San Francisco-to-L.A. overnight train inches closer to reality
An overnight passenger train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, using existing coastal freight tracks, is drawing mixed reactions as a potential alternative to short-haul flights. Commenters weigh its likely ticket prices, speed, and reliability against flying and driving, with many arguing that limited funds would be better spent improving regional transit and integration of existing systems. Broader themes include the challenges of U.S. rail—low population density between major metros, freight rail priority, property rights, and political will—versus the comfort, environmental benefits, and city-center access that well-run sleeper and high-speed rail can provide.
Cost and Competitiveness vs Flying
- Many argue the train must be cheaper than or at least comparable to flying to gain adoption; others say any reasonable (<5–10x) alternative should be welcomed.
- Current examples (Amtrak LA–Seattle, NE Corridor, etc.) often cost similar to airfares, especially last-minute, which fuels skepticism.
- Some point out that total trip cost for flying includes airport transfers, parking, and hotels for early meetings, so a $300–$350 high-quality sleeper could be competitive.
Time, Convenience, and Experience
- Door-to-door, flying SF–LA typically takes ~3 hours or more once airport logistics are included.
- Trains are seen as far more comfortable, especially with kids or as overnight sleepers where travel time overlaps with sleep.
- The “luxury sleeper with good food and beds” model is seen by some as a viable niche even if not faster than planes.
Demand, Geography, and ROI
- Critics stress limited intermediate population between SF and LA (mainly Fresno and Bakersfield) and multiple mountain ranges, arguing low ROI versus improving regional systems (BART, Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor, etc.).
- Others counter that California’s coastal corridor is densely populated where it matters and conceptually well suited for a rail backbone.
- Some argue priority should be based on passenger-miles and integrated local transit at termini.
Infrastructure, Freight, and Reliability
- This proposal would use existing Union Pacific (and in related services, BNSF) freight tracks, not new high-speed infrastructure.
- Past experience with Amtrak on these lines suggests delays, poor track conditions, and freight priority, raising doubts about on-time performance.
- Landslide-related closures and difficult terrain along the coast are cited as additional reliability and upgrade challenges.
Environment and Fuel
- Trains would almost certainly run diesel; electrification is seen as unlikely for this low-priority freight route.
- Some claim even fossil-fueled trains can have lower emissions per passenger-mile than planes, though others cite reports where this isn’t always true.
Comparisons to Europe and Asia
- Many contrast US struggles with European and Chinese rail, noting: higher densities, better local transit, and more centralized political will elsewhere.
- Counterpoints emphasize China’s higher population density, easier land acquisition, and large debts on its rail system.
- Examples from Japan and Europe show that trains can be more expensive than flying but win on city-center access and comfort.
Politics, Law, and Feasibility in the US
- Multiple comments blame US legal complexity, strong property rights, fragmented local governments, and auto/aviation interests for blocking major rail projects.
- There is a recurring sentiment that the US once built large rail and highway systems but now lacks the political capacity or consensus to repeat such efforts.
Mass Transit vs Luxury Niche
- Some worry that “luxury sleeper” positioning means it won’t serve ordinary travelers until equipment ages and prices drop.
- Others are fine with a premium niche product, seeing it as one of the few economically plausible ways to add intercity rail in the current US context.