Yes, let's imagine the cost of purchasing the right-of-way all the way from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland. We can't use the existing rails, they belong to the freight company and the HSR train needs specialized tracks to handle the stresses of the speed. So, maybe $500 billion? Then another $100 billion to build it. Thus, we now have $5,000 ticket instead of a $60 ticket. Yay! That's progress. The sad fact is the time for building HSR has passed. For long distances, jets are simply vastly faster. For shorter trips, such as this one, autonomous vehicles will do the job far more conveniently. In the 20 years or so building a HSR would take, the vast majority of cars will drive themselves. I love trains myself. I take the Capitol Corridor train frequently and used to commute to work on it. It is great, but building a replacement HSR version is simply not feasible.
@@MacAdvisor There is a middle distance where HSR travel is the fastest option, not to mention that Portland and Seattle, Seattle especially is very congested and the small efficiency boost that autonomous vehicles provide simply is insufficient capacity. What actually needs to happen is change to make it so people can get around their cities without cars, and when you leave the city, car-sharing, and the aforementioned rail, HSR and, plane can take over. Cars are simply extremely inefficient and unnatural, and just making them autonomous will not solve medium and short distance travel capacity issues.
@@MacAdvisor It's definitely feasible to have dedicated HSR routes on the West Coast and East Coast. Giving up seems to be the American attitude when it comes to technology. Just look at what Europe and Japan have.
if this doesnt make the case for expanded regional rail service in the US, i dont know what else will. maybe a look at the fuel usage and harmful emissions of the plane vs train. fairly sure the train still wins, moreso when you consider that high traffic mainlines can be electrified and further cut emissions, which you cant do with planes.
I would be curious if an electric train using power from a fossil fuel power plant would be more efficient. You get loss of power over long distances and transmission to the train with the connection vs. The onboard generator producing power and running the electric motors on a diesel.
Frankly, it doesn't make the case at all. The average person who lives in this corridor doesn't willy-nilly take the plane (or for that matter the train). Not to mention, two bus companies have all but shut down service, two airlines have completely left the market and another has drastically reduced schedules...and Amtrak has even reduced service. Why would all these companies reduce service if there's demand?
Unfortunately, in the US - even on the western grid - the largest source of electricity is burning natural gas. And since conventional nat. gas peaked in 1973, most of the current use of gas is fracked (70%). Electricity peaked just before covid closures cut use of everything. Dams in drier parts of the west are close to closing (Hoover, Oroville) and long term use of the others is at risk. Solar is nice but doesn't work at night, and there are not enough minerals to build terawatt batteries to back everything up. We're going to be using much less of everything. Trains are much more efficient than planes and cars but the time to have built lots of them was decades ago - and we chose superhighways, war planes and submarines. As MLK said we have guided missiles and misguided men.
@@mikegyver6265 there is likely more loss in a diesel electric engine than in overhead wires, at least on AC power. The problem with electrification is that it's really, really expensive and needs to see extensive usage for it to become viable. Even in Europe, a good portion of rail is not electrified even though it has regular service. It's interesting to see that long distance trains will always swap out locomotives in favor of electric ones and only switch to diesel on the specific sections that aren't electrified. I think that's enough evidence that electricity is more efficient. It's also noteworthy that all ultra high speed trains run on overhead electricity, with the fastest service speed for diesel being some 200km/h while electric goes up to 370km/h.
The Airplane is a lot of hurry up and wait. Hurry for a ticket, wait in line, hurry to security, wait in line, hurry to boarding, wait for a plane, hurry on the plane, wait for the gate, hurry off the plane and potentially wait for the bag.
You were looking on the wrong side on the train, missing Mount Rainier and the other Cascades summits. Now imagine if high speed rail existed on the West Coast! On a side note I took this train twice round trip from Seattle to Portland, way less stress than air travel.
I agree on both fronts. If the train took the old route where it goes north when it leaves Tacoma, he would have some great views. But you can get to the station with five minutes to spare and still make it (I've don't that a few times).
Except this is a route of about 180 miles that would be 2-½ hours by autonomous vehicle and relatively easy and far less costly road improvements. Autonomous vehicles will be here in five year, ten at the most, while the train upgrades are 20 years off. An average of 274,000 vehicles per day already travel on I5. Even assuming only ONE passenger per car, far lower than the actual usage, that means 274,000 people per day travel I5. Amtrak single most used route is the NortheastDirect with about 24,000 daily passengers. That is not even 10% of the automobile traffic on the I5 route currently. Dollar for dollar we get far better increase in carrying capacity by improving auto lanes that train tracks. Plus, autonomous vehicles leave when you want from where you want, go to where you want, bring far more stuff with you, including passengers that add directly to carrying capacity. We could have autonomous buses on this route far sooner and for far less money than trains. There are already fabulous buses available between NY and DC for as little as $22 (please see: www.washny.com ). Make them autonomous and you have all the aspects of the train for little more than the rolling stock, plus it is far more scalable. Sorry, HSR, or even higher speed rail, isn't going to happen. There is not the political will or the demand and the alternatives are vastly better. This is sad, but facts are facts. Not. Going. To. Happen. Here. Not. Mike can answer this, but I think this is the longest single thread on DownieLive ever. What do you have to say, Mike?
@@MacAdvisor Sure, first gen autonomous vehicles may come to public roads soon, but autonomous vehicles as a whole won't be fully effective or widespread until much longer than that. Autonomous cars won't really be viable until a majority of them have replaced manually operated ones. Until then, drivers will continue to be expected to be attentive in "driver's seat" of an autonomous car. If there's one thing to be said about America, it's how gung-ho people are about not being told what to do by government here. No way in hell that we get to that point in less than 20 years. Trains can be made autonomous too, and actually it is much easier to do so with them than cars due to the significantly less variables on a railway as compared to a roadway. This would certainly be the case in America if we were to update our signaling and switching systems, though I imagine union resistance to protect the jobs of train engineers would be a point of contention too. For the most part, GPS systems and preprogrammed stops within a system in the train's computer would be sufficient. Different story for cars. For instance, Tesla's current system is dependent on having smooth, well-painted roadways to guide itself since it reads the white and yellow lines on the road. How many of America's roads have you seen are that well maintained? Getting them to that level and keeping them at that level will incur far more expense than we do at our present levels of road maintenance. There's also street lights, pedestrians and cyclists, dealing with parking, and a much wider network of roads than rail which would have to be kept highly updated in GPS. All of that doesn't even address the environmental issues around electric cars and busses. Our railways could easily (though not cheaply) be converted run on overhead electric catenary wires. Busses can do this too, but it limits their flexibility which is part of the argument for them. Electric cars and busses obviously will use batteries most often, and at present the mining of materials is both environmentally and socially destructive. We also have yet to be prepared for the crisis of battery disposal or recycling once these vehicles come to widespread use. Of course, the other part of this is the self-fulfilling cycle of train travel being unpopular, receiving no investment since it's not the popular means of transit and there's no political will to help improve that, then continuing to be unpopular. Disregard HSR for a moment here. Taking a look at their Coast Starlight offering, they are limited to a top speed of 79 mph and the route averages 40mph. While the challenge of navigating the mountains plays a role in that low average speed, if Amtrak was able to hit their trainset's top speed of 110 mph more frequently and perhaps up the average speed of that line to 75 mph, the train would be able you between Seattle and Portland as fast as a car, dropping you right in the city center. Further improvements to get the average speed up to 85-90 mph would get you between the two cities faster by train than by car. If the train could better compete with the car on time, it would definitely see notable increases in ridership, which would then boost public opinion of it and help get further funding for improvements. Your comparison of the I-5 and Amtrak's routes is apples to oranges based on the current information you provided. Does that number of people on the I-5 include people using it to get short distances like from their suburb to their preferred grocer? From their suburb to work? Amtrak is not a commuter provider in the western states to the best of my understanding except maybe in California, where people taking a train over using the I-5 would be undeniably beneficial to the area. The better comparison would be how many people travelling between nearby cities like Seattle and Portland fly and ride busses that compete more directly with Amtrak. Additionally, improving Amtrak services would benefit commuters using I-5 since more people using Amtrak means less traffic on the crowded I-5. Also, although bus companies do pay more in taxes than the average user due to the various taxes on heavy vehicles, they do not pay capital costs on infrastructure the way that rail companies do. That's part of why busses can be so much cheaper than trains at present. If the railway had been nationalized, or at least provided subsidies to compete with tax-funded highways and airports, it'd be much more viable today for passengers. Instead, Amtrak does not own very much of their RoW, and railway companies own and maintain the infrastructure their trains run on and pay taxes on said infrastructure on top of that. Of course rail travel went under in the 70s and hasn't recovered to date under those conditions. Additionally, busses absolutely do not provide all the niceties of trains. For one, you can get up and walk around a train once it is in motion easily, which you cannot do on a bus which may be turning frequently. Even if you are to get up and walk on a bus, where would you go? On a train, there's a view car, a lounge, and a dedicated dining car for longer-distance trips. There's also more bathrooms on a train, usually a couple per car attached to the train and at least one is wheelchair accessible. That just names a few ways trains outdo busses in amenities. There, I beat you on the longest thread on DownieLive ever.
@@YaBoiScrumpo The gobbledygook about mining material for batteries and such is such nonsense. Do mining lithium make a mess? Yes, but it can be cleaned up and regulations can stop it from happening. You put your finger on the heart of the matter and my very point, "ail travel went under in the 70s and hasn't recovered to date." It simply can't recover because Amtrak doesn't own the right of way and purchasing it now is wildly cost prohibitive. I am not arguing rail travel isn't nice, I am arguing it isn't practical in our country. It is like trying to build a canal network now. The conditions that made both work are gone. Autonomous vehicles are all upside. They are going to do nothing buy get better, faster, cheaper, and easier. Trains are already at their limit. I think we need an award from Mike for the longest running thread. Maybe he could take us all to lunch in Vancouver, BC. I'd drive up for it.
In Cali there is some project involving High Speed Rail, they say they are gonna do it, but it never happens. I hope it does! However, no more foreign imports please. The Avelia Liberty is getting a lot of backlash for it's 2-tone french horn
As someone who lives in the Seattle area when I go to Portland to visit my mom and don't want to drive I always choose the train over a plane. It's just a nicer experience and beautiful all year long. Nice to know the time and price difference.
On a side note, it is nice that Seattle and Portland both have pretty good transit connections to the airport (otherwise, flying would be even less feasible than it is now).
Before Seattle finally built their light rail after years of fighting over it, the only quick and reliable public transportation to SeaTac from downtown was the hotel airport shuttle. The bus seemed to take forever.
Airports have become such a time eating experience before boarding that I had a feeling the train would win this. For a trip of this distance the train is great. Trans continental, the plane would usually be my pick unless I wanted a longer and more memorable experience.
There is still the distance in between in which a Sleeper Train can compete with a Plane. There is a route I used to fly quite often that would take me all together (getting to Air Port, checking in, waiting for boarding etc.) about 6 hours. So the last time I decided to take a 14 hour sleeper Train journey instead. Was a pretty good decision, easy, convenient, slept through most of the Journey and I didn't waste an entire day travelling as I left in the evening and arrived in the morning.
