I can't believe it...it's cheaper to drive from Philadelphia to Chicago than take the train!

[Pab Sungenis]

I'm going to have a table for "The New Adventures of Queen Victoria" at the Wizard World Chicago convention in June, and have been making my travel arrangements.

To fly from Philadelphia to Chicago, 60 days out, for two people would be $520.00 for the cheapest fare I could find.

To take Amtrak would be a 23 hour trip, and $360.00 round trip for two people.

Door to door, from our house in Jersey to the hotel at O'Hare, is 819 miles. At 25 MPG for highway (which 90% of the trip is), that's 32.75 gallons of gas. At $4.00/gallon, our round trip would be $262.00 in gas. Add in our tolls, we're still under the price of the train in almost half the time.

This is why mass transit in America isn't working. For rail transit to be a viable alternative, our trains need to be (a) considerably faster, and (b) considerably cheaper. Even at the current Bush-inflated price of gas, I shouldn't be tempted to burn so much fuel and pump so much CO2 into the atmosphere.

As for air travel, we'd be on a scheduled flight, which would be burning all that fuel anyhow, so it wouldn't really add to the total carbon footprint. But when it's still $200.00 more to fly than drive, plus not having to deal with TSA bullshit, it's tempting to just hit the highway.

Can we ever make it worth people's while not to drive?

[Breeze54]

1. It's always been cheaper to drive.

At least in my world and 'we' used to drive from Boston to Chicago regularly in the '70's!

[SharonAnn]

11. You're pricing fares for two people vs cost of one car. Apples and oranges

in the world of transportation pricing.

This is a fallacy of logic.

If you wanted to tally the cost of the "vehicle", you would have to compare the cost of one plane, vs. one train, vs. one car. Then determine which vehicle is least costly.

Alternatively, you could at least consider the total "cost" of the car which is far more than the gas it would consume. Doesn't the IRS allow a deduction of 50.5 cents per mile this year? That would mean that, according to the IRS, it would cost you $413.60 for your trip.

Or, you could look at it as the cost of transporting one person (not two) by each of the methods.

On any case, the comparisons need to be based on the same transportation unit if you're going to determine the cost of transportation of one and whether it is more expensive than the other.

[Breeze54]

14. I wasn't "pricing" fares at all.... is this a misplaced post?

:shrug:

The price of driving has always been cheaper in my experience.

[dysfunctional press]

19. people don't use "transportation units" in the real world-

they look at the bottom line- how much actual cash from my pocket is our trip going to cost us?

and the more people making the trip, the cheaper it generally is to drive.

[Hobarticus]

26. Whoops, sorry....misplaced reply eom

[soothsayer]

2. Did you look at buses?

[Aloha Spirit]

4. It's $250 round trip on Greyhound, overnight, through Pittsburgh. Best option.

[frogcycle]

3. you hit the nail on the head

of course, with Amtrak you get some services (like for example you don't have to drive) but when it comes down to it, the relative fuel efficiency of a locomotive pulling a trainload of people vs all those ic engines puffing away SHOULD make it more cost-competitive. Well, as oil prices continue to climb, eventually we'll get there.

Of course, if we subsidized mass tranport anywhere near as much as we do highways, we'd have been there long ago.

[Yael]

5. But on the train, you can relax

Get up, walk around, sleep.

I would do it in a heartbeat.

[MindPilot]

16. You can't get up and walk around on a bus

Almost all train trips I have ever attempted include at least a couple hours on a bus. On the weekends you can't even go from San Diego to LA without time on a bus--the train only goes to Irvine. You ride a bus the rest of the way.

If I'm going to spend time on a bus, I might as well be on an airplane.

[90-percent]

6. All because of GM

Well, maybe not "all", but GM worked really hard influencing America post WW2 to dump railroads for personal transport and build a new interstate highway system, which Ike did in earnest in the 50's.

In hindsight it was pretty shortsighted to abandon America's railway system for the interstate highway system. Who knew the Worlds supply of oil was finite!

As a child in the midwest I can remember being at the train station and watching STEAM LOCOMOTIVES come and go with my parents, probably arounf 1957-58-59 or so? Steam locomotives are still frigging awesome but very environmentally bad for many reasons.

