# Riding train vs flying ... some questions



## samalex (Aug 30, 2012)

Hi,

We're looking at booking a family trip from McGregor, Tx to Maricopa, AZ in November for a friend's wedding in Phoenix, but given we're a family of four (two toddlers) we're looking at options based on price and convenience. To fly it'd be about $1500 but for the train with a family sleeper it would be closer to $1950. Given the train trip would be 30 hours each way as opposed to the 3 hour flight plus a few hours of airport hassle just curious what else would be reasons to do the train over flying. Personally I've always wanted to take a train and I think the experience for the family would be a fun adventure, but I wanted to get others point of view on this since the train seems to be a common way to travel for many folks in the form, despite it being more expensive yet slower than flying.

Thanks..

Sam


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 30, 2012)

1) Remember the cost of the room is per room, not per person. (did a quick search online and did not see $1950 for 2 adults/2 children in a family bedroom)

2) Remember that meals on the train are included in the price for a room.

3) Have you added in the costs of driving/parking/etc to both modes of transporation?

If you consider taking the train as part of your vacation, then it might be worth it. Consider the cost of the room compared to staying in a hotel an extra night and buying meals.

I went on a 2-1/2 day trip last fall to visit my daughter. I considered it a multi-vacation. Vacation on the trains, vacation in CHI for the layover & vacation visiting my daughter.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Aug 30, 2012)

samalex said:


> Hi,
> 
> We're looking at booking a family trip from McGregor, Tx to Maricopa, AZ in November for a friend's wedding in Phoenix, but given we're a family of four (two toddlers) we're looking at options based on price and convenience. To fly it'd be about $1500 but for the train with a family sleeper it would be closer to $1950. Given the train trip would be 30 hours each way as opposed to the 3 hour flight plus a few hours of airport hassle just curious what else would be reasons to do the train over flying. Personally I've always wanted to take a train and I think the experience for the family would be a fun adventure, but I wanted to get others point of view on this since the train seems to be a common way to travel for many folks in the form, despite it being more expensive yet slower than flying.


One thing to note is- the $1950 train fare in family sleeper includes dinner, breakfast, lunch and again dinner for all four of you in a full service restaurant-type setting, with beautiful views of the passing countryside. It also includes unlimited juice, bottled water and coffee for all of you.

Traveling by train is not for when you are running short on time, but if you can afford to have the time it takes, it is a very relaxing and enjoying way to travel. Amtrak trains have very comfortable seats and if you are in a bedroom you get a private room for yourself and the kids. You are free to move about, stretch your legs, talk to people, use your electronic devices and cellular phone all the time, no need to stay seated with seatbelt fastened nor the need to go through TSA security procedures.

I'd strongly recommend give it a shot once, you, and especially the kids, would enjoy it  Just last week I traveled from Dallas to Tucson by flight and returned by Amtrak. The flight took little over 2 hours and the train ride took over 30 hours, but I enjoyed the latter more!


----------



## saxman (Aug 30, 2012)

Remember that parking at McGregor is free. Have you considered taking the train one-way and flying the other? Although I'm sure flying to Waco is not cheap.


----------



## samalex (Aug 30, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> 1) Remember the cost of the room is per room, not per person. (did a quick search online and did not see $1950 for 2 adults/2 children in a family bedroom)
> 
> 2) Remember that meals on the train are included in the price for a room.
> 
> ...


Yeah it was about $1950 total:

- Two adults: $240

- Two kids: $120

- Family Sleeper: $622

- Total is $982 one way, then double that for round trip

We're also looking at driving which would be about $220 in gas (2200 miles at 40 mpg and $4 per gallon) and we'd stay overnight probably half way for about $80 one night and we have enough points built up to cover a night on the return trip. We're actually staying with friends though, so no extra cost on hotel when we get to Phoenix so driving we could actually do it for around I'd guess $350-$400 also including food and such. Unfortuantely this trip was one that we haven't and much time to save-up for given it's a wedding that was really kinda scheduled last minute, but maybe ifw e can save-up for a trip it would be something we could look at for next year.

Thanks for the info


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 30, 2012)

samalex said:


> Personally I've always wanted to take a train and I think the experience for the family would be a fun adventure


Sam,

You answered your own question. The train can be a fun adventure. Nobody ever accused airline travel of being a "fun adventure" - at least not in the past 40 years.

If you compare the cost based on a method of getting from A to B, then the train often can't beat the plane. But if you consider the train as a part of the vacation, then you are getting vacation for that additional cost - a vacation you may find is something you fall in love with as many of us have. Your children will have an experience of a lifetime (and if things don't go well for Amtrak, they're only chance of a lifetime).

If you can afford that extra cost, go for it!

Life is too short to not have fun.


----------



## samalex (Aug 30, 2012)

me_little_me said:


> samalex said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I've always wanted to take a train and I think the experience for the family would be a fun adventure
> ...


