Price of US train travel

[TVRM610]

Also remember that rail travel in Europe typically receives government subsidies.

And so it does in the US - very heavily.

Well that depends on what heavily mean. There rarely is enough funds for upkeep, let alone new equipment, or fuel. Since the US is many times larger than any other country that people tend to compare rail service with we would need serious investment in rail to make it what we would like it to be. People tend to talk about what congress has given over 30 years. But they spend that in one year in highways and the airlines. When there is an emergency and the planes can't fly then we see how funds starved Amtrak had been. But we want Amtrak to take up the slack.Lots of complains but very little money where the mouth is. If you want the best you have to pay for it. Just try to get an airline to function on what Amtrak gets, yet Amtrak manages to pull it off each and every year. No transportation company does more with less money that Amtrak. And they do it with 30yr old plus equipment and things are rolling as we speak.

Go Bigval109! Very very well put and I agree with you 100%!

 

[volkris]

Just try to get an airline to function on what Amtrak gets, yet Amtrak manages to pull it off each and every year. No transportation company does more with less money that Amtrak. And they do it with 30yr old plus equipment and things are rolling as we speak.

That's a pretty difficult comparison to make, but just picking one of the smaller airlines I found that Airtran had similar revenues to Amtrak in 2008 ($2.5 billion vs $2.4 billion) but moved far, far more passenger miles (19 billion vs 6 billion).

And that was just the first smallish airline I picked. MIT's Airline Data Project shows that this seems to be pretty normal. In fact, the hardest part about picking an airline to compare to was finding one doing so little. The larger airlines do three times as much with twice as much in revenues (as gauged by income per passenger mile minus costs).

And let's not forget, they even conquer gravity!

So no, it's not fair to say that Amtrak is doing more with less than other transportation companies. Point out the extra obstacles Amtrak faces, sure, but it doesn't even get to claim that dubious success.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

really when the was last time the airlines had to beg steal for there funding. the airlines get funding no problem. they go we need 50 billion dollars. congress goes ok here's a check. amtrak goes we need 1 million congress goes screw you.

 

[volkris]

really when the was last time the airlines had to beg steal for there funding. the airlines get funding no problem. they go we need 50 billion dollars. congress goes ok here's a check. amtrak goes we need 1 million congress goes screw you.

But so what? What does congress being a bunch of smucks ready to throw money around in stupid directions have to do with this? I mean, in the end the numbers seem to show that Amtrak doesn't provide as much value for the dollar as the other options, so in the end why is it so wrong to not want to throw more money after it?

We've discussed other analyses in on this board that show similar conclusions around the world: as hard as it is to compare rail and air directly, the rail doesn't provide a tremendous return on the dollar invested, and often does worse, in those terms, than air. It sinks arguments about doing more with less and makes it hard to argue for having Congress pour more money in.

But bringing it back to the original topic, if US train travel is too expensive and ticket prices were dropped, you'd see even less revenue for not too much additional passenger-miles (the seat occupancy wasn't that terrible compared to air). Therefore I'm thinking the right move is not to lower prices but to improve service... hence my standard drumbeat for new connections between air and rail that would benefit both modes and give more groups vested interests in the rail system.

 

[UKPhil]

I live in the UK but have had the great pleasure of riding with Amtrak from coast to coast on a number of occasions with my family - it is good value compared with Europe and very much prefered by my family.

By way of comparison i caught the train from Reading to Solihul in England - an hour and a half trip in each direction - it cost me £80 ($130) for a return ticket in coach - now that is expensive!!

Last summer we travelled by sleeper from Milan, Italy to Paris, France - an eight hour trip, no refreshments, the fare in sleeper for the four of us was £300 ($460) one way - just think how far you could go with Amtrak in sleeper for the same money

Amtrak is great value in my opinion

 

[TVRM610]

Just try to get an airline to function on what Amtrak gets, yet Amtrak manages to pull it off each and every year. No transportation company does more with less money that Amtrak. And they do it with 30yr old plus equipment and things are rolling as we speak.

That's a pretty difficult comparison to make, but just picking one of the smaller airlines I found that Airtran had similar revenues to Amtrak in 2008 ($2.5 billion vs $2.4 billion) but moved far, far more passenger miles (19 billion vs 6 billion).

And that was just the first smallish airline I picked. MIT's Airline Data Project shows that this seems to be pretty normal. In fact, the hardest part about picking an airline to compare to was finding one doing so little. The larger airlines do three times as much with twice as much in revenues (as gauged by income per passenger mile minus costs).

And let's not forget, they even conquer gravity!

