Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[jebr]

I don't have a family and I travel alone. Using Amtrak increases the price I pay for travel. I would love to take the train but it costs $968 round trip compared to $285 on an airplane. I save a day also and then have to get a hotel for that day but I have $683 savings to pay for the room. I figure it costs more to operate trains because of the real estate tax and people they need to operate each train. I would prefer to use the train because I imagine there is a lot less pollution generated by rail. But disel fuel pollutes, if trains run on it. I know the Chicago suburb trains use that fuel. Those contrails have been falling on us for over 100 years now and that cannot be good. Trains provide a relaxing way to pass the time (I imagine) if you have a bed. 20 hours on a train is much better than an airplane. Once I went to South America for `13 hours on a plane and it was horrible. Too bad I could not take a train.

I'm curious what route you're using and how you're calculating it. Yes, Amtrak can be higher, especially if you splurge for a roomette, but if there's no transfers, Amtrak seems to almost always be cheaper in my experience, when comparing like accommodations (coach to coach, sleeper to first class or even business class).

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

Plus I can get free bed on Capitol Limited if you know what I mean :giggle:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, Amtrak can be higher, especially if you splurge for a roomette, but if there's no transfers, Amtrak seems to almost always be cheaper in my experience, when comparing like accommodations (coach to coach, sleeper to first class or even business class).

Twenty or thirty hours in an Amtrak coach seat may LOOK similar to two or three hours in an airline coach, but it sure as hell FEELS a lot different at the end. If we're truly going to consider like-for-like then I think it's only fair that roomettes and bedrooms figure prominently in the equation.

 

[PRR 60]

Every time I think this nearly four-year-old topic has finally died a long overdue death, someone pulls out the paddles and shocks it back to life.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Every time I think this nearly four-year-old topic has finally died a long overdue death, someone pulls out the paddles and shocks it back to life.

If you can't stand people discussing a topic you've long since lost interest in then you're always free to leave. Or simply lock everyone else out now that you're a moderator. That'll show 'em.

 

[Texan Eagle]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is not the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got 45 (yes, forty five) direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of two direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.

 

[jebr]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is not the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got 45 (yes, forty five) direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of two direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.

Somehow, I doubt it'll be able to be relevant on speed between NYP and CHI (or, frankly, on any corridor that long.) Even if they were able to double the speed, it'd still take 10 hours (which would still require an overnight or a full day, and the overnight would still have the seat issue.) However, if time is less of a concern than straight comfort (because there is a longer time tolerance with a wide, roomy seat than a coach seat on an airline) or money (because, especially between two less-populous destinations, Amtrak is significantly cheaper), Amtrak can win.

As an example, it's fairly easy to get tickets for $117 each way between OMA and SLC (so $234 total). Taking two random, non-popular dates along the same route and it becomes $341 through flying, which is a $107 difference. Amtrak also offers more discounts (for example, 10% off with AAA or 15% off with Student Advantage, neither of which have airfare equivalents) and checked luggage is free, instead of $25 each way for a bag. If I have to go somewhere with more than a carry-on, and time is not a critical concern, Amtrak makes much more sense economically.

Note, though, that for me, the idea of a 25 hour train ride doesn't seem bad, even though my first time doing it will be this summer. I've done two nights (30 hours total trip time) on Megabus, and Amtrak is much more comfortable than Megabus.

I don't think Amtrak's goal should be to win on speed, especially on such long distances, because it can't. But doing smaller legs within LD routes, or offering corridor services to bring regions together (for example, the NEC or Midwest area's plans) is an area where Amtrak can compete on speed and comfort, and that should be its focus.

 

[Guest]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is not the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got 45 (yes, forty five) direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of two direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.

It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.

Besides maybe the Capitol and Auto Train, of course, most Amtrak passengers don't travel from end-point to end-point of the train.

Try booking a trip from NYP to TOL, SAV TO ORL, or FAR to MKE (to name just a few) and you can easily see why people concerned about price travel on Amtrak between these markets.

Airlines do not price by miles, they price by market. The markets with the most competition are often the cheapest and furthest apart.

 

[RRUserious]

Trouble with cars is that they eat up a lot of real estate. Plus who really wants to live next to most expressways? I think it is only marginally significant how the operating costs compare. Plus when our population doubled, our car population tripled. There were cars that got bought for trivial reasons. But however trivial they are, the cars jam up the freeways just as effectively. I doubt car ownership will ever end. But we certainly are near the point where the "convenience" is dubious. I watched a show where a traffic copter pilot said the cars beneath him were averaging 3 mph. Walking speed. But in order to achieve that speed, the cars were burning up gas at a rate much higher than if they were traveling 50 mph. In what bizarre universe can we call that "convenient"?

If enough people shifted out of cars to anything else, the remaining cars might at least get the increased gas efficiency that has been built into them. Cars are now really a zero-sum game. Drivers themselves should now want alternatives to maybe move a half to a third of the people who are now driving. I'm a little shocked that the van pool movement isn't back in fashion. After the oil shocks, the biggest private companies where I live were buying the vans so employees could team up and commute together.

 

[Ispolkom]

It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.

That's why I've been riding the Empire Builder 3 decades, man and boy. It's often the cheapest, easiest method of getting to my destination. If there are 45 flights LGA-ORD, the pickings St. Paul-Malta are a little slimmer. Even St. Paul-Minot is usually cheaper on the train (often even in sleeper) than flying Delta.