I like this  For now with our Phoenix trip we may just drive just to save cash since it wasn't a trip we had much time to save-up for, but maybe we can plan something for next year when our kids are alittle older and if we can find some good promos... which honestly I'm having problems finding any discounts or promos from anyplace near us. But definitely from everything I've read plus the videos folks have posted on Youtube a train is for sure in our future!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 30, 2012)

samalex said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Remember the cost of the room is per room, not per person. (did a quick search online and did not see $1950 for 2 adults/2 children in a family bedroom)
> ...


Sorry, wasn't thinking round trip.

Maybe compromise and train out and fly back or vice-versa (for this trip or a future trip) for ~$225 more than R/T on plane. Check Amsnag for each direction as one date may be less than the other.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 30, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> One thing to note is- the $1950 train fare in family sleeper includes dinner, breakfast, lunch and again dinner for all four of you in a full service restaurant-type setting, with beautiful views of the passing countryside. It also includes unlimited juice, bottled water and coffee for all of you.


To me "full service" implies that the restaurant makes their food cooked to order with fresh ingredients and can easily honor special requests. None of which is true for any dining car on any Amtrak train I've ever ridden. This, to me, is where the value proposition really begins to break down. Those diabetic frozen junk food meals are not even close to being worth hundreds of dollars.



Texan Eagle said:


> Just last week I traveled from Dallas to Tucson by flight and returned by Amtrak.


&


saxman said:


> Have you considered taking the train one-way and flying the other?


^ This.

The best advice I can give you is to try a much shorter day trip first to see how your family takes to it before committing yourself to multiple days on the train. If they seem to be enjoying themselves then go ahead and try a longer one way trip with a flight on the other end. For me I usually head on on the train and then fly back home as that seems to work best with my sensibilities. I would strongly recommend _against_ taking Amtrak long distance both ways for your first train trip. If you're new to Amtrak it's probably best to start slow and build up to longer and longer trips over time.



samalex said:


> Yeah it was about $1950 total:
> 
> - Two adults: $240
> 
> ...


What you need to do is sign up for two AGR credit cards (you and your spouse). If you follow the right links you should be able to snag 32,000 AGR points each after buying a couple packs of gum. Then when there is a bonus points period you can replenish your supply 13,000 points at a time for about $275 or so. If you happen to catch a discounted ticket period go ahead and buy the tickets at face value. Otherwise use your points. AGR isn't nearly as useful as it once was, but it's still the best deal going when it comes to travel via Amtrak.


----------



## fairviewroad (Aug 30, 2012)

Frankly it sounds like driving is your best option. Use the train to go some place on your own terms, not a date/destination dictated by

external factors (i.e. someone else's wedding). The advice about trying it for a shorter trip is good. A weekend trip up to Fort Worth or

Dallas would be relatively cheap (in comparison) and would still give you about 2 or 3 hours on the train each way so that you could

sample some of the amenities.


----------



## benjibear (Aug 30, 2012)

I would not consider driving your best option. There is more to driving then just gas, meals, and lodging. There is the wear and tear on your vehicle, maintenance and repairs (oil changes, tires, brakes, things that break, etc.), insurance, cost of owning the vehicle, and other misc. expensis. Including meals and lodging I would bet the real cost is closer to $1500-$1600 to drive.

Also, when driving, while this may not happen, you have the consider the possibility of breaking down. When you are on the road, a long way from home, you may end up having expensis for emergency car repairs or possibly even needing a rental car. I had a friend that drove to Florida to "save" money. He ended up blowing a head gasket on his way home in a newer car that was just out of warranty and had huge repair bill, hotel expensis, and other misc. expensis he incured. This is a gamble you need to be comfortable with.

In addition, to drive 2200 miles (1100 miles one way) at average 65mph, you are driving almost 17 hours in one direction. If you split the driving it may not be too bad but to sit in the car for that long of a period could be very boring. If you are not used to driving like this, it will be a very long trip.

Now one other consideration is do you need a car at your destination?


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

Do you really have to go? You can't really be expected to attend a wedding on short notice. Maybe instead of spending 2K on travel you can get them a nicer wedding present. You could see them later for a joint vacation or something for less money and spend more time with them. At weddings you don't get much quality time with the bride and groom .


----------



## fairviewroad (Aug 30, 2012)

benjibear said:


> I would not consider driving your best option. There is more to driving then just gas, meals, and lodging. There is the wear and tear on your vehicle, maintenance and repairs (oil changes, tires, brakes, things that break, etc.), insurance, cost of owning the vehicle, and other misc. expensis. Including meals and lodging I would bet the real cost is closer to $1500-$1600 to drive.


