Google Flights Now Uses Amtrak Data To Show 'Trains To Consider' Alongside Flights (9to5google.com) 69
Google Flights is offering train routes as an alternative to airlines, thanks to a new partnership with Amtrak. 9to5Google reports: In the US, this option surfaces routes and pricing directly provided by Amtrak, as the rail service announced recently: "Amtrak and Google have joined forces to help travelers choose more sustainable transportation options when searching for intercity travel. Thanks to a newly launched, direct data integration, travelers using Google can now view the most up-to-date Amtrak departure times, trip durations and fares directly on the Google Search results page. Amtrak's new integration with Google also means that once customers select a train, they can click through to Amtrak.com to complete the booking for their chosen itinerary without needing to re-enter their trip details."
Amtrak says that choosing a train route over a flight can cut a customer's carbon footprint by up to 72%. Of course, train routes in the US often take considerably longer than flights, but this new option should make it far easier to make the comparison.
Amtrak says that choosing a train route over a flight can cut a customer's carbon footprint by up to 72%. Of course, train routes in the US often take considerably longer than flights, but this new option should make it far easier to make the comparison.
Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love trains since I am kid, find them cool and enjoy riding them. As stated, carbon footprint is much less, even very much less if train is powered only with electricity. Take into account the time wasted because of the airport when checking travel time and pick the train when you can.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
carbon footprint is much less, even very much less if train is powered only with electricity.
I'm sorry.. .whut?!
Unless you're damned sure the bulk of the power is sourced from nuclear or renewable this statement is false. Coal conversion is abysmal and nowhere near the energy density or conversion rate of modern fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
This might be true, but an airplane just uses way more energy per passenger than a train for the same trip, so even if coal or diesel is burned the CO2 footprint of train travel is much smaller than that of flight
The difference is staggering, this data is from the UK so it may differ from the states a bit.
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
Re: (Score:2)
this data is from the UK so it may differ from the states a bit./quote>
UK/EU claim natural gas as being "green" so buyer beware...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks. Big time. Train are old, loud, & rickety (e.g. It's difficult to type on a keyboard because the trains wobble so much). What would take 2 hours or so in Europe (by high speed rail, 300+ kph) would take anywhere between 5 to 8 hours with transfers & long waits. It's also way m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that makes electric trains (overhead or third rail) more efficient is that they're lighter. They don't have to carry their fuel, and they don't have a heavy engine to convert that in to traction. Think of a diesel-electric train and eliminating the diesel part of it.
An electric train today powered by dirty electricity always has the ability to be cleaner in the future without any changes to the train or the rail infrastructure simply by the virtual of changing electricity provider as cleaner alternatives come online.
Other advantages of electric trains is that they perform better, for example, they accelerate faster.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the things that makes electric trains (overhead or third rail) more efficient is that they're lighter.
This is still a false claim. You're pointing at "efficiency" on the consumption end, completely ignoring what was required to get the enmergy there.
The sheer volume of coal/natural gas required to produce that "efficient" energy is orders of magnitude larger than the diesel debt.
Energy density and conversion actually do matter.
Claiming it's magically "less carbon footprinty" because "it's electric" is a common error.
Re: (Score:3)
The sheer volume of coal/natural gas required to produce that "efficient" energy is orders of magnitude larger than the diesel debt.
Are you claiming that burning diesel for power is "orders of magnitude" more efficient from a carbon/emissions perspective than the average emissions associated with grid electricity? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Re: (Score:1)
The emissions are pretty dirty, but at least
Re: (Score:2)
The sheer volume of coal/natural gas required to produce that "efficient" energy is orders of magnitude larger than the diesel debt.
To quote your own words, "This is still a false claim."
Re: (Score:2)
carbon footprint is much less, even very much less if train is powered only with electricity.
I'm sorry.. .whut?!
Unless you're damned sure the bulk of the power is sourced from nuclear or renewable this statement is false. Coal conversion is abysmal and nowhere near the energy density or conversion rate of modern fuels.
Coal? We power our trains with cow manure chips here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
carbon footprint is much less, even very much less if train is powered only with electricity.
I'm sorry.. .whut?!