So no, it's not fair to say that Amtrak is doing more with less than other transportation companies. Point out the extra obstacles Amtrak faces, sure, but it doesn't even get to claim that dubious success.

It's not fair to compare passenger miles.... airlines fly people WAY out of the way sometimes.

Airtran serves 68 destinations and carried 24.6 Million Passengers in 2008 (Could not find 2009 number)

Amtrak serves 500 Destinations and carried 27.2 Million Passengers in 2009.

Now as for money...

this link.... http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/50231677.html

states that Airtran received a 6.5 Million dollar subsidy in the year 2009 in order to keep them operating in Witchita since those flights lose money. (The article states that this subsidy has been going on since 2002).

If you google "Airtran Subsidy" you will see that this is nothing unique to Witchita. I'm pretty sure that Airtran is getting equal amount (if not more) subsidies than Amtrak per year, meanwhile they are carrying less passengers total per year, and serve 432 LESS destinations.

Also.. Airtran does not own and maintain the airports they serve... Sorry... but Amtrak does ALOT more than Airtran with its money.

 

[volkris]

Just try to get an airline to function on what Amtrak gets, yet Amtrak manages to pull it off each and every year. No transportation company does more with less money that Amtrak. And they do it with 30yr old plus equipment and things are rolling as we speak.

That's a pretty difficult comparison to make, but just picking one of the smaller airlines I found that Airtran had similar revenues to Amtrak in 2008 ($2.5 billion vs $2.4 billion) but moved far, far more passenger miles (19 billion vs 6 billion).

And that was just the first smallish airline I picked. MIT's Airline Data Project shows that this seems to be pretty normal. In fact, the hardest part about picking an airline to compare to was finding one doing so little. The larger airlines do three times as much with twice as much in revenues (as gauged by income per passenger mile minus costs).

And let's not forget, they even conquer gravity!

So no, it's not fair to say that Amtrak is doing more with less than other transportation companies. Point out the extra obstacles Amtrak faces, sure, but it doesn't even get to claim that dubious success.

It's not fair to compare passenger miles.... airlines fly people WAY out of the way sometimes.

Airtran serves 68 destinations and carried 24.6 Million Passengers in 2008 (Could not find 2009 number)

Amtrak serves 500 Destinations and carried 27.2 Million Passengers in 2009.

And I'd say it's equally unfair to look at total number of passengers. Moving a person two miles down the road is hardly doing as much as moving him from city to city even if the route might take him out of his way.

Want to assume the "WAY out of the way" doubles the length of the trip? That seems generous to me, but Airtran still comes out ahead.

Now as for money...
this link.... http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/50231677.html

states that Airtran received a 6.5 Million dollar subsidy in the year 2009 in order to keep them operating in Witchita since those flights lose money. (The article states that this subsidy has been going on since 2002).

I assume that subsidy appeared on Airtran's balance sheets just as Amtrak's subsidies appeared on theirs. Remember, the question was not whether so and so received subsidies, but about how much they were able to do with what they had. Since both subsidies were considered the finances should be apples to apples and Amtrak's still behind.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Sense you say flying is cheaper can you go from say detroit to chicago for say $40 one way last minute. like amtrak you can if there's room unlike airlines that even if the plane is 90 %empty will charge you say $1000 for that last minute flight. looking at expeida for a flight on saturday(30th) from detroit(DTW) to chicago(ORD) COACH cheapest is 144.70 with tax. checking amtrak from DET to CHI on satuday(30th)cheapest price is $28 for coach.

 

[FrankStar]

I just booked a Regional Philadelphia to Boston round trip on Amtrak (coach) for $120 for three weeks from now - $60 each way.

The cheapest flights I could find were about $160 (without taking into account baggage charges - I'm going to a conference, so I have to carry a bunch of stuff in addition to more than a week's worth of clothing).

The overall travel time would have been the same, what with getting to the airport, going through security, limiting what I can take on board/check, etc.

The train seems like a great deal to me.

 

[jis]

I just booked a Regional Philadelphia to Boston round trip on Amtrak (coach) for $120 for three weeks from now - $60 each way.
The cheapest flights I could find were about $160 (without taking into account baggage charges - I'm going to a conference, so I have to carry a bunch of stuff in addition to more than a week's worth of clothing).

On the NEC I have found that in general, more often than not Amtrak Regional is cheaper than flying. I have not flown for travel along the NEC in a long long time. Of course since I am located in the mid point of the NEC that makes it a very viable option even from time spent in travel perspective.

