Why Train Tickets Cost So Much In America
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 ноя 2022
- Taking a train in the U.S. is often more expensive than flying and more expensive than intercity train systems in other developed countries, which often have even faster trains and better service. But Amtrak, the federally funded company that runs many of America's passenger trains, has never made money. In fact, the company has a $42 billion repair backlog and in 2021 wasn't even able to cover half of its expenses from ticket revenue. That business comes mostly from the populous Northeast Corridor, where tickets are quite pricey. Ridership is slowly recovering from an all-time low due to the pandemic, and now Amtrak wants to expand service in a major 15-year plan, with $66 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why Train Tickets Cost So Much In America
Maybe we shouldn’t classify a public service as a for profit company, it’s just crazy
For real! Nobody expects the interstates to make a profit. Why Amtrak?
Exactly
Public transport should be called infrastructure like the roads
@@calebholtmeyer1751 Roadways don't show a profit because they were never intended to do so. For the most part they are paid for by the users through fuel, excise, sales, and property taxes, as well as transfers from the federal and state general funds.
Unlike railroads, roadways carry a mix of commercial and private users. Trucks and buses make up the bulk of the commercial users. Truckers collect the road taxes imposed on them from their shippers. Bus operators, at least intercity bus operators, collect the taxes from their riders.
Most of the nation's roadway users are privately owned cars, trucks, etc. They pay for the roadways through a variety of taxes, i.e., fuel, excise, sales, property, etc., and transfers from the general fund. Also, the nation in recent decades has increase its reliance on tolls to cover the cost of some roadways.
Unfortunately a nationalized rail system is considered to be too socialist for most Americans
One of the things Amtrak should have did was buy up trackage outside of the Northeast corridor. There were plenty of redundant lines running through many major cities that were abandoned in the tracks pulled up That should have been brought for passenger use in high speed service.
You can buy all the new locomotives and rail cars you want, But it doesn't change anything if you're sharing tracks with slow freight trains and the tracks are in poor repair. It's like buying a luxury sports car to drive down a dirt road
With what money? Amtrak barely got enough to keep running thru the year, with occasional cash infusions to start the Acela being the biggest. Yeah they have some money available to them now but not enough to start buying rail lines.
My guy you know that costs money right? Like A LOT of money?
Oy, the NE corridor is the only track Amtrak actually owns.
Not true. Amtrak owns a line in MI also.
should have done*
Over the years (I’m only in my early 30s), I’ve compared prices of train tickets to plane tickets, hoping that traveling long distances by train would be cheaper since it takes longer, but it was always just as expensive or more expensive than air travel. I’d travel by train a lot more, and travel more in general, if trains were a lot cheaper and faster than they are now.
Look into the Rail Pass. If you're traveling multiple times in a month (like a common round trip or a multi-city vacation or work trip), then the total price of $500 for 10 rides is probably significantly cheaper than flying.
I like that they are focusing on linking major cities outside the northeast. I think that’s a good idea. I just wish there were less expensive “scenic route” trains that people could take to see the beauty of the US. This would especially attract international and local tourists.
I was stationed in Korea for a year and some change and the one thing I lived about Korea was how amazing their trains were. When I came back to the states it felt like I travelled back in time.
its not really a back in time thing. historically, the us had very comprehensive passenger service, but capatalism led to all of it being killed. if you want a good rail system you need to nationalize it.
@@jsrodman its not capitalism, its what people wanted at the time. nobody wanted to ride around with a bunch of smelly people on a train when they could drive a car. now that sentiment is changing
@@jsrodman It's crazy to blame capitalism in a comparison with South Korea which is objectively one of the most capitalist countries in the world
@@jarumboy1 Hatred of capitalism is a religion. Marx hated religion, but he basically created his own.
@@jsrodman It’s that one simple reason huh?? Has nothing to do with cronyism, zoning laws and cultural changes. It is just all of capitalism’s fault. 😂
I would love to see a Dallas/Houston/San Antonio high speed rail triangle. Mainly because it would be quicker and those freeways are awful to drive. You want mass transit, even if you don't use it. The more people that take a bus or train, the fewer cars on the road you have to deal with.
They had plans to connect the "Texas Triangle" (Houston − Dallas- San Antonio) with a privately financed high-speed train system. Funding for the project was to come entirely from private sources, since Texas did not allow the use of public money. The original cost was $5.6 billion, but the task of securing the necessary private funds proved difficult. Southwest Airlines, with the help of lobbyists, created legal barriers to prohibit moving forward and the entire project was eventually stopped in 1994, when the State of Texas withdrew the franchise.Several hotel chains like Days Inn, Best Western, and La Quinta Inn, as well as fast food Restaurants like McDonald's and Burger King lobbied against the plan, mainly because many of their locations were along Interstates and in several highway-dependent rural towns.
Dont forget a spur line down to El Paso, so the hordes of migrants have a direct route to the heartland
@user-bu6zg1qk3t I knew of plans for the rail line but didn't know it was all so long ago! My conservative FIL always mentioned the small towns between thought they'd get less business but I could def see that being astroturfed.
Ironic of course that it was Southwest in 1994, which apparently was the last time they updated their "computer" systems. Just got stuck in San Antonio tryna come back from a visit down there... 🙃 We flew into Dallas and drove a back way through Cleburne (cute little town!) I'm sure a stop there on a highspeed rail would only help it!
Air travel is so "cheap" in $ at the moment, but the cost is to the environment, the airline and airport staff, and government subsidies that could easily go towards efficient rail travel! But also running Amtrak as a for profit company is dumb, as a public service efficient and cheap rail travel is much better than bailling out private airlines so they retain their staff and then them forcing retirements anyway...
@@johnclement5903 that’s why passenger rail has never made it in the US. Conservatives are so afraid of black and brown people being able to make it to their communities that they’d rather deal with traffic or a lack of services to keep out “the others”.
@@ari-jv There's actually a new project going from Houston to Dallas, no spur for San Antonio planned, that got some of the engineers from Japan's Shinkensen rail line working on the project called Texas Central. Last I heard about it was 2020, but it had already crawled its way through a bunch of bureaucratic tape before COVID hit.
Amtrak should be treated like the Post Office. It would be best as a public service, not a for profit company.
Agreed. They kinda touched on it in the video, but the service provided by Amtrak goes beyond whatever profit it turns, not to mention the fact that it has to pay for all of its own infrastructure that other modes of transit get subsidized. Having Amtrak run at a deficit of a few billion for a few years to get it to acquire or build more high speed rail connections will be immensely helpful for the company and provide cheap, reliable travel across the country. The only losers would be airlines, which provide nearly identical service at a much higher environmental and energy cost
@@TheMonkeystick
A few years???????
Amtrak has been a subsidized company since 1972......
@@TheMonkeystick
AND we're never going to have more than a few high speed lines, that all lose money.
America is too big, with too few people. There's just so many places to go for the number of people, that it becomes impossible to be profitable.
I agree it should be a public service, but the Post Office is not a good example.
@@lordgarion514 the point is to not be profitable. It is to be at cost and deliver large amounts of people quickly and efficiently without the use of personal vehicles.
I traveled the Northeast Corridor via Amtrak to go to my parents' house for Christmas. My ticket cost more than a plane ticket would have, but I arrived at my parents' house! Had I taken a plane I would have spent Christmas in the airport!
I took a 4 hour train ride from Prague to Vienna 2 weeks ago and it cost $38. I then took a 1 hour round trip train from Vienna to Bratislava, Slovakia that cost me $16. This is crazy.
In Europe its cheaper because of competition from low budget airlines like Ryannair, they're forced to make tickets cheaper or they'll fall behind high speed trains that usually take an hour or more but way cheaper than flying, that alone is enough to appeal to many people, in the US there's lobbying going on, so most of the routes planned out by rail experts are automatically lobbied by huge oil and airline industries to shut down those projects, therefore they jack up the prices of airline tickets because you dont have an option other than driving
@@Racko. yeah it’s such a shame how rail travel here is almost a last resort. A trip from DC to New York shouldn’t be costing $400-600. I hope this improves in the near future.