I dont think it was until the late 50's and early 60's that air travel finally beat out rail.

-90% Jimmy

[Warpy]

10. Air travel finally beat out rail when prop planes went out

and jets came in. Prop planes had been slow, although faster than rail, and a cross country trip would take a couple of days, at least. When jets could get a person across the country in a few hours, the rail lines couldn't compete on any level.

Now that travelers are being hazed by power drunk TSA employees, trains are starting to look attractive again. Even though they're slow, you can still sleep, get drunk in the club car, get your meals in the dining car, and catch up on your reading. There's no need to stop overnight and pay motel bills, either, something you have to do when driving if you don't want to kill yourself in the process.

I did a lot of traveling as a kid, and the train is the method I remember most fondly, although the old prop planes were nice, too.

[tritsofme]

13. In the Chicago area we also had an intricate network of interurbans

That all died by the late 50s early 60s because of the new highways being built.

Were they around today, the lives of many people would be much more convenient.

[notadmblnd]

7. I took the train from Detroit to Chicago and it wasn't the price that bothered me

it was the horrible long ride, with the less than cheerful conductor. He kept saying "have a nice dreary day." We weren't allowed to get off the train at stops. Again, the conductor told us that AMTRACK had their authorities laying in wait to catch their employees lagging in their jobs. All the food was vended out of a machine and our arrival was at least several hours late. The service was so bad that I rented a car and drove home. Unless improvements are made, I will never ride the train again.

[noel711]

8. Oooh yeah, we learned that years ago....

EVery year we go from PA to Chicago to see family...

and, especially with kids, driving beats flying/train
any day. Costwise, timewise, independence wise.

If you value your time, and you sanity, you'll take the
time and drive.... Lots to see and do along the way also,
and if you have a pet, there's lots of space for exercise.

I wise there'd be some way to expand the subsidies for
mass transit in this country. It would provide more ease
for the job market, and cut way down on pollution, but I'm
only one woman.

[dysfunctional press]

9. we'd be better off developing alternative energy sources for vehicles than internal combustion...

rather than trying to weave a web of light-rail lines connecting american towns and cities.

[CRF450]

17. I agree,

Light train/bus transportation isn't going to be that practicle for most people. It takes so damn long to get anywhere on them, I'd rather stick to my car despite the high gas prices. Besides, I enjoy driving.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Rail transit has been deliberately starved in this country

Since Amtrak was set up in 1969, it has received a subsidy of a billion dollars a year from the Feds. This has NOT been adjusted for inflation in all that time. Furthermore, Amtrak runs on the sufferance of the freight railroads. If a freight train wants to get through, Amtrak has to pull over and wait for it to pass.

Conservatives like to scream about how much of a subsidy Amtrak needs, but consider this: In 2001, the airlines received a $35 billion all at once after 9/11.

2001-35- 1966.

Yup, In 2001, the airlines received a bigger subsidy all at once than Amtrak had received up to that point in its entire existence.

Go to a country with good rail transit, and you'll love it. Japan is fantastic, and even England, supposedly with the worst rail transit in Europe, is miles ahead of us.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

21. Couple of problems with your post

1) in 1967 1 billion was equivalent to 5.3 billion in 2001 and 1 billion in 1972 was about 4.3 billion so in the first 5 years of Amtrak subsidies were the equal of the 2001 bailout..

2) Comparing the task of having a decent rail system in the US with Japan or England (or most other European nations) which are smaller than California is *very* misleading..

--

I don't disagree with that we need to do something (a fast connection between metros in the east (Atlantic coast through Mississippi River) and the West (Pacific Coast through to Denver and Texas) with uninterrupted stops makes some sense but when you're talking a huge landmass like the US..

Assume a 350MPH train (very fast) between MSP and NYC (1200 Miles) your probably talking 5-6 (Assuming you dont stop anywhere)hours in the train alone, in a typical plane your talking under 3 hours...