If I lived in Boston or Washington, I would most likely consider flying if I was traveling to the other end of the corridor since the fastest trains on the NEC are really not fast enough to be a viable option for business travel. But still the fare by Regional will generally be cheaper than by air, except for those occasional very low discounts by air if you can catch one.

I know someone who is the CEO of a company located in Boston and has to travel to New York often on business. He usually does so by Acela. He claims he can do all his meeting prep on the way this way, which he can't if he flew.

 

[alanh]

And I'd say it's equally unfair to look at total number of passengers. Moving a person two miles down the road is hardly doing as much as moving him from city to city even if the route might take him out of his way.

Actually, it is. Al transportation modes have a lot of overhead. The incremental per-mile costs are small until you start getting into really long distances. Airtran would go bankrupt pretty quickly flying 100 mile segments, as the costs would be as much as a 500 mile segment, but they wouldn't be able to charge as much.

 

[AlanB]

[moderator-admin hat off]

I'd like to take a moment and inject a thought into this topic, especially because this happens far too often here.

Not everyone who posts here comes here each and every day, much less more than once per day like some of the more regular posters do.

People are complaining that the OP of this thread didn't come back, or did a hit and run post, etc.; but we never gave him/her a chance to come back and respond. Within 5 hours of the original post, the criticism started. 5 Hours! At this point even if the OP did come, I'd suspect that they'd be put off from further commenting because of the criticism posted here against them.

Is it possible that it was a hit and run post? Sure. I have to allow for that. But honestly I think we all need to take a deep breath some times and chill out just a bit. We gave this person 5 hours before we started bashing them. Had we given them a week, fine time to consider the possibility of a hit and run post. Heck, I'd even settle for 2 days before starting to at least wonder. Remember, not everyone visits multiple times per day, some don't even show up every day.

We gave this person 5 hours.

[/moderator-admin hat on]

 

[rail_rider]

Traveling by Amtrak vs an airline needs to be looked at from all sides. If it's just cost you want then it could be a toss up. Sometimes it's cheaper to go with Amtrak other times a plane could be cheaper. If time of departure and arrival is of the essence or even length of a trip then a plane will win out. But I feel when you look at comfort, the opportunity to interact with others, and scenery as it passes by your window you can't beat Amtrak. I don't hear others talking about planning trips by air as I do those planning a trip on Amtrak. If you have the time to relax take the adventure Amtrak offers.

 

[TVRM610]

Just try to get an airline to function on what Amtrak gets, yet Amtrak manages to pull it off each and every year. No transportation company does more with less money that Amtrak. And they do it with 30yr old plus equipment and things are rolling as we speak.

That's a pretty difficult comparison to make, but just picking one of the smaller airlines I found that Airtran had similar revenues to Amtrak in 2008 ($2.5 billion vs $2.4 billion) but moved far, far more passenger miles (19 billion vs 6 billion).

And that was just the first smallish airline I picked. MIT's Airline Data Project shows that this seems to be pretty normal. In fact, the hardest part about picking an airline to compare to was finding one doing so little. The larger airlines do three times as much with twice as much in revenues (as gauged by income per passenger mile minus costs).

And let's not forget, they even conquer gravity!

So no, it's not fair to say that Amtrak is doing more with less than other transportation companies. Point out the extra obstacles Amtrak faces, sure, but it doesn't even get to claim that dubious success.

It's not fair to compare passenger miles.... airlines fly people WAY out of the way sometimes.

Airtran serves 68 destinations and carried 24.6 Million Passengers in 2008 (Could not find 2009 number)

Amtrak serves 500 Destinations and carried 27.2 Million Passengers in 2009.

And I'd say it's equally unfair to look at total number of passengers. Moving a person two miles down the road is hardly doing as much as moving him from city to city even if the route might take him out of his way.

 

Want to assume the "WAY out of the way" doubles the length of the trip? That seems generous to me, but Airtran still comes out ahead.

Now as for money...
this link.... http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/50231677.html

states that Airtran received a 6.5 Million dollar subsidy in the year 2009 in order to keep them operating in Witchita since those flights lose money. (The article states that this subsidy has been going on since 2002).

I assume that subsidy appeared on Airtran's balance sheets just as Amtrak's subsidies appeared on theirs. Remember, the question was not whether so and so received subsidies, but about how much they were able to do with what they had. Since both subsidies were considered the finances should be apples to apples and Amtrak's still behind.

First of all... who travels 2 miles on Amtrak? Amtrak doesn't run any light rail here! Even regional trains like Metra, NJ Transit, etc. must have a decent size "average miles per rider." I realize that you prob. did not mean literally "2 miles" but I'm sure the average amtrak rider travels alot more than 2 miles.