I grew up in Charlotte and live in NYC. In the years before my mom and dad died in 2011, I went down to see them pretty regularly. The flight of something under 600 miles took about a little over an hour,. To board a 7am flight, I had to be ready to be picked up at my apartment in Manhattan by the shuttle van around 4:00am Because of early morning business flights (pre-COVID), LaGuardia was a madhouse at that hour. By the time. I'd checked in and gone through security, I'd get to my gate about 20-30 minutes before boarding time. Because of heavy air traffic, wait-time to take-off was generally between 30-45 minutes once we left the gate. Often, I didn't arrive in Charlotte until around 915-930. So, total travel time for a one-hour flight was around five hours. I don't care if I never see the inside of an airport for the rest of my life.
@@buttorr Bus ain't bad for short hops. I took the Greyhound to Wilmington from NYC a few summers ago. The coach was immaculate, attractive and comfortable and the driver a totally cool, professional dude who was a pleasure to interact with. Travel time was exactly what they said it would be--about 2-1/2 hours. Quiet, non-hectic and restful. This was before we opened the new rail terminal (Daniel P Moynihan) in and under the old Post Office building. Before that, getting on trains was hellish at Penn Station, but it's much better now. For short hops up and down the Eastern Seaboard, I dont see any reason to subject yourself to LaGuardia, JFK or Newark airpots and the befores-and-afters that come with air travel.
I've never flown from Seattle to Portland (or vice versa), but I will say I definitely enjoy train trips between the two cities compared to driving. I-5 can be aggravating at times (or take upwards of five or six hours at certain times). But on the Amtrak, I could read a book, nap or have a beer in the cafe car. Shouldn't do any of those three things behind the wheel.
Haha, it took me & my dad 3 1/2 hours just to get the Amphitheater in Ridgefield (so more Salmon Creek but you know) from Aloha. That's 58 miles on the road. and it took nearly 1/6th of an entire day to get there. It's also a straight shot there - 185th > Sunset Hwy (26) > 405 > I-5. It's that straight forward. Yet it takes that long. Then again, it takes a average of 1hr45 to 2hr15 just to take the damn bus from here to my doctor's 8 miles away by road. The whole damn transit network for all modes is completely horrific down here in the Portland area.
@@TheCriminalViolin That must have been an extreme day for traffic. Until very recently I was a limo chauffeur and I've done that exact run between those two points. I remember being very frustrated that it took us just under 2 hours. On the return trip after dark it was half that. Portland absolutely refuses to upgrade it's highways, believing that the transit is a better investment. That's why I-5 is 3 lanes in desolate cow country and 2 lanes downtown.
@@JETZcorp To be fair, investment in mass transit is always a better option if done right. That said, this is the US, so, it's never done right, and, with TriMet, it's infinitely worse. And there is 3 or 4 lanes to 15 in downtown, has been for over a decade. It's 4 for 405 too. And as history would prove, adding additional lanes, especially to freeways, never helps anything. It just adds another lane of equal congestion. I think for heading north, the main issue is there is only two possible routes across the river. I-5 or I-205 and that's it. And almost everybody works, shops and does leisure in Portland, whether they're from the Vancouver area, or all the way from Salem. Now apply that to our typical rush hour here that tends to begin about 3/3:30 and end about 7pm, and you can then gather only having those two choices is guaranteed to overload them with people commuting either direction. And according to many I've spoken with, that's normal within those hours. It's once you get halfway across the I-5 bridge for some reason traffic flows perfectly fine without any slowing. Everything is always a crawl until that point on the bridge, and nobody can grasp how that's even possible. In the end, we just need more options for all modes of transiting across the river.
@@TheCriminalViolin I disagree that mass transit is "always" a better option. It is a better option for high-density development, but in suburbs it is extremely expensive to get coverage. I also disagree that more lanes are pointless. It is true that adding lanes results in diminishing returns, especially if the bottleneck is caused by something else (ramp spacing, interchanges which force weaving, etc). But if you look at the reasons cited for lane nihilism, they'll say that more lanes temporarily open up mobility, allowing people to travel more and farther, increasing demand and ultimately re-saturating the road. It's true that transit times find equilibrium again, but throughput and mobility ARE increased, and stay increased. Imagine if I-5 were to have a lane removed - what do you think would happen? According to the urban planners' logic, in the long term congestion would return to roughly where it is now, but only after traffic became apocalyptic and citizens had adjusted to drive less. They'd do this by moving closer to work (where housing is more expensive), using transit in the cases where it's competitive, and just up and moving out of Portland entirely. Fixed through traffic like trucks would just be SOL. This is already being borne out in places where the planners have applied "road diets" to surface streets. Roads like NE Glisan and SE Holgate used to be free flowing; now they're terrible. The City wanted my dad to switch to a 2 hour 5-transfer transit ride each way to work; what they actually accomplished was making him waste more gas. I'm not saying all of I-5 needs lanes thrown at it. But it definitely needs some more capacity at the choke points such as around the Rise Quarter and of course at the Columbia. More lanes don't just achieve bulk capacity; they allow much smarter merging design. You said 405 has 4 lanes - it actually only has 2 through lanes, but aggressively adds and subtracts ramp lanes so that traffic getting on or getting off doesn't have to interfere with the through lanes as much. I-5 is not just small, it's old, with primitive ramps and merging that cause bottlenecks. If it got some investment, it could be a little larger but much more efficient. Just look at Vancouver; it's had a bunch of ramp re-designs and modern higher-flowing service interchanges (mostly SPUIs). Vancouver's transit is horrific, yet it's traffic flows better than anywhere in Portland because the roads have been updated.
@@JETZcorp Parts of what you say may be true, but then again, look at LA. Look at Houston, and various other Texas cities. They've constantly added more traffic lanes to their freeways and more decks with more lanes yet it has never once improved a thing nor changed the congestion one bit. They're the perfect examples of exactly it's always true that adding lanes in fact never changes anything except initially and temporarily. And one can easily use NYC as a prime example of how mass transit done sufficiently (maybe not well) really can lessen road congestion into and out of the major city. The mass majority of folks take mass transit, specifically the subways into and out of NYC from the surrounding boroughs and Jersey. And they've tracked how much overall traffic congestion has dropped, and from it's peak, it's pretty substantial, and they haven't taken away any freeway lanes either in the process, but they haven't added any either. And CTRAN overall is better than TriMet. It's endlessly more on time, consistent and reliable. It treats all of it's users and employees infinitely better and they actually give a damn about their riders, drivers & service. They have high capacity buses and two rapid transit lines. That's more than TriMet. It's akin to LTD down in Eugene/Springfield. Far superior transit than TriMet has ever had. That said, TriMet of course has the far more extensive network than either, but to me, that doesn't matter nor does not count. And I say that as a reliant rider and transit nut.
Nice comparison. Tiny fact check - you can't see Crater Lake from the SEA - PDX flight unless your pilot is lost. Rainier, Mt. St Helens, Hood - yes. I've flown past Crater Lake on the EUG - SFO route but you can't really see the crater from the flight. But it's best appreciated on the ground. I hope the Vancouver to Eugene Amtrak route gets upgraded before the oil runs out.
To be fair, airports are just malls with extra steps. But malls are definitely not TRUE malls...if you don't get a whiff of the cinnamon rolls from Cinnabon the moment you enter. Rail may be slower than planes at times, but it offers gorgeous scenery that planes cannot with routes like the Hudson Line, Cascades, the Canadian, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Scotland's West Highland Line, Qinghai-Tibet railway, and more
I'll point out that most of these short flights are mainly intended for connecting passengers and not so much people going from nearby cities. If you wanted to, you could've actually gotten this flight for cheaper if you had a connecting flight out of either city. For example, a flight from sea-pdx-san will actually be cheaper than sea-pdx
I really don't understand why we are subsidizing so many of these useless flights when the train is objectively more comfortable and, in the real world, faster. About 80% of Americans loathe flying anyway. The "Jet Setter" age is over. Flying is a chore no one wants to have to do nowadays. Why continue to invest in an outdated, out of style mode of transportation? It's just a waste of tax money.
@@jarjarbinks6018 Yeah? Who paid for the airports? Who still pays for air traffic control? Who subsidizes their fuel? How about all the roads that were built on the public dime to and from the airport? Were you just going to walk through a field with your suitcase? All of those super-short-haul flights take up gates that you and I paid for and now can't be used for actually useful flights! I understand subsidizing long-haul flights that are impractical even on HSR. Those subsidies pay for themselves in the "commerce" and the economic activity they generate. But why should my tax money go toward subsidizing a journey that is both cheaper and more comfortable to do via rail? What are we, made of money? Taxpayer subsidies need to be spent wisely! It ain't free money!
@@TohaBgood2 I fundamentally agree with you here, but short-haul flights on their own don't really incur additional taxpayer costs on already existing airports and their surrounding infrastructure. Perhaps on fuel, but that's really it. If one wants to fly between Philadelphia and Seattle, and another wants to fly between Portland and Seattle, in both cases they use the same infrastructure in the destination city. Perhaps you mean to suggest eliminating smaller airports in less significant cities and having people ride rail from airports in nearby larger cities to their final destinations after landing? My perspective here is to advocate for more rail subsidies to level the playing field. With all the capital costs rail companies incur that airlines and bus companies don't (due to taxpayer-funded airports and roads as you mentioned), there's really no way rail can fairly compete in this country at the moment. I would love to see HSR come through in places where it would be successful, but honestly getting current trains up to their maximum speed and focusing on public image would be more beneficial in most areas right now. That can be done realistically even under today's conditions if the right moves are made and funding secured.
Hello, my name is Jim and I'm a recent subscriber. I'm commenting on this video because I can't find the one I watched where you left Chicago Union Station and rode the Zephyr to California. I really enjoyed your video and you are very pleasant to watch, even for 30 mins. I really loved it when you jumped off the train in Reno, just taking a Gamble but everything would be fine. The reason for my commenting now, I've decided I want to take my wife on that train ride. Now I know I'm getting old because it just seems like a very enjoyable little trip, when I was much younger there's no way in the world you would have got me on a train I would have thought of it as boring. Something I also loved about your video was how you didn't care about arriving at Union Station early or any of the delays, you truly enjoyed the journey. You also have a very watchable and enjoyable personality. Your partner that you rode with on that trip seems like a really great guy too. Would you mind responding to me and telling me which package you purchased for that trip? We live in northern Michigan, we would probably Drive and park at Union Station. What would your recommendation be if we left Chicago and got off in Reno like you did? Then how do we economically return to Chicago Union Station? Sadly I do not believe we could afford to make that run to Reno and ride back on The Zephyr also. Thank you very much for your videos
Loved this video!! A long time ago I was in grad school in Mt. Angel, Oregon. I used to ride my bike 20 miles to Salem, Oregon and meet the train. A ticket at that time from Salem to Tacoma, Wa. was seven dollars. It cost me two dollars to put my bike on the baggage car. So for nine bucks I'd go that distance and when the train got to Tacoma, I'd get my bike and ride nine miles to Puyallup, Wa. and visit my parents for the weekend. On Sunday afternoon it was a reverse routine. It was always fun and I really grew to love the train. Now that I'm old and retired (or is that just tired) I'm ready to do something similar again. I live in El Paso now but we are thinking of moving back to the PNW. I think I'll start using Amtrak again for familial visits etc. I'll take the train over the plane any day of the week. Thanks for bringing back many good memories.
