Amtrak: I'd Like an Order of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (Without the Automobiles)
May 17 '00
Introduction
For the first eighteen years of my life, I had never even ridden a train. Now, however, I commute to work daily on a train from Baltimore to D.C. Riding Amtrak almost as frequently, I spend more time in trains than I currently do in cars. There are certainly advantages to train travel, but depending on what kind of trip you are taking, a plane usually is the better choice.
Price
Your first thought about taking a train rather than other modes of travel (i.e. plane) is that it is going to save you some money. While it is true that, in general, Amtrak is less expensive than any of the airlines, it is certainly not always the case and usually does not save you as much as you would have thought.
Just to give you a brief example, the cheapest fare on a train from Washington D.C. to New York round trip is roughly $134. Now, that is without prior reservations (i.e. you can buy the ticket five minutes before the train leaves). On the other hand, there are a lot of special rates for airlines right now between DC and New York. In fact, US Airways currently offers round trip tickets for $129. That is given advanced purchase. So, in this case, it is cheaper to fly on a plane!
For the most part, you won't find it cheaper, however -- especially if you can't make an advanced purchase. In general, if you purchase it the day of, the best deal you can get on a plane is roughly $219. You have to also add in the cost of taxis depending on how far away the airport is from your final destination, unless someone else is picking you up.
That is just considering the trip from DC to New York, however. If you take longer trips, you will find that it is actually more expensive to travel via Amtrak. A round trip on Amtrak from D.C to Los Angeles is almost $600 while advanced purchase of a round trip flight between the two can be $350. In general, the longer your trip, the cheaper a plane will be compared to a train.
Travel Time
For the same Washington to New York trip, the train would take over three hours. The fastest train, which could up the price about $80, would still take two and a half hours. They are currently introducing a new train in some parts (the fabled bullet train), but the reduction in time will again up the price.
The flight on the plane, on the other hand, will take roughly an hour and fifteen minutes. Of course, you have to get to the airport earlier, check baggage if necessary, and wait in more lines. After you add up all this, the plane is certainly a shorter trip, but, on the route I am speaking of, takes almost as long when you factor in the total time it takes to get from your house to your final destination.
For trips from New York to LA, on the other hand, it is evident that the train takes a lot longer (roughly 36 hours). In general, the longer your trip, the bigger the difference between the flight time and the train time.
Delays
Another popular misconception about trains is that they don't have the delays that airplanes can. I'll admit that I am tired of being stuck in airports. I was once stuck in the St. Louis airport for almost twenty four hours. Trains, however, can have just as bad delays.
In general, trains are usually a little late. I always expect to get to my destination somewhere between ten and twenty minutes late. With so many stops, it sometimes takes more time to load everyone on than they plan. I can handle the few minute delay, however.
What I absolutely dread, though, is when a train or the track has a mechanical problem. The few times this has happened to me, it took three or four hours to have the problem fixed. And don't forget that a train on the ground is just as affected by weather as a plane. During a particular stormy fall, flash floods caused train service to be out from DC to Baltimore for three or four days.
The Ride Itself
The train is on the ground, which makes a lot of people a lot happier. Unfortunately, however, you will generally find it more bumpy than any plane on which you have ever been. Walking to the bathroom or to the food car (there are no friendly stewardesses to take your drink order), you will find yourself holding on to the seats to keep your balance. Also, many people find it more difficult to read and work on a train due to the increased ground turbulence.
The one big advantage to a train for me is leg room. At 6'8", I usually walk off a plane with knee marks permanently indented in my stomach. Some airlines are currently trying to offer more legroom, but I have never had this problem on a train. Also, you never have to put your tray table away, put your seat in the upright position, or listen to that safety talk once again on a train.
The bathrooms on a train are certainly bigger, but they also seem to get cleaned a lot less. They aren't as bad as bathrooms in the train station themselves (avoid these at all costs), but you shouldn't be too surprised to find toilet paper on the floor or a puddle of what I hope is water here and there.
Conclusion
I always use trains on short trips. If I am going from D.C. to Philadelphia, it makes no sense to add the extra time and money to board a plane. On the other hand, even going from D.C. to New York seems a lot less hectic, although a bit more money, on a plane. If you are going any longer distance, unless you have an affinity for trains, cost, time, and comfort are all maximized up in the air.
Amtrak itself doesn't even make enough money to stay afloat. The government subsidizes Amtrak so that it can keep running. People find out that they can fly cheaper and faster, and aren't interested in the loud and bumpy ride on an Amtrak. It should definitely be considered for short distances, but there is a reason when most people don't even consider trains when they travel: it's an outdated mode of transportation that just can't compete with airlines.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
msavere
|
|
Member: Mike Rosensaft
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Reviews written: 117
Trusted by: 65 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.