Amtrak vs Air Travel

Throughout the Amtrak topics, I have come across many instances of posters asking why people take the train instead of flying or driving. So I decided to list a few here. Please feel free to debate or add to the list:
1- They enjoy the train
2- They hate airports and the TSA craziness
3- They hate the crowded seating on airplanes
4- They are not in a hurry
5- They are afraid of flying
6- They are railfans
7- They enjoy the scenery
8- Luggage on planes costs way too much

9-If going on the Acela the trip from say BOS-NYP is faster than planes.

benboston wrote:9-If going on the Acela the trip from say BOS-NYP is faster than planes.

Well said. Even the midwest corridors can be faster than flying if travelling from midpoints. I sometimes stay two hours out of Chicago, near New Buffalo. It's much easier to catch a Wolverine than it is to drive to Midway and catch a Detroit flight. Don't even think about O'Hare...

10. Last-mile connections into the city are much easier, and often are easier into the suburbs and countryside too. Airports are a pain in the butt for both transit and drivers in a way that train stations rarely are.

11. Less expensive for those in very rural areas

11. The total unproductive time on a train trip is lower than the total unproductive time on a plane trip.

The train gives you a block of uninterrupted time that you can use to work, with little time spent unproductively, while air travel time is broken up into numerous interrupted segments (e.g., going through security, waiting before boarding, boarding, takeoff, etc.), many of which are unproductive time.

There is no one size fits all solution.

The Auto Train allows one to bring their car with them and saves driving time when someone needs a car for instance.

The Northeast Corridor can be quicker for some due to TSA security screening.

Going for shorter distances or Auto Train makes sense. But taking a long haul train is inefficient and non cost effective.

We ought to have scenic airplanes for those who want a birds eye closeup view of the same long haul territories as train and with technology, a great solution could be done which would make the days of the scenic long haul train routes a thing of the past. I have been on trains in the viewing cars before absorbing the countryside but airplane can give much better views with technological solutions and really transform the existing experience all the while you are moving a lot faster in a lot more comfort (airline and class of booking dependent). I realize no bedrooms but the trip is so much shorter that the smaller planes can be crammed with nice features on Airlines which have premium domestic seating in business or first class and airlines are bringing better premium products to the table with newer airplanes as well.

I really believe Amtrak is just too large where the the long haul nature is not competitive and eats up a lot of revenue which could be directed elsewhere. Due to the 2018 Omnibus spending bill passed, it looks like Amtrak was not cut back and government went with more of the same waste and inefficiency even if there were some needed projects funded in the bill as well.

Cost is not effective on long haul routes as airplane is faster and cheaper. Airlines have fare sales. Amtrak has even cut back and eliminated discount programs which makes them even less competitive on the long haul routes.

Myself I could very well do Amtrak on certain short haul routes. But from NYC to Texas for instance, I will gladly fly on American Airlines and can get the fare price for very low pricing to DFW and be there in a much shorter time.

NYC to Florida would also do airplane. NYC to DC, train vs plane is competitive and it depends on luggage usage, price differential and time differential factors and so on. NYC to Toronto, Canada, plane is more competive and faster.

Train is just not a good way to travel long haul at this point in time. If someone has a fear of flying, then bus would be more than appropriare rather than funding long haul rail connectivity. I just gave a sample of some routes.

I am all for improvements to Amtrak at the local levels but the long haul connectivity in many areas is not needed and I would have scaled back service from existing nationwide coverage maps.

In the old days nationwide connectivity and interconnection of railroads was a huge transformational period but times have changed and Freight railroads should concentrate on the needed demands and Amtrak doesn’t need all the nationwide connectivity.

Much more efficient to build more airplanes and keep airports modernized than maintain tracks and signals and bridges and other infrastructure along the way.

The intersection of airlines and railroads has come full circle since Richard Anderson formerly of Delta Airlines became in charge of Amtrak. We will see how long Anderson remains at Amtrak and what transformational moves he makes going forward and if another person steps in charge at some point to take on a new direction.

R&DB:
Put "Railfans" at the bottom of your list. All of those are good reasons to choose train travel.
Being a railfan should be dead last - you are preaching to the choir here

AJ:
I think that it is good that Amtrak (if you have read the topic about Amtrak's new President) got
funded in the manner that it did this time around. There have been major cuts made...

I think that you are being penny wise and dollar foolish noting what contributions a national route
system has over a regional one - first politically without some routes and trains currently operating
Amtrak then will lose support of that congressional delegation. One of the best examples that I can
think of is Montana's support of Amtrak thanks to the "Empire Builder" serving the state.