@@Racko. It's not because of competition with Ryanair. It's because the trains don't run in a for profit logic. If anything, airlines had to lower their prices due to trains
@@stefanossmitty3318 Amtrak jacks up the price in order to make profit on that route, most of the ppl taking the NEC take time over money, I understand both sides of the coin but it's a huge blunder for the average joe wanting to take rail in the NEC, the more competition that comes up the cheaper the tickets become, so yes it will improve in the future I hope
@@truedarklander Yah I was talking about airlines running their routes at a cheaper price because of trains and sometimes vice versa, they constantly undercut each other because of it, in France the TGV is more expensive to take than flying from Paris to Lyon which is almost nonexistent now, but in places like UK, you can get a Ryannair flight for the same price as a cup of coffee in some instances
Long distance Amtrak routes are basically akin to a national park experience. I greatly enjoyed my trip from Sacramento to Denver, which was only $113, and had great scenery and was so relaxing!
But people like you are in the minority-everybody else commenting here wants really fast trains (I'm not looking down on your experience, however.)
@@Neville60001 We should be able to have both :) build out out highspeed rail corridors in places like California, the PNW, the East Coast, Midwest, etc; all while maintaining the long distance routes. It'll take a long time to fully build out any really-interconnected HSR network anyway :)
@@Neville60001 That's the thing though! The long distance routes aren't transportation at all. They are "experiences". They're extremely expensive and a ton of people are willing to pay for them anyway. These long distance trains, while a major financial drain on Amtrak, are incredible experiences that you have to do at least once in your lifetime.
They really shouldn't even be run by Amtrak. We probably need a separate national "excursion" railway that would be run more like a national park, or similar amenity. Amtrak meanwhile needs to focus on the profitable intercity services of which it actually has a ton, surprisingly!
@@Neville60001We want what European and Asian countries have.
@@TohaBgood2, henceforth why I said that long-distance *_maglev_* routes (New York to Los Angeles, Chicago to Miami, etc) need to be built. I agree with you about the long-distance routes being run by independent companies as tourist railways (somebody said that in a comment at the CityLab website sometime ago.)
I took a twenty hour ride from Baltimore to Florida in December 2022. People thought I was crazy for doing that, but I really wanted to take a solo train ride. It was a cool experience. Although I’d love to travel via train more often, it was indeed very expensive. I could only afford the one way down & ended up flying back. The one way totaled $313. The air flight back was $246.
you could have purchased a Rail Pass for $500 (or $300 on sale) and gotten 10 rides within 30 days. A single ride is staying on a single train or bus. It's a shame this isn't advertised better, because it makes round-trips like yours as cheap or cheaper than flying much of the time.
planning a trip to eastern OR to San Francisco and im stoked. you never hear of train travel in normal conversations but it makes sense to me and quite pleasant once youre rolling in open land. hoping for success for the American passenger train system.
You know what else doesn't make money? Highways. The value added is far beyond the operating cost. We need to stop demanding that public transportation be profitable and invest heavily in it.
You realize that alot of transit agencies as well as trucking companies rely on these highways? Don't even get me started on people commuting to work outside a city they live in.
@@hankhill6469 Trains are far more efficient and carry far more loads. Semis/delivery trucks still needed for small, isolated towns. But with more trains, you can reduce large vehicle traffic and reduce road damage while you're at it.
Highways aren't supposed to make money. They are infrastructure, a public provision.
Highways absolutely can be profitable. And if you’re saying the value outweighs its cost you’re necessarily saying it can be profitable. Rail can’t be profitable in most cases simply because it doesn’t offer the benefits proponents claim.
@@javaman2883 Now you're getting it-- so should be the railroads too.
I took the auto train for the first time this summer and it was fantastic. I couldn't afford to spring for a sleeping car but even in coach it was a good experience. The most striking thing for me when I (infrequently) get a chance to ride on Amtrak is how *nice* all the employees are. I really hope we do find a way to increase train travel in this country. It's the best way to travel.
People are nice when you pay them well and treat them with kindness and respect. Happiness exudes Happiness 😃 but if you are underpaid, overworked, stressed out all the time from having no money, worried about your bills, then you'll be angry all the time!!
I love amtrak too. It's so comfortable compared to busses,driving,or planes. Trains by their nature are more efficient once the expensive bit is built.
But it's weird how primitive the rail system is in the US compared to other countries. I think if the system were more public or more private it would work better. The demand and the tech are there but the private side has oligarchs trying to raid public funds and the public side has bloated underfunded bueracracies. It's better on the east coast but still clunky,primitive,and expensive.
@@drphosferrous Plus the auto industry has lobbied against decent rail travel in this country for a long, long, time, which has kept it primitive and expensive. We need a long-term, nationwide investment for the betterment of both life quality and the environment.
@@carolinecrane yeah the power of auto companies has screwed a lot of things up. I wish we could have some kind of firewall between money power and government. We need something like citizens united but more robust and far reaching. It would be great for the economy and environment if more people could work without having to buy a car. Seems like anything that hurts the profits of the powerful can't get done though.
I’ve heard nothing but nice reviews for the Auto Train and it’s said to be one of Amtrak’s most popular routes outside the Northeast Corridor.
I really hope these plans to update the fleet/tracks while expanding service around the country pans out. I’ve loved the idea of traveling the country by train for a while now, but the lack of service to certain areas and prices have handicapped me quite a bit.
I’ve taken the Amtrak St.Paul to Milwaukee route a few times. It usually costs $50-$65 for coach depending on the day. Sometimes it’s cheaper or similar to megabus but more expensive than greyhound. Much more comfortable than both. There’s an option to “bid” for a room or roomette. Last time I took it I got the bid so I paid and extra $75 and got meals are included. I really enjoyed the experience and was something I was happy to get. I definitely would bid again. If you don’t get the bid you don’t have to pay extra so why not!
I've enjoyed several long train trips on AmTrak including the coast starlight, the empire builder, the lake shore limited, and the City of New Orleans, the northeast corridor, and several others. I would travel by train more often IF there were more routes and prices were a little lower.
if it was equal to flying/slightly higher i would take a train. it just seems nicer to me. it really should be much cheaper, but good ol USA has to allow bribing its congress.
Enjoins corridor and surferliner are all enjoyable because of the sighting and countryside/landscape indeed
I've traveled on the Crescent, the City of New Orleans, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, the Wolverine, the NEC, the Capitol Limited, and the Pennsylvanian. I love the train. It is my preferred mode of travel.
They're only good for vacations...not anything else.
@@KB-ke3fi I met an old man on the train that was using it to get to the Cleveland Clinic for his heart treatment because he couldn't fly and driving in the winter wasn't feasible. This was the only transportation available to him in the middle of eastern Montana.
I've taken the Northeast corridor multiples times as I live in DC but my parents live in NJ. The tickets actually aren't too expensive but you have to buy way ahead of time (I'd say around 2 months beforehand). Once you're within a month of a trip it starts to not be worth it.
Sometimes they charge up to $200 just for a broken seat that barely reclines
It's too inconvenient
Unfortunately so. Also, the same tickets get more expensive every time I view them on my computer. Same tricks as with the airlines.
Sometimes gotta be earlier for holidays like 3-6 months ahead
@@SkyGravity137 I understand that some top Amtrak managers came from the airlines. They brought their "best" practices.
I would love to see widespread rail development across the US - It's my preferred form of travel (so long as it's cheaper than flying)
Amtrak is subsidized, but they fail to mention how much more heavily European trains are subsidized.
In the USA, most railroads are run by private companies. In many other countries, however, the central government owns and operates all or most of the railroads.
We need to catch up to the rest of the world, and make real high speed rail connecting major cities around the country a priority!
Indeed, CA, Midwest, TX and the Southern cities should also connect their major hubs with at least GOOD commuter rail and passenger rail, and put High speed ones for the busiest routes.
We have the biggest railroad network in the world but the majority is used by freight. Unfortunately America is too car-centric
@@Rittersport88 Younger Americans are not as interested in getting their drivers license. The culture is slowly changing, but it can be improved by investing properly in rail.
@@Rittersport88 hard to compete with "free" roads and subsidized gasoline
@@rowaystarco Good, more and More North Americans are starting to get interested in Urban planning ideas and that comes with Transit, thank god it's happening, having to drive everywhere was a big advantage back then until it started to become it's own biggest enemy
Recently I wanted to take my family (wife and 4 kids) on a weekend getaway to Savannah, GA from Atlanta, GA and thought of all my options. Plane tickets were $2600, Amtrack $1200 and by Enterprise $500.
I thought that it was too expensive by train but the fact that i wouldn't have to drive really appealed to me, being a truck driver.
The nail in the coffin was the fact that if i left on Friday, ı'd get to Savannah on Sunday, ruining the weekend getaway idea. This got me curious on why that would be the case.
So i looked into the schedule, i would have to leave on Friday night, because there's only 1 train per day, arrive to Greensboro, NC 8 hours later, wait about 4 hours to take a train to Raleigh, NC then wait about 7 hours, and take a train overnight to Savannah, arriving Sunday at around noon.