Mike, you should do a race from Seattle to Vancouver, since the distance is about the same, but then it would compare border wait times and customs between air travel and rail travel.
Pre-Covid I raced myself between Glasgow and London (415 miles). Amazingly, both rail and air *should* have been 5hr 25min. Unfortunately my train from Glasgow was cancelled, and by catching the next departure, air won the race... that time. I even gave air an advantage by reducing the British Airway's recommended check-in time at Glasgow by 30 minutes. It's always an interesting experiment. Great video.
I had a similar case pre-covid. I had to go from Anaheim to SF Bay Area. Some drove- leaving directly from the 'Duck Pond', while I flew from Ontario (not sure why I choose Ontario). If I drove directly home (Hayward, CA), I would have gotten home sooner, but I we've won. BTW-driving your car is about $300 less expensive) because the flight was delayed an hour.
Love how train Mike always shows inside those historic stations. Aeroplane Mike as you said had the better snack with that breakfast wrap ,but train Mike wins hands down sitting in the gorgeous cafe car enjoying the view.
This fits a general rule-of-thumb I've noticed. When traveling less than 250 miles (400km) Amtrak is often quicker, or at least in the same general ballpark timewise. With easier boarding the train is often the better pick. However, the further you go higher than 250mi, the less useful the train becomes, and planes grab the advange.
I would love to see the data on regional rail and traditional inter city rail service vs plane and car but gut feeling the 250 miles scans with my experience. I know that HSR is competitive with planes to about 600 miles give or take, wish we would get on that.
@@evilgenius919 Thing about HSR, especially in Western Washington, you'd be dealing with major Eminent Domain issues between the US government and Native American tribes. You also have to deal with congested city landscape, very large military bases, and water and mountains.
It depends, a lot of small towns in America dont have Direct Flights but Amtrak has a Trainline. Its 8hrs or more to Fly from Orlando to Wilmington NC because no Direct Flights. Its 9hr by Train BUT you get a Sleeper Car, Free Meals, Views, No Crying Kids, and best of all no TSA and Stress
Great. Idea ! The train is much better than the plane on that route, and I have tried both ! The train is stress free, and just consider the worry of an overbooked plane ! Well done !
I took the train from Seattle to Portland it looks like around the same time you did and had a very enjoyable experience, with great connectivity at both ends and *no* delays on the Amtrak Cascades for only $27. I look to take train trips whenever possible.
This is the most fair comparison of time I’ve seen in a long time. Sure, flight time is short, but most ppl forget how long it takes in security and getting through security and picking up your bags!
I live in Seattle and have not seen Portland since I was very young, so am glad he did this. Good to see the difference - and flying is so much work. LOL
I'm finally going to venture an overnight Amtrak trek in late August on the Coast Starlight between Portland and LA, squeezing into a roomette. I will rough it for one night as far as the facilities go since I will be heading to a hotel in Portland and home in LA. Better accommodations were sold out. We'll see how it goes. Welcome back on line!
Love this one. I take the train from Portland to Seattle every year for a convention. I’m glad that this is proof to win my argument against some friends about the train being the best way to go.
I love how both train and plane Mike are super competitive. Great video and not only did train Mike win but it definitely was the less stress and more scenic way to travel 🙂
Another thing to mention about this is that because the Cascades service is a corridor, it is an even better deal if you are travelling between smaller cities that don't have airports. If you are going from, say, Salem to Olympia, which is the same basic distance but with cities about 50 miles away from airports, it would be even longer by airplane. Airport Shuttle to Sea-Tac and shuttle from Portland to Salem would add about two hours and close to 100 dollars to the price.
Another great and fun video Michael. I would have thought that the plane trip would have been significantly faster than the train trip. Sounds like the train is definitely the way to go when looking at time and cost and comfort.
I've flown between PDX and SEA so many times in my life and it's literally my job. But I absolutely prefer the train between the 2 cities. Quality of life over rushing for what might be the same amount of time.
Train Mike and Plane Mike together at the beginning be like: Now that I've found you, we can be a duo! That's right! Twice the evil, Double DownieLive! Coming at you, *FRIDAYS!* If I had a nickel, for every time Mike took a light rail in this, I'd have two nickels! Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
My wife and I really like the True Earth laundry strips. Such a totally efficient, light way to do laundry as opposed to what we were doing for 50 years. Great product whether or not you are travelling.
Keep these adventures coming mike. I have never left my country and with your videos it take me on an adventure. I am from South Africa 🇿🇦 keep safe 🤙
2 роки тому
I love the train. I live in Renton so I catch the Cascadia at the Tukwila station. Free parking in the secure lot. I love the views. I don't stress over the fact that its going to take 3 hours, I just enjoy the ride. When I arrive in Portland, it's easy walking distance to the Pearl District, or catch a bus or the MAX to get around town. Since you're not driving you can work or play and be home that evening.
Well that was fun Mike! Interesting to see that the train was faster. I once dated a guy from Portland and by train it took me 9 hours from Vancouver. Drove after that.
The only time it took me that long to get back to Portland on Amtrak was when a freight train derailed in front of us and they had to send buses to Centrailia to take us the rest of the way.
Good video to prove the point that trains are better for transportation between cities that are roughly 200-500km apart. Does not even need to be high speed rail, just efficient on time normal train service is faster.
Im From Portland and I’m definitely a bigger fan of the Amtrak then the plane, only ever had to use the plane once as a connecting flight from annapolis into Portland and it was honestly not the best experience. On the other hand I have so many memeories of riding the train into Seattle and seeing the gorgeous views. Also coincidentally some of my family is on the Amtrak cascades to Seattle at the time I am writing this comment.
My friend and his colleague left a meeting in Boston, MA to return to central NJ. One drove; the other took the plane. They arrived at the same tollbooth on the NJ Turnpike at exactly the same time! Generally, with airports outside the major cities and the need to check in several hours early; trains are the better option.
Another banger! I was looking forward to this all week. I feel like I was hounding you on Instagram, but I got to say, it meets my expectation. You come up with the most unique ideas. Keep em coming.
I've taken the Tacoma-Portland Amtrak round-trip and it's really enjoyable. It was interesting to see train yards and pick up/drop off points I transported rail crews to/from and point them out to my wife. I'm thinking that you were seeing Spirit Lake instead of Crater Lake, since Crater Lake is in southern Oregon. Still a great video! BTW, I used to transport crews from the Delta yard in Everett, Wa.
All three of the Amtrak lines you mentioned are fantastic journeys. Agree with other commenters that distance is a factor for train vs plane but time not being a factor I would choose train over plane any time. Love your content.
I live in Olympia, WA. I'm also an airline pilot. I love trains and obviously, I love airplanes, but for me, I prefer flying... Also, Portland (airport) is a two hour drive from my house. I also think this is more about perspective. Do you want the leisurely travel of the train or the hustle and bustle of the airplane? It truly depends on what mode you enjoy more. Considering the airplane flight allows you to see more destinations that the train doesn't cover. Most people taking the train between Seattle and Portland, simply don't like flying or driving the route. Often people fly between the two cities as a connection for an even further destination. Either way, this was a great video and I'm happy when you come out to my neck of the woods.
Even when the train is slower, it is still more relaxing and enjoyable with way less stress. For those reasons the people are so much more sociable and friendly. One of my best experiences in travel was the Capital limited from Washington DC to Chicago: rolling through the Mountains of West Virginia on the top level of the Dome car with an awesome bourbon on the rocks when we passed right next to a gorgeous waterfall and the whole car did a spontaneous "OOOOO---Ahhhh!"
Growing up in the PNW, the ONLY reason I would ever take a plane between the two is because if you're flying international from PDX, you pretty much have to go through Sea-Tac or SFO. But if I'm just traveling between Portland or Seattle (or Seattle-Vancouver), I'll take the train 10 times out of 10.
Well actually the bus is faster than both the train and the plane. I took a trip from Vancouver to LA by train but at that time you had to take the bus to Seattle. Bus arrived late and we missed the train. They put us on another bus that drove us to the train station in Portland and we caught up to the train.
Defiantly the train.......more relaxing......less hectic.....and the greasy spoon comfort food looks amazing......I travel by Amtrak too.....and I know how tasty their food is......I am eagerly awaiting for Amtrak's return back into Canada and to Vancouver, BC....... you should try the Coast star light from Seattle, to Los Angeles.....it's a great trip.....and all restauraunt car meals are included if you buy a sleeper room.....I took the Star Light to Los Angeles and a coach bus to Las Vegas.....great trip
I knew at the start riding the train for the win was a no-brainer. I’ve been a frequent traveler to NYC & Newark from Boston on the north and from Washington DC & Philadelphia on the south for years. I’ve timed the trip over and over. Time-wise the train wins hands down all the time.* Flying is second fastest. Driving a car either direction to/from either city for many reasons is always the slowest. I look forward to the time the US will get it’s act together and have a high speed rail system the same as Europe and Japan have all over our big beautiful country!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 * Additionally, riding the train is easier with less hassle and more comfort than flying or driving!!!
Thought provoking as usual. I have to laugh - you have proven the theory that when one is in a hurry, there will always be some sort of delay - except when you really need a delay , then they will be on time if not early! :)
There is a proposed high speed rail line between Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (Cascadia HSR) that would make the Portland-Seattle trip in under an hour. It would use a combination of public and private funding, and connect 8.5 million people along the I-5 corridor. America is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to 21st century intercity passenger rail, and needs to build high speed rail to catch up. California is doing that with its SF-LA/Anaheim HSR route that’ll connect the two cities via the Central Valley in under 3 hours at speeds of 220mph, and so far is the only US high speed rail project in the construction phase. The estimated base cost for the entire 470-mile route is currently at about $93 billion, and the estimated start time for SF-LA service is 2033, but it is happening and needs to keep happening for the sake of both California’s and America’s transportation future. We cannot continue to rely on driving and flying for most of our travel needs, and need a viable third option that the world has proven for decades is high speed rail. High speed rail is far from outdated, and continues to be built and expanded around the world and continually improved to go even faster while also being safer and convenient. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. There are a number of corridors in the US, like California and Cascadia, where high speed rail would be very effective at relieving congestion by providing a better alternative to a long drive or relatively short flight. Which multi-billion dollar investment will we be more satisfied with in 20-30 years from now? Keeping the status quo of adding more freeway lanes and expanding airports which are short term and finite solutions that’ll ultimately lead to even more congestion, or do we invest in the 21st century alternative and finally start catching up with the world with high speed rail. Let’s finish California high speed rail, which has always and continues to be building to SF and LA, and learn from its example, for better or worse, to build other high speed rail lines around the country, in the Pacific NW, Texas, the NE and Midwest. Let’s look beyond today toward tomorrow, and envision the kind of world we want our descendants to inherit.
