Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[Ryan]

When somebody claims that an itinerary "costs" $x000, we know the number is meaningless in itself. So what is dumb about the rule, unless the purpose of a forum is to waste peoples time?

You're correct, that single number isn't all that meaningful. But, with a little further knowledge of the bucket system, you can take that number, combine it with fares on different dates and build a pretty decent picture. The rule is dumb because it prevents people from doing that and having conversations like this one - it's pretty tough to have any discussions on price when you can't actually mention any prices. The only thing dumber is the justification:

Because of this, stating a fare at a particular time may result in another individual believing that the stated fare is still available, which it may not be.

Really? If you can't understand the fact that fares change then you shouldn't even be using a computer. Of course that fits into that sites worldview that users are dumb and need excessive and capricious moderation and that folks should feel blessed to post on their exhausted forums. I'm not really a fan of any of that, so I was rather glad to find this forum.

 

[George]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.

 

[zephyr17]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.

What day? It is probably fairly close to departure and may well be competitive with last minute airfares which are notoriously expensive. If they are that high, they are probably in a high bucket and close to sold out.

 

[A.J.]

I'd rather pay more for a train ticket than an airplane ticket, period. it's a more interesting, beautiful, comfortable way to travel. so even if, for whatever reason, the train ticket happened to be more expensive, in my opinion you're paying for an enjoyable experience, rather than just getting from point A to point B.

 

[Ispolkom]

Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.

For you, yes. For someone else, perhaps, no. Every day I see people pay prices for things that I never would never pay (Mrs. Ispolkom and hair cuts, for instance), but that's the beauty of the free market.

 

[jimhudson]

Excellent point! How about womens shoes, cosmetics,$500 dinners $10,000 watches, $100,000 automobiles $1,000,000+ condos/apartments,and $500 a bottle booze and worst of all sleepers on the Cardinal,Lake Shore Ltd. and all the Western LD trains except the Coast Starlite!(still a bargain IMO! )Value is in the eye of the beholder but we have a thing in this country (came from overseas)called buy low/sell high and never pay retail! We all have our views on whats overpriced but I think all the above,along with anything from France fits the bill for most people! :help:

 

[henryj]

The real issue here is that our means of transportation do not reflect their true costs. Neither driving, flying or taking the train or bus. Airlines are subsidized with billions of dollars of government money from air traffic controllers to airports provided by the cities, etc. Driving on highways and roads does not evern get close to reflecting it's true costs, even the gasoline tax no longer covers even the maintenance costs. We have created a monster with each transportation method competing with the others for government money to make it the most desirable. In all this confusion, rail passenger travel has clearly lost out. We need to either level the playing field by smoothing out the government hand outs or make each system pay it's own way. Let the airlines pay their true costs. Make the interstate highways toll roads. Just to name a couple. And if you think this will ever happen I have some swamp land down in Florida to sell you.

 

[Brandon V]

whenever i travel by plane its usually overseas.. and I travel with the likes of Korean Air, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, and Emirates. Those parts of the world.. they still actually have something called customer service. Whenver I've flown with these airlines, the service always has been excellent!

When I fly overseas, I fly on nothing but these airlines. forget US based airlines!

 

[Shawn Ryu]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.

What day? It is probably fairly close to departure and may well be competitive with last minute airfares which are notoriously expensive. If they are that high, they are probably in a high bucket and close to sold out.

Its around 190 dollars if you go through Crescent-Sunset Limited route. Could be cheaper. Coach of course.

 

[PerRock]

Lets see I just did a quick search for a prices from where I live (in Michigan) to Portland, OR on Amtrak & on Kayak. Date: Oct 27th.

Amtrak Coach: $183.

Kayak (Frontier, Cheapest): $145

For the flight I have to drive (and pay for parking, or get dropped off) 45mins to the Airport. Wait in all the lines (they say 2hrs). Be subjected to searches, limited in what I can bring, I'm stuck in a seat for 7hrs.

