Rail sleepers (eg London-Edinburgh) offer lounge cars and cabins you can stand in and are far superior to air travel.
Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
31–40 of 119 posts
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#32It would be appropriate to compare this service to the under-construction California High-Speed Rail. A more real comparison than the hyperloop.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#33This seems a little odd.
I fall asleep in vehicles as a passenger sometimes, but have that peace of mind of being in a safety belt and with some air bags around me.
On a plane, an accident is unlikely to occur... same with a train.
I don't think I'd want to fully trust my life to a bus driver (and all of the third parties out on the road that could trigger an incident on the road) without some means to mitigate that risk.
But nothing on their site or literature seems to provide information on personal safety were an incident to occur.
It seems bizarre to me that people would get into a vehicle for a long overnight drive, and not demand a minimum degree of safety.
For a bus, maybe this would be something like airline style seats that fully recline and offer comfortable belts and a single airbag.
This is all probably good for the US, but would be a non-starter in Europe.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amtrak offers this with "roomettes" all the way up to 4-person rooms, though whether it's an overnight or a day trip depends on your origin and destination (for example, Chicago to Dallas is an overnight). You mention that Germany had eliminated all but the profitable ones--well, the U.S. government loses money on these routes to keep them running even in spite of the high prices. I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for C…
> I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for CHI->DAL; By car (and Google Maps measuring) that's about 3.000km total. Hamburg-Munich is about 1.500km total, so half the distance. But ÖBB Nightjet tickets start for ~160€ to 250€ roundtrip, about half the price and Amtrak is losing money? How is that even possible?
You don't have to maintain the air you fly through, but you must maintain the track you travel by. Unless there is a lot of freight traffic, the maintenance will be more expensive than your income from tickets.
Europe is just much denser than US Midwest, so both passenger and freight traffic is more intense for a unit of track length, thus more economical.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amtrak offers this with "roomettes" all the way up to 4-person rooms, though whether it's an overnight or a day trip depends on your origin and destination (for example, Chicago to Dallas is an overnight). You mention that Germany had eliminated all but the profitable ones--well, the U.S. government loses money on these routes to keep them running even in spite of the high prices. I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for C…
> I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for CHI->DAL; By car (and Google Maps measuring) that's about 3.000km total. Hamburg-Munich is about 1.500km total, so half the distance. But ÖBB Nightjet tickets start for ~160€ to 250€ roundtrip, about half the price and Amtrak is losing money? How is that even possible?
Here's their budget plan from a few years ago: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/458/748/FY14-Budget-Business-Pl...
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#36so after reading the article it reveals that it might beat a flight except in time, cost and convenience?
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#37"The drivers intentionally go slowly and take back roads so that the trip, normally six hours, lasts eight." Why not just get there 2 hours early, park, and sit for 2 hours. This would (1) reduce vehicle motion, so you can sleep better, and (2) allow people who aren't asleep anyway to get out early if they want. It may also save gas, although once buses are electric, this becomes less of a factor.
Driving slower might quite possibly save on fuel, even if it takes longer. Parking a bus that long where it is convenient for the early risers to get off isn't necessarily easy either.
Plus, as others mention, you'd wake everyone else up.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#38In Germany, we have had a quite extensive network of night trains with proper beds (and the more expensive tickets also have a shower in the carriage); unfortunately the network got massively thinned out in the last years and only the profitable core routes are in service now by Austrian ÖBB. Shouldn't something like this be possible in America, especially between far-away cities? Could at least be more profitable be…
Amtrak offers this with "roomettes" all the way up to 4-person rooms, though whether it's an overnight or a day trip depends on your origin and destination (for example, Chicago to Dallas is an overnight). You mention that Germany had eliminated all but the profitable ones--well, the U.S. government loses money on these routes to keep them running even in spite of the high prices. I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for C…
The problem with Amtrak is that it takes so long. My wife and her family went to Orlando from Chicago last December and flying was way too expensive for all 4 of them. They ended up driving, after not wanting to, but I looked into Amtrak for them. It would've taken 36 hours to get from Chicago to Orlando with 2 major stretches. The second stretch was 19 hours and had NO food car. I assume you can buy stuff at the station to bring on the train with you but going for 19 hours with absolutely no real food is just crazy. On top of that, it cost much more than airfare for the whole family.
I actually looked at Amtrak from San Fransisco to LA to see how it compares to Cabin. I'm not sure which pickup location is most common in SF or LA but I assumed the major (or what seemed to be) rail station for the start. You can get a bus for about $115 (max) that is just under a 6 hour ride. Or you can take a bus up to Oakland and then take the train down to LA. That cost ~$240 but includes a room on the train. The downside to that is it is a 12 hour train ride, so close to 13 hours to get from SF to LA.
If the US would invest in high speed rail I, personally, would be much more inclined to take passenger rail (especially when I have kids) but until then I'm stuck with shitty TSA lines and the stress of flying.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#39> the current route is a perfect example of that awkward travel distance to which there is no good solution. Others abound, such as Washington-Boston or London-Edinburgh There is a very good sleeper train, the Caledonian Sleeper, between London and Edinburgh (and several other points in Scotland). That's a "good solution" for that route, and I'm more than a little surprised that the London-based Economist seems not t…
The Caledonian Sleeper is quite good, and has a great restaurant car, but it's generally considerably more expensive than flying unless you book very far in advance, and they do some shunting of carriages at one of the stops during the night that generally interrupts your sleep. It's still a good choice between those two cities, especially if you can replace a hotel night with the train, or can book very far in advance.
Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight
#40I'd be too worried about a tired driver causing an accident while I'm in a "sleeping pod" with no seatbelts, and potentially ramming head first into a wall. Honestly, I would consider this with a self-driving bus when the time comes. For now, I know human nature too well to assume that all drivers had a nice rest and can easily stay up 3rd shift fully alert.
They could have done this as reclining seat overnight buses like they already have in the rest of the world. Also, buses have a large mass so collisions aren't that bad. That's why school buses don't need seat belts.
That's only true if you hit smaller vehicles. Hitting other busses, trucks, traffic structures, trees, or rolling over, is going to be just as bad.