Way, way too high. First of all, the cost of insurance and "owning the vehicle" (whatever that means) is the same regardless of whether they drive or not. As you say, a r/t from McGregor to Phoenix is about 2,200 miles. So throw in a $30 oil change when you get home. Wear on brakes is not really an issue for a long highway trip (you don't use your brakes very often on an interstate). Factor in some tire wear, sure. The OP has calculated the cost of gas, meals and lodging at around $400, which sounds reasonable. There's no way the "wear and tear" adds another grand to that.



benjibear said:


> Also, when driving, while this may not happen, you have the consider the possibility of breaking down. When you are on the road, a long way from home, you may end up having expensis for emergency car repairs or possibly even needing a rental car. I had a friend that drove to Florida to "save" money. He ended up blowing a head gasket on his way home in a newer car that was just out of warranty and had huge repair bill, hotel expensis, and other misc. expensis he incured. This is a gamble you need to be comfortable with.
> 
> In addition, to drive 2200 miles (1100 miles one way) at average 65mph, you are driving almost 17 hours in one direction. If you split the driving it may not be too bad but to sit in the car for that long of a period could be very boring. If you are not used to driving like this, it will be a very long trip.


I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that someone living in central Texas is used to driving long distances. If the OP has a newish car in relatively good condition, the chances of an en route breakdown are minimal. People drive long distances across the country all the time, every day, winter spring summer fall. It's not that big of a deal, frankly. Anyone driving long distances should be prepared for the possibility of a breakdown, but if your car is in decent shape, that shouldn't stop you from traveling.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 30, 2012)

samalex said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > samalex said:
> ...


Use amsnag as your planning tool (www.amsnag.net). Because you can search a 30 day period, you can find when prices are best. Often there is a considerable difference between one day and the next so if you can be flexible on travel dates, you can save big. Also consider 2 roomettes. While it means the bathroom and shower is down the hall, often 2 roomettes beat a bedroom hands down. Would work only if the kids are little and 1 adult/1 child per room or if they are old enough to share a roomette. We have found out we could get two roomettes for the two of us cheaper than a BR and have done that on some trips.


----------



## rusty spike (Aug 30, 2012)

If you have the time, the train is a relaxing, enjoyable way to see the coutryside, have some quality "family" time, and meet new friends along the way. I'm not sure how it would be with 2 toddlers, but you would have to decide how they would handle a train vs. driving. They might be more appreciative of a train at the age of 6 or above. I know I was!

Of course flying is the most expedient if you have short schedule. The downside of course is the airport arrival/departure hassle, and Phoenix Sky Harbor is no different than most other big airports. They do have decent ground transportaion now with linkups to Valley Metro Rail that runs from Mesa to northeast Phoenix, with dedicated bus connection from the airport. And the airport is centrally locateded (only about 3 miles from downtown Phoenix.

If you take the train you will arrive late in the evening at Maricopa, a bedroom community 35 miles south of Phoenix and no public mass transportation into the city. So taking the train would be require that someone would have to pick you up or be prepared to spend around $50 each way on a cab to wherever your final destination is in Phoenx.

Driving is going to be the least expenseive out-of-pocket, unless your car is falling apart and you wind up with an expensive repair enroute. True, wear and tear on the car is a factor, but it is not an immediate cash flow problem. Plus you have the convenience of stopping when you want and it provides local transportaition at your destination. Phoenix (or the Valley of the Sun as it is referred to locally) is definintely "urban sprawl", so, a personal auto would come in really handy. The good news is November is definitely one of the best months to visit southern Arizona. 

Enjoy your trip and your stay in Phoenix. :hi:


----------



## tubaia (Aug 30, 2012)

fairviewroad said:


> Frankly it sounds like driving is your best option. Use the train to go some place on your own terms, not a date/destination dictated by
> 
> external factors (i.e. someone else's wedding). The advice about trying it for a shorter trip is good. A weekend trip up to Fort Worth or
> 
> ...


Also, if you haven't already done so, you may want to consider joining AAA. It could help if you do decide to drive this trip, with breakdown coverage, maps, and cheaper motels/dining/activities. And, when you do decide to take the train (I know you will), it can save you 10% on your tickets (not room charge). Of course, you'll then want to use AGR credit card to pay for your tickets and earn points toward another train trip.


----------



## samalex (Aug 30, 2012)

Wow, lots of wonderful replies and some great info too! Here's a few replies...

Yes living in Central Texas we're used to driving and our car is only a year old, so putting 2200 miles on it shouldn't be a huge deal. Also I'mf factoring the gas at 2200 miles, we get on average 40 mpg highway, and at $4/gallon this is $220 in gas, so I'm adding another $180 in lodging and food which sounds reasonable to me. Plus we have some Marriott points that might be used for one night's stay, so maybe even less expensive.

Someone asked if we even have to go, and yes... my wife is maid of honor and our daughter is flower girl, plus it's one of our dearest friends, so yeah we want to be there.

As for getting a credit card for points, we already did that for Southwest Airlines when we were looking at just flying, and they gave us 25K points for the card... what sucks now is they're offering 50K points for the same card, and I already called asking if we could get the extra 25K points since we just signed up last month -- but no dice. I wonder if my wife could sign-up for the card instead if they'd give us the points since we live at the same address. Hmm, need to read-up on this.