Needless to say i chose to drive and rent a car thru Turo that cost me less than $200 for the whole weekend.
Also following Atlanta United, there are some games in Charlotte, NC. Thought i could take the train there, but was disappointed to find out that the trains again only run once a day and only overnight. Meaning i would have to spend the night in a train traveling for 5 hours when i could get there in 4 by car. Ticket prices weren't bad though $50 each way which is what my car would take with gas prices nowadays. But that just l3aves me to think what it would be like if we had a staight line to Savannah.
Finally i have a couple of recommendations:
1.Faster trains (making the journey faster than by car) is a must.
2. More trains, giving options to riders to not think of departure times would be ideal but I'll settle for 4 times a day.
3. More lines, people want to go to different places for different reasons, think of connecting cities for business but also cities for pleasure.
Thank you!
If you own a car, it'd cost less than a hundred bucks. Drive yourself there like everyone else.
@@samsonsoturian6013 you obviously didnt read the whole comment, i ended up driving there because there was no better option.
@@GianniKnowsBest no one did
Add another point, train their employees to be more friendly than having an attitude... I haven't met a friendly Amtrak customer service agent at the train station 🚉
@@___beyondhorizon4664 Shut up, Karen.
Amtrak was the first transportation I toke alone at age 15 to visit family and I had an amazing experience. 2022 I traveled with Amtrak over 10 times to New England and every experience was wonderful. I wish the US had more train transportation as in my opinion it is more comfortable and convenient. They also have a lot of discounts for students, military and seniors!
Visited Spain in 2018 and rode Renfe between Barcelona, San Sebastián and Valenica. Great first experience for train travel.
I moved from a small city in Oklahoma to Dallas in 2020 and I've been on the regional train wave ever since, so I hope that new system that runs to Houston from Dallas are cost efficient. In Spain, the average fare was was between $100-$140 round trip for coach seats and maybe a little more for first class.
If so, I'm on board.
We took the north east corridor Amtrack trains during a "rail" trip of the east coast, visiting DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. It was so convenient, and one of the best trips of my life!
Make a rail trip in Europe its way better and cheaper.
@@Ghfvhvfg You can do a rail trip of the east coast of the United States in Europe??? Color me surprised!
It’s Amtrak
The northeast corridor has the population density. The rest of the country doesn't.
@@AlaskaErik China built a train station in the middle of nowhere, people made fun of it on the internet and years later there is now a city full of people built around it. This is historically how most towns came to be, the train station came first and the town was then built around it.
I've used the NE Corridor to get to DC from NJ a few times and enjoyed it a lot. While it is a bit pricey, it's much less of a hassle than having to go through airport security, checking in bags, finding parking &, etc. I've also found that if you book your tickets at least a week or more in advance, you'll typically find affordable tickets. The conductors are always friendly and the food (which isn't free btw) is surprisingly good. This is also just my experience using coach!
The food is included on long-distance trains if you buy a sleeper car. Really nice if you're going on a long trip!
I have taken a business class on the same route, and it wasn't quite the bang for my buck that I expected. The coach service was perfectly fine. Acela is also interesting because I find that the time savings often don't make up for the price difference unless you get really lucky with the timing.
@@omarhamza7996 I stick to coach bc my main goal is to save money. Coach is also much more comfortable then i expected so its perfect for me. And quite frankly, the price of a business class ticket on the NE corridor is just as much as an economy airplane ticket from Newark or JFK to Dulles. The Acela is also just a bit overpriced daily. So yh, I wouldn't recommend business class or acela if you're trying to save a buck.
I took the bus to NYC and the regional coach back. The train was around double the price of the bus, but still not a huge amount if booked at least two weeks in advance, and was definitely worth it. About an hour faster and a lot more comfortable.
I honestly don’t care to listen to the opinions of someone who has to travel coach.
4:50 to 6:40 also seems like a co-worker discussing their fantasy football draft strategy in terms of position value in rounds 4-8
We had a great railway trip on the California Zephyr , Chicago to Reno a few years ago we had a Roomette and it was really good value with meals included ,a super way to start our three weeks in the U S A .👍🇬🇧
I used to live in D.C. as an expat. I wanted to explore a little and being European, I thought it would be convenient to take the train. So I took a traintrip to NYC Penn Station from D.C. Union Station.
The tickets aren't as expensive as CNBC is stating in the video, if you plan in advance. Regarding the quality of the service. Let's say I appreciate the train services back home and I'll never complain ever again.
That's the thing though-- planning in advance for the Northeast Corridor means booking at least two months out if you want reasonably priced tickets. That totally takes away any convenience factor. Who is prepared to make any personal trip with that much foresight? I don't even plan vacations that far in advance, let alone visiting family for holidays or weekend getaways, etc.
CNBC usually over-exaggerates everything they report thats US related, the pricing claims were crazy, if you know what you're doing youll find the right price
Waroom? Omdat es Vereenigte Staaten is! DC to NY is probably one of the least scenic stretches in the US. The "Chinatown Busses" have greatly improved in comfort, and I found them very satisfactory for DC-NY. Bedankt.
@@redsoxfan713 I've booked only about a week or two before and saw decent surprises for the NE corridor.
@@itsnadaaaa Really? In mid October, I booked a round trip from Boston South Station to New York Penn three weeks prior to the trip. It set me back $367.
From an European point of view, it is insane that they consider arriving at a train station in the center of a city a "premium". It should be the other way around.
@@laurinnintendo What country are you from to say you don't have freedom of speech?
@@laurinnintendo “we don’t have real freedom of speech” lmaooooo
I agree.
@@EdoTyran Germany. It's illegal here to insult public figures, we have somehthing called "Volksverhetzung" where our government arbitrarilly decides that an opinion is too controversial, we also have a new law where you get a fine for calling "trans" people by their real name. It's pretty bad.
And it's not just freedom of speech, European countries (especially Germany) are less free in many other aspects too. For example during Covid our government went into full dictator mode and we still have mask mandates in some places.
@@SincerelyFromStephen We don't. Of course it's not like in China or North Korea, but we do have pretty serious limitations to speech in Germany at least. If you compare both, the US is a lot more free when it comes to freedom of speech (and other things).
Living in Nyc I use Acela a bunch. I prefer it to flying but use less frequently than I could due to their supply/demand pricing model. The other day I tried to book a ticket to Boston, a month out and it was going to be double the price of airlines (as shown in the video). But there are other times where it’s half the price of flying. This inconsistency in pricing is a hassle when planning trips; “do I book it now or will there be a better price in a couple weeks?” I wonder whether ticket prices of the northeast corridor would be far cheaper if it wasn’t grouped in with a national system that is losing money.
Years ago when I was visiting my mom in Denver, we couldn’t find a limo to BWI in time, so I took the metro to Union Station and actually rode Amtrak to BWI and connected to the shuttle bus to the terminal on Christmas Day, only gripe I had was I had to wait 3 hours before my flight left and it was 5 or 6 dollars more than MARC which didn’t have Weekend or Holiday service on the Penn Line back then. On the way back I took MARC since it was on a weekday.
A bullet train from Tokyo to Kyoto is about $120, and they run every 30 minutes to an hour. But it’s been a major major government investment since the 1950s, but obviously it’s pain off. And please stop calling 150mph high speed
150 Mph would qualify as high speed in most countries. In Europe, a high speed train is any train that can drive above 200kph.
Yeah, but that's a sardine-can city. Where so many millions of people live within walking distance of the station and it is faster to walk than to drive. Similar rails in Spain are actually costing Madrid money, and in America's wide open spaces they are out of the question. We have airplanes for that.
@Zaydan Naufal I don't care what some people call it, I'm going by the defintion of the international railway union and as per EU directive 96/48/EC which holds 200kph on existing lines and 250kph on new, dedicated lines as the minimum speed when talking about high speed rail.
It's high speed. Idk why you think otherwise, the Standard definition of High Speed from the US and EU rail law put anything over 200km/h as high speed
@@Hans-gb4mv If we convert it, 200kph is around 125mph and 250 is around 155 mph 🤷♀️
Honestly its the best and safest way to travel for me just not the fastest obviously. You get so much room. Frequent stops. You can SEE the whole country instead of flying over it. Its such an adventure.
I keep reading about how "safe" train travel is. The trains do have accidents and people do die or get injured. Considering that a LOT more folks travel by air than train, I would wager the numbers would show air to be safer than rail.