Unless you're damned sure the bulk of the power is sourced from nuclear or renewable this statement is false. Coal conversion is abysmal and nowhere near the energy density or conversion rate of modern fuels.
Since 2017 [www.ns.nl], trains, buses, trams, and stations in The Netherlands have been powered by windmills or other carbon neutral energy like old french fry oil, (they eat a lot of those in The Netherlands with mayonnaise).
Re:Good idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Where i live trains are expensive and unreliable (you can get stuck on a train in the middle of nowhere for 10 hours)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I live in northern Virginia, trains are expensive, time-consuming and inaccessible. For any given destination, a plane ticket is usually cheaper and gets me there faster, and I don't have to worry about parking or otherwise getting to the station/airport.
I can drive 15 minutes to Dulles and park extended term for $13/day, or take an Uber to the Metro station and take a short ride to the airport. If I go to Union Station, I can drive 45+ minutes there and park for $25/day, or take an Uber to the same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Which country is that?
I find it fascinating how some countries manage to do infrastructure really well, and other seem to fall into some kind of trap where they can't build anything.
One of the reasons seems to be short term thinking, where a load of stuff gets cancelled or abandoned, and the skills and knowledge needed to do big projects gets lost. We see that in the UK a lot where various government authorities have become chronically incompetent with infrastructure projects.
The other big one seems to be c
Re: (Score:2)
Which country is that?
I find it fascinating how some countries manage to do infrastructure really well, and other seem to fall into some kind of trap where they can't build anything.
Here in the US, we still build and rebuild/update a lot of things. And we've had proposals for high speed trains here in the US, though they generally fail, up to the Musk plan to connect the east coast to the west in a 5000 Km tube, faster than jet travel. Of course, that one was a non starter.
But they often aren't practical. Here's one example. There was a proposal to build a high speed rail between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh a few years back. They seriously picked the wrong area. There is a marked
A bad price? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love trains since I am kid, find them cool and enjoy riding them. As stated, carbon footprint is much less, even very much less if train is powered only with electricity. Take into account the time wasted because of the airport when checking travel time and pick the train when you can.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, talk to me about price.
Last time I tried to reserve a “cool” train ride to take the kids to the grandparents for a vacation it was gonna be over $1800 for three passengers. The additional 12 hours on the trip was bad enough, but when I can just drive there for less than two tanks of gas or even fly there cheaper, it tends to define which options are actually viable for the Impatient Generation.
If trains haven’t gotten any cheaper, then Google might as well be advertising private jet charters.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is it's for the wrong country.
North American passenger rail infrastructure is horrendously inadequate and it makes trains a non-starter unless you've got time on your hands and really don't care when you get to your destination. And if the journey is the reason for taking the train, you likely already know what trains you want to consider taking.
Something like this would work much better in Europe where passenger rail covers much of the continent and offers a compelling product at reasonable pri
kiwi.com has had this for years (Score:3)
Given a route, kiwi.com will suggest not only trains but various bus companies in addition to airlines.
Kiwi is extremely configurable with its plethora of search options. For example if you can input a handful of cities you'd like to visit in no particular order and it'll give you a plan with prices. Kiwi.com is pretty cool.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I took a Greyhound, it was an interesting situation, in the last few minutes of the trip the bus driver kept repeating, "Everybody settle down. You can call the police when we get to the station." Believe me, it was entertaining, and I survived.
The last time I rode greyhound was from Arizona to California. I had the great fortune to sit next to an older, retired African American who I assume knew some shit about life. He was great company while we both admired the landscape and the setting sun. That was a fantastic trip thanks to him and the landscape and the whole circumstance of things.
The best part was what he said to me, which I struggle to recall with accuracy. Something to the effect of, 'one day when you get older, you also won't mind takin
Re: kiwi.com has had this for years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
On this glowing recommendation, I just tried an example search with Kiwi. At first blush there may be some advantages to Google Flights, but there are some serious disadvantages. The biggest is speed. For me, that's a serious problem.