I'm not sure what the solution is but you cant lift a model for something 1/10th the size of the US and assume it will work here..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Couple of problems with YOUR post

1. The same Congressional tightwads who think that $1 billion in current dollars is too much for Amtrak did not hesitate to bail out the airlines--which are, I remind you, private businesses.

2. China, which is nearly as big as the U.S., is building high-speed rail.

3. Five to six hours from MSP to NYC? Oh, the humanity! Actually, when you consider that high-speed rail lines typically go from downtown to downtown, not from suburban airport to suburban airport, the time difference isn't so large.

If I were Transportation Czarina, I'd have each region build a high speed rail system with dedicated tracks (that's why Japan's and France's trains can go so fast). Example: Boston to Washington, Atlanta to Orlando and Miami, New Orleans to Houston and Dallas, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, etc. Then I'd start connecting them.

Most people wouldn't cross the country by rail. But then, most people don't ever have any reason to fly from coast to coast, period, unless they're in show business or some other high-powered profession. They go from Minneapolis to Chicago or from Portland to San Francisco or from Atlanta to New Orleans.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Can you please check your agenda to the side when presenting facts..

Thats *all* I was saying, I was not even criticizing your agenda just saying the justifications you were using sucked, and yes ignoring inflation one moment and bitching congress has not kept up with inflation the next shows a cognitive dissonance that anyone has to stand back and admire..

1) I don't think that the airlines should have been bailed out but 35 Billion 2001 dollars is not 'the same as all money given to amtrak' its about the same as all money given between 1967 and 1973.

2) China is not building it nationwide instead focusing on corridors

3) 6 hours is twice as many as 3 and while it might not matter to you if you're going on a weeks or twos vacation it matter hugly if (1) you're traveling with little ones or two your traveling for a short time (say a business related trip) or just over a long weekend to visit family.

Ive use the train when going home, I was dumb enough to do it twice (I figured maybe the first 20 hour trip to go from MSP to BUF was a fluke). Now that I have kids? no way Ill drive it first even if it cost *more* than a train.

--

"Example: Boston to Washington, Atlanta to Orlando and Miami, New Orleans to Houston and Dallas, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, etc. Then I'd start connecting them."

Sounds something like what I said before you decided to tear into me..

"a fast connection between metros in the east (Atlantic coast through Mississippi River) and the West (Pacific Coast through to Denver and Texas"

But hey if you want to bite my head off for trying to dissuade you from using falty arguments to support a good cause have at is..

--

"They go from Minneapolis to Chicago or from Portland to San Francisco or from Atlanta to New Orleans."

You would be surprised, we live in a very spread out world and my wife and I in MSP have close family in NYC, WNY, SoCal, TX, the Carolinas, Boston, and MD... When I go to NY or WNY I drive to Milwaukee and take the ferry across to the kids can get out and run around for a few hours while we cover ground. When my wife is going out to Cali to see her brother she is going to fly as are her parents from NY..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Maybe my math was faulty, but I'm puzzled about why you prefer the plane

when traveling with kids.

There's more to do on a train, and the kids don't have to be strapped in. They can count cows or work off some energy by taking a walk to the snack bar. They can see the geographical features of the country close up. They can go up into the observation car. They can talk to people who are amenable to being talked to.

The trains I've been on have been like small towns on wheels.

I absolutely loved riding the train when I was a kid.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

29. Only because its faster and there are more choices

My kids are good for about 2-3 hours sitting after that they become pretty hard to bear with (18 and 35 months). Even on a train with mobility it can be hard..

Now if it was 4 hours on a train vs 3 hours on a plane that would be a bit easier to go train (and yes 4 hours on a train is better than three hours on a plane) but I cant even get to Chicago in 4 hours let alone the east cost.

Also there is the option of departures which are one or two at most a day from MSP with flying I can pick a late late flight (or a sick early in the morning one) on which the kids will sleep...

I myself enjoy trains more because as an adult I can enjoy a slow ride but kids are not like that.. when the kids get older (assuming we dont have anymore) the train becomes an option again (but still not 12-20 hours vs 3 hours) my time is precious I dont get to many chances to go back east to see my family

[MindPilot]

15. Yep, even San Diego to LA at 29 bucks per person, one way

is more than the cost of gas. Plus the train takes 3 hours; I can drive it in half that. Add to the fare another easy 20-30 dollars for a cab to get to your real destination, and what exactly is my incentive for not driving?