@GilmerJohn
Flying is the safest according to crashes per miles traveled. But trains are safer in terms of average number of deaths per crash. Both are very safe actually, driving is what’ll really get you.
@@julianpowers594 so that means trains are safer deaths per miles traveled then?
@@peregrino9154 scared to fly?? LOL
I'll drive to spend less money and have more convenience.
A couple of years ago, took the train from San Jose to West Glacier via Portland. It was a miserable experience.
A friend took to her I’ll mother in law in a wheel chair on a train in the Midwest and faced employees who could care less and who were angry at having to help.
A relic of the past.
For all the talk about it being expensive, I have traveled in Europe, and the prices are comparable. The Northeast regional from DC to New York is cheaper than the Train I took from Rome to Venice about 3 years ago, while the distance is comparable. The major difference in Europe is convenience. More trains, easier access to station.
I love my CA Amtrak :)
It was a god-send for visiting home very inexpensively from school.
Back in like 2008-2012 the tickets were quite cheap, avg non-holiday ranged from $12-18 and barely went up pre-pandemic years ($22-30). It would've been nearly a full tank of gas to travel that distance by train, it's a great public asset, like the public bus system.
Traveling by train is very relaxing and scenic :)
I highly recommend taking any Amtrak train that passes near the ocean or through a highly remote area, absolutely amazing. There are some trains running in CA with GREAT viewing cars, and you can walk around on the train. Some viewing cars are 1st come 1st server but have windows that reach all the way to the ceiling :) Great for pics and vids.
That's because Amtrak California is a joint venture between Amtrak and Caltrans! Amtrak California is basically "Amtrak Premium". Newer and better equipped trains, better maintained, cleaner, cheaper, better amenities, nicer staff, etc. Amtrak California is superior in pretty much every way to regular Amtrak. California has been investing a ton of money into Amtrak California and rail transportation in general over the last 20-30 years. And it shows! We now have the most popular rail routes in the country outside of the NEC!
I rode the Acela from DC to NY. I was shocked how the seats were old and dirty. Everything needed a massive overhaul.
New trainsets are coming to Acela. Separately, the old cars that make up the single-level coach and business sections (like those also seen on the NEC) are also going to be swapped out in the next couple of years.
@@aresef Old is one thing; dirty is not acceptable.
We just last week had a terrible airline meltdown, thousands of people stranded, 15,000 flights cancelled. Without good rail transportation we have No backup plan.
thats because you have an incompetent former mayor running the DOT.
When Switzerland is mentioned when comparing tilting mechanisms the train shown is a Japanese Shinkansen E2 series. A correct train to show would’ve been the SBB RABDe 500.
I love riding trains. It's always baffled me how expensive the tickets are and yet, Amtrak never made money. I did however get a great deal for 3 people going from Portland to Seattle round trip for $130 on the Cascades.
I would love to see them update the rolling stock. Most of the passenger cars date back to the 1980s and early 90s. New rolling stock is essential for Amtrak's future success.
They never made money because the ticket price are so high.
A train net is a prime example of "use makes it cheaper". You have to pay for the track building and maintenance regardless if you run one train a day or one ever ten minutes. Adding a half-full train actually lowers costs per passenger. And now think what happens if the trains run full...
Maintenance and running costs for trains is very expensive and very time consuming. The only way they would have a chance to make money is having trains that hold a lot more passengers, are much faster and more efficient. They have to charge high ticket prices because they currently don’t hold enough passengers, they are slow and not efficient because they are so old. The only way people would take a train would be if it was half the price of a plane ticket and could get to the destination in a decent amount of time. If plane tickets from ny to Florida is 1000 bucks for a small family takes 4 hours nobody is gonna pay close to 1000 bucks to take a train that’s gonna take 20-30 hours. If I have 1 week for a vacation I would rather pay more for a plane ticket so I don’t waste 2 days on a plane only getting maybe 5 days on vacation. If the train tickets were 600 bucks and took 10 hour then yeah I just might take the train because it’s 400 bucks cheaper and even if ur plane is on time ur gonna waste a good 2 hours getting to the airport early, checking in ur luggage, going through security then waiting for ur luggage when you land so the 4 hour flight will take a good 7 hours out of ur day if ur lucky, when I have taken trains before I have arrived just minutes before they were going to leave and had no problems. When flying half the time there are delays, pilot is late, plane is late. So on this trip if the train is only 6 hours longer, saves 400 bucks I would do it plus it would be cool to look out windows but I would never pay close to the same price to take a slow ass train. The last time I got a price for a train down to Florida I laughed I was like a plane is almost the same price and I could drive my car down there 10 hours faster why would Anyone ever take a train.
@@peanutbutterisfu Trains are only expensive because airplanes and cars externalize so many costs.
And that the train system is abysmal in teh US is nothing new.
I think it's overkill to have somethign like the maglev, which does the Toyko-Osaka in just 20 minutes more than an airplane, but a 200mph train should be easy for many parts of the US.
And as I said in other places, a conventional 160km/h net (the fastest that cheap 200 year old tech can do) would make even New York - Washington something you can take by train in a reasonable time, if you use express trains.
@@peanutbutterisfu Nope. In the 50s and 60s we switched from subsidizing rail to subsidizing highways and airlines. Conventional wisdom at the time was that the railroads got way too powerful. Also decentralized highways and airports were much less vulnerable from a defense standpoint.
With sooooo much subsidy for highways and airports and so few subsidies for rail, there is just no way for Amtrak to compete. The government picked its favorite winners and those were cars and airplanes over trains. Most, almost all other countries made the opposite choice and you can see for yourself that we messed up and they guessed correctly.
I loved riding trains in Europe, when I could just buy a month pass for like $200, then ride wherever I wanted. Trains in US are too expensive. A 224 mile trip on a train is $100 or more per person, or I can just drive that for $35 total, and get there in half the time.
I started using the lakeshore limited to go to college after my plane was cancelled due to bad weather. The amtrack wasn't even delayed. On top of being a more pleasant experience in general.
Keep doing all the great work
I don't watch the major networks but this was a great segment. I'd enjoy seeing more educational nonpartisan content like this.
CNBC has been killing it with their youtube content lately They have some great videos on YT
They have great transportation videos right here in this channel
Republicans hate trains because theyre bought by oil companies
It's not entirely non-partisan. They are trying to hype up private rail as something unsubsidized, which it really isn't. Brightline, for example is merely privately-owned, but it is basically 100% publicly funded even if they cleverly hide the subsidies and lie through their teeth about them when asked.
But I will grant you that CNBC is still about 100x better on this than the rest of them! It's actually kind of impressive.
Not all of it is 'nonpartisan'. Calling the Infrastructure Bill 'bipartisan' when only 2 Republican House members voted for it, isn't just disingenuous. It's misleading, and like everything else in the mainstream media, framing is EVERYTHING. Do better, CNBC. Be better. 🙄
In 1990, as a student I went up the east coast via Amtrak from Florida to Boston. Long, slow but good. Other countries have taken train travel to the next level while in the US it has stagnated. It's too pricey for the service offered. For best train travel, go to Japan.
You'd be surprised, but I'd actually say Spain. Japan is great, but somehow isn't as well organized and connected to other modes of transportation as the Spanish system is. Like you get off the subway in Barcelona, in 10 minutes you're on a highspeed train to Madrid, where you get off the train and you're on the subway in 5 minutes.
@@MikeBenko Spain is simply not a fair comparison. The US has 16 times the area.
@@noahking5531 That's not how it works. Nobody expects South Carolina to have the same infrastructure development as Spain. But comparing NY/Illinois/California/Texas/Florida etc to Western European countries is a fair comparison. Yet none of them have anything resembling European country levels of public transportation.
The thing is. You can realistically take a train for example in downtown Paris in the morning, be in downtown London in little over two hours. Keep in mind, that train has to literally run under the sea. The distance is similar to that between LA and SF...
Same applies to flights, airport connections etc across much of Europe. We're just horrible at infrastructure. We just seem systemically incapable of building or running or maintaining good infrastructure.
Even within US cities that do have things like public transportation, like NYC or Chicago, they are absolute trash in quality, reliability, cost and cleanliness when compared to even some of the most notorious European public transportation systems like that of London or Paris and absolutely pale in comparison to some of the better run ones like that of Madrid or Berlin.
@@MikeBenko Still not a fair comparison, as Europe's population density is much higher compared to the US. Spain is about 3/4 the size of Texas, but has a much larger population (47 million vs. 30 million). Europe has a population that is more that twice that of the US (740 million vs. 332 million). People forget that there are large areas of the US with a very low population density. There are far fewer people in the entire state of Wyoming (579k) than there are in the city of San Francisco (815k), which is only 49 square miles. Just compare population density maps of the US and Europe and it's easy to see how much more densely populated Europe is.
