It's not a big issue as you may think. This is the case with air travel too, but people would gladly fly and then rent a car. The biggest barrier is the cost and the time it takes.

> What an odd comment. It gets you where you're going, the same as any other form of transportation. For a long time it was the default way people took long distance trips.

But far slower than air travel, which I imagine is a big reason why air travel displaced it.

> Do you also consider road trips or long bus rides to be not transportation?

I don't take the bus, but when I drive, it's cheaper than flying (or flying + car rental).

>> given the prices.

> Again, with two people, it's been about the same price the last few times we've done it.

But it's slower, so the time-cost is higher.

To me this is a huge part of the problem.

I've wanted to take the train many times in the US, but it also is wildly expensive here. Much faster and cheaper to take a plane in most cases.

I'd think the way to solve this is to tax driving a car appropriately, whether through parking or other methods, to encourage and subsidize train travel. If the cost comes down, I'm guessing many more people would do it.

Heh, that's a very USian response ;). That's largely because the US doesn't have proper long-distance trains. In a lot of other countries you'll be about as fast or faster with a train rather than a car, and can comfortably work for most of that time. Even if a 6h car-trip becomes a 7h train-trip, I'd almost always take the train.

Compare driving Cologne-Frankfurt Airport by car (2h, if the traffic gods smile), and train (45min). That's a faster track, so not quite representative, but even Berlin-Freiburg on mostly slower tracks - I've done that over a hundred times - is ~6.40h train vs. ~8h by car.

I don't see the US getting comparatively nice long-distance trains anytime soon.

> For example, there's very limited ability to visit most National Parks without a car.

Yea, that's true. I've so far done that with rental cars, works well enough unless you're going in winter... Hm, I should plan a trip soon.

Not in the US! I would love to travel by train whenever time permitted, but it is prohibitively expensive to travel by sleeper car.

That's debatable. It can be comfortable and convenient, though I've never experienced it since we don't have much in the way of a train system for passenger rail here anymore. But I can see the allure.

However, with a car, you can go anywhere you want on a whim. Want to get off the highway and take a random route up through the mountains to visit a random lake? No problem. Want to pop thru a small town via a connector road to a different freeway? Again not a problem.

With public transportation or rail, you are limited to where the system runs, and if you want to get off somewhere along the way that doesn't have a station (for instance - just to randomly take in a scene) - well, you can't.

Then again, one can't walk the length of a car, or get food and drink brought to your seat, or sleep in a comfortable bed overnight, etc.

Also - most people don't travel super-long distances here by car (some do, many don't) - instead, if they can afford it, they take a plane. Airlines have effectively become our train system, for the good and bad it has to offer.

So this isn't about providing people with access to transportation, because people do, in fact, have access to other transportation options. It's about catering to the whimsical preferences of people who like to ride trains. I don't think catering to those whimsical preferences is a necessary public service.

Yep, this is a key problem in the USA. Even if you build an amazing regional rail system, the nature of what's at each end of most journeys will still push people toward cars far too much of the time.

You don't need to. It's not like those countries with extensive train networks don't have cars and interstate highways. They do and people use them. The point is that in those countries, cheap options exist for all income brackets and all use cases.

In America, it's a car or bust.

If you are going purely for minimizing time, all forms of shared transport will be slower than going it alone. A plane trip on a commercial route is slower than getting a private jet, for example.

The difference is in how much additional time the shared option takes, and how the experience varies, especially relative to cost. For an Amtrak cross-country trip measured in days, I agree with you; I won't ride that (outside of the trip being the reason for the trip) either.

But Amtrak Cascades between Seattle and BC or Portland? I'll definitely take the train for that. I go from downtown to downtown in a bit longer than the time to drive, I don't have to deal with the TSA, I don't have to concentrate on driving myself, I can get food and use the restroom without stopping my trip, and I get a much better seat than on a plane.

If the time comparison is within about 50% extra train versus plane or car, I'm taking the train every time.

What? Air travel may be hellish, but it's super-cheap domestically compared to driving or trains. Both air and train share the issue of needing to rent a car or pay to be ferried about at $destination.

I don’t think this is true. People take airplanes and rent a cars all the time. The same could be true for train travel. All of the ways someone would leave a train station generally exist.

People don’t take trains for two reasons: 1. They take too long. 2. They are too expensive.

For example sf to la takes at least ~9-13h and costs between 50-80 dollars. Versus a southwest flight for ~140 that takes an hour. For most people that extra 60 dollars for 7-11 hours is worth it.

well personal experience is not always representative - but anyway isn't one of the ways how trains could replace planes by increasing number of connections and speeding them up so that it does become feasible?

I live in the EU. There is nothing similar. Two hours at the airport being put in several different queues, often in a high stress atmosphere.

Train travel: Five-ten minutes at the station, all done.

Yes, I’m partial to trains.

The US lacks the required density. Trains are by far the most expensive mode of mass transport per mile, both because of infrastructure and labor cost. Labor costs are higher than eg a plane because trains go much slower! In a personal car, there are no other labor costs. The natural monopoly on the network and the ensuing lack of competition doesn't help either.

Planes and electric autonomous cars are the better alternative for the US.

That's probably true (modulo taxis, even if you rule out public transport), but it's just as true when you fly from Kansas City to Houston. Which is why airports always come with car rental, and it works out for those who want a car. If a car is really needed at the destination, arrangements could and should be made to have car rentals available at the train station.

So… Apparently not…

The USA is probably the worst place in the world for 1) high speed trains 2) buses. And the only place I know where the train _waits_ for cars to go through.

If only they could see by themselves how bad it is during their next trip to Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, London, Paris (even France in general) and many many other countries and cities that have a functional network of high speed trains, metro, tramway and regional lines…

I hope you’re not ready to die on that hill.

This is more a hijack than a direct critique but I think the general issue is the assumption that we need a private vehicle for that.

Trains are perfectly capable for bringing me from A to B while I am sleeping for years now.

Edit:// with years I mean years. Before that pressure made longer rides usually more uncomfortable than they are now with modern trains. Probably only because my area has plenty of mountain tho.

OK cool I'll just take a train.... uhhh absolutely nowhere as I live on an island with extremely limited inter-city rail.