What a terrific idea, the race against yourself! Perfectly executed and edited to tell a good story and make a great point. I'm intrigued by the elimination of many short-haul flights in Europe, where the high speed rail network is so much easier and cleaner than flying. I'm in NC; the trains that we have are great, but I'm looking forward to expansions (Salisbury to Asheville will include my town). In context of your experiment, the Atlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh/Richmond upgrades to higher speed will eventually allow elimination of a lot of short-haul flights. A minor nit-pick: I know that you're Canadian, and younger than me, but at 5:36 you refer to the Columbia river as the "border" between the two states, a word which I have heard increasingly in the last 10-20 years. We traditionally use the term "state line". I believe "border" began to be used in the Bush administration, and its use went into high gear under Trump. "Border" implies division and separateness, and I think its use has been deliberate. You of course use the word natively and in a benign manner, but it still jumps out at me as a political devolution of the language. Cheers, I am always impressed with your videos, and I thoroughly enjoy all your travels, humor, and intelligent discovery!
Hi Mike. I really enjoy your videos. A hotly debated topic here in the big apple: NYC to Boston on a plane vs train vs automobile. Would make another great DownieLives episode.
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike where have you been brother. For the past SEVERAL weeks we have had DownieLive withdrawal. I have looked EVERY Saturday and have seen old post until today. That being said WELCOME BACK and PLEASE keep them vids a comin in. Thank you and say good night Gracie. "Good night Gracie."
I do hope Amtrak cascades early 2000’s long range plan for 110-120mph top speed comes to fruition! I think they aimed for an initial 2:30 long trip between SEA and PDX
Not unless we can spare another quarter trillion bucks to build a dedicated passenger rail corridor. Hell, the Link Light Rail extension is already over $50 billion!
@@everettrailfan The early WSDOT plan which was a mix of new ROW and capacity increase along BNSF ROW estimated the cost to be around 7 billion in today’s dollars. It would still take 2.5 hours to get from SEA-PDX or 2.5 hour to get from SEA-VAN Link light rail development has been too expensive!
I think I found your channel maybe two weeks ago. I thoroughly enjoy your content. It really makes encourages me to take my daughter [4yo] on further adventures given what seems like a much more laid back travel than rushing through airports.
Do Baltimore to Washington in a race between driving and the train. There roughly an hour each way either method. Personally the starting and end points should be the Washington monuments in both cities.
I work in downtown Seattle and sometimes we have in person meetings at our downtown Portland office. We always debate, to fly, drive or train trip. We like the train because it has wifi and we can work all the way down which we couldnt do in the car or flying. We also like how roomy the seats are. Oh, and on the way back to Seattle, we always have a couple of beers!😀
Every time I take the train, the wifi isn't working. I often take it from Seattle to Eugene and this past trip (July 4th trip) I couldn't even get a decent cell signal unless I was near a town. Oh well, at least there was nice scenery and a great chance to take a lovely nap! I can't imagine flying to PDX, but I DID consider flying to EUG... for about 30 seconds until I saw the price and factored in airport time.
Would love to see a similar race between NYC and Boston or DC! I’m tempted to think that the plane would win on those, but the difficulty of getting to LaGuardia from the city on public transportation could definitely make it longer. Also, the train ride between NYC and DC is nowhere near as scenic as Seattle-Portland (NYC-BOS is probably better).
Everybody else does that vs race on the NEC, do what the others don’t, like Miami Orlando once the Brightline extension opens, and you could even do a 3 way race with somebody who lives in Florida driving the route.
Great idea. Loved this episode. Having spent a great deal of time riding the various types of trains from high-speed bullet trains to vintage local lines still operational in Japan, I much prefer rail travel to cattle class in airplanes. Even when upgraded to first class (just the once as an apology from the airline) there's no comparison to regular class on a bullet train except for the lack of a personal steward. However, in Canada rail travel is not a particularly convenient and certainly not local or inter-provincial option as there isn't an extensive network of lines as there is in Japan. Rail travel is much more relaxing. No pre-boarding security or long lineups. Much more room and comfort. The wonderful sounds of rocking or skimming along the track. Windows allowing wide-screen views of the ever-changing vistas. No restrictions vis-à-vis seat belts or freedom to walk about. While there are no café cars in Japan, attendants who come by with a snack cart on the Shinkansen (bullet train) as well as vendors in stations or department store food floors adjacent to stations to provide travelers with a bento--a boxed meal which can be as simple or luxe as the price point--and alcoholic beverages are allowed. 🥂🍱🍻
Glad to see a new video. Missed seeing your videos the last few weeks. This was a great concept for a video. The entire process involved with going to the airport really does eat up a lot of time.
Train for sure! Probably not for cross country as that does save time to fly vs days on a train. I love the coast starlight and have ridden it many times to visit friends so I don’t have to drive snowy mountain passes. It’s the best!
I spent a summer where I would have to get between Vancouver, BC - from downtown to downtown... people who did not understand the logistics kept trying to schedule me to fly - when there was a direct bus service - faster, easier and cheaper than taking the plane. Depending on timing and final destination, I've found that the Capital limited between Washington DC and Chicago, IL was a much more comfortable trip, and it didn't actually take me any longer or cost me more (and I used a roomette).
I live south of Seattle and always take the train to Portland. I don't drive down there due to traffic and hotel parking fees. Even if the plane saved me a half hour of time, I would still take the train. There is just no stress. Plus leg room and you can walk around. The food is just OK but its better than what you'll get on a plane. Now imagine if you didn't have that 15 minute delay at the bridge. I keep telling my friends here, train is the way the go (when going to Portland). Thanks for proving my point. PS. I didn't even save about the almost $200 you'll save and if you book your ticket a few weeks in advance, way cheaper.
It helps that Amtrak basically puts Business Class seats in their economy class. There is just no way for a flying tin can to compete with that. Also, all that time you waste at an airport is actual seat time in a train. It's just so much more productive to be on a train than running through the airport or waiting in TSA lines. You can relax or work, but your time is yours on a train.
@@TohaBgood2 That's all well and good and perfect for short corridors like NEC and Brightline, but if you are a business traveler your schedule is much tighter and if Amtrak is heavily prone to delays then it's useless. As soon as you get past about the 250-mile mark jets just become quicker end to end.
@@josephpenn1115 The NEC isn't that short. But it also has a lot of destinations on the route and most passengers don't travel the whole length. So I guess you're right overall. It's 457 miles. It just has very high speed limits. Almost the whole thing is at or above 125mph and there are sections that go as fast as 150mph. Now they also want to upgrade speeds in more places and increase the existing high speed sections to 160mph. But yes, we need faster trains to have them compete with the airlines better. That's why we need full High Speed Rail! Proper HSR does better than the airlines (i.e. steals up to 80% of their customers) on journeys of up to 500 miles. In some countries it's 600 miles, in others it's 400 or 450. But 500 miles is about the median limit for HSR. Above that planes win. But that is also the median length of flights in the US overall. So that means that roughly half of the current flight routes in the country could have 80% of their passengers convert to HSR. That's a massive number of passengers. And this is exactly what we see empirically happen wherever HSR becomes available. Many airlines basically lose short-haul altogether and are barely able to compete closer to the 500 mile limit. More competitive prices for all travelers and environmental benefits!
@@josephpenn1115 Quicker doesn’t always mean better, it’s about the whole experience. Amtrak doesn’t need to become the fastest, it just needs to be fast enough to reasonably compete with cars. Meaning instead of having to make HSR, we just need to increase the average speed on current lines. This could be done by eliminating slow sections, enforcing the Amtrak priority rule, making stops more efficient so they take up less time, and increasing top speeds to 90-110. In addition the experience must be Comfortable, convenient, and affordable. Amtrak does miss the marks on most of those right now but the potential is there. Oh yeah and frequency and transit connections must be better
@@Cal90208 for business travel punctuality and speed are the two main factors, there is a lack of flexibility for that customer compared to a tourist. While a low-speed line would appeal to some tourists it doesn't appeal to enough in order to be a better form of transport compared to flying or driving. I like trains as much as the next guy but even in Europe and Asia they recognize that it's not the best form of long-distance transport for passengers.
I'm from the Netherlands and if I want to choose from various destinations the airport is 2,5 hours away. With waiting times it's often quicker or just as fast to travel by train to the start closest by. then I like to travel further away over a couple of weeks and often take a flight back to the country.
Nice job ! And like many others have said “… if only we had high speed rail”. Lived in Spain for a while, Madrid-Valencia is about 185mi. Train takes 1 hr 40 min …. Nuff said
If you ever get the chance at an excursion on the Daylight 4449, do it! One year we went from Portland to Bend Oregon up the Columbia River Gorge and Deschutes River Canyon. Another year from Portlad to Spokane, then through a huge tunnel in the Cascades to Tacoma and back to Portland. ua-cam.com/video/W9mwVChRBHs/v-deo.html
Unfortunately we don’t really have any high speed trains in the US. I read somewhere one was being built in California. I think it was LA or San Diego to San Francisco. They had a company picking out because of their expertise in. Building high speed system in Europe. After many attempts and meeting and project delays because of multiple bureaucratic challenges the company walked away and built a system out of the United States. People our big government is killing this country.
Now imagine if that was a dedicated high speed rail line between the two cities (and all the way down the coast).
Yes, let's imagine the cost of purchasing the right-of-way all the way from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland. We can't use the existing rails, they belong to the freight company and the HSR train needs specialized tracks to handle the stresses of the speed. So, maybe $500 billion? Then another $100 billion to build it. Thus, we now have $5,000 ticket instead of a $60 ticket. Yay! That's progress. The sad fact is the time for building HSR has passed. For long distances, jets are simply vastly faster. For shorter trips, such as this one, autonomous vehicles will do the job far more conveniently. In the 20 years or so building a HSR would take, the vast majority of cars will drive themselves. I love trains myself. I take the Capitol Corridor train frequently and used to commute to work on it. It is great, but building a replacement HSR version is simply not feasible.
@@MacAdvisor There is a middle distance where HSR travel is the fastest option, not to mention that Portland and Seattle, Seattle especially is very congested and the small efficiency boost that autonomous vehicles provide simply is insufficient capacity. What actually needs to happen is change to make it so people can get around their cities without cars, and when you leave the city, car-sharing, and the aforementioned rail, HSR and, plane can take over. Cars are simply extremely inefficient and unnatural, and just making them autonomous will not solve medium and short distance travel capacity issues.
inshallah 🙌
@@MacAdvisor It's definitely feasible to have dedicated HSR routes on the West Coast and East Coast. Giving up seems to be the American attitude when it comes to technology. Just look at what Europe and Japan have.
@@MacAdvisor how much did elon musk pay you to act stupid on the internet?
if this doesnt make the case for expanded regional rail service in the US, i dont know what else will. maybe a look at the fuel usage and harmful emissions of the plane vs train. fairly sure the train still wins, moreso when you consider that high traffic mainlines can be electrified and further cut emissions, which you cant do with planes.
I would be curious if an electric train using power from a fossil fuel power plant would be more efficient. You get loss of power over long distances and transmission to the train with the connection vs. The onboard generator producing power and running the electric motors on a diesel.
Frankly, it doesn't make the case at all. The average person who lives in this corridor doesn't willy-nilly take the plane (or for that matter the train).
Not to mention, two bus companies have all but shut down service, two airlines have completely left the market and another has drastically reduced schedules...and Amtrak has even reduced service. Why would all these companies reduce service if there's demand?