@@gunshow7425 This is a long one, bare with me, please. First of all, including the Russian population in that of Europe when discussing things like high speed rail is pointless. What we need to look at is the EU (as it has a unified infrastructure) and the handful of countries that are (sometimes despite their best efforts) fully integrated into it and often co-develop their infrastructure with the EU, namely UK, Switzerland and Norway.
They still double the US population, true, but the geographical distribution and geography of the continent is much less favorable than that of the US.
Italy and Spain are peninsulas disconnected from the mainland by mountain chains (unlike Florida for example), the UK and Scandinavia are disconnected by rough seas which you have to tunnel under or bridge over. Austria and Switzerland are insanely mountainous. Parts of northwestern Europe are literally under the sea level on extremely swampy ground. Southeastern Europe, like Greece and Romania is again very mountainous, while northeastern Europe has low population densities, the Baltics (these are the European equivalents of our Wyomings and such) and Finland with major urban areas (like Helsinki and Warsaw) quite disconnected from places like Berlin or Vienna. Europe is a mess geographically.
But looking at state v country level. A common mistake being made are doing things like bringing Wyoming into the discussion in an attempt to highlight just how low are supposed population density is.
Most of the continental United States is empty. The bulk of the population lives either in between Chicago and the Northeast or down along the coast to Houston/Florida. The population west of the Rockies literally lives on a thin line along the coast running for San Diego to Seattle.
From a theoretical stand point the US population distribution is absolutely ideal for interstate high speed rail. Almost all our major population centers are distributed along a north-south axis with a handful of east-west outliers which make perfect triangular connecting hubs (Chicago, DC, Columbus).
But here's the thing about high speed rail. Nobody is going to take a train in Madrid to go to Rome or London or Berlin. Rail does really well on what's called an intermediate range. 100 to about 450 miles. At those distances high speed rail is typically faster than flying, much faster than driving and more convenient than both. In Europe this like London-Paris, or Madrid-Barcelona-Paris-Barcelona or on extreme Paris-Berlin.
In the US we have a whole lot of these perfect connections. ESPECIALLY in the northeast, in Florida, California and TEXAS.
Swinging back to the Spain v Texas comparison. If you look at a population distribution map of Spain, you'll notice a very weird population distribution. Something like 40+% of the population lives on the Madrid to Barcelona axis. The rest is fairly evenly distributed in a circle along the coasts, parts of central Spain have the population density of northern Finland (think of Montana), so when Spain builds rail it has to build outwards in every direction from Madrid.
Texas on the other hand, has it's population condensed in a relatively small area between Dallas-Houston and San Antonio, Austin falls on the SA to Dallas axis, with a small outlier towards Corpus Christi.
Texas would only have to build 4 main highspeed rail lines to service most of its population, in clean little triangle with an extra line from SA to CS. The distance between Dallas and San Antonio? 250 miles. Literally the perfect distance for high speed rail and Austin is on that line. It's also mostly just....flat land. No bends, no tunneling, no Baltic seas and English channels in the way, no Mississippi to bridge over.
yeah I wanted to take the train from OKC to phoenix once. For a room (which I would need since it was a 30 hour trip) it would be a 1,000 dollar trip
I did the California Zephyr in 2019 after flying Air New Zealand to Chicago as a means of seeing the country. Flew home from San Francisco
What is killing Amtrak is their pricing model. You can't make a trip that isn't planned well in advance unless you have so much money you wouldn't likely consider taking the train anyway.
I just checked what a one way trip from NYP to LAX booked for February 6th (two months in advance) costs $236 for coach or $1375 if you want a room. Keep in mind this is a 67 hour trip, so your $236 ticket might sound cheap, but you're in a chair for about three days straight.
For comparison a one way flight from JFK to LAX on the same day (2/6/2022) costs $109 and takes 6 hours. Flying is less than half the price and takes less than one tenth the time.
Frankly, this story should be how cheap it is to fly rather than how expensive it is to travel by train.
Not a relevant point. Try buying a cheap plane ticket at the last minute. Air travel is heavily subsidized and has been for decades. Whereas Amtrak and rail infrastructure has been neglected for decades and must travel on freight infrastructure in most regions.
On a train, vs a flight, you have the views, the adventure of traveling. The hassles of flight for me, for now, are too cumbersome, plus, I really can't see much adventure in it. If in a hurry, that is where I would take a flight.
@@sn5806 1375, does that include food, I wonder?
@@sn5806 I just checked, and it turns out that it does include meals. I am thinking about taking a trip to Seattle from Albuquerque in either January or February.
US has billions dollar for war but none for infrastructures, PLS MAKE HSR NATIONWIDE A PRIORITY
Wars make💰money!!
I was astounded at how much money we were giving Ukraine when we have so many issues here
@@drewh3224 for the rich, does nothing for the tax payers
@@drewh3224 Yes, for weapons manufacturers.
Trillion not billion
I live just outside Holbrook Az. Here you can disembark an Amtrak but you can not start your journey on one… It’s rather ridiculous. I’d very much rather travel by rail but the cost and availability keep that a pipe dream.
How sweet it would be to park my motorcycle on a train car and travel across country! A guy can wish.
I used to take the train from Alexandria to Norfolk. Was slower than driving but was ok. I tried to book a train from Dallas to Sand Diego and its easily double the cost of airfare and takes 2 days. I guess if you're afraid of flying it would be ok to pay huge sums of money and be uncomfortable for days.
The idea for rail is to be faster than driving but cheaper than flying. Of course the infrastructure for efficient rail isn’t there yet but if the investment can build to meet those standards I think rail would blow up in the US. Being someone from Atlanta I would love to take a train from here to Charlotte, Tampa, Nashville or other close by areas. That 400 miles radius idea rings true in my eyes. Having many more Acelas giving a higher frequency of departures would be huge.
YES! I am also an Atlanta area resident who frequently travels to Florida for business, and has family living in Florida. It would be nice to have an Acela option that went to some of the major Florida cities but yet the tickets wouldn't be as expensive as the airlines. Problem for Amtrak (cost aside) is that a flight from Atlanta to Orlando only takes an hour, whereas a train trip would be longer, so for business travel it doesn't make sense. However, when going to visit family in Florida I would welcome not having the task of driving 7 hours and be able to spend that time relaxing on the train, instead of having to worry about dealing with congested holiday traffic on I-75. It would be nice to have another travel option aside from hopping on a plane all the time.
So to solve that problem, you'll buy a train ticket, take a cab to the train station, wait for the train, get on the train and wait at each stop it makes, and then take another cab to where you actually need to be? Is that actually saving you anything over driving your car? No. It's actually making the trip less convenient because then you have no car when you get there....
@@pauld.b7129 Well like the person above mentioned I have a lot of family that is spread out so I would be picked up by them upon arrival. I can understand that point for business though in shorter distances. It’s the same argument for flying though. Still, spending hours working/ relaxing on a train over driving is a big benefit.
@@pauld.b7129 Here you are yet again with a goofy comment. Your same logic could be applied to flying, or does the Airbus A320 drop you off in the driveway of your destination?
We have a car culture. This ain't rocket science.
This past summer my wife & I took a train from Tampa to West Palm Bech. It was just over 97 bucks for us both, round trip. The train to was over 2 hours late becuase of a car accident on the tracks. The return train was on time. Both trains were extremely comfortable. I was amazed by how wide the coach seats were. There was WiFi but it was spotty. This is my only experience on passeger rail in the US. I wish there were more and higher speed trains as they would be a great option to flying.
I had the experience of traveling across the US ( Florida to Washington) on AmTrak both Northern route and the Southern route. It brought to life my Freshman year US Geography class in the sense that even in Today's world there are thousands of miles of this country that are too remote or uninhabitable!
Funny that we had Wisconsin Railways buy the New Zealand Railways here a few ‘YEARS’ ago here in NZ and made a huge profit!! 😊😊😊
I've travelled throughout Poland twice prior to the Covid pandemic. Fast, efficient, affordable and great stations and connections/ timetables. They benefitted a lot from EU money when they joined the Union and they invested wisely in upgrading existing infrastructure and building new ones
A friend of mine just visited Poland and he said the same thing.
What the heck does your comment have to do with the video?
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude as a comparison to how railways can be operated in other countries, I guess.
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude are you slow in the brain department!
