> I'm not sure how a train is any better than a bus

kWh/passenger-mile, which, even if you assume both have environmentally-equal power sources, means environmental impact.

Probably also easier to keep other vehicles off your “dedicated” lane with a train.

Well I'm pretty sure how a train is better than a bus.

High speed trains are three times as fast.

This is key. I can drive faster than Amtrak if there's no traffic. Modern high speed trains change a lot of the math.

Crossing the midwest diagonally, you're rarely going to be able to drive faster than 65 mph (legally). Even slow US trains can do 80 mph (though they do stop, too, and frequently get delayed by freight). If you could run trains at even 100mph, which is far from a "modern high speed train", driving would never be faster.

SLC to Oakland is about 3 hours faster by car than by rail right now.

That's crossing the west, or even the west of the west. Trains are slower through that section.

A 100mph train (again, not a modern high speed train) with limited stops would beat the car. Not sure the track could be built for this in this geography, however.

Yes, though the speed limit along the same stretch across Nevada is 80 mph, with the general flow of traffic between 85-90mph. Legality aside, the roads are very high quality and you can cruise along at 100 mph without much difficulty in a car.

100+ mph roads aren't unheard of (see autobahn). Neither are 100+ mph trains. The fact that neither is available is frustrating.

None of the existing routes are built for high speed trains and the infrastructure investment proposed ($80B) is far too small to even begin any sort of meaningful high speed rail service.

I said for less than 100 miles of travel.

How much time did you spend in a bus vs train? I would choose a medium quality train over any quality bus, if we’re talking about comfort

Trains are more energy-efficient than buses, have lower operating costs (especially if electric), more comfortable. In terms of light rail vs bus however >easy rerouting to more busy lines ... you can just increase frequency >not blocked if one in front breaks down This is a risk, but generally the idea is to do enough preventative maintenance so that this doesn't happen and to have sufficient crossover switches to work around this >Resale to other bus lines It's best to just use your vehicles until EOL, Toronto used their last generation LRVs for decades- far longer than a bus would last. >Less upfront cost That's REALLY not a benefit. This is why American infrastructure is failing: a failure to consider maintenance cost or have any long-term thinking. The bus can not really get more comfortable. Drive on a smooth road and have a great suspension system: it'll still be less comfortable than a smooth ride on a train.

This whole "one mode to rule them all" attitude- common in American news media- is toxic. Cars, trains, buses, planes, and more all have their place.

I think there's a bit of complimentary too.. like you say, buses are easier to build up, which helps grow the market for shared transport between population centers. That's the market that needs to be big to justify rail investment. Also eg in Europe, they live together nicely with FlixBus providing frequent, fast and cheap service between cities but seemingly not killing the rail. Maybe this is an example of the Jevons Paradox.. it's actually the greater efficiency of each (over cars or air) that creates the greater demand

You're forgetting about traffic. I've taken the NYC to DC bus quite a few times, and have had anything from 4 to 7 hours in travel time depending on how bad traffic is on the road and whether there's any accidents. Now if they'd put a dedicated bus lane on the highway that'd be much better, but sadly it doesn't exist.

Train service between the two cities, meanwhile, is much more reliable in how long it's actually going to take.

Easy rerouting is also a disadvantage: no one wants to rely on a service that can be effortlessly taken away.

This is one of the big arguments for light rail over buses. Once it's built, development can take place along the route with fairly high confidence that it will run, albeit perhaps on a reduced schedule, even if ridership doesn't meet projections.

Roads that can handle heavy driving are much more expensive than train tracks, especially per capacity. Adding passenger train capacity is therefore the cheapest way to reduce load on your roads.

For me, it's just so much nicer to travel by train.

Agreed. We should make buses more appealing IMO.

I think some of it is unavoidable. E.g., I tend to get carsick on busses if I try to read or use a computer, but not on trains -- something about the nature of the motion.