Now if I wanted to go to San Francisco, that's a little more reasonable, about the same cost and time as driving, but there is no way to do that trip without spending a couple hours on a bus.

Add a second person to either of those trips, and again driving becomes the cheaper way to go.

[kevinbgoode]

18. Amtrak runs regular special fares. . .including major discounts

on certain lines each week on their "Hot Deals" page. They also often offer "buy one, get one companion 1/2 price or free" specials on almost all lines - if you check their site, you might find a special you overlooked that would reduce your fare.

As someone who usually travels alone, it actually is cheaper for me to take the train than to drive. . .especially to a large city, where I'd have to pay exhorbitant parking rates and deal with the stress of traffic. It's true that train travel takes longer, but it can be a wonderful opportunity to meet people or just snuggle up with a book in a comfortable seat or in one of the lounge cars. . .

Even on the full trains I've found I can take my sherpa blanket and neck pillow to the lounge and get some sleep. . .Though I do watch for first-class sales. And you can get a meal and actually enjoy conversation while you eat. And you'll also see things you'll never see by car. . .for example, outside of Pittsburgh (on the DC run) you can actually see some of the coke ovens built into the landscape along the tracks - it's fascinating.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Amtrak combines the high cost of airlines with the convenience of Greyhound

[Solon]

24. To be honest, no, but they won't have a choice anyways, pretty soon commercial airlines will be...

grounded, and our precious cars are going to be rusting in Junkyards. Options will be limited to using your feet, using a bicycle, or using buses and trains, and if you really want to go retro, horses as well.

Amtrak has problems, mostly related to lack of funding and using the same tracks as freight, which has priority. What we need is a dedicated passenger rail system, corridors between cities, and light rail and bus systems within and surrounding metro areas.

ON EDIT: You also forgot to include the cost of motel, 800+ miles will take more than 10 hours, and I would assume you would want to rest and not take the trip all in one drive. Driver's fatigue is real, and deadly. Having two people, you could drive in shifts, but that's decidedly uncomfortable, and sleeping in a car in motion isn't really that restful(know from experience.)

Hell, 800 miles could take almost 20 hours, depending on traffic conditions, so you should factor in staying in at least one Motel, that can be anywhere from 50-200 dollars for one night, depending on how nice you want to go.

[Hobarticus]

27. Took Amtrak once from Chicago to PA...never again

Holy crap, talk about a mess....they left late from the station right from the get-go due to mechanical problems, then because they were behind schedule, they had to yield to every other train along the way. Same story, incredibly enough, on the way back, too.

Can't remember exactly how long both trips took, but it was beyond my tolerance for flexibility and patience. It was beyond ridiculous, and I've flown enough to have a high threshold for travel woes.

Once back in Chicago, we ended up missing our local rail back to our car. After all our delays, we were scheduled to arrive in plenty of time to catch the next local. Nope. Train stops dead outside Chicago for a freakin' half-hour. We begged the conductor to let us detrain and catch a cab. Once we rolled in late, we had to wait another hour or so in the Amtrak station, once in Chicago.

They can make it as cheap as they please, but I'll never get on another train until they get their act together.

[whistler162]

28. From my numbers, mid-July

Using the Pennsylvanian to Pittsburgh and then the Capitol Limited from Pittsburgh to Chicago the "guesstimated" time is just over 17 hours. The price for two passengers is $320 before any discount. With a AAA discount it is $288. Of course taking the Cardinal from Philly to Chicago has the advantage of the New River Gorge.

Did you figure in parking of your vehicle when you arrive at wherever you stay in Chicago or the surrounding area?

[Pab Sungenis]

30. Parking is included with the hotel.

...and the hotel has a walkway to the convention center where I'll be exhibiting.

[Pab Sungenis]

31. and it's not mid-July.

It's mid-June. (Although Amtrak's rates seem to be fairly consistent.)