Drivers themselves should now want alternatives to maybe move a half to a third of the people who are now driving.

Of course. The Onion got it right 12 years ago: "98% of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others."

 

[Texan Eagle]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.

It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.

Besides maybe the Capitol and Auto Train, of course, most Amtrak passengers don't travel from end-point to end-point of the train.

Try booking a trip from NYP to TOL, SAV TO ORL, or FAR to MKE (to name just a few) and you can easily see why people concerned about price travel on Amtrak between these markets.

That's exactly what I mentioned in my reply too, see the underlined part. Amtrak does make sense when one of the two points on your journey is a non-major city. For longer than few hours journeys, especially outside of NE Corridor and Midwest, the routes and frequency just do not exist to invite a driving or flying passenger to take the train. I live in Dallas and lets see all the places I have had to travel for business or personal reasons (non-vacation) in the last year-

Philadelphia-Dallas -> Amtrak takes over 48 hours and 1 change of train. (Driving time: 24 hours)

Dallas-Denver -> Amtrak takes 42 hours, 2 trains and 2 buses. (Driving time: 14 hours)

Dallas-Austin -> Amtrak takes 6 hours. (Driving time: 3 hours)

I mentioned driving times not to suggest one would drive 24 hours, but rather to show what time train journeys should take. Let's face it, trains cannot compete with flights on time, but they can compete with driving times at least. If there were direct trains connecting all major cities in the United States, I am positive a lot more people would be taking the trains.

Another thing, again discussed to death multiple times, is accommodation classes- Amtrak LD trains give you either coach (sit) or luxury expensive sleepers for 2 or more people. There is no affordable sleeping accommodation for single traveler and that is the reason I have never taken a sleeper journey on Amtrak. Using the NYC-Chicago example, if the Lake Shore Limited was a couple hours faster than existing schedule, say something like 6pm departure from NYP and 8am arrival into Chicago and offered sleeper bunks, I would happily travel on it. Yes, it is much slower than taking a flight but reasonable overnight travel. When I used to live in India, I never took a domestic flight, for all destinations up to 1000 miles, sometimes even longer, it was always a sleeper bunk on an overnight express, whichever city I may be traveling to. It is fun comfortable way to travel.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is not the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got 45 (yes, forty five) direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of two direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.

cannot find any flights from NYC to Chicago under 110 dollars. I looked up at Kayak.

Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.

 

[Ispolkom]

Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.

But lots more disagree. What do you suppose is the proportion of people who fly from New York to Chicago vs. those who take the train? 30 to 1? 50 to 1? How about the number of people who drive between the two metropolitan regions? I'd not be surprised if it's an equally high proportion.

 

[jebr]

Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.

But lots more disagree. What do you suppose is the proportion of people who fly from New York to Chicago vs. those who take the train? 30 to 1? 50 to 1? How about the number of people who drive between the two metropolitan regions? I'd not be surprised if it's an equally high proportion.

I also wonder how full it is right out of NYP, how full it stays, and how much turnover there is. As mentioned before, NYP to CHI is probably one better served by the airlines (because there is a lot of competition, so fares are lower, and it's much faster.) I'd dispute the driving ratio being that high, because Google Maps has it at 13 hours and 47 minutes to drive. Factor in gas, maintenance, and tolls and it's not all that economical, and the speed isn't really there when you consider that you have to stop at least three times for gas, and possibly more. So it's a full day's drive each way, and then there's the concern about parking, etc. I doubt that too many people drive that route.

However, Amtrak's business is not in the CHI to NYP pairs, but intermediate points to endpoints, and intermediate points to other intermediate points. As I mentioned earlier, Amtrak from OMA to SLC is quite a bit cheaper than flying, though it's also a fairly long trip. They also stop places where there's no other travel option (other than perhaps intercity bus.)

Amtrak is never going to get much business from business travelers on longer distances, because time is much more crucial than saving even $100 or $150 round trip. But for people who are visiting family, or trying to travel on a budget, that savings may be enough to make them take Amtrak over flying, especially for those places that is expensive to travel to by plane. Amtrak can also get a lot of business between intermediate markets (MSP - CHI, OMA - CHI, OMA - DEN, etc.) that are short enough to make the extra time less of a hassle. They'll also get plenty of business travelers (and travelers in general) on corridor services, as proven by the relative success and usage of those (not only in the NEC, but also the Hiawatha from CHI - MKE and other corridor trains.)

Thus, to say Amtrak is failing because they can't get the CHI - NYP market is as ludicrous as saying the airlines are failing because they can't really capture the CHI - MKE market. Each mode of transportation has their strengths, and to point to their natural weak areas (due to the definition of the service) and concluding that the entire mode is failing because of those natural weak points is silly.

 

[CarolynG]

I have traveled with my toddlers by myself several times, and our train trip from St Louis MO to Wilmington, DE was better than driving because it took about the same amount of time - we got on board STL at 8 am, got to DE at 3 pm - and if I were driving I would have had to stay overnight halfway, so it was about the same. The great part was not having the kids stuck in their car seats the whole trip, and I was able to play with them.

My Durango gets about 18 mpg and Gas Buddy's trip calculator at http://www.gasbuddy.com/Trip_Calculator.aspx estimates it would have cost $196, then you have $50-$60 in hotel. It was $270 for the three of us. Again, about equal, and it was a far better trip for all of us!

No way could I have afforded to fly - there are no half price fares for kids on airline travel.

Carolyn