Second... how is Airtran winning? They are only "winning" if you count passenger miles! If you count ANYTHING else they are behind including # of destinations, # of passengers served, environmental concerns, etc.

ALSO... airlines are going to have larger passenger miles... this is no big surprise to me. You want to look at one set of facts (passenger miles) and ignore all others and say that Airtran "wins."

 

[dlagrua]

One needs to consider that the USA is a large country. In Western Europe each country has its own rail system and you can only travel a few hundred miles. In the USA you can travel several thousand miles and of course the cost is proportionally higher. Actually US rail travel is cheap. Its only when you move up to premium sleeper service that the prices go up significantly. First class accomodations always cost more but they are so much more comfortable.

 

[Chris J.]

One needs to consider that the USA is a large country. In Western Europe each country has its own rail system and you can only travel a few hundred miles. In the USA you can travel several thousand miles and of course the cost is proportionally higher. Actually US rail travel is cheap. Its only when you move up to premium sleeper service that the prices go up significantly. First class accomodations always cost more but they are so much more comfortable.

I've no idea if a cross-european rail journey would cost more or less than Amtrak; because I've never been able to get fares for anything like the distances the western USA trains travel.

 

[Konrad]

One needs to consider that the USA is a large country. In Western Europe each country has its own rail system and you can only travel a few hundred miles. In the USA you can travel several thousand miles and of course the cost is proportionally higher. Actually US rail travel is cheap. Its only when you move up to premium sleeper service that the prices go up significantly. First class accomodations always cost more but they are so much more comfortable.

Rubbish, you can travel the length and breadth of Europe with minimal train changes (and oh how I hate changing trains in Chicago). Sure, European services are generally day trains but they move fast enough that you can reach your destination in daylight. The CityNightLine services traverse the continent overnight and are very good.

On the other hand a train from Paris to Zurich will connect with a Milan-Rome service with minutes between connections. Guaranteed!

Amtrak has a long way to go.

And even a backwater like Australia can give a no change service across the whole continent from east to west and north to south. OK it's only twice a week on both routes but there are only 21 million potential passengers.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

doing another air/vs train going from DET to LAX on jan 30th cheapest flight from expeida.com is $261.60 with tax no booking fees and not counting baggage fees and any other fees i don't know about. now going for DET to LAUS same date via amtrak is $266 even. so in this case it comes out the same. so it depends is this case amtrak is $4.30 more and coach all the way. sometimes amtrak is cheaper sometimes flying is cheaper. if you have to be there like today or the the next day then fly but if you have time to spare take amtrak. its a vacation in its self. I have gone all the way from ROY to LAX via the TE then took the SWC back the same day i arrived into LAX(due to only getting 1 week of a month) that's how i take vacations.

 

[volkris]

But I feel when you look at comfort, the opportunity to interact with others, and scenery as it passes by your window you can't beat Amtrak.

See, this is personal opinion, but I disagree there as well: I find the scenery out a plane window to be far more beautiful and interesting than from the train. I mean, why sit a dozen feet off the ground to see a hill when you can see whole mountain ranges and snow bankments from a couple thousand? Any day I'd take watching the sun come up and shine on the morning fog rolling up one side of a ridge or filling a valley like a bowl. Or seeing the drama of rivers snake their way across the landscape trying to reach the ocean. Sure beats looking into someone's backyard as you streak past

And as for comfort? Amtrak doesn't have that cornered either. Even more comfortable than sitting on a train is sitting in the living room at your destination because you got there a day earlier by flying.

Second... how is Airtran winning? They are only "winning" if you count passenger miles! If you count ANYTHING else they are behind including # of destinations, # of passengers served, environmental concerns, etc.

And I'm saying passenger miles is the primary number by which the modes should be judged. The point of transportation, really, is to move people over distances, not to move as many people as possible. Similarly, transportation systems aren't machines to clean the environment or show up at destinations they aren't really needed at. Confusing the goal of transportation ends up doing everyone a disservice.

ALSO... airlines are going to have larger passenger miles... this is no big surprise to me. You want to look at one set of facts (passenger miles) and ignore all others and say that Airtran "wins."

Yes, I do. The previous comment said he'd like to see an airline do as much as Amtrak with as little funding, and here we have an airline that not only matches Amtrak in terms of moving people over distances, it beats it three times over! Complain all you want about airlines having an advantage because "of course" they have longer passenger miles... but that only shows why air travel is in some ways superior to rail.