But given we did the train to Maricopa, Az yeah it's 30 miles from Phoenix but our friends there could pick us up and they have a car we can use while there, plus we're staying with them... so all we have to really do is get there and pay for food. All else should be covered.

And www.amsnag.net looks great! I hadn't heard of it, but I'll definitely check it out!

Oh, and I looked at an AAA Card, but you only save 10% of fair and it's $50 for the card ... but 10% of our fair would be less than $50 so not sure if it'd help. I did look at the Student Advantage card since I'm a part time student and my wife works in a school, it's only $20 and saves 5% off fair. So that would be an option for sure.

So as of right now we're probably leaning more towards driving, but I agree with you guys to at least try the train on a short trip to Dallas or Austin and see how it goes. From what I hear the train goes from McGregor to downtown Ft Worth or Austin might be a fun weekend trip! We might check into this soon...

But thanks everyone for all the wondeful information. I never really looked at the train as a viable option until now, and I have no idea why...

Take care ---


----------



## benjibear (Aug 30, 2012)

People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.

A car does not last forever and using 2200 miles will shorten the life of the car by that much. A care is usually good for 120-150K before starting to have major problems (I know some would argue with me on this). If you pay $20,000 for the car and it goes 150,000 miles without any repairs that is 13.3 cents per mile right there. If you finance or even if you didn't, you need to consider the value of money over time so this will go up.

Even with a car lasting 150k miles, you are going to have maintenance and repairs. If you can do them yourself and you have the time, the cost will go down. Not only $30 for an oil change, other fluids, belts, hoses, tires, brakes, battery, wipes, lamps, cleaning, and other preventive maintenance items. You may even run into other major repairs that you need to perform. Even the "good" cars that people sware by have problems. Over the life of the car, theses costs may equal what you paid for the car but most likely will exceed.

You do have some fixed costs but I feel you need to include them in as well. Some say insurance is a fixed cost, but this can go up or down depending how much you drive. You have registration, inspections, taxes, etc. that a little to the cost. When adding up what it costs to drive, these costs are very minimal and only come to a few cents a mile.


----------



## FunNut (Aug 30, 2012)

I returned from a trip to Texas today, a much shorter ride than the one you would do from where you live to Phoenix. It took us "just" 12-13 hours one-way. I really detest driving long distances, hate flying more (we live 2 hours from the closest airport in Albuquerque), and love the train. But, unfortunately, Amtrak has no trains from Lamy or Albuquerque to San Antonio, we would've had to drive to Deming NM anyway to catch the train. So we were kind of "forced" to drive on this trip.

There is no way in the world I would choose to drive from your location in Texas to Phoenix _with two toddlers in the car_. You will have to stop at least every two hours or the kids will go nuts. Well, maybe they will sleep a little but the two hours between stops is what I would guess. Your choices for where to stay enroute are limited to Pecos or El Paso. Pecos is a wide spot in the road with expensive lodging and little choice in restaurants. The stretches of I-20 and I-10 you have to drive are boring beyond belief, except for Texas Canyon and the big rocks east of Tucson.

You should take the train or fly, driving will be a royal pain, take two days each way, and your kids will be so sick of the trip by the time they get to Phoenix they might not be "up to" attending the wedding. And, as others have said, putting 2200 miles on your car is a lot of wear and tear.

BTW, if you drive you definitely should join AAA just in case of a flat tire, breakdown, accident requiring a tow, etc. AAA is a lot more than hotel discounts. The free maps alone almost make membership worthwhile. And who wants their wife driving around town with two toddlers taking the chance of needing to change a flat tire?

Your dilemma about train, fly, or drive is a common one. Let us know what you decide.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 30, 2012)

Take the train! One thing I realise is that it does not feel like a long trip at all. The view out the window nevers stops transfixing me even in the plainest deserts and grassland. It does get boring when the train is going slow, though, but I don't expect too many speed restrictions on the Sun Belt! Plus you don't have to worry about ear pain during takeoff/landing even though I did learn a way to make it hurt less (squeeze nose).

Hope you have a great trip anyway!



benjibear said:


> People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.
> 
> A car does not last forever and using 2200 miles will shorten the life of the car by that much. A care is usually good for 120-150K before starting to have major problems (I know some would argue with me on this). If you pay $20,000 for the car and it goes 150,000 miles without any repairs that is 13.3 cents per mile right there. If you finance or even if you didn't, you need to consider the value of money over time so this will go up.
> 
> ...


Good job! You really show that drving isn't so cheap after all.


----------



## NW cannonball (Aug 31, 2012)

With toddlers it's really hard to know or even guess how a long trip - by any mode- will work out -- I've done a few by train plane and automobile when my kids were toddlers - and there are advantages and disadvantages to whatever way you choose.