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude Typical European condescension. These comments are quite ubiquitous on any train video involving the U.S.
I use the Amtrak Northeast Regional between New Haven and Penn Station. It’s usually quite a bit cheaper than Acela, less packed, and only slower by about 20 minutes. I personally think the NE Regional is more comfortable too, especially in the first class cabin. Seats are a lot bigger, and the suspension seems smoother. The “quiet car” is enforced well and has very few people in it - I would usually go in there to only find a couple other people, pop in some headphones, and watch a couple episodes of a tv show on my laptop. Unbelievably easy and comfortable compared to driving the Merritt..
From New Haven? Couldn't you take Metro-North? It would be a tad slower, but cheaper.
@@robertlunderwood Definitely. But it compromises heavily on comfort.
Ah yes
The Merritt Parkway
Mankind's most deplorable abomination.
May I ask why you take Amtrak over MetroNorth? It’s still only 1 train and the latter isn’t that much slower but it is much less expensive. (Genuine question; I admit to personally missing having that option.)
@@saraleigh5336 it just ends up being much more comfortable and quiet. Boarding is super calm, always has seats open, and Penn Station is low-stress for this route. And I love the NE Regional trains..
I’ve taken the train from San Francisco/Emeryville to see family in Florida a couple times now; California Zephyr to Chicago, Capital Ltd to DC, and Silver Star to Tampa with Amtrak connecting bus to the outlying area my family lives. Seeing the country has been an invaluable experience, Amtrak’s sleeper cars have been quite comfortable- I find sleeping on a train a really pleasant experience- and when there has been a significant delay getting in, Amtrak has put me up in a prime Chicago hotel overlooking the river and downtown. Overall my Amtrak experience has been quite good. There’s room for improvement- ie enforcing the Amtrak priority over freighters (and with Amtrak trains being far shorter and several times faster than freighters, this shouldn’t cause any significant delays with freight arrivals) and regular staff training on keeping cars and their bathrooms very clean, but the staff overall are very nice, the food is good, and I’ve seen the country. But I do admit I booked Amtrak because I specifically wanted the train journey to be part of my trip, and not just as an efficient mode of transportation. Also, I find the upfront costs of Amtrak, like for new riders, is greatest. Once you ride and accumulate rail points (ALWAYS JOIN THEIR RAIL POINT PROGRAM via their app TO CAPTURE YOUR POINTS) and you get into higher tiers, you get vouchers and discounts on upcoming travel. It’s 2 points for every dollar spent, and they never expire- it’s the best frequent traveler program around. My partner and I will be taking a trip on the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to Oregon or Washington in the coming 6 months, and we’ll be covering it mostly with points and vouchers. So after a couple trips the rewards start piling up. Also, joining the RR Passenger Assoc is helpful- gives us a say in RR operations and a little discount.
Very few people have the time to spend 10 days just in travel to their destination.
The Montrealer from Manhattan to Montreal is the most beautiful riverside scenery
Can't wait for the Northern Lights express! Before I moved north, I would take 2-3 trips a year on Amtrak routes, mostly the Texas Eagle and Capitol Limited, sometimes the Lakeshore limited. With a cousin in Washington state, a sister in Maine, and family in St. Louis, I am ready to be back on the rails. Of course, my first ride as an adult has a funny story involving a recently discharged hospital patient showing everyone his amputated foot.
A majority of the tracks that Amtrak and commuter railroads operate on are owned & operated by freight. They have to pay freight companies to use the tracks. Fares included that cost. That freight can cause delays and those tracks aren't designed to go fast.
Yeah.... As opposed to building all new tracks for a service nobody uses. If Amtrak disappeared tommorow, would it actually affect anyone? I doubt it. Most people riding a train are doing it for the novelty, not out of necessity.
Guess you never been on a transcon line..90 mph amtrak...
@@pauld.b7129maybe in some parts of the country, but in the NE, Amtrak is about function, not novelty.
Has America considered that even a rail way that is 'losing money' might actually be 'making money' for the country as a whole in terms of the economic activity a rail line enables
No. #Capitalism
Yes,that’s Asian countries now is doing.
@@redsoxfan713 yes, america does that, but for roads.
US build roads to loose money. everyone else just loose money that makes them more money instead. US would rather offset that cost to the citizens than shoulder for the greater good
@@acasccseea4434, loose money? Dude, it’s lose money. Grammar is fundamental. Try it sometime.
We lose money on every ticket, but we make it up in volume 😂
Good insightful story touching all pain points 👍
Those prices are absolutely ridiculous for a train. It's also unbelievable how people are in such lines in stations with delays. It's like an airport but costs more and goes slower. I took a train from Cz to Germany and back which was older but tons of room for double digit price some years ago. I took a very nice train across Japan and back for like $200.
Also, in certain countries, the station and the land around it is also owned by the railway company, meaning that they can lease or develop the land to provide more lucrative income than just ticket prices.
But it requires station to be popular first. If railway company caters to premium customers, there just isn't enough passengers to justify developing land further, like building shops for passengers to buy stuff on stations.
In 2018 I needed to take the rail from Omaha, NE to Chicago, IL and the train that was supposed to pick up the passengers from the day before still had not arrived. Amtrak needs to do better in the Midwest.
I would love this! Duluth Minnesota all the way through MN.
Living in the NE corridor in Delaware about halfway between NYC and DC, I've used Amtrak many many times until they started flexing the ticket prices. It became more cost efficient to drive to DC and to Jersey City (using PATH subway to cross the Hudson into NYC). Philadelphia and Baltimore were too close and using commuter rail from SEPTA or MARC was easier.
But the biggest issues with all of this besides the flexing costs are the service hours. A few years ago the last train left NYC and DC around 10. I think out of NYC is now before 9 PM which makes it too inconvenient if I have a dinner meeting for work.
I want to see passenger rail succeed and I would prefer to use it, but if it's only for the 9-5 worker, it is better for me to drive.
It's great for smaller regional trips. I live in Seattle and find it well worth going to Vancouver B.C. or Portland or even Eugene rather than deal with traffic, especially traffic between Seattle to Portland and sure it may take 2 hours longer than a flight from Seattle to Portland but at least on the trains you have somewhat larger bathrooms, a food car, and much bigger leg room, even in coach than you would have on a flight, and a view to match. You also still typically have wifi or cell service on trains as well. They have their niche.
And I live on Vancouver Island and we do not have passenger train service at all anymore. EVERYONE on this island who wants to travel has to drive.
@@denelson83 Awful! You should complain to your local government to return the train! In large part we lost train service in North America because the government thought in the 50s-60s that everyone wants to always drive on a highway. Public pressure is needed to bring those much saner travel options back!
@@TohaBgood2 Unfortunately, it's been said that the E&N Railway is in too poor a condition to run passenger services on anymore, and it is too expensive to repair.
@@denelson83 It's great how no highway is ever too expensive to repair to these people! That they will always find money for! Ugh
Well, maybe you all can force them somehow. I know Canadians usually find a way!
Yeah they work because we didn't have to build entirely new trains and tracks to run on it. For high speed rail in the US, it would cost tens of billions, if not trillions. And then nobody would use it anyways. Last time you rode the train, how many people were in it? My guess is not many at all.
I'd love to see a direct comparison between Amtrak and Deutsche Bahn in terms of funding, revenue, rolling stock, stations served and passenger numbers as well as distances. That would be very revealing imho.
It would be embarrassing to Americans, more than likely. We don't talk about how much taxpayer money we spend to support automobiles as the primary form of transportation here, but it's an unnecessary burden.
DB is absolutely horrendous. If Americans want to do it right, by all means, do NOT look at DB. OBB (Austria) or SBB (Switzerland) are the way to go.
@@meb5205 Oh come on, they're not THAT bad. Long distance maybe, but the regional connections are steady, cheap, reliable and comfortable.
@@meb5205enfe in Spain is excellent. Great service, clean cars, reasonably priced and almost always on time .
SBB is definitely the world standard for train service.
@@meb5205 Compared to Amtrak, DB is great
Trains directly connecting Spokane, Seattle, Portland, and Boise all together would be great. As it is now, the train from Portland to Spokane shows up only once a day and it’s at 3am since it’s on its way to/from Chicago.