The second biggest is lack of transparency. I want to know what the connecting cities are in an itinerary, and you can't see those at a glance -- you have to hover over each connection to see where it is. In a similar vein, but arguably more serious, for code-share flights
Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
When in 1998, I was in the U.S. for the first time, and travelled to Silicon Valley, I wanted to check if I can do a trip to Old Faithful in Napa Valley. And then I tried to get a public transport schedule from WWW, as I was used to at home. But there was none. All there was were some disperse time tables and the occasional public transport map, and you had to do it all like in the times when schedules were printed out on paper. And I was wondering what all the big brains of the Silicon Valley were up to instead.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many European nations have fairly integrated infrastructure. US does not. It's a function of size. US is much more sparsely populated, so logistics companies are much more naturally separated compared to much more population dense nations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
25 years ago, you could go to HAFAS' website, enter two points of interest somewhere in the vicinity of at least one of the public transport providers,
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your entire post is fundamentally extolling the greatness of integrated infrastructure. That was my point:
>Many European nations have fairly integrated infrastructure.
We appear to be in agreement that integration of this level is possible in well integrated nations fairly easily.
The point is that it's much harder in nations far less integrated like US.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>you don't need any integration
>integration happens when
>Integration happens, because
You really don't see any contradiction here?
Re: (Score:3)
China is a similar size to the US, but has integrated infrastructure. They also build more high speed rail than the rest of the world combined in the last 20 years, and are now building ultra high speed maglev lines to supplement it.
The US has one high speed line, 50 miles long, and it only barely meets the international definition of high speed (250kph).
I'm sure you have a laundry list of excuses. China cheats, China uses slave labour, China doesn't have property rights, China stole the technology from the
Re: (Score:2)
You are telling me that Google Flights is now on a technology level the likes of http://bahn.hafas.de/ [hafas.de] and similar sites were 25 years ago? (Site does no longer exist, it since long is integrated into https://bahn.de/ [bahn.de] and similar sites).
When in 1998, I was in the U.S. for the first time, and travelled to Silicon Valley, I wanted to check if I can do a trip to Old Faithful in Napa Valley. And then I tried to get a public transport schedule from WWW, as I was used to at home. But there was none. All there was were some disperse time tables and the occasional public transport map, and you had to do it all like in the times when schedules were printed out on paper. And I was wondering what all the big brains of the Silicon Valley were up to instead.
Google flights has been including trains in Europe for years now, it's only just now including AMTRAK in the US, much of that blame can probably be laid on AMTRAK for refusing to modernise as a lot of the time Google is just getting the data from the airlines/train companies... The UK is also pretty bad here but if you search for Madrid to Barcelona on Google Flights, the high speed rail is an option.
Re: (Score:2)
From an American perspective... (Score:5, Interesting)
American trains suck. Until we fix our train infrastructure so that they don't suck, Americans won't ride trains.
When I was in college, I took a study-abroad trip to Europe. European trains are awesome for three reasons: 1) There's no waiting for the train; 2) The train ride is fantastic; and 3) The train is fast and efficient.
When I got back from college, I took a train ride to Chicago on Amtrak. Cost was cheap, but the ride wasn't worth the expense. American trains absolutely suck for three reasons: 1) Schedules are terrible; 2) The train is a dump, and 3) The train is slow and stops for every damn reason.
To expand on these issues...
1) In Europe, as long as I got on that train before the doors closed, I was good. For one trip in Italy, I was on it about five minutes before departure time, just walked right into the station, bought my ticket, got onto the platform, and hopped on the train. But in America, I had to be up at 3:30am in the morning to be ready at 4:00am to get to the station at 5:00am to catch a 5:30am train.
2) Europe's trains were clean, spacious, and had large windows for beautiful views of the landscapes. The air was clean. There were tables for groups of four to sit at and play cards or talk shop together. Chairs reclined for those that wanted to rest. Meanwhile, Amtrak felt like I was in an airplane on wheels; the seats were tightly packed, aisles were narrow, and the interior was metallic.
3) In Europe, trains get priority status on the track, and our train only stopped once in Florence as it ran from Ravenna to Rome. But the ride to Chicago took about 12 hours, and included nine stops at stations, slowdowns in every town we went through, and one 30+ minute stop because a freighter train the length of the state of Nebraska had priority over us.