Driving - you are in control, a few hundred miles of toddlers who scream can be ameliorated by a couple hours rest stop. Plan for at least 150% more than the minimum trip time. Allow for depreciation and gas and hotels - other costs -- that's for accountants.

Plane -- fastest - toddlers ears can hurt for days afterwards - cost totally depends --

Train -- depends how much you like driving - toddlers can be happy on the train - or not - the overall speed is like driving - the cost you got to figure - how much free time you have - my kids were quietest on the train - but that all depends -- you may not need a sleeper even for 30 hours - the young ones may fall asleep in your arms and you then have two seats to sprawl over --

Yo no se - it is a total tossup - pay your money, take your choice.

Wish you the best.


----------



## boxcar479 (Aug 31, 2012)

I hope your schedule allows you to take the train. If you do take the train I would like to suggest to be sure you book train #421 going or #422 coming back because of the layover in San Antonio


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 31, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> benjibear said:
> 
> 
> > People way underestimate what it costs to drive their cars. You have to consider way more than just gas and an oil change. I know I track what it costs me to drive and the costs isn't much less than the goverments rate per mile for bussiness (currently 0.555/mile) and drive a fairly cheap car and keep them for a long time.
> ...


This is one of the most irrational arguments for taking the train. It is simply economically cheaper to take a family car. You can't include the fixed costs of car ownership when taking a one-off trip. Those costs will be there if you add 2200 miles to your car or not. The fact of the matter is that you can even rent a car and depreciate IT and pay for the gas for less than taking the train for the most part. The economics of train travel fall apart rapidly after 1 person travelling in coach. It's very very hard for me to justify financially to take the train anywhere with my family when I can drive. Don't forget the costs associated upon arrival. Rental car or taxi. Unless you can walk to your hotel, wedding, etc. from the train station, you're gonna have to pony up. In June I took the Silver Meteor/Star RT to Orlando from Savannah. The train cost around $120 RT. I then paid for my meals on board (breakfast and lunch then lunch and dinner). That was about another $70. Then, because of the schedules, I had to have an extra night in a hotel that I didn't need if I drove ($70). Then I had to pay for the extra meals I enjoyed because I got there 12 hours before I needed to ($20). And the city bus. Where that didn't really cost much, it DID take FOREVER to get anywhere. 90 minutes for what would be a 20 minute drive by car is insane. When all was said and done, I ended up paying about $300 for my train trip. If I drove, I could have pulled in right before my conference and left right when it was done. Total cost would have been about $100 with food along the way. Had I taken my wife, the train costs would have doubled, my car would only have cost about $20 more in food. Now we're talking $500 vs $200. Getting a sleeper would not have made it any more economical. Throw in the three kids, and that would be $1100 vs $300. With all the hassles of public transportation, the lack of freedom in movement, and the waiting everwhere we went for a bus to show up, I KNOW that my wife and family would have been ready to send me to the guillotine if they accompanied me on this trip. And it was only 275 miles away.

As for all the maintainance costs of driving, increasing your annual usage by 10% by taking a single highway trip will not be a deal breaker. In fact a good highway drive using premium gas and a good synthetic oil change before and after can be theraputic to a car in and of itself, and actually increase its life and reduce overall costs.

So, take the train for the experience. NOT for it's speed. NOT for it's "value". Take it if it is going to be a part of your vacation. Sure there is value in taking the train - expecially for a trip as long as the OP is planning. And there is the added benefit of not being exhausted from the drive. But if you have a wife that can help you drive and take turns - and even if you choose to spend the night along the way at a motel - you'll save a load by driving. If you're trying to save a little coin and do things economically, by all means drive.


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Aug 31, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> As for all the maintainance costs of driving, increasing your annual usage by 10% by taking a single highway trip will not be a deal breaker. In fact a good highway drive *using premium gas* and a good synthetic oil change before and after can be theraputic to a car in and of itself, and actually increase its life and reduce overall costs.


While I agree with your math and arguments overall...

Premium gas does nothing to increase the efficiency of your car.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/premium-vs-regular-1


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 31, 2012)

That was a tongue and cheek comment. I realize that, but there are higher end cars that require 91 to prevent detonation which can destroy high compression engines.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 31, 2012)

samalex said:


> we're a family of four *(two toddlers)*


Two toddlers = a very long time with two kids trapped in car seats. You could easily both be candidates for strait jackets by the time you get there. For our kids who had lots of curiosity and considered being still for a long time torture, a two day trip approached child abuse. If the finances at all permit, take the train.


----------



## benjibear (Aug 31, 2012)

I am not arguing that taking the train will be cheaper than driving. I am saying you need to consider more than just gas and an oil change for driving 2200 miles. The fixed costs of owning a car (insirance, restistration, etc.) is very minimal cost of driving. Owning the car and maintence is not and you need to inlcude those costs when driving.