Not very convenient
The pricing model is absurd for same-week tickets. Advance tickets might be affordable but not cheap. Between Portland and Seattle Amtrak there used to be a buy-one-get-one-free, as in bring a friend with you for free, not for travel at a later date. That was fantastic! Planes are great if you're in a hurry or you don't enjoy seeing the countryside. But what if you have a couple days to relax? There is no better way to see the countryside in America than from a train. In the West they often travel through roadless areas. I've taken the Pacific Coast Starliner from LA to Seattle, and I've taken the California Zephyr from Colorado to Sacramento several times and only once did the engine come unhitched in the wee hours of the night leaving the passenger cars stranded in the desert in the freezing winter for a few hours. Now let's talk about what you can do on a train that you can't do on a plane. Smoking breaks (sometimes). Bring your own booze. Bring your own sandwiches. Bring your own banjo. I have seen actual jam sessions break out on trains. Taking large additional luggage is much cheaper on a train and you can still access some of that large luggage, like a guitar case, while you're on the train. More elbow room. More leg room than a plane or a bus. Train stations are usually more interesting, less sterile, less torturous than airports.
Acela's new trains tilting technology is actually world standard, developed in Europe and use in UK, Italy, France and Spain's high speed networks. Amtrak needs much more trains like these to thrive
They're made by the help of Bombardier and France, it definitely even tops France's own current TGV series and they wont get the new Acela type cars until the coming years themselves
The track layout and topology on the highest demand line is not ready for it. As someone who travels from Connecticut to NY for work, the Acela almost feels like a waste of money. The difference is not that big relative to regular Amtrak train.
@@tigerrx7, so what do you propose or what to build that would be better?
@@tigerrx7 That's a common misconception. The NEC is an old, legacy corridor, sure. But this is a very good corridor nonetheless and it's speeds are not at all unusual for HSR lines in other places. In fact, most HSR services in Europe run on this type of track. The NEC is actually mostly 125+mph, with some sections at up to 150mph. And now Amtrak got the money to upgrade all the 125+mph sections to 160mph for the new TGV-derived Acela trains. Some slower turns around stations will still remain because they can't be removed easily, but that is entirely normal even for the faster French TGV and German ICE trains. If you want to run in city centers then you will have to share slower track with slower local trains. That tradeoff is almost always worth it for the convenience it creates for riders.
@@tigerrx7 The problem with the current Acela fleets is that they're too old and need modernization, that's where the new ones come in with 30 units just sitting waiting to to be used by next year, the Acela is more of an express train that doesnt stop past most stations the regional one does, and it's actually less profitable too, I usually take the New Haven Train line and Acelas past by and they're definitely in need of replacement
As a kid out west, I used to take the Santa Fe train from San Francisco to New Mexico and the Southern Pacific from San Jose to San Louis Obispo. The Santa Fe service was superb and the SP train was OK. Fast forward over 40 years and I took my first AMTRAK service from Albany NY to Canada last summer. It was a good experience. The train was a little run down and dirty like the old SP trains I used to take and a little slow because of freight traffic. But the staff was great - as were a lot of the other passengers - and it was nice to sit in a wide-comfortable seat. Does AMTRAK need updating and other improvements - Yes - but I would take the train again in a heartbeat.
I love train travel 🧳 and to my knowledge they don’t cancel the train 🚊 the way they do with flights !! ✈️
I love trains and I used to take one whenever I possibly could. Unfortunately we have hit the point where it costs me a fraction to just drive myself, I get there way faster and I don't have to deal with massive delays and mass amounts of rude awful people.
I got a round trip northeast regional coach ticket from DC to NYC this past September for about $60. Granted, I booked at least 6 weeks in advance.
These prices are crazy! I took a high speed train in France last week from Aix to Paris. 471 miles in 3 hours and EUR59. that is USD62.... and for a train that goes twice the speed!!!
That's what happens when government gets their nose in something. This country was built on railroads WITHOUT 1 cent from taxpayers.
I have taken the Lake Shore Limited from NYS to Chicago and back a few times and these trips are by far the best long-distance travel I've ever done. You get on the train in your city, go to sleep in their train cars with extremely comfortable seats and ample leg room (In coach, too!), and then wake up bang in the middle of downtown Chicago the next morning. I once did the math and it was actually cheaper than driving by a few dollars when factoring in gas and toll roads, plus the added convenience of not needing to find and pay for somewhere to park once I got there or dealing with Chicago traffic. We really need to invest more money into passenger rail in this country, it's so wonderful.
Have you ever travelled on Greyhound and what was your experience like? I've never been to the US but would like to visit someday, I live in the UK.. our country is so small you can cross half of England by train in about 2-3 hours!
@@paullangton-rogers2390 Yes. Europeans consistently underestimate how big the U.S. is. A friend of mine had some German friends stay with him in Manhattan for a couple of weeks, and they thought they'd take a day trip to San Francisco They had trouble believing it is a three-day drive, each way, at autobahn speeds, if you can manage not to be arrested for driving so fast.
And, yes, I have traveled by Greyhound. It also takes you from city center to city center, less expensively, without the option to get up and walk around or buy food en route. They stop every few hours at a place that typically has one medium-quality option for food, which of course add to the length of the journey. Plus, of course, they can be stuck in traffic. Though, to be fair, it's not unusual for Amtrak trains to be (illegally) made to wait so freight trains can pass, which helps explain why they are so commonly very late compared with their schedule. The other complaint I've heard about intercity bus travel (not just greyhound, now) is that, since it's less expensive and less nice, it has a "lower class" of clientele, which bothers some people. Personally, I don't mind being the most highly-educated person on the bus, but some people are snobs or bigoted or racist; if you are, you'll probably find a bus much less pleasant, since you can't easily get up to avoid anyone you would rather not be around.
@@paullangton-rogers2390 I think you'll find Greyhound...interesting. Outside the Northeast Corridor, Greyhound is mostly used by poor people. That will be interesting for you to experience, as a foreigner -- but you will also come to understand why the US is a terrible country to be poor in. You'll see a lot of kindness and dignity, and also a lot of social dysfunction. Give it a try! But make sure you check the schedules before you start your trip (they won't be convenient) and be prepared for long delays.
Key to making Amtrak comfortable and affordable, but not cheap would be the reintroduction of the individual slumber coach that that use to be an individual sleeping compartment with its own wash sink and toilet that doubles as visitors seat when closed. The slumber coach were common on heritage fleet passenger cars and cost about 50% to twice as much as an over night coach seat. The current Amtrak replacement, the roomette, is over four times the cost of a coach seat. Officially for two people the roomette is really only comfortable for one person. If after 8 pm with no takers a slumber coach upgrade could be done from coach for $20. I did that in 1977 and 1981 for a total for four times for these round trips.
The engines that you showed are no longer in use. It would be beneficial if Amtrak was considered to be a utility, it would be great. Also, if airlines had to pay for the air traffic controllers, the airports, snow removal, building new terminals and automobiles had to pay for the repaving of the roads. Then, the costs would be much higher than they're paying for. Plus, trains are less polluting than planes, buses and cars.
they do and we do. the airlines pay use fees to every airport and every single gallon of fuel sold for on road use in the usa is taxed federally, state, and locally. the .gov makes more money on a gallon of gas than the oil companies make.
The 600$ pricetag may exist but its misleading. A coach one way trip from NY to DC is usually 31$ if booked ~6 weeks out and only 30 minutes longer than the acela.
Some of us don’t have 6 weeks to wait to make a trip
@@theowainwright7406 yeah some people do so first come first serve for the prices it’s not unlimited seats that’s why it’s expensive just like airplanes there cheap if planned ahead
@@zedmaster2178 then how come the airplanes can come out cheaper your argument doesnt work you must not be that smart
@@bigpapa2195 That pricing demonstration was for that particular moment the reporter was shopping prices. There are constant pricing fluctuations. There may have been a lot of open available seats on that flight but not many open available seats on that train.
Furthermore, to get between city centers (where the train takes you and where most people are actually going) and the outlying airports (where the plane takes you) could range from $50-$100 1 way in the major northeast cities or elsewhere if the airport is quite aways from the city. Double that for the return trip back to the airport. The devil is in the details.
@@theowainwright7406 you pay then
The car and plane industry would never let train tickets be affordable cause they know it would negatively impact them. Those lobbyists are pretty powerful. Plus the fact that Amtrak is slow, inefficient and severely underfunded.
Exactly JNY. Airline lobby plus Automobile Dealership lobby plus politicians, equals poor train service. Remember, Amtrak train service is controlled by United States government appointees.
"private projects" as they show pictures of California's state funded HSR project. Also the inland route of CHSR exists explicity to serve underserved fast-growing communities, and the trackage to get it into san francisco is already primarily in existance, caltrain was electrified with very heavily influence from the CHSR commission.