Until America makes these improvements, there's no good reason to take the train.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Do you get some kind of security screening like at airports?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just checked on a train trip from Ga. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why Amtrak is slow (Score:4, Interesting)
People have claimed freight trains have track priority over passengers in the USA but that isn't true. The government actually did give passenger trains priority over freight. However, and this is a massive however. Freight trains are much longer than the antique side line tracks. So Amtrak should not have to wait but they do anyhow because the freight train is much longer than the side track. https://www.amtrak.com/content... [amtrak.com]
Re:Why Amtrak is slow (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the law but it isn't always followed [apnews.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
For proper high speed passenger rail you need separate tracks just for it. Tracks with better levels of maintenance, grade separated (no crossings), wide radius curves etc.
The proverbial litmus test (Score:1)
Now we get to see what people in the region who profess to be concerned about their carbon footprint will really do to change it.
- It's a significant reduction. It's meaningful.
- It's truly inconvenient. Verging on painful.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority will choose convenience. Some may try to rationalize it by playing games with the numbers, but it will basically come down to, "I don't wanna."
There's no easy answer to the problem of personal emissions in a free society, and that's why it'll neve
Train is way too expensive in Europe (Score:2)
Maybe this can help start a discussion? (Score:3)
The question we should ask is who is benefiting from this discussion not happening, and why.
Re: (Score:2)
Rail is more tolerant of extreme weather, and far more fuel efficient. It can handle more mass. You can add or remove entire sections from a train and it still works. It's also really difficult to hijack a train and steer it into a couple of prominent buildings.
The problem is that it requires a physical ground route, and since trains don't like steep inclines that means existing roads and buildings have to give way to the needs of rail when there's a conflict. High speed rail is even less tolerant and is
good luck (Score:3)
Last time I considered amtrak as an alternative was when I was working in LA and needed to get to a conference in SF about 15 years ago. A round trip ticket from LGB to SFO on JetBlue was $100. LGB is one of those airports where you can arrive 20 minutes before boarding and generally make it to your flight ontime. It's a glorified bus terminal. Flight time was about 55 minutes. Amtrak's alternative a ride from OC to Union Station to transfer to for a ride up through the central valley, to disembark somewhere like Stockton or Modesto, ride a greyhound to Oakloand, then BART into the city tat would have taken about 13 hours to get there. It was a $200 round trip and only ran once a day so would require me to wait an extra night and then burn the whole day instead of just taking a late afternoon/early evening hop to land back in Long Beach before 8 pm. Or I could have driven and expensed my company $60-70 for the roughly 1000 miles round trip that would have taken about 6 hours each way (which I opted against since the mileage rate is a national average and would have left me $40-50 in the hole with CA gas prices).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno about 15 years ago, but mileage rates are calculated not just to cover the cost of fuel, but also the depreciation of the car and other factors. As such, it ought to have more than compensated for the higher cost of CA fuel.
Presentl
Not sure this is the win Amtrak thinks it is (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But for downtown to downtown travel to relatively close destinations with mass transit upon arrival, it’s hard to be the comfort and convenience of rail.
Boston South Station to NY Penn is the poster child for US rail service. If you measure door to door travel time and use Acela, rail ties or wins over air for this case. To boot, it has more room when traveling, the ability to get up from your seat whenever you want, quiet cars to work, proper tables, and a dining car. There are even not-so-bad lounges you could wait in, if you have a little extra time before your train and the appropriate ticket level or membership.
This will probably finally kill Amtrak. (Score:2)
Being on a train is infinitely more pleasant, but as soon as the sort of American that wouldn't normally considers them tries one, they will contribute to Amtrak's new reputation as being disgustingly overpriced and so slow that it's worse than useless. It only doesn't have that reputation now because nobody except people who like trains really cares about it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL (Score:1)
Re: LOL (Score:1)
Northeast Corridor, some numbers (Score:2)
A lot of comments here about how Amtrak sucks. But Amtrak's NEC is where this really matters, as the experience is competitive (frequency, comfort, on-time performance) compared to other parts of the country. And most importantly, it's time and price competitive with flying. Here's some numbers...
Sampling of 2023 Flight passengers
BOS-LGA 521k
LGA-BOS 522k
DCA-BOS 763k
BOS-DCA 761k
JFK-BOS 438k
PHL-BOS 497k
PVD-DCA 176k
BWI-BOS 451k
For comparison, Amtrak had ~9.2M riders in NEC in 2023.