I don not agree with the arguement "In fact a good highway drive using premium gas and a good synthetic oil change before and after can be theraputic to a car in and of itself, and actually increase its life and reduce overall costs." With this statement,, you are saying that a car should last forever if you only drive it on a highway. Any driving costs money for car replacement and maintence cost. Cars wear out and you need to include this cost in all driving.

As fas as transportation at your destination, I totally agree. That is why I asked if they needed car when they get there.

The hard thing to put value on is driving 4 days with two kids. Can they really handle it? I think this is probably the biggestt consideration.

Now if the OP wanted to save money, they would have said they were going to take coach. That would have saved them money.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > benjibear said:
> ...


Wait, you probably misunderstood. I did NOT say that this is an argument for taking the train. I just said thar driving your own car is not as cheap as many people think. Dosen't mean it's more expensibve than the train. If one wanted to save money one might as well take the bus. I do that a lot when trains don't have good timing, are too expensive, or "can't get there from here".

So please, do not assume that I am trying to nitpick and find little reasons that pile up gainst the car to make people travel by train. Nobody, including me, is always rational, but this time I was not being irrational like you say.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 1, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > With toddlers it's really hard to know or even guess how a long trip - by any mode- will work out -- I've done a few by train plane and automobile when my kids were toddlers - and there are advantages and disadvantages to whatever way you choose.
> ...


My arguments for irrationality were based on Benjibear's post. You got caught in the crossfire of agreeing with him.  Oh, I know I can be just as irrational as the next guy.

In this gentleman's case, I think that the best option with kids really would be to fly. It would be done and over with in just a few hours, reduce the time necessary in hotels, and the kids would love it. But, in the future, should another lengthy trip be deemed necessary and the proper budgeting of money and time is in place, I HIGHLY recommend the train. I almost guarantee that the kids would remember it more than the plane.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 2, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Well, things like that just happen. I guess everybody was a bit confused right there, but it's fine.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 2, 2012)

A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....

This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 2, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....
> 
> This might be a good occasion for a road trip, and I say this as someone who hates long road trips. Your proposed trip is unfortunately one of the less convenvient train trips possible in the US due to its three-a-week schedule, the station far outside Phoenix, long layover at night in San Antonio. If you take it, treat it as a vacation in itself.


Less convinient? Oh, this is already really good compared to CHI-ATL. There's plenty worse than this!


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 3, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....
> ...


Really? While I can think of plenty worse (travel eastbound from Minneapolis? try to get from Syracuse, NY to Cincinnati?), I'd say Chicago-Atlanta is much more convenient: you can schedule your two-overnight trip every day of the week, the trains pretty much always depart on time, you leave in the evening and arrive in the morning on both legs, you have a day in DC.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 3, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


And you use over twice as much time as you would on a Greyhound Express. Plus you use over twice as much money. Greyhound isn't good for everything, but this is still OK.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 3, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> You can't include the fixed costs of car ownership when taking a one-off trip.


You can't take the trip, unless you actually have a car.

The only way of accounting for those fixed costs is to spread them out over all of the miles that you drive, you can't just pick and choose to make the numbers come out a particular way.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....


I finished 5 flights in the past ten days, and just crossed the figure of flying 100,000 miles in the past three years, having been through 27 airports and 9 different airlines.. I am still trying to figure out where is this "TSA groping and nightmare" that some folks here keep talking about? Not once has passing security involved anything more than a 2 second scan through the machine. Not one TSA agent has ever touched me, and oh, if you are worried about being "irradiated" by the scanner, I hope you are not using a cell phone at all and living at least a mile away from nearest cell phone towers. Also I am still on the lookout for a baby that screams the entire length of a flight. I guess this species, like the Loch Ness Monster, exists somewhere, I just need to look closely maybe? Did I mention the baby who kept crying and screaming throughout my trip on the Southwest Chief?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of flying. In fact I enjoyed the 30 hours train trip more than the 2 hour flight when I did my recent trip to Tucson, but what amuses me is how much some folks out here demonize the TSA and the entire flying experience. The fact is, here in America, one can not always take the train. Sometimes taking a flight is a much better option than taking Amtrak, and when that is the case, I see absolutely no problem in flying.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 3, 2012)

Ryan said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > You can't include the fixed costs of car ownership when taking a one-off trip.
> ...


Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.

The IRS allows 55.5 cents per mile for business deductions. The business deduction mileage rate includes variable and fixed ownership costs. The IRS allows 23 cents per mile for medical deductions. The medical deduction rate only includes variable costs. To determine the added or avoided cost of an auto trip, the proper rate is the variable cost rate - 23 cents per mile.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > A reason not to fly is the TSA groping/abuse nightmare, taking off your shoes and being irradiated, etc. Also, some toddlers still have serious trouble with the air pressure changes and can scream the entire length of the trip....
> ...


