I came here expecting to see that the "free market zero regulation" of the US, and business sense would mean quite a cheap fare for this train, but no, it's just as bad as europe.
Even though they are supposedly the ultimate green mass public transportation, trains really need to get cheaper to be a serious alternative for cars and cheap airlines, as you also point out.
- working
- having a meal (and by that I don't mean eating a sandwitch or crisps)
- have a conversation that involve eye contacts
- playing board/card games
- watching a movie
- reading
All of these activities are impossible for a car driver and would make most passenger feeling sick or spreading food everywhere in the car.
So it is not like an apple to apple comparison. The added cost is hardly justified for a short 1h30 drive, but the longer the trip the more it makes a difference.
Elsewhere in Europe there's usually less difference. Here in Denmark the cheapest Copenhagen-Århus ticket booked in advance is around £15, and the standard ticket (any time) is £50. London to Manchester is a similar distance, and the price varies from around £20 (supposedly) to £185.
Hmm... I expected the cheapest ticket in England to be less than the cheapest in Denmark.
(Denmark isn't big enough for an equivalent journey to London-Edinburgh, but Sweden is. I notice the Malmö-Stockholm route is so busy the direct trains are mostly fully booked for several days ahead — Britain does have more capacity in return for the expensive fares.)
Yet still jam packed with people
https://i.imgur.com/uSHiZdS.png
If you are willing to risk using one of the lower tier car rental companies, you can really cut the price.
Not sure it is even the best comparison since we are talking reliability. Airlines manage overbooking very well, but flights delays and cancellations are the reliability issue.
Are trains mor expensive purely because regulation costs and operating expenses are passed down in entirety to the customer ?
No more so than diesel for a locomotive. The formulation is pretty similar. Then, consider that the energy requirements for trains and planes aren't radically different (for long-distance travel). Airplanes fly though the thin air of the stratosphere, while trains try to bore a hole through the thick air near the ground.
> it takes a larger crew to operate
Not really. The person-hours of labor (for the on-board crew) required to operate a segment between two city pairs is usually less for a plane because it spends less time in transit.
In both cases, the crew is unionized and commands high pay and benefits.
In both cases, a centralized dispatcher is required, usually certified.
In both cases, some staff are needed to run the stations and on/off-load baggage and cargo. In both cases, one group of such staff can be "rotated" through the many arrivals/departures that happen throughout the day.
> and the planes are more expensive too
[Citation needed]
This page implies a Siemens Charger (the type of locomotive used by Brightline) costs ~$11m per unit: https://www.businessinsider.com/amtraks-new-diesel-electric-...
While this page implies that a Siemens Venture (the type used by Brightline) costs ~$80m per trainset: https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/07/08/amtrak-cuts-deal-with...
Each train requires 2x locomotives and one set of cars, for a total cost of ~$100m.
A 737 also costs ~$100m new: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-does-boeing-737-cost-142...
The Venture set carries about 250 pax, while the 737 carries about 180. But the 737 can complete more trips in a given amount of time compared to a train.
> Who foots the bill for operating expensive airports ?
Generally the people who use it, via ticket prices. O'hare airport is a major profit center for the city of Chicago (check out the city's border--that little nub on the west side is the airport).
> Are trains mor[e] expensive purely because regulation costs and operating expenses are passed down in entirety to the customer ?
It's mostly a combination of:
1. Higher labor costs (because a train takes longer, and the crew requirements are similar).
2. Needing to build and maintain a continuous right of way for hundreds of miles.
3. Less efficient use of capital because the same amount of equipment can make fewer trips in a given amount of time.