Cheaper to fly or drive than to go by train

Other than along a few routes in this country train travel is insane.

My wife and daughter went to vist her parents. We live in Pittsburgh, they're outside of Harrisburg. It's a three hour drive. In the minivan we would use about 40-50 dollars worth of gas to get there and back. Plus tolls add on another 20 bucks. 70 bucks on the high end.

To take the train the same distance, not counting the dropping offa nd picking up at the train stations, would take about 4 hours. Not to shabby. It would cost 90 bucks round trip for one person. If she had to buy a ticket for my daughter it'd be 180 bucks round trip.

70 bucks to drive, 180 bucks to take the train....and if I had gone with them make that 270 bucks to take the train. That's for the cheapest seats.

I could fly to Philadelphia on Southwest round trip for 110 bucks if I bought in advance with an internet fare.

And they wonder why people don't ride the train. Such crap. It should be cheaper to take the train than drive.

I was thinking I could get a cabin and travel in style. Twice as long as driving and twice what it would cost flying. No thanks.

Amtrak's new slogan.

We did a trip from Indiana to Chicago... we could have driven in about 4 hours, and the train trip took 5 hours up, and almost 7 back, because we had to wait on the rail lines to move freight trains?? Is it that hard to coordinate all of this? Europe does it all the time, and they don't make you queue like an airport with security, either. Harrumph.

There aren't any dedicated passenger lines, so if you can be on a train and it'll just stop for 10 minutes. 20. 30. an hour. The freight trains get right of way. It's ridiculous.

But I was travelling to a friend's wedding last year, and was waiting around on York station for a connection - a couple of women from Virginia were on the same platform and asked me a question about the trains (they not being used to the departure boards), we fell into converation and they were saying how wonderful our railways are.

I always go by rail when travelling long-distances within the U.K. - I'm thinking about taking the train to Paris (via the Channel Tunnel) in the summer (in terms of central London to central Paris it is actually quicker than flying). I find it so much calmer than flying, also our railway stations seem to be far easier to get to than airports. Once on a train I can relax for the few hours travelling, whereas flying I'd be waiting around in departure lounges and can't relax in the same way.

Fly into Heathrow, take the 15 minute quick train into...Paddington? Then depending on my schedule I hop over to Euston station and then bam i'm up at my grandparents in Leamington Spa forthwith. I don't even really need to have a schedule before hand. And it's far more affordable than renting a car, or anything like that.

In comparison the rail service other than between Boston and DC in this country is non-existant.

victoria for gatwick

v. nice and easy to use system

You're right, a coach seat across Pennsylvania shouldn't cost more than driving and would in a practical transportation system be EASIER than driving that distance. AMTRAK does have kid fares and family fare specials sometimes in the summer, but the pricing is not sensitive to alternatives. It's hard to compare it to air prices because of the low cost carriers and deals. Hell, taking Greyhound would be cheaper and probably as fast.

The reason prices are high and schedules inconvenient is that there isn't a lot of demand. The reason there isn't a lot of demand is the prices are high and the schedules are inconvenient. Get the picture? It is designed to fail.

The corridor trains from Boston to DC are quite successful because they are frequent enough and priced close enough to cost of other modes that people will use them.

We don't have a passenger rail system worth much anymore because there is no commitment to building it back up to a viable system. Private ownership won't cut it either because the main problem now are shared tracks with freight having the right of way over passenger trains.

prices are high and schedules are inconvienient because there isn't alot of demand, and there isn't alot of demand because prices are high and schedules are inconvienient.

I guess rail is dead in this country. People always talk about the size, but apparently we need multiple low cost carriers here in Pittsburgh alone. Low cost frequent to Philadelphia on Southwest, and soon New York and Boston on Jet Blue. What ever happened to maglev trains and bullet trains in this country. You can't tell me that if we need 20 low cost flights a day to Philly and New York from here we couldn't also use a bullet train...

Ah well. Even if it goes private it's doomed. Doomed doomed doomed.

That it stays that way.