Very well stated. I do close to 100,000 miles each year on 30 - 40 trips. I have not been groped (or touched) by any TSA agent yet. It is even less likely that such would happen since now I am on the TSA trusted traveler program. Indeed so far this year I have been through a millimeter wave scanner three times and an X-Ray scanner once, and the rest has been through magnetometers. So I am sure I have gotten more radiation from standing out in the Sun and using a cell phone, and of course flying at 38,000' than because of anything that the TSA did.

I just got back from India on a 15 hour non stop flight, which was as close to perfect as can be. No screaming kids, no turbulence, reasonably good food, great AVOD system with a great moving map. It even arrived an hour and 15 mins ahead of schedule. It got in so early that we had to wait for CBP to wake up and come to duty before they could let us off the plane. Took them about 20 mins to achieve that. But still I was almost home before the scheduled arrival time of the flight. And on the way I got a spectacular view of the Midnight Sun over the Arctics. What can beat that?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 3, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.


How exactly are you going to take a trip if you don't own a car? What miles do you get to pick and choose to amortize the fixed costs of car ownership across?

The only honest way to do it is to amortize those fixed costs against every mile the car drives. What the IRS chooses to do is irrelevant.


----------



## benjibear (Sep 3, 2012)

You need to include the cost of buying the car when you figure what it costs you to drive. The life of a car is a combination of milage and years but for most people it is more milage dependant. If you drive very little, the age may get to a car before the milage. Saying that, you need to divide the cost to but the car by the expected milage out of a car to get cents per miles for just owning the car. You also need to include the interest you pay for a loan and if you didn't get a loan, you need to include the interest you would have received if you had it invested.

The fixed costs are regustration which in my case is $36 per year. State inspection which I beleive I pay about $50. Insurance (I pay about $600). This is a total of $686 per year so if I go 15,000 miles in year is 4.6 cents. For an occasaional trip as long as your insurancee won't change because you went over a certain limit, you can ignore these costs but the bottom line is you it is money you are paying to own and drive a car.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2012)

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.
> ...


Just to throw a spanner in the works, let me posit that the real market measure would be the substitution cost, i.e. if you did not own a car and wanted to drive anyway what would be the overall cost (rental + insurance + gas etc.). That would be a good market measure of the cost of driving.

I don't think completely ignoring the cost of ownership is reasonable in all cases. One needs to take into account what effect the trip is potentially going to have on the length of ownership of the car and what other potential usages would be prevented by the fact that the car was used for this trip. These are often hard to quantify, and hence one has to decide how to account for it. Of course if you are arguing that car usage costs less, then you'd make some very strong points establishing that these costs can be neglected, and in certain cases indeed such a case can be made, but not in all cases.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 3, 2012)

Too many engineers here. :help:

Oh, wait, this is a train forum.


----------



## TimePeace (Sep 3, 2012)

Hmmm riding train vs flying...

Well, a big thing to me is meeting people. Somehow it just don't feel right sitting next to someone for 2, or 5, or more hours, and not have a single word of conversation. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it hasn't in my (only occasional) flying experiences.

All of the factors involving time and money are big... but this one matters to me, in helping define why I prefer the train....


----------



## jebr (Sep 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Analyzing the cost of a trip should be on avoided costs. Gas, tolls, and mileage-dependent maintenance are mileage-variable costs that are avoided by not driving. The ownership costs (purchase, interest, insurance, registration) are fixed costs that apply whether a car is driven or not. Taking a trip does not increase fixed costs. Not taking a trip does not reduce fixed costs.
> ...


The problem is that the true fixed costs (registration, insurance, and to some extent car payments insofar as age takes a toll outside of mileage) do not change because you have to take the trip. Heck, for many people taking the train involves a car trip already, so the car is required for the train ride.

Let's say you have to have a car to get to work, because your work isn't accessible by public transit and a car is cheaper than taxi fare. If work was accessible via transit, you would not have a car.

In this case, how is it fair to attribute the cost of owning the car to anything other than work?

The problem is that the car, insurance, and registration is a sunk cost. While mileage can do a number to a car, I've so far been able to coax around 60,000 miles over 3 years out of a car that started at around 150,000 miles when I started taking care of it. Still runs well, with about $500/year of maintenance costs outside of oil changes. Some of those maintenance costs are due to mileage (such as tires) but others are harder to quantify (power steering fails, thermostat goes out, etc.)


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 4, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Too many engineers here. :help:
> 
> Oh, wait, this is a train forum.


No, this an amateur accountant forum - no - duh -

Per Jeremy Bentham - your just figure your delta cost versus your delta benefit  Oh and and then factor all the future (not past) expectations into that and then adjust for the estimated value of the medium of exchange you valued it all in over all expected future possibilities. Easy-peasy :giggle:

That's the accounting theory. Rocket science is easy compared to economic science where everybody is revaluing everything on their own scale of value all the time.