For the train, I have a 15min drive with free parking (or get dropped off, or take the bus for a buck). Show up mins before the train comes (0.5 hrs is a good time), Have no issues with searches, lines (maybe a short one to get my tix printed). The most security I would expect is to be asked to show my ID. and I can wander the train get out and stretch my legs, etc. It does take about 50hrs tho to get there; but I can see Glacier Nat Park from the Sightseer!

For a shorter haul; I looked (same dates) at just going to CHI.

Amtrak Coach: $30 (Buiss: $42)

Kayak (United, Cheapest to ORD): $60

Same issues with the flight except flight time is 1hr. (total time is ~5+hrs, with parking and CTA back into the City)

Train; again same story just travel time is 4.5hrs and I'm in the city (say 5hrs, with getting there early & such)

And on Amtrak I can earn AGR points!

peter

 

[AlanB]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.

Actually $387 is the high bucket price. Amtrak, just like airlines has different price levels. Book on the wrong day and you'll pay more than $387 for a flight between LA & NY. Book on the right day and that same trip on Amtrak will only cost you $197. Not sure how many airline seats you'll find at that price.

 

[stonesfan]

I've just come back from another trip there and included some more NE corridor train ridery. Whilst the concept of the Acela is brave, its probably poor value for money when compared to the regionals. Especially as I reckon with the same stopping pattern as the acela, more flexible and common sense operating practices, and a bit more ambition in the timetable, a regional consist would actually not be too far away from the same timing as an Acela!

Were there not services like this operating in the past called 'metroliners'?

 

[Ispolkom]

I've just come back from another trip there and included some more NE corridor train ridery. Whilst the concept of the Acela is brave, its probably poor value for money when compared to the regionals. Especially as I reckon with the same stopping pattern as the acela, more flexible and common sense operating practices, and a bit more ambition in the timetable, a regional consist would actually not be too far away from the same timing as an Acela!

Were this the case (and I don't know one way or another) and Amtrak did run regionals as quickly as Acela does, how could they charge more for Acela?

Sure, you get free liquor in first class, and there's a certain social separation (though I've read enough about loud cellphone-using buffoons in Acela first-class cars to make me doubt that there's much separation), but the main advantage for the much-more-expensive Acela that I see is that right now it's faster. Let the little people in regionals get an equally fast ride and the market for Acela disappears.

 

[stonesfan]

Were this the case (and I don't know one way or another) and Amtrak did run regionals as quickly as Acela does, how could they charge more for Acela?

Sure, you get free liquor in first class, and there's a certain social separation (though I've read enough about loud cellphone-using buffoons in Acela first-class cars to make me doubt that there's much separation), but the main advantage for the much-more-expensive Acela that I see is that right now it's faster. Let the little people in regionals get an equally fast ride and the market for Acela disappears.

Yeh, that pretty much sums it up. Just a damn, damn shame the Acela doesnt get to stretch its legs more often over that difficult old route. Boston-NY in 3h would be something to boast about.

 

[Bigval109]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

That is why I take two weeks vacation when I go cross country. Riding coast to coast is what I enjoy.

 

[dlagrua]

The Acela is 3-4X the price of the NE regional train. High speed rail right? On my most recent trip to Washington DC the time savings was advertised as 10 minutes. My NE regional train arrived 15 minutes early so there was no time savings riding the Acela. The NE regional food service is also identical to that of the Acela. I do not mind paying more for quality ( as we always do on LD routes in a bedroom) but at 3-4X the cost they can keep their slightly wider seat for the 2 or even 3 hour trip. Its not worth the price.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.

 

[stonesfan]

What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.

The most infuriating thing to happen to me on an Acela was a blistering run out of Boston, a nice clean cruise through CT, but then staggering along being overtaken by TWO commuter trains en route to NY!!! Got in 15 late. I know there are track ownership reasons for this, but total, total nonsense!!! The system where I live has some issues that defy belief, but for a premier express service to get blitzed by a couple of relative chugalongs, well, words fail me.

Agree upgrading the route where possible would have been a good idea. Theres simply too much staggering along at 40-50mph on seemingly well laid 4 track sections!

 

[AlanB]

What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.

