If I wasn't blocked by Devac I'd tell him that there is nothing consistent about U.S. commuter trains. Some places have pretty well run subway systems, some places have decrepit train systems that are poorly laid out, some places have no trains at all. Generally if you buy a train ticket you can use it to ride the busses.

Trains from one major city to another are slow and generally old. Tickets aren't cheap but they are less than air fair. There are a few high speed rail lines being developed on both coasts but it'll probably be years until they are up and running if they ever get off the ground.

Generally the people pushing hardest for better rail are also kooky weirdos in the non rail aspects of their politics, it's just a strange aspect of U.S. politics.

The U.S. rail system is primarily dedicated to moving freight and moving people is an after thought.

My own city has a few train lines. They all pass through downtown and their branches go to the airport, the main sporting venue, and extend out into the suburbs to bring commuters in and out of the city. There is a good chance that any long commuter journey will involve transferring to a bus at some point. I like the bus system but it isn't universally loved.

My city has a train that crosses downtown as well. During heavy traffic I can usually walk faster than it can travel. I seen a few trains like this one in different cities that are essentially useless if you aren't a tourist or unable to walk.

I lived in Boston which had a very useful subway system. It wasn't super modern but it was faster than walking or taking the bus, it ran frequently and was generally safe and clean.

I'm from Detroit, where they had an elevated rail system that could take you in a big useless circle around a very few cultural attractions but was generally considered too dangerous and dirty to mess with. I hear it's gotten better in recent times.