I used to ride in Greyhound bus but when I tried Amtrak then it became a game changer to my life. 👍
We need amtrak's priority to be providing a good service, not making profit
you kind of need both, that what the video is about
Right, but of course our government instead wants to spend hundreds of billions on subsidies to the auto and aviation industries instead.
@@LuisPJ you don't need both if you change the bylaws and laws that govern Amtrak.
@@truedarklander Yeah, "If you change the laws that control Amtrak", that's not changing which is why you need both, to improve Amtrak so they can also make money and not just from tickets, but for future improvements
@@Racko. There is no longer any law requiring Amtrak to be profitable. The Amtrak improvement Act of 1978 reads, “Section 9 amends section 301 of RPSA... to confirm the law to reality, providing that Amtrak shall be ‘operated and managed as’ a for-profit corporation. This amendment recognizes that Amtrak is not a for-profit corporations.”
TLDR; since 1978, Congress has not required Amtrak to make a profit.
Alan Fisher has made many more videos about railways within the U.S. mostly, and what can be done to improve or fix the problem. The big fix he suggests is nationalization.
A """"socialist""" train network? Can you imagine if people (of different races, even) could travel together, comfortably and on an electric vehicle, without paying exorbitant "demand-based" prices? Where is the freedom in THAT?! /s
They did nationalize, it'd called Amtrak
@@forddon Amtrak is mostly government owned yes, however that does not mean they nationalized the whole nations railway system, those are still mostly owned by the big 4(Who deal with freight), Amtrak is only used for travel. There is no nationalized freight company, there was one in the past but fell apart due to a whole slew of problems.
Again Alan Fisher has made multiple videos about trains and railways if you're in the subject.
The government has no right and no constitutional authority to steal public property like that. I also question if nationalization would actually fix problems, or if it could do so without introducing other problems.
@@tootime576 it's not public property it's owned by private companies
I love taking the train and would take it much, much more if not for the cost and scheduling. From Los Angeles to Santa Barbara for example I can drive for half the cost in half the time plus have the convenience of my truck to get around while there
I've taken Amtrak a number of times, both before 2020 and after. Honestly it was incredibly relaxing compared to airports. You can bring more baggage, and snacks. Plus there's a dining car. I've taken a 7am train which is fine but oof the 2am time
Looked at taking a train from Austin, Texas to Whitefish, Montana for a family of 4... More than 2 days travel time and $8k one way. We flew.
That's not how our rail service is set up.
@@timf2279 obviously. It's a shame.
Here in Illinois, what gets me is that we don't even own the railways. They're owned by Canadian National.
Its time to boycott these business that is not owned by Americans.
Canadian National's biggest shareholder is Bill Gates.
@@marktrinidad7650 not sure how you're going to boycott a freight company, but go off ig
@@marktrinidad7650 I mean you have plenty of tracks in Canada owned by Americans , mainly CN tracks
Even if they were owned by American freight railroads, I wouldn't say "we" own them, as in the general public. That only happens when a state buys a rail line from those companies, like Virginia or New York has. I think Illinois should absolutely buy the line that the Lincoln Service currently runs on between Chicago and St. Louis since that is a critical link in the future Midwest high speed rail network.
Every time I've looked at using Amtrak for vacationing, it seemed as if speed was not a concern for the network. It's almost as if using a train IS the vacation, and the destination needs to be secondary because over half your time is spent travelling, not enjoying your destination.
Delays with freight train and poor conditions of the tracks have led to padding added to most of the schedules, for instance the Lake Shore Limited from NYC to Chicago used to take 16.5 hours and now takes over 20.5, because the money to keep the tracks up to scratch has not been invested. The Super Chief from Chicago to LA used to take 39 3/4 hours (obviously slower than flying) but much faster than driving, which made a big difference to the number of people who would take it on shorter trips.
6:22 I do this all the time, sir! And I’m always bamboozled as to why it cost so much. To sit on a train for four hours from New York to Boston or take a flight for about 30 minutes in the air and land. It’s so much cheaper.
They need to link up Pittsburgh and Chicago to the northeast corridor in an expedited manner
And then Chicago to Detroit... and then over to Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. Obviously Canadia's railways would have to get onboard with this too.
There's Chicago to Pittsburgh to Philly and NYC, but the Chicago to Pittsburgh route is only about 2 or 3 times a week. The Pittsburgh to Harrisburg part is only once a day, whereas the Keystone and Pennsylvanian are state supported routes and overlap with the Northeast Corridor. (My grandparents lived in Stahlstown and later Ligonier PA right near the Latrobe pa train station and I went to college in Elizabethtown PA which was on the Harrisburg to Philly to NYC route. (My parents lived in suburban Philadelphia at the time.)
I don’t know why, but anytime somebody mentions Chicago and trains I think of this movie scene. ruclips.net/video/S8avj5d8G6s/видео.html
You might want to do a totally different story on how cookies are used to raise prices when searching for transit tickets especially airline. Once you see a good price if you don’t take it right then you will never see it again even hitting the browser back button the software knows what you are looking for and raises the price because it knows the demand is now there you created the demand by the search
I LOVE Amtrak and train travel in general! Excellent video. Thank you!
Just did some research. Cleveland to Washington DC on Amtrak is $140 (about 3 miles per dollar). Nearly the same distance: London to Edinburgh on RailEurope is $24 (about 16 miles per dollar).
When the comparison of a plane ticket is made, I'd like the host to have an "in the city" address start and destination to get from and to. Factor in the cost of a rental car or uber from the source to the airport and then from the airport to the destination. Also, I'd like him to denote the amount of time. When would he have to leave his house and when would he get to the destination. My guess is that the total travel time is very comparable because of the need for security check-ins, arrival 90 minutes early to an airport, etc. Also, he didn't factor in the fact that the airline is going to charge him at least $35 each way for a piece of full size luggage, something he gets for free on the train.
It’s only comparable over small to medium distances. This was noted in the report, I believe.
Air travel will always win over longer distances. On price, time and convenience. I think it’s always more comfortable to travel by train than fly but that’s preference.
I use the train from DC to NYC often- as long as you book your ticket at least 6-8 weeks out, you can get tickets for $30 each way. So it’s not as expensive as the video makes it seem as long as you plan well in-advance.
Yeah. Obviously holiday pricing will not be the same as typical pricing.
And that is stupid. If you plan long enough for your car trip, do you get a 50% discount for the fuel?
@@steemlenn8797 The cost of fuel is the basically same whether the train runs empty or full. The cost of gas would be the same if you loaded 1 or 4 passengers to your car. Question is how much you gonna charge each passenger? If you want them to book early to ensure profitability, you can lower the price but have them pay ahead of time and non-refundable. For those that book last minute and presumably with no other transportation options, you can charge those the full fare. Since the train capacity (supply) is limited and inflexible, prices are used as a tool to adjust demand to fit the supply. If supply could be adjusted (by adding more or removing rail cars) that might allow for more consistent pricing, but that would add more variables to operational efficiency and costs.
Coachbus fares make this not worth the bother, much of the time, even with I-95 traffic delays
@@verves2 Yes, the price of fuel is the same, that's why it's stupid to give discounts.
While flexible pricing can dsitribute the load somewhat, that's a tiny amount of the total pasengers.
Railroads all around the world have figured out how to not send trains out when nobody wants to ride, like 3 a.m., I am sure Amtrak can learn that too.
For the comparison ny to Washington, the cost getting to and away from the airport should be also included.
Getting from where to the airport or train station? Are you assuming the passenger is in the city to begin with or out in the suburbs? The price dynamic changes with the origin. In NYC a resident needs only to take a bus to LGA or a train to JFK, or the subway to Penn station. Very cheap. A Suburb resident has to drive into the city or take the train in to travel outside the area, or attempt to use one of the suburban airports with limited service. In DC the situation is a little different in that DCA and Union station are easy to access in the city but longer range travel is biased in favor of the suburban population because IAD is out in the boonies. Every city is going to be different.
@@starventure most time it is easier to get to the train station without a car, otherwise you need parking. Most times the airports are othside the main metroplitain area. Every city is different like you mentioned.
Taking a train (the vermonter) from Moynihan to Burlington VT, a 7-hour journey. Price $75 - in comparison to UK that's a pretty fair price. Trip is in late May, and advance ticket
New Orleans to Jacksonville
-- about 550 miles
-- about 7.5 hours of driving
-- about 2.5 hours flying (Silver Airways, nonstop)
-- about 22 hours on Amtrak (through Atlanta ...)
Amtrak is not a competitive provider of transportation.