Unfortunately, in the US - even on the western grid - the largest source of electricity is burning natural gas. And since conventional nat. gas peaked in 1973, most of the current use of gas is fracked (70%). Electricity peaked just before covid closures cut use of everything. Dams in drier parts of the west are close to closing (Hoover, Oroville) and long term use of the others is at risk. Solar is nice but doesn't work at night, and there are not enough minerals to build terawatt batteries to back everything up. We're going to be using much less of everything. Trains are much more efficient than planes and cars but the time to have built lots of them was decades ago - and we chose superhighways, war planes and submarines. As MLK said we have guided missiles and misguided men.
@@mikegyver6265 there is likely more loss in a diesel electric engine than in overhead wires, at least on AC power. The problem with electrification is that it's really, really expensive and needs to see extensive usage for it to become viable. Even in Europe, a good portion of rail is not electrified even though it has regular service. It's interesting to see that long distance trains will always swap out locomotives in favor of electric ones and only switch to diesel on the specific sections that aren't electrified. I think that's enough evidence that electricity is more efficient. It's also noteworthy that all ultra high speed trains run on overhead electricity, with the fastest service speed for diesel being some 200km/h while electric goes up to 370km/h.
I highly doubt that a train recieving power from a coal power plant emitting more CO2 than cars is any less harmful to the environment.
I was noticing that you seemed much more relaxed on the train excursion, while the plane experience seemed like you were always rushing around.
id still fly on a plane
The Airplane is a lot of hurry up and wait. Hurry for a ticket, wait in line, hurry to security, wait in line, hurry to boarding, wait for a plane, hurry on the plane, wait for the gate, hurry off the plane and potentially wait for the bag.
👍👍👍
@@buttorrWhy? The train is WAY too underrated. It's very enjoyable and well worth the amazing views that you wouldn't encounter otherwise.
You were looking on the wrong side on the train, missing Mount Rainier and the other Cascades summits. Now imagine if high speed rail existed on the West Coast!
On a side note I took this train twice round trip from Seattle to Portland, way less stress than air travel.
I agree on both fronts. If the train took the old route where it goes north when it leaves Tacoma, he would have some great views. But you can get to the station with five minutes to spare and still make it (I've don't that a few times).
Except this is a route of about 180 miles that would be 2-½ hours by autonomous vehicle and relatively easy and far less costly road improvements. Autonomous vehicles will be here in five year, ten at the most, while the train upgrades are 20 years off. An average of 274,000 vehicles per day already travel on I5. Even assuming only ONE passenger per car, far lower than the actual usage, that means 274,000 people per day travel I5. Amtrak single most used route is the NortheastDirect with about 24,000 daily passengers. That is not even 10% of the automobile traffic on the I5 route currently. Dollar for dollar we get far better increase in carrying capacity by improving auto lanes that train tracks. Plus, autonomous vehicles leave when you want from where you want, go to where you want, bring far more stuff with you, including passengers that add directly to carrying capacity. We could have autonomous buses on this route far sooner and for far less money than trains. There are already fabulous buses available between NY and DC for as little as $22 (please see: www.washny.com ). Make them autonomous and you have all the aspects of the train for little more than the rolling stock, plus it is far more scalable.
Sorry, HSR, or even higher speed rail, isn't going to happen. There is not the political will or the demand and the alternatives are vastly better. This is sad, but facts are facts. Not. Going. To. Happen. Here. Not.
Mike can answer this, but I think this is the longest single thread on DownieLive ever. What do you have to say, Mike?
@@MacAdvisor Sure, first gen autonomous vehicles may come to public roads soon, but autonomous vehicles as a whole won't be fully effective or widespread until much longer than that. Autonomous cars won't really be viable until a majority of them have replaced manually operated ones. Until then, drivers will continue to be expected to be attentive in "driver's seat" of an autonomous car. If there's one thing to be said about America, it's how gung-ho people are about not being told what to do by government here. No way in hell that we get to that point in less than 20 years.
Trains can be made autonomous too, and actually it is much easier to do so with them than cars due to the significantly less variables on a railway as compared to a roadway. This would certainly be the case in America if we were to update our signaling and switching systems, though I imagine union resistance to protect the jobs of train engineers would be a point of contention too. For the most part, GPS systems and preprogrammed stops within a system in the train's computer would be sufficient.
Different story for cars. For instance, Tesla's current system is dependent on having smooth, well-painted roadways to guide itself since it reads the white and yellow lines on the road. How many of America's roads have you seen are that well maintained? Getting them to that level and keeping them at that level will incur far more expense than we do at our present levels of road maintenance. There's also street lights, pedestrians and cyclists, dealing with parking, and a much wider network of roads than rail which would have to be kept highly updated in GPS.
All of that doesn't even address the environmental issues around electric cars and busses. Our railways could easily (though not cheaply) be converted run on overhead electric catenary wires. Busses can do this too, but it limits their flexibility which is part of the argument for them. Electric cars and busses obviously will use batteries most often, and at present the mining of materials is both environmentally and socially destructive. We also have yet to be prepared for the crisis of battery disposal or recycling once these vehicles come to widespread use.
Of course, the other part of this is the self-fulfilling cycle of train travel being unpopular, receiving no investment since it's not the popular means of transit and there's no political will to help improve that, then continuing to be unpopular. Disregard HSR for a moment here. Taking a look at their Coast Starlight offering, they are limited to a top speed of 79 mph and the route averages 40mph. While the challenge of navigating the mountains plays a role in that low average speed, if Amtrak was able to hit their trainset's top speed of 110 mph more frequently and perhaps up the average speed of that line to 75 mph, the train would be able you between Seattle and Portland as fast as a car, dropping you right in the city center. Further improvements to get the average speed up to 85-90 mph would get you between the two cities faster by train than by car. If the train could better compete with the car on time, it would definitely see notable increases in ridership, which would then boost public opinion of it and help get further funding for improvements.
Your comparison of the I-5 and Amtrak's routes is apples to oranges based on the current information you provided. Does that number of people on the I-5 include people using it to get short distances like from their suburb to their preferred grocer? From their suburb to work? Amtrak is not a commuter provider in the western states to the best of my understanding except maybe in California, where people taking a train over using the I-5 would be undeniably beneficial to the area. The better comparison would be how many people travelling between nearby cities like Seattle and Portland fly and ride busses that compete more directly with Amtrak. Additionally, improving Amtrak services would benefit commuters using I-5 since more people using Amtrak means less traffic on the crowded I-5.
Also, although bus companies do pay more in taxes than the average user due to the various taxes on heavy vehicles, they do not pay capital costs on infrastructure the way that rail companies do. That's part of why busses can be so much cheaper than trains at present. If the railway had been nationalized, or at least provided subsidies to compete with tax-funded highways and airports, it'd be much more viable today for passengers. Instead, Amtrak does not own very much of their RoW, and railway companies own and maintain the infrastructure their trains run on and pay taxes on said infrastructure on top of that. Of course rail travel went under in the 70s and hasn't recovered to date under those conditions.
Additionally, busses absolutely do not provide all the niceties of trains. For one, you can get up and walk around a train once it is in motion easily, which you cannot do on a bus which may be turning frequently. Even if you are to get up and walk on a bus, where would you go? On a train, there's a view car, a lounge, and a dedicated dining car for longer-distance trips. There's also more bathrooms on a train, usually a couple per car attached to the train and at least one is wheelchair accessible. That just names a few ways trains outdo busses in amenities.
There, I beat you on the longest thread on DownieLive ever.
@@YaBoiScrumpo The gobbledygook about mining material for batteries and such is such nonsense. Do mining lithium make a mess? Yes, but it can be cleaned up and regulations can stop it from happening. You put your finger on the heart of the matter and my very point, "ail travel went under in the 70s and hasn't recovered to date." It simply can't recover because Amtrak doesn't own the right of way and purchasing it now is wildly cost prohibitive. I am not arguing rail travel isn't nice, I am arguing it isn't practical in our country. It is like trying to build a canal network now. The conditions that made both work are gone. Autonomous vehicles are all upside. They are going to do nothing buy get better, faster, cheaper, and easier. Trains are already at their limit.
I think we need an award from Mike for the longest running thread. Maybe he could take us all to lunch in Vancouver, BC. I'd drive up for it.
In Cali there is some project involving High Speed Rail, they say they are gonna do it, but it never happens. I hope it does! However, no more foreign imports please. The Avelia Liberty is getting a lot of backlash for it's 2-tone french horn
As someone who lives in the Seattle area when I go to Portland to visit my mom and don't want to drive I always choose the train over a plane. It's just a nicer experience and beautiful all year long. Nice to know the time and price difference.
I think I must have missed something in the video, because I don't remember him actually telling us the price difference? Timestamp?
@@MajorMel 5:15 is where he says it. $190 more to fly compared to the train in this situation.
@@MajorMelPrice difference is massive. Plane is $190 more than the train
On a side note, it is nice that Seattle and Portland both have pretty good transit connections to the airport (otherwise, flying would be even less feasible than it is now).
Before Seattle finally built their light rail after years of fighting over it, the only quick and reliable public transportation to SeaTac from downtown was the hotel airport shuttle. The bus seemed to take forever.
👍👍❤
Airports have become such a time eating experience before boarding that I had a feeling the train would win this. For a trip of this distance the train is great. Trans continental, the plane would usually be my pick unless I wanted a longer and more memorable experience.
There is still the distance in between in which a Sleeper Train can compete with a Plane. There is a route I used to fly quite often that would take me all together (getting to Air Port, checking in, waiting for boarding etc.) about 6 hours. So the last time I decided to take a 14 hour sleeper Train journey instead. Was a pretty good decision, easy, convenient, slept through most of the Journey and I didn't waste an entire day travelling as I left in the evening and arrived in the morning.
I grew up in Charlotte and live in NYC. In the years before my mom and dad died in 2011, I went down to see them pretty regularly. The flight of something under 600 miles took about a little over an hour,. To board a 7am flight, I had to be ready to be picked up at my apartment in Manhattan by the shuttle van around 4:00am Because of early morning business flights (pre-COVID), LaGuardia was a madhouse at that hour. By the time. I'd checked in and gone through security, I'd get to my gate about 20-30 minutes before boarding time. Because of heavy air traffic, wait-time to take-off was generally between 30-45 minutes once we left the gate. Often, I didn't arrive in Charlotte until around 915-930. So, total travel time for a one-hour flight was around five hours. I don't care if I never see the inside of an airport for the rest of my life.
Bus is probably better because of price. Also planes are cooler
@@buttorr Bus ain't bad for short hops. I took the Greyhound to Wilmington from NYC a few summers ago. The coach was immaculate, attractive and comfortable and the driver a totally cool, professional dude who was a pleasure to interact with. Travel time was exactly what they said it would be--about 2-1/2 hours. Quiet, non-hectic and restful. This was before we opened the new rail terminal (Daniel P Moynihan) in and under the old Post Office building. Before that, getting on trains was hellish at Penn Station, but it's much better now. For short hops up and down the Eastern Seaboard, I dont see any reason to subject yourself to LaGuardia, JFK or Newark airpots and the befores-and-afters that come with air travel.
@@DannyEastVillage plane cool
I've never flown from Seattle to Portland (or vice versa), but I will say I definitely enjoy train trips between the two cities compared to driving. I-5 can be aggravating at times (or take upwards of five or six hours at certain times). But on the Amtrak, I could read a book, nap or have a beer in the cafe car. Shouldn't do any of those three things behind the wheel.