I see Amtrak to a large extent as a break-even public service noting how in recent years they have
strived to use as little government subsidy being quasi-government as they are. ALL transport of
any type has some kind of government subsidy in some way,shape or form. What makes Amtrak
(or any government owned or subsidized passenger rail service) different is that some only note
the subsidies or losses - but other forms of transport have their own visible and invisible costs.

http://www.railpassengers.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Read the NARP/Rail Passengers Association news and see what Amtrak and rail travel supporters
are about. Get educated about having a more balanced transportation system. MACTRAXX

One size does not fit is correct. However there is too much emphasis on end to end travel. Almost all travel is between small locations or small to major locations such as the NEC. Understand the Capitol has the longest average distance traveled but still has man intermediate station passengers.

adamj023 wrote:But taking a long haul train is inefficient and non cost effective.

Generally agreed, but there are some routes are more time-efficient than flying. Atlanta-Washington on the Crescent, for example: leaving in the evening after work and arriving in the morning, before work.

12- Auto Train

For those unfamiliar, the Auto Train's clientele is primarily (probably 95%) made up of 2 types, snowbirds and theme park vacationers: Snowbirds are those who live in the northeast in summer and Florida in winter, typically seniors. They take their cars on Amtrak ($202) because it cheaper than flying and the cost of shipping the car by freight. ($600 & up) They are retired, so speed is not an issue. They also typically don't like to drive long distance.
Vacationers are mostly families with kids. They are going for a week or so and will need a car in Orlando. A family of 4 would need to rent a car for the week and pay ridiculous luggage prices on the airlines. Auto Train does not charge for luggage. If you can fit it in your car, you can take it. A week's car rental plus the air baggage charge comes to about the $202 Amtrak charges for the car. If they choose to drive, they get 900 miles of 'are we there yet?'

All meals are included on the Auto Train. Terminal delays for train are about 3 hours end to end and 2-1/2 for airports. No TSA security hassles on Amtrak.

And 1 more thing to consider when comparing train vs plane prices, even coach class on any Amtrak route would be considered business or even first class on a plane and there are no sleepers available on a plane.

13- Possibility of Fatality en-route

This one is a little complicated. Air travel is safer than rail travel in number of accidents per passenger mile. The probability of dying in a plane crash is near 100%. In train accidents, usually only a small percentage of the injuries are fatal. Highway travel accidents at speeds above 60 mph have a higher fatal probability than trains. If one is driven by safety concerns the train is far superior to the other two modes.

MACTRAXX wrote:R&DB:
Put "Railfans" at the bottom of your list. All of those are good reasons to choose train travel.
Being a railfan should be dead last - you are preaching to the choir here

So true.


Generally, I used to be a "take the train every time," but even as a "railfan," it would depend on a variety of factors. One example, TSA Pre is a 'game changer' and I couldn't imagine most business travelers not having it. As for corridor travel, the train would generally make sense as there would be less time/cost needed to get to downtown. As for intra-NJ travel, unfortunately, budget cuts have forced NJT to raise fares 50%, making train travel to/from north & central Jersey more for the "experience" rather than cost or even time factor (and due to scheduling imperfections within NJ). Yes you can read article after article or the news, but sometimes you just want to get home. And with the advent of the shale revolution, which just 10 years ago folks said was not feasible to tap into, the cost of fuel should not go up significantly anytime soon which used to be the "make or break" factor of taking the train vs other modes (the Saudi prince confirms $100 is the wrong price for oil).

I recall that back around the time the Metroliners were being introduced in 1968 a group of academics made a study of what they termed the "anxiety factor"--the anxiety being not about safety but rather the number of connections involved in air travel that all have to work; i.e., road traffic en route to the airport, getting checked in on time (and this long before TSA), listening for the departure announcement, having a gate available at destination, traffic en route from the airport into town, etc., all of which chop up the journey into sections, whereas by train once you're in your seat you're all set until it's time to get off and you can work or snooze or whatever you like. I don't know whether they figured out a way of quantifying that, but they considered it significant.

The ability to move around

In air travel you are discouraged from getting out of your seat unless absolutely necessary i.e. the rest room and there isn't much else to go to, and oftentimes there are times you can't even do that due to takeoffs, landings, turbulence, drink carts in the aisle etc. Even standing in the aisle near the restroom gets dirty looks from the flight crew. Unless you are in an aisle seat even getting out is hard with the narrow economy seating today.

With trains you can go to the cafe or lounge if there is one, no real restrictions once your ticket is lifted.

Another reason: It's an approved method of travel for the Amish.