Well the "Acela project" as it were, wasn't just about building Acela. In fact I believe that far more was spent electrifying the NEC from New Haven to Boston than was actually spent on the trains. And without Acela, I suspect that Amtrak's share of the market would not be what it is today. It was already slipping some due in part to time keeping issues with the Metroliner's, but also because they were getting old and tired. People needed a newer more modern looking train to keep them coming back.

And having Acela has enabled Amtrak to increase it's over all capacity on the NEC, as well as elsewhere in the country. Those cars used for the Metroliner service have been refurbished and placed in other places to beef up service.

Finally, the powers that be at that time were also betting that being able to point at the shiny new trains and say "see, look what they can do" would then make it easier for them to get additional funding for track improvements south of NY. Instead opponents seized upon that and said "you spent all of that money for a train that can only go 150 MPH for 18 miles of it's 450 mile journey!"

 

[stonesfan]

I think the average speed is the real problem here, not so much the lack of 150mph running?

The section South of NY is faster despite the Acela not getting to 150. More long stretches of 100-135mph and not too many CT-esque staggering zones.

 

[Ryan]

The NE regional food service is also identical to that of the Acela.

Maybe in business class - the food in Acela First isn't available anywhere else.

 

[David]

It's true, Amtrak is way too expensive and slow. I'm sorry. We need to invest in high speed rail in this country for long distance destinations. It is just not an efficient way to travel if you ask me, unless you have a ton of time and extra money. If I want to take a train from Reno to Denver in the western United States it's ridiculous it will cost $150 one way and take 23 hours. Pressure your politician to invest in high speed rail so we can compete with other countries and not be forced to drive or fly everywhere.

 

[JJJJ]

I have tried to pressure Kayak, Sidestep (now owned by Kayak), and some of the online travel agencies like Travelocity, etc., to include Amtrak routings in their ticket search results. Travel agencies can sell Amtrak tickets, I believe, so Amtrak city pairs and fares are published to GDS systems. Therefore, it shouldn't be too difficult for some of these sites to add Amtrak to their results.

I believe that if Amtrak travel were more visible to the general public, people might be more likely to book it--especially if the fare is less! (Most of our population probably doesn't even know Amtrak exists!)

I've also written Amtrak and asked them to share their data with Google Transit--I imagine a day where I can search for directions from the Queen Mary in Long Beach to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in DC and receive a seamless set of directions across multiple transit systems from start to finish!

I think both of these options would help increase train travel immensely...

Yes, travel agents can book Amtrak like any other airline, the trains are in the travel system.

Amtrak California trains are in google transit.

As saxman, dont look at major city pairs, look at stops along the way.

A 45 minute flight might cost more than a 6 hour flight, depending on the market.

Amtrak is usually the opposite, in that shorter trips cost less.

 

[RCrierie]

I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train.

It would have cost me $200 round trip for tickets from Dulles/Reagan National to Orlando International for STS-135. But I chose the Silver Service instead; despite it costing $270 round trip.

Why?

1.) I don't like being groped at airports.

2.) MCO Orlando has looooooooooong grope lines, all the worse that it's peak holiday season for the parks around Orlando; so you have a lot of KIDS and strollers.

3.) I have always been delayed 5+ hours at Orlando each time I've flown from there to DC.

 

[dlagrua]

After reading most of the posts here; I guess that its obvious that train travel is not for everyone but at similar service levels train travel should usually be less than airline travel. If you compare coach travel fares and first class vs sleeper fares I'd still have to give the edge to rail travel.

The big argument is that rail travel is slow and this is true. Its not for the traveler in a hurry. However on the 17-28 hr train trips that we normally take; they feel like they are going quickly. Since we opt for room privacy, have a bed, plenty of space, are in the dining car about 3 hours (three meals), spend 6-8 hrs sleeping, time in the shower and in the lounge cafe car; before you know it we are at our destination. On our last Crescent journey to NOL, we didn't even have time to watch movies on my laptop.

In contrast everytime that I have been on a plane the trip has been crowded, exausting, tiring,and unpleasant. After TSA strips away all of your dignity,they dose you with radiation, everyone is then squeezed into a small compartment to breathe filthy virus polluted low oxygen air, eat lousy food (if you can even get any at all). All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.