Haha, it took me & my dad 3 1/2 hours just to get the Amphitheater in Ridgefield (so more Salmon Creek but you know) from Aloha. That's 58 miles on the road. and it took nearly 1/6th of an entire day to get there. It's also a straight shot there - 185th > Sunset Hwy (26) > 405 > I-5. It's that straight forward. Yet it takes that long. Then again, it takes a average of 1hr45 to 2hr15 just to take the damn bus from here to my doctor's 8 miles away by road. The whole damn transit network for all modes is completely horrific down here in the Portland area.
@@TheCriminalViolin That must have been an extreme day for traffic. Until very recently I was a limo chauffeur and I've done that exact run between those two points. I remember being very frustrated that it took us just under 2 hours. On the return trip after dark it was half that. Portland absolutely refuses to upgrade it's highways, believing that the transit is a better investment. That's why I-5 is 3 lanes in desolate cow country and 2 lanes downtown.
@@JETZcorp To be fair, investment in mass transit is always a better option if done right. That said, this is the US, so, it's never done right, and, with TriMet, it's infinitely worse. And there is 3 or 4 lanes to 15 in downtown, has been for over a decade. It's 4 for 405 too. And as history would prove, adding additional lanes, especially to freeways, never helps anything. It just adds another lane of equal congestion.
I think for heading north, the main issue is there is only two possible routes across the river. I-5 or I-205 and that's it. And almost everybody works, shops and does leisure in Portland, whether they're from the Vancouver area, or all the way from Salem. Now apply that to our typical rush hour here that tends to begin about 3/3:30 and end about 7pm, and you can then gather only having those two choices is guaranteed to overload them with people commuting either direction.
And according to many I've spoken with, that's normal within those hours. It's once you get halfway across the I-5 bridge for some reason traffic flows perfectly fine without any slowing. Everything is always a crawl until that point on the bridge, and nobody can grasp how that's even possible.
In the end, we just need more options for all modes of transiting across the river.
@@TheCriminalViolin I disagree that mass transit is "always" a better option. It is a better option for high-density development, but in suburbs it is extremely expensive to get coverage.
I also disagree that more lanes are pointless. It is true that adding lanes results in diminishing returns, especially if the bottleneck is caused by something else (ramp spacing, interchanges which force weaving, etc). But if you look at the reasons cited for lane nihilism, they'll say that more lanes temporarily open up mobility, allowing people to travel more and farther, increasing demand and ultimately re-saturating the road. It's true that transit times find equilibrium again, but throughput and mobility ARE increased, and stay increased. Imagine if I-5 were to have a lane removed - what do you think would happen? According to the urban planners' logic, in the long term congestion would return to roughly where it is now, but only after traffic became apocalyptic and citizens had adjusted to drive less. They'd do this by moving closer to work (where housing is more expensive), using transit in the cases where it's competitive, and just up and moving out of Portland entirely. Fixed through traffic like trucks would just be SOL.
This is already being borne out in places where the planners have applied "road diets" to surface streets. Roads like NE Glisan and SE Holgate used to be free flowing; now they're terrible. The City wanted my dad to switch to a 2 hour 5-transfer transit ride each way to work; what they actually accomplished was making him waste more gas.
I'm not saying all of I-5 needs lanes thrown at it. But it definitely needs some more capacity at the choke points such as around the Rise Quarter and of course at the Columbia. More lanes don't just achieve bulk capacity; they allow much smarter merging design. You said 405 has 4 lanes - it actually only has 2 through lanes, but aggressively adds and subtracts ramp lanes so that traffic getting on or getting off doesn't have to interfere with the through lanes as much. I-5 is not just small, it's old, with primitive ramps and merging that cause bottlenecks. If it got some investment, it could be a little larger but much more efficient. Just look at Vancouver; it's had a bunch of ramp re-designs and modern higher-flowing service interchanges (mostly SPUIs). Vancouver's transit is horrific, yet it's traffic flows better than anywhere in Portland because the roads have been updated.
@@JETZcorp Parts of what you say may be true, but then again, look at LA. Look at Houston, and various other Texas cities. They've constantly added more traffic lanes to their freeways and more decks with more lanes yet it has never once improved a thing nor changed the congestion one bit. They're the perfect examples of exactly it's always true that adding lanes in fact never changes anything except initially and temporarily.
And one can easily use NYC as a prime example of how mass transit done sufficiently (maybe not well) really can lessen road congestion into and out of the major city. The mass majority of folks take mass transit, specifically the subways into and out of NYC from the surrounding boroughs and Jersey. And they've tracked how much overall traffic congestion has dropped, and from it's peak, it's pretty substantial, and they haven't taken away any freeway lanes either in the process, but they haven't added any either.
And CTRAN overall is better than TriMet. It's endlessly more on time, consistent and reliable. It treats all of it's users and employees infinitely better and they actually give a damn about their riders, drivers & service. They have high capacity buses and two rapid transit lines. That's more than TriMet. It's akin to LTD down in Eugene/Springfield. Far superior transit than TriMet has ever had. That said, TriMet of course has the far more extensive network than either, but to me, that doesn't matter nor does not count. And I say that as a reliant rider and transit nut.
Nice comparison. Tiny fact check - you can't see Crater Lake from the SEA - PDX flight unless your pilot is lost. Rainier, Mt. St Helens, Hood - yes. I've flown past Crater Lake on the EUG - SFO route but you can't really see the crater from the flight. But it's best appreciated on the ground. I hope the Vancouver to Eugene Amtrak route gets upgraded before the oil runs out.
Hi Mike, that was a fun “competition “ with yourself! Missed you videos the last few weeks! Looking forward to the future videos. Cheers!
Your race reminded me of the old Top Gear races that Clarkson Hammond and May would do! I loved this video! Great Job!
Always pick the train when it’s close. Plane travel right now has so many cancellations and huge delays.
I live near PDX and the train is mostly what we take to Seattle. Because of traffic it always takes longer by car than the train.
I've ALWAYS assumed the train is faster than flying (between Seattle and Portland). Thank you for comparing the two!
To be fair, airports are just malls with extra steps. But malls are definitely not TRUE malls...if you don't get a whiff of the cinnamon rolls from Cinnabon the moment you enter. Rail may be slower than planes at times, but it offers gorgeous scenery that planes cannot with routes like the Hudson Line, Cascades, the Canadian, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Scotland's West Highland Line, Qinghai-Tibet railway, and more
on a less cloudy day planes have better scenery. Also scenery is subjective so its not a good way to conpare
I love the way he was racing himself to the end. Great video idea.
I'm an automotive fan from Indonesia who is also an automotive youtuber, especially buses from Indonesia.. I'm very happy to see your content..
I'll point out that most of these short flights are mainly intended for connecting passengers and not so much people going from nearby cities.
If you wanted to, you could've actually gotten this flight for cheaper if you had a connecting flight out of either city. For example, a flight from sea-pdx-san will actually be cheaper than sea-pdx
That’s true but the airlines might get you in trouble for that. Still definitely cheaper than a SEA to PDX direct flight
I really don't understand why we are subsidizing so many of these useless flights when the train is objectively more comfortable and, in the real world, faster.
About 80% of Americans loathe flying anyway. The "Jet Setter" age is over. Flying is a chore no one wants to have to do nowadays. Why continue to invest in an outdated, out of style mode of transportation? It's just a waste of tax money.
@@TohaBgood2 Portland to Seattle flights definitely aren’t subsidized lol
@@jarjarbinks6018 Yeah? Who paid for the airports? Who still pays for air traffic control? Who subsidizes their fuel? How about all the roads that were built on the public dime to and from the airport? Were you just going to walk through a field with your suitcase?
All of those super-short-haul flights take up gates that you and I paid for and now can't be used for actually useful flights! I understand subsidizing long-haul flights that are impractical even on HSR. Those subsidies pay for themselves in the "commerce" and the economic activity they generate. But why should my tax money go toward subsidizing a journey that is both cheaper and more comfortable to do via rail? What are we, made of money? Taxpayer subsidies need to be spent wisely! It ain't free money!
@@TohaBgood2 I fundamentally agree with you here, but short-haul flights on their own don't really incur additional taxpayer costs on already existing airports and their surrounding infrastructure. Perhaps on fuel, but that's really it. If one wants to fly between Philadelphia and Seattle, and another wants to fly between Portland and Seattle, in both cases they use the same infrastructure in the destination city. Perhaps you mean to suggest eliminating smaller airports in less significant cities and having people ride rail from airports in nearby larger cities to their final destinations after landing?
My perspective here is to advocate for more rail subsidies to level the playing field. With all the capital costs rail companies incur that airlines and bus companies don't (due to taxpayer-funded airports and roads as you mentioned), there's really no way rail can fairly compete in this country at the moment. I would love to see HSR come through in places where it would be successful, but honestly getting current trains up to their maximum speed and focusing on public image would be more beneficial in most areas right now. That can be done realistically even under today's conditions if the right moves are made and funding secured.
Hello, my name is Jim and I'm a recent subscriber.
I'm commenting on this video because I can't find the one I watched where you left Chicago Union Station and rode the Zephyr to California.
I really enjoyed your video and you are very pleasant to watch, even for 30 mins.
I really loved it when you jumped off the train in Reno, just taking a Gamble but everything would be fine.
The reason for my commenting now, I've decided I want to take my wife on that train ride.
Now I know I'm getting old because it just seems like a very enjoyable little trip, when I was much younger there's no way in the world you would have got me on a train I would have thought of it as boring.
Something I also loved about your video was how you didn't care about arriving at Union Station early or any of the delays, you truly enjoyed the journey.
You also have a very watchable and enjoyable personality. Your partner that you rode with on that trip seems like a really great guy too.
Would you mind responding to me and telling me which package you purchased for that trip?
We live in northern Michigan, we would probably Drive and park at Union Station.
What would your recommendation be if we left Chicago and got off in Reno like you did?
Then how do we economically return to Chicago Union Station?
Sadly I do not believe we could afford to make that run to Reno and ride back on The Zephyr also.
Thank you very much for your videos
Loved this video!! A long time ago I was in grad school in Mt. Angel, Oregon. I used to ride my bike 20 miles to Salem, Oregon and meet the train. A ticket at that time from Salem to Tacoma, Wa. was seven dollars. It cost me two dollars to put my bike on the baggage car. So for nine bucks I'd go that distance and when the train got to Tacoma, I'd get my bike and ride nine miles to Puyallup, Wa. and visit my parents for the weekend. On Sunday afternoon it was a reverse routine. It was always fun and I really grew to love the train. Now that I'm old and retired (or is that just tired) I'm ready to do something similar again. I live in El Paso now but we are thinking of moving back to the PNW. I think I'll start using Amtrak again for familial visits etc. I'll take the train over the plane any day of the week. Thanks for bringing back many good memories.
Mike, you should do a race from Seattle to Vancouver, since the distance is about the same, but then it would compare border wait times and customs between air travel and rail travel.
Pre-Covid I raced myself between Glasgow and London (415 miles). Amazingly, both rail and air *should* have been 5hr 25min. Unfortunately my train from Glasgow was cancelled, and by catching the next departure, air won the race... that time. I even gave air an advantage by reducing the British Airway's recommended check-in time at Glasgow by 30 minutes. It's always an interesting experiment. Great video.
