely positive reviews for the Miami to Orlando route, is currently stalled for the remainder of the route to Tampa, because politics of the route out of Orlando. Don't take my word for it, Brandon has it expertly covered on Mickey Views - really some of his best work, check it out.

Such is the state of rail travel in the US...

 

[Lumpy1106]

On the positive side of rail travel;
If you are headed to NYC, DO NOT just get an Uber or rent a car! Find your way to the Long Island Railroad and take it to Grand Central Station in NYC, with easy connections to the very impressive NY subway system. Just made a trip after the first of the year. We did not know on arrival, but did just that getting back to the airport. SOOOO impressive!!

 

[bcla]

I think there are two big factors that are interrelated:
1. Not much customer demand in most parts of the US.
2. The big regional freight train companies ( think BNSF, Union Pacific, etc.) own the railways. So when there’s a freight train on a schedule, passenger trains are shunted off to a side track to let them pass.
Amtrak might get better control/access if more people ride trains, but they don’t.
Another issue: the infrastructure isn’t there and it’s likely too costly/too late to develop it. The time it takes to cross vast swaths of the USA, makes trains impractical. Why burn days when one can fly in hours and to more convenient destinations?

Legally, passenger rail is supposed to have priority, but it's been mostly ignored. I heard the Dept of Transportation issued fines once but I think that was appealed and not paid. Theoretically it should be easy to slip in an 10 car passenger train that can move much faster, but the dispatchers work for the freight railroads.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...forcing-amtraks-legal-right-to-preference.pdf​

The leading cause of delay to Amtrak passengers is “freight train interference” – when an Amtrak train, traveling on freight railroad tracks, is delayed by slower freight trains. For nearly 50 years, Federal law has required that passengers be given preference over freight, but some freight railroads ignore the law, and passengers suffer as a result, missing family milestones and time spent with loved ones, important business meetings, and travel connections.​

The infrastructure is actually owned by the freight railroads and they generally maintain their tracks well. There are exceptions that become notorious.

 

[bcla]

I can answer this;
We took Amtrak from LA to Seattle. It took about a day and a half and was really a fun and enjoyable way to travel.

BUT....
We were frequently shoe-flied to yield to cargo rail trains. The conductor told us that was because the AMTRAK train was shorter and the long train would not fit on the shoefly track. That is technically true - but it tells you where the priority is also. Freight trains, and not passenger trains, make far more money. It is not uncommon for AMTRAK trains to be delayed for cumulative hours because of all these yield stops.

The other problem, and I am specifically referring to California HSR in this instance, is that the new rail line is routed by politics and not common sense. Take a look at a map of California and you tell me - why is the CA HSR going up Hwy 99, paralleling and crossing the existing towns, bisecting farms, andcrossing back and forth over the existing AMTRAK San Joaquin line the whole way, when the far more direct route is up I-5, where there are far fewer ROW issues and far more existing public ROW where the train could run? Reason is the representatives of the farming towns in Fresno, Modesto, and other (sorry, but let's be honest) meaningless stops would not vote to even put the project on the ballot without these stops. But here's the thing; those towns already are serviced by AMTRAK, and HSR is decidedly not "high speed" when it is stopped at all those towns. Common sense says it should stop in Bakersfield to make that connection to a currently very under-utilized San Joaquin line - but no. And this ridiculous politicking has wasted tens of billions of dollars so far, without a single mile of track laid, and what public confidence it had, eroded to all but the most ardent supporters.

LSS - politics have made CA HSR untenable, and I am certain that is not the only example. Even Brightline, that has received largely positive reviews for the Miami to Orlando route, is currently stalled for the remainder of the route to Tampa, because politics of the route out of Orlando. Don't take my word for it, Brandon has it expertly covered on Mickey Views - really some of his best work, check it out.

Such is the state of rail travel in the US...

One of the big issues is with single tracking where trains have to use the tracks in both directions. The issue with that should be obvious. When mistakes are made, trains collide into each other.

Those side rails are called (not surprisingly) sidings. And when they talk about them not being long enough, that's a line of bull because most areas have sidings that are long (typically over a mile) where one freight train can wait for another. Sidings aren't designed for higher speeds though.

There's been plenty of construction on California's high speed rail system. Mostly grade crossings and bridges that need to be in place before any track is laid down. That stuff may be more expensive than the rail itself, although probably not the electrification.

I do remember a short-lived TV program called "Human Target" where the pilot episode featured California's high speed rail system opening back in 2010. The premise was that someone was hired as a bodyguard to protect the lead designer of the system during its grand opening as she was getting various threates. And the irony was that they already had it running from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

 

[jerrywilliams]

It was like that since a long time already. I only take trains once i am in Europe.

 

[lovesmurfs]

Good question. I took Amtrak from DC to Chicago once when I had a tooth abscess and couldn't fly -- the ticket for the train was less than the 2 extra days of hotel stay.

Except for the tooth (pain was under control), it was a really great way to travel, and I met a whole society of people who only travel by train.

Since then, I've always looked up a train option when traveling, but, like you, found that the cost versus time versus flying doesn't make sense.

 

[jimmymc]

The US did have a state-of-the-art rail system (for the time) up until the interstate highway system was built. Combined with the jet age, politicians back in the 50s and 60s decided that driving and flying were going to be the primary sources of transportation in the US. It's up to debate whether that was the best decision or not. If you like driving, it's great, since we have mostly free highways directly between metro areas. But if you don't like driving, then that awkward area where it's too short to fly but a long drive aren't fun.