That's why Tommy Thompson didn't become Sec. Trans like he wanted to. (Tommy Thompson was a big passenger rail advocate, the Airline industry would hear nothing of a guy like him at transportation.)

When my husband wasn't sure if he wanted to go with me to visit my family, I considered Amtrak from Milwaukee to Toledo, although it would stop in Chicago. We thought it was affordable compared to one person driving, especially through Chicago with tolls and the possibility that I would get in an accident. The travel times it gave, even with the stop in Chicago, were comparable or a little faster than actual car travel. It was much faster than Greyhound.
I haven't actually taken Amtrak since I was almost too young to remember. My sister has taken Amtrak from Chicago to visit my family though.

90 bucks round trip to harrisburg, versus 50 bucks tolls and gas. Almost twice the cost to go by rail for one person. Over three times the cost for 2.

I used to travel by train from Ca to Chicago a lot. Now they want 500. each way for a sleeper. And get this, both times I've opted for a sleeper, the train ran into problems in Colorado and I ended up on a BUS!!! no bed, no meals paid for, no recompense.

After 9/11 she lookd into taking the train from Reno -> Chicago -> Pittsburgh and it woudl have taken her 4 days and cost over 3000 dollars. That price tag got her over the post 9/11 fear of flying hump.

Sounds like you got the shaft on that. Happened to me once and I ended up taking an 18 hour trip from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh on a bus (which in a car would take like 5 hours).

they keep saying nobody rides the trains. If that is so why are they always so packed that people are riding in the aisles. When you say anything, they tell you they only guarantee a ride, not a seat!

When I've taken the train from Boston to New York it's occasionally been pretty packed. More often than not, but it also depends on time of day and week.

From Pittsburgh to Philly, there are definately riders, but I'd never have called it packed. Most people who ride the train these days are the people without cars, who prefer the train to the bus, and who can blame them. There just aren't enough, and honestly nobody in Pittsburgh who are going to NYC for the weekend for shopping and a play should even think about driving. It should just be automatic to take the train, because it should be cheaper than driving, and hwo needs a car in NYC?

Anyway where are these trains so packed?

trains from LA, Ca to Chicago or Ottumwa. Packed most of the time. Skiers, school kids, various and sundry. Had to share a seat one time with 2 count them 2 other people. Strangers. seats are made for 1 person each. Don't mean to be harsh but they were Mennonites and did not smell very good.
Trains from La,CA to San Diego or Del Mar. Always crowded, no reservations.

Half the passengers on the trains to and from pittsburgh seem to usually be Mennonites as well.

The airline and oil industries gets billions in tax breaks from the government, while Amtrak struggles along with just enough to operate. Ridiculous.

Europe's railways receive something like 30 times the subsidies as Amtrack. No wonder they have better rail service.

Airlines should pay their own way and we should subsidise the shit out of our railways. Not the other way round.

They're supposdely working on upgrading the tracks from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, but I don't know about Pittsburgh. If so they could get 110mph service...That's how it should be. Instead of a five hour drive from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg it should be a two and a half hour train ride.

Instead the railways are left to die, and I have to either drive myself and burn tons of gas or pay more than flying...insane...

if you want usa to remain competitive in the 21st century, we are going to have to subsidize air travel and esp. internat'l air travel since it is not possible to make a profit at current fuel prices -- even the much vaunted southwest does not make a profit on selling seats, it makes a profit on fuel hedge contracts (gambling) and the contracts are about to run out -- and they've never provided internat'l service anyway so people who spout off about southwest making a profit are just revealing they know nothing about the airline industry

it should not be either/or but if you posit it as either/or and only one can be subsidized, yes, it must be the airlines, not quite possible to take a train to tokyo from new york city just yet my friend

Leave WFH at 7:46 AM and arrive in CHI at 3:40 PM the next day - much faster than driving. And cheaper.

It's crazy that the shorter routes in the east are so expensive.

From here to S.F. its about a $20 round trip.

You can do the same route on Greyhound for $23 (instead of $94-119), and buses leave hourly.