I had a similar case pre-covid. I had to go from Anaheim to SF Bay Area. Some drove- leaving directly from the 'Duck Pond', while I flew from Ontario (not sure why I choose Ontario). If I drove directly home (Hayward, CA), I would have gotten home sooner, but I we've won. BTW-driving your car is about $300 less expensive) because the flight was delayed an hour.
@@mholtebeck I always have to do a double take when I see Ontario mentioned in an obviously California setting, being a Canadian!
Hi ya Mike 🙂 glad ur ok missed you. Great to see you back in action.
Love how train Mike always shows inside those historic stations.
Aeroplane Mike as you said had the better snack with that breakfast wrap ,but train Mike wins hands down sitting in the gorgeous cafe car enjoying the view.
For such a short distance and the airport security and usual delays, I'm sure the train wins this hands down 👍 (plus, comfort!!!)
You cannot see crater lake from the SeattlePortland flight… there’s a lot of mountain between that route and crater lake :)
This fits a general rule-of-thumb I've noticed. When traveling less than 250 miles (400km) Amtrak is often quicker, or at least in the same general ballpark timewise. With easier boarding the train is often the better pick. However, the further you go higher than 250mi, the less useful the train becomes, and planes grab the advange.
I would love to see the data on regional rail and traditional inter city rail service vs plane and car but gut feeling the 250 miles scans with my experience. I know that HSR is competitive with planes to about 600 miles give or take, wish we would get on that.
@@evilgenius919 Thing about HSR, especially in Western Washington, you'd be dealing with major Eminent Domain issues between the US government and Native American tribes. You also have to deal with congested city landscape, very large military bases, and water and mountains.
It depends, a lot of small towns in America dont have Direct Flights but Amtrak has a Trainline. Its 8hrs or more to Fly from Orlando to Wilmington NC because no Direct Flights. Its 9hr by Train BUT you get a Sleeper Car, Free Meals, Views, No Crying Kids, and best of all no TSA and Stress
Jeb Brooks did NYC to DC and the plane was slightly faster than the train, by like 40 minutes.
unless the journey is the destination and you enjoy the scenery more on the train.
Great. Idea ! The train is much better than the plane on that route, and I have tried both ! The train is stress free, and just consider the worry of an overbooked plane ! Well done !
5:42 You can't see Crater Lake in Seattle to Portland (or vice versa) Flights. Crater Lake is on the Southern side of Oregon near California.
I took the train from Seattle to Portland it looks like around the same time you did and had a very enjoyable experience, with great connectivity at both ends and *no* delays on the Amtrak Cascades for only $27. I look to take train trips whenever possible.
I enjoy this train trip, stress free beautiful scenery, good wi-fi, and spacious seating and restrooms.
This is the most fair comparison of time I’ve seen in a long time. Sure, flight time is short, but most ppl forget how long it takes in security and getting through security and picking up your bags!
and even short flights are not inexpensive.
I almost always prefer train travel, so I was rooting for "train Mike." 😁
I live in Seattle and have not seen Portland since I was very young, so am glad he did this. Good to see the difference - and flying is so much work. LOL
Double Mikes! 🤓 I’m like 🚆 Mike always looking for food 😂 awesome 🤩 video !
I'm finally going to venture an overnight Amtrak trek in late August on the Coast Starlight between Portland and LA, squeezing into a roomette. I will rough it for one night as far as the facilities go since I will be heading to a hotel in Portland and home in LA. Better accommodations were sold out. We'll see how it goes. Welcome back on line!
Love this one. I take the train from Portland to Seattle every year for a convention. I’m glad that this is proof to win my argument against some friends about the train being the best way to go.
It's been a while! Good to see you post a video again!
I’m so glad you’re back it’s been a long month without you. I enjoy your videos so much.
Your music selection is flawless. Love it.
I love how both train and plane Mike are super competitive. Great video and not only did train Mike win but it definitely was the less stress and more scenic way to travel 🙂
I'd know what I'd choose, that train trip looks so much more relaxed! Given the price difference you can have some extra nice food on arrival 🙂
Totally agree!
Another thing to mention about this is that because the Cascades service is a corridor, it is an even better deal if you are travelling between smaller cities that don't have airports. If you are going from, say, Salem to Olympia, which is the same basic distance but with cities about 50 miles away from airports, it would be even longer by airplane. Airport Shuttle to Sea-Tac and shuttle from Portland to Salem would add about two hours and close to 100 dollars to the price.
Another great and fun video Michael. I would have thought that the plane trip would have been significantly faster than the train trip. Sounds like the train is definitely the way to go when looking at time and cost and comfort.
I've flown between PDX and SEA so many times in my life and it's literally my job. But I absolutely prefer the train between the 2 cities. Quality of life over rushing for what might be the same amount of time.
This competition was so entertaining and educational to watch!! Now I feel so tempted to ride a train somewhere and travel! Keep up the good work!!
Train Mike and Plane Mike together at the beginning be like:
Now that I've found you, we can be a duo! That's right!
Twice the evil, Double DownieLive! Coming at you, *FRIDAYS!*
If I had a nickel, for every time Mike took a light rail in this, I'd have two nickels! Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
based Kim Jong Un
My wife and I really like the True Earth laundry strips. Such a totally efficient, light way to do laundry as opposed to what we were doing for 50 years. Great product whether or not you are travelling.
Keep these adventures coming mike. I have never left my country and with your videos it take me on an adventure. I am from South Africa 🇿🇦 keep safe 🤙
I love the train. I live in Renton so I catch the Cascadia at the Tukwila station. Free parking in the secure lot. I love the views. I don't stress over the fact that its going to take 3 hours, I just enjoy the ride. When I arrive in Portland, it's easy walking distance to the Pearl District, or catch a bus or the MAX to get around town. Since you're not driving you can work or play and be home that evening.
Well that was fun Mike! Interesting to see that the train was faster. I once dated a guy from Portland and by train it took me 9 hours from Vancouver. Drove after that.
Nine hours?! It should be like 6 or so, right? But you always have to factor in delays, delays, delays (and border crossings, too).
The only time it took me that long to get back to Portland on Amtrak was when a freight train derailed in front of us and they had to send buses to Centrailia to take us the rest of the way.
Great video as always, and like you said even on trips where trains are a bit slower, I've found the stress level I feel to be far less on trains!
Good video to prove the point that trains are better for transportation between cities that are roughly 200-500km apart. Does not even need to be high speed rail, just efficient on time normal train service is faster.
Im From Portland and I’m definitely a bigger fan of the Amtrak then the plane, only ever had to use the plane once as a connecting flight from annapolis into Portland and it was honestly not the best experience. On the other hand I have so many memeories of riding the train into Seattle and seeing the gorgeous views. Also coincidentally some of my family is on the Amtrak cascades to Seattle at the time I am writing this comment.
My friend and his colleague left a meeting in Boston, MA to return to central NJ. One drove; the other took the plane. They arrived at the same tollbooth on the NJ Turnpike at exactly the same time! Generally, with airports outside the major cities and the need to check in several hours early; trains are the better option.
Love these videos. You should do an Amtrak cascades back up to Vancouver when it opens in September
Your tag line at the end...... Fabulous!!
Another banger! I was looking forward to this all week. I feel like I was hounding you on Instagram, but I got to say, it meets my expectation. You come up with the most unique ideas. Keep em coming.
I've taken the Tacoma-Portland Amtrak round-trip and it's really enjoyable. It was interesting to see train yards and pick up/drop off points I transported rail crews to/from and point them out to my wife.
I'm thinking that you were seeing Spirit Lake instead of Crater Lake, since Crater Lake is in southern Oregon. Still a great video!
BTW, I used to transport crews from the Delta yard in Everett, Wa.
All three of the Amtrak lines you mentioned are fantastic journeys. Agree with other commenters that distance is a factor for train vs plane but time not being a factor I would choose train over plane any time. Love your content.
Thank you sooo much for taking my suggestion most of the time when I give suggestions UA-camrs just ignore it I'm soooo happy right now
I live in Olympia, WA. I'm also an airline pilot. I love trains and obviously, I love airplanes, but for me, I prefer flying... Also, Portland (airport) is a two hour drive from my house.
I also think this is more about perspective. Do you want the leisurely travel of the train or the hustle and bustle of the airplane? It truly depends on what mode you enjoy more. Considering the airplane flight allows you to see more destinations that the train doesn't cover. Most people taking the train between Seattle and Portland, simply don't like flying or driving the route. Often people fly between the two cities as a connection for an even further destination. Either way, this was a great video and I'm happy when you come out to my neck of the woods.
just subbed, i live in Portland and used to operate the max in Portland.
Umm, you wouldn't be able to see Crater Lake unless you were flying south towards California. ✈
Even when the train is slower, it is still more relaxing and enjoyable with way less stress. For those reasons the people are so much more sociable and friendly. One of my best experiences in travel was the Capital limited from Washington DC to Chicago: rolling through the Mountains of West Virginia on the top level of the Dome car with an awesome bourbon on the rocks when we passed right next to a gorgeous waterfall and the whole car did a spontaneous "OOOOO---Ahhhh!"
Growing up in the PNW, the ONLY reason I would ever take a plane between the two is because if you're flying international from PDX, you pretty much have to go through Sea-Tac or SFO. But if I'm just traveling between Portland or Seattle (or Seattle-Vancouver), I'll take the train 10 times out of 10.
What an awesome video! Very unique perspective of both forms of traveling side by side. Hope for more videos like this in the future! Keep it up!
Well actually the bus is faster than both the train and the plane. I took a trip from Vancouver to LA by train but at that time you had to take the bus to Seattle. Bus arrived late and we missed the train. They put us on another bus that drove us to the train station in Portland and we caught up to the train.
I think they are very evenly matched
Defiantly the train.......more relaxing......less hectic.....and the greasy spoon comfort food looks amazing......I travel by Amtrak too.....and I know how tasty their food is......I am eagerly awaiting for Amtrak's return back into Canada and to Vancouver, BC....... you should try the Coast star light from Seattle, to Los Angeles.....it's a great trip.....and all restauraunt car meals are included if you buy a sleeper room.....I took the Star Light to Los Angeles and a coach bus to Las Vegas.....great trip
You can not see Crater Lake from Portland.
I knew at the start riding the train for the win was a no-brainer.
I’ve been a frequent traveler to NYC & Newark from Boston on the north and from Washington DC & Philadelphia on the south for years. I’ve timed the trip over and over.
Time-wise the train wins hands down all the time.* Flying is second fastest. Driving a car either direction to/from either city for many reasons is always the slowest.
I look forward to the time the US will get it’s act together and have a high speed rail system the same as Europe and Japan have all over our big beautiful country!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
* Additionally, riding the train is easier with less hassle and more comfort than flying or driving!!!
Thought provoking as usual. I have to laugh - you have proven the theory that when one is in a hurry, there will always be some sort of delay - except when you really need a delay , then they will be on time if not early! :)
There is a proposed high speed rail line between Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (Cascadia HSR) that would make the Portland-Seattle trip in under an hour. It would use a combination of public and private funding, and connect 8.5 million people along the I-5 corridor.
America is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to 21st century intercity passenger rail, and needs to build high speed rail to catch up. California is doing that with its SF-LA/Anaheim HSR route that’ll connect the two cities via the Central Valley in under 3 hours at speeds of 220mph, and so far is the only US high speed rail project in the construction phase. The estimated base cost for the entire 470-mile route is currently at about $93 billion, and the estimated start time for SF-LA service is 2033, but it is happening and needs to keep happening for the sake of both California’s and America’s transportation future.
