• Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Amtrak is pretty pricy though. I’d love nothing more than to pop on a train for a leisurely trip, but it was astonishingly expensive to cover the same distance as a four-hour drive.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It shouldn’t be, but they’ve been handicapped on purpose so it costs more than it should, takes longer than it should, and goes fewer places than it should. It’s not that it’s rail that it has these problems, rather because the car and petroleum industries rule the US.

      However, you do need to consider that taking a train prevents adding wear to your vehicle. You’re not only paying for gas when driving. You’re paying for gas, wear on your car, wear on tires, and also wear on the road, but that last one gets partially socialized across all people regardless of if they drive for some reason (some is covered by gas taxes).

    • Manalith@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve been looking at it for a roughly 5 hour trip and it comes out to basically the same price as gas most days of the week. The annoying part is that the departure is 2:00 AM and returning trip gets in at 5:30 AM. Assuming no freight train shenanigans

      • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nice! I just checked Amtrak prices and it would be $180 for my wife and I to make a trip for probably $50-60 in gas.

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

          More money is spent each month on maintaining the roads in the United States than has ever been spent on passenger rail. If tax funding were reallocated away from roads towards trains the costs would reverse.

              • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which established Amtrak, specifically states that, “The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government”

                But indeed it is a special corporation that is not quite private, yet seeks profit. Subsidized by the government, it wouldn’t be the first capitalist enterprise to rely heavily on government funding.

                  • Robert7301201@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation, operated and managed as a for-profit company, but with the U.S. government as its controlling shareholder. The Amtrak Board of Directors are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. https://www.amtrak.com/stakeholder-faqs

                    I’d consider it state capitalism. A private for-profit company owns the means of production/capital but that company is government owned.

                    That being said though, I don’t think its fair to blame Amtrak being a private company as the reason Amtrak has high prices. Amtrak is at the mercy of freight rail as Amtrak only owns 3% of the rails they operate on. They pretty much have to pay whatever the freight companies say and freight is given preference over passenger trains. Amtrak has never made a profit since its creation.

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

      We were shocked at the price of airline tickets recently, so we wondered if taking the train would be more affordable. It was actually MORE expensive. WTF?

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m guessing this is comparing train ticket price fuel cost of driving?

      Under ideal circumstances, trains can take you to enough places you need to go as to not need the car at all, at which the comparison actually works out to what it should be: TCO of a car vs total cost of taking trains everywhere.

      The TCO of cars is astonishingly high, fwiw. Much higher than people often realise.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I needed to go to LA last year from Sacramento

        I could take:

        • Amtrak: 8/9 hours for $150 per person, uncomfortable and a slave to the freight network (I’ve ridden Amtrak many times in my life)

        • Drive a rental: 120 for the rental for the day + gas, but a 6 hour drive

        • Drive my EV: Just the 20 or so bucks for fast charging a few times, maybe an 8 hour total trip

        • Fly: 80 bucks per person round trip, sub 2 hours flight, 30 minutes pre flight, Uber to where I’m going for 10 bucks cuz its not far from LAX

        I REALLY wanted to take the train but my god

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

          You’re not expected to solve systemic issues on an individual level.

          Please do make sure to vote for someone to build trains, of course.