We cannot continue to rely on driving and flying for most of our travel needs, and need a viable third option that the world has proven for decades is high speed rail. High speed rail is far from outdated, and continues to be built and expanded around the world and continually improved to go even faster while also being safer and convenient. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. There are a number of corridors in the US, like California and Cascadia, where high speed rail would be very effective at relieving congestion by providing a better alternative to a long drive or relatively short flight.
Which multi-billion dollar investment will we be more satisfied with in 20-30 years from now? Keeping the status quo of adding more freeway lanes and expanding airports which are short term and finite solutions that’ll ultimately lead to even more congestion, or do we invest in the 21st century alternative and finally start catching up with the world with high speed rail. Let’s finish California high speed rail, which has always and continues to be building to SF and LA, and learn from its example, for better or worse, to build other high speed rail lines around the country, in the Pacific NW, Texas, the NE and Midwest. Let’s look beyond today toward tomorrow, and envision the kind of world we want our descendants to inherit.
Was in the PNW last week - got to Portland from Chicago via Seattle! So a lot of this video looked veeeeeeeeery familiar.
Excellent video! The train rocks! It seems much less stressful
What a terrific idea, the race against yourself! Perfectly executed and edited to tell a good story and make a great point. I'm intrigued by the elimination of many short-haul flights in Europe, where the high speed rail network is so much easier and cleaner than flying. I'm in NC; the trains that we have are great, but I'm looking forward to expansions (Salisbury to Asheville will include my town). In context of your experiment, the Atlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh/Richmond upgrades to higher speed will eventually allow elimination of a lot of short-haul flights.
A minor nit-pick: I know that you're Canadian, and younger than me, but at 5:36 you refer to the Columbia river as the "border" between the two states, a word which I have heard increasingly in the last 10-20 years. We traditionally use the term "state line". I believe "border" began to be used in the Bush administration, and its use went into high gear under Trump. "Border" implies division and separateness, and I think its use has been deliberate. You of course use the word natively and in a benign manner, but it still jumps out at me as a political devolution of the language.
Cheers, I am always impressed with your videos, and I thoroughly enjoy all your travels, humor, and intelligent discovery!
Hi Mike. I really enjoy your videos. A hotly debated topic here in the big apple: NYC to Boston on a plane vs train vs automobile. Would make another great DownieLives episode.
I would like to see Amtrak vs Commuter Rail in the NEC
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike where have you been brother. For the past SEVERAL weeks we have had DownieLive withdrawal. I have looked EVERY Saturday and have seen old post until today. That being said WELCOME BACK and PLEASE keep them vids a comin in. Thank you and say good night Gracie. "Good night Gracie."
I mean flying is ok
But I hugely prefer the train I absolutely love them
The views are so beautiful and just watch the world go by you
I do hope Amtrak cascades early 2000’s long range plan for 110-120mph top speed comes to fruition! I think they aimed for an initial 2:30 long trip between SEA and PDX
Not unless we can spare another quarter trillion bucks to build a dedicated passenger rail corridor. Hell, the Link Light Rail extension is already over $50 billion!
@@everettrailfan The early WSDOT plan which was a mix of new ROW and capacity increase along BNSF ROW estimated the cost to be around 7 billion in today’s dollars. It would still take 2.5 hours to get from SEA-PDX or 2.5 hour to get from SEA-VAN
Link light rail development has been too expensive!
I think I found your channel maybe two weeks ago. I thoroughly enjoy your content. It really makes encourages me to take my daughter [4yo] on further adventures given what seems like a much more laid back travel than rushing through airports.
Do Baltimore to Washington in a race between driving and the train. There roughly an hour each way either method. Personally the starting and end points should be the Washington monuments in both cities.
I work in downtown Seattle and sometimes we have in person meetings at our downtown Portland office. We always debate, to fly, drive or train trip. We like the train because it has wifi and we can work all the way down which we couldnt do in the car or flying. We also like how roomy the seats are. Oh, and on the way back to Seattle, we always have a couple of beers!😀
Every time I take the train, the wifi isn't working. I often take it from Seattle to Eugene and this past trip (July 4th trip) I couldn't even get a decent cell signal unless I was near a town. Oh well, at least there was nice scenery and a great chance to take a lovely nap! I can't imagine flying to PDX, but I DID consider flying to EUG... for about 30 seconds until I saw the price and factored in airport time.
Oh my gosh, trains are always better!
Would love to see a similar race between NYC and Boston or DC! I’m tempted to think that the plane would win on those, but the difficulty of getting to LaGuardia from the city on public transportation could definitely make it longer. Also, the train ride between NYC and DC is nowhere near as scenic as Seattle-Portland (NYC-BOS is probably better).
Everybody else does that vs race on the NEC, do what the others don’t, like Miami Orlando once the Brightline extension opens, and you could even do a 3 way race with somebody who lives in Florida driving the route.
Great idea. Loved this episode. Having spent a great deal of time riding the various types of trains from high-speed bullet trains to vintage local lines still operational in Japan, I much prefer rail travel to cattle class in airplanes. Even when upgraded to first class (just the once as an apology from the airline) there's no comparison to regular class on a bullet train except for the lack of a personal steward. However, in Canada rail travel is not a particularly convenient and certainly not local or inter-provincial option as there isn't an extensive network of lines as there is in Japan.
Rail travel is much more relaxing. No pre-boarding security or long lineups. Much more room and comfort. The wonderful sounds of rocking or skimming along the track. Windows allowing wide-screen views of the ever-changing vistas. No restrictions vis-à-vis seat belts or freedom to walk about. While there are no café cars in Japan, attendants who come by with a snack cart on the Shinkansen (bullet train) as well as vendors in stations or department store food floors adjacent to stations to provide travelers with a bento--a boxed meal which can be as simple or luxe as the price point--and alcoholic beverages are allowed. 🥂🍱🍻
Glad to see a new video. Missed seeing your videos the last few weeks. This was a great concept for a video. The entire process involved with going to the airport really does eat up a lot of time.
Train for sure! Probably not for cross country as that does save time to fly vs days on a train. I love the coast starlight and have ridden it many times to visit friends so I don’t have to drive snowy mountain passes. It’s the best!
I'd pick the train any day ... love the space and relaxation. xx
Love trains. Sadly it isn't much of an option in Oklahoma but can remember riding them in Washington State as a child. And the scenery is so beautiful
I spent a summer where I would have to get between Vancouver, BC - from downtown to downtown...
people who did not understand the logistics kept trying to schedule me to fly - when there was a direct bus service -
faster, easier and cheaper than taking the plane.
Depending on timing and final destination, I've found that the Capital limited between Washington DC and Chicago, IL was a much more comfortable trip,
and it didn't actually take me any longer or cost me more (and I used a roomette).
I live south of Seattle and always take the train to Portland. I don't drive down there due to traffic and hotel parking fees. Even if the plane saved me a half hour of time, I would still take the train. There is just no stress. Plus leg room and you can walk around. The food is just OK but its better than what you'll get on a plane. Now imagine if you didn't have that 15 minute delay at the bridge. I keep telling my friends here, train is the way the go (when going to Portland). Thanks for proving my point.
PS. I didn't even save about the almost $200 you'll save and if you book your ticket a few weeks in advance, way cheaper.
Unless you have to go a long distance as quickly as possible, trains are always better.
It helps that Amtrak basically puts Business Class seats in their economy class. There is just no way for a flying tin can to compete with that. Also, all that time you waste at an airport is actual seat time in a train. It's just so much more productive to be on a train than running through the airport or waiting in TSA lines. You can relax or work, but your time is yours on a train.
@@TohaBgood2 That's all well and good and perfect for short corridors like NEC and Brightline, but if you are a business traveler your schedule is much tighter and if Amtrak is heavily prone to delays then it's useless. As soon as you get past about the 250-mile mark jets just become quicker end to end.
@@josephpenn1115 The NEC isn't that short. But it also has a lot of destinations on the route and most passengers don't travel the whole length. So I guess you're right overall. It's 457 miles. It just has very high speed limits. Almost the whole thing is at or above 125mph and there are sections that go as fast as 150mph. Now they also want to upgrade speeds in more places and increase the existing high speed sections to 160mph.
But yes, we need faster trains to have them compete with the airlines better. That's why we need full High Speed Rail! Proper HSR does better than the airlines (i.e. steals up to 80% of their customers) on journeys of up to 500 miles. In some countries it's 600 miles, in others it's 400 or 450. But 500 miles is about the median limit for HSR. Above that planes win. But that is also the median length of flights in the US overall. So that means that roughly half of the current flight routes in the country could have 80% of their passengers convert to HSR. That's a massive number of passengers. And this is exactly what we see empirically happen wherever HSR becomes available. Many airlines basically lose short-haul altogether and are barely able to compete closer to the 500 mile limit. More competitive prices for all travelers and environmental benefits!
@@josephpenn1115 Quicker doesn’t always mean better, it’s about the whole experience. Amtrak doesn’t need to become the fastest, it just needs to be fast enough to reasonably compete with cars. Meaning instead of having to make HSR, we just need to increase the average speed on current lines. This could be done by eliminating slow sections, enforcing the Amtrak priority rule, making stops more efficient so they take up less time, and increasing top speeds to 90-110. In addition the experience must be Comfortable, convenient, and affordable. Amtrak does miss the marks on most of those right now but the potential is there. Oh yeah and frequency and transit connections must be better
@@Cal90208 for business travel punctuality and speed are the two main factors, there is a lack of flexibility for that customer compared to a tourist. While a low-speed line would appeal to some tourists it doesn't appeal to enough in order to be a better form of transport compared to flying or driving. I like trains as much as the next guy but even in Europe and Asia they recognize that it's not the best form of long-distance transport for passengers.
Another excellent video this week! Can’t we agree that Mike has the best and most inviting tagline?!
I'm from the Netherlands and if I want to choose from various destinations the airport is 2,5 hours away. With waiting times it's often quicker or just as fast to travel by train to the start closest by. then I like to travel further away over a couple of weeks and often take a flight back to the country.
Yay!!! You’re back! Was missing your Sunday videos. Your work is awesome
Nice job ! And like many others have said “… if only we had high speed rail”. Lived in Spain for a while, Madrid-Valencia is about 185mi. Train takes 1 hr 40 min …. Nuff said
I live in Portland. Given a choice I always prefer a train on the west coast. Someday I want to do PDX to NYC by train...
If you ever get the chance at an excursion on the Daylight 4449, do it! One year we went from Portland to Bend Oregon up the Columbia River Gorge and Deschutes River Canyon. Another year from Portlad to Spokane, then through a huge tunnel in the Cascades to Tacoma and back to Portland.
ua-cam.com/video/W9mwVChRBHs/v-deo.html
That looks amazing!
Unfortunately we don’t really have any high speed trains in the US. I read somewhere one was being built in California. I think it was LA or San Diego to San Francisco. They had a company picking out because of their expertise in. Building high speed system in Europe. After many attempts and meeting and project delays because of multiple bureaucratic challenges the company walked away and built a system out of the United States. People our big government is killing this country.