This when you don't know if the train or plane or whatever will run on time, or your car break down, or you lose your job while on vacation or about a bazillion things that *might *happen, and some of them will happen and some won't. And all the guesses change every second (or day, or year ---_ [edit] - AND figure your own likely changes in utility-values and preferences over the future -- :wacko:

To the OP samalex - probably driving is safest - both in terms of the toddlers freaking out and marginal cost - and if you have to cancel the trip everyone will understand. On the other hand, flying will get you there quickest, and barring ear pressure problems with least toddler problems - but with more cost if you have to reschdule a flight, and then there's the bit about having to rent a car at the airport or depend on busy relatives for lifts. Train is safest both in terms of accidents and ear problems and car problems, but it's as slow as driving.

Got to look up my 1960's "Theory of games under uncertainties with no saddle point and imperfect information" by some famous person who has influenced international relations --

-- Duh - this is not either an accounting forum nor a theory of political games forum.

Hey OP samalex -- pay your money, take your choice - consider what you know about your toddlers you know more than anyone here - we all bless you and hope for a trip report.


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 4, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> Hmmm riding train vs flying...
> 
> Well, a big thing to me is meeting people. Somehow it just don't feel right sitting next to someone for 2, or 5, or more hours, and not have a single word of conversation. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it hasn't in my (only occasional) flying experiences.
> 
> All of the factors involving time and money are big... but this one matters to me, in helping define why I prefer the train....


I think the "meeting people" can be important even for toddlers. I still remember an early train trip to "out east" with my mom and baby brother and the chance to meet new people- in very safe circumstances - on the train.

My daughter (now 25) clearly remembers a trip at age 4 from MSP WAS (Dad - what was the problem with that woman in the dining car - she was telling me that those auto racks were "cattle cars"?)

Even very young kids can learn from meeting (with parental supervision) slightly deluded train passengers. How else to learn about such, if not at school, or from parent's work. (Parents, of course, are never mistaken about anything - Hah! - I think it helps to introduce kids to other adults who are slightly more delusional even than us parents - helps in the longer run - in the mid teens - dad can say "I'm not as nuts as "--")

Yeah - for kids also - meeting strangers and strange people on the train is probably a good thing - and for that, the train is better by far than private auto, air, bus - in that order. Kids need to learn,

So do us old folks .


----------



## dlagrua (Sep 4, 2012)

I have calculated the cost of drivng my car to be 50-55 cents per mile. I keep my cars for 100K miles and replacement cost is at least $30,000. That's 30 cents per mile right there add gasoline and that's another 13-15 cents per mile and that only allows a few cents of leeway to cover insurance, tolls, parking, maintenance and repairs.

As for coach air travel; it is usually much higher than Amtrak coach fare. On our trip to CHI next year and back we are paying $780 round trip in a bedroom for two people. Comparable *coach* airfares (checked at the same time) are about $300 ea or $600 for two plus airport parking and the $50 luggage fees and taxes. The savings would be about $50 per person but the comparison is not a fair one. On the airlines we would be squeezed into a tiny seat like a sardine in a closed airtight can but on Amtrak we travel in a stress free comfortable environment in our own private quarters and enjoy decent meals. It takes longer by train but I would do anything to avoid the crowded, cramped, congested, filthy, dehumanizing, and unhealthy condition of airline travel.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 4, 2012)

For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2012)

George Harris said:


> For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.


That is good advice for even most adults. Just to make it more acceptable for adults substitute "chewing gum" for "pacifier" though arguably, many adults could actually do quite well with a pacifier too, but it'd look a little odd. :lol:


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 4, 2012)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > For the ear problems: Give the kid something to chew on or suck on. Yes, this is an appropriate time for a pacifier. Working the jaw will keep the ears popped. If the kid has stopped up sinuses, cancel if you can. The trip will be miserable.
> ...


Oh, stuff it. :giggle:

I just keep swallowing. Though my most recent flights, I don't recall doing that much and was fine.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 4, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


My bigger issue in flight is with AIF - Altitude-Induced Flatulence. Chewing gum does not seem to help that. Looking around and casting suspicion on nearby passengers is one strategy to avoid detection. That is a short-term solution that does not work very long.


----------



## Aaron (Sep 5, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> I think the "meeting people" can be important even for toddlers. I still remember an early train trip to "out east" with my mom and baby brother and the chance to meet new people- in very safe circumstances - on the train.
> 
> My daughter (now 25) clearly remembers a trip at age 4 from MSP WAS (Dad - what was the problem with that woman in the dining car - she was telling me that those auto racks were "cattle cars"?)
> 
> ...


I took my kids on the train last month and was frankly glad that they didn't meet anyone on that train. There were a couple of people in the lounge that had been imbibing a little too much. There was the one lady who, upon finding out that she'd have to go down _stairs_ to get to the cafe, let out with a super loud "F---" that the whole car heard, and then proceeded to alternately wail and swear about how difficult everything had been going for her. There were the woman and man at the station in Tucson who got in a huge shouting match with all manner of profanities flying left and right because the woman thought the man had made some remark about her mother while they were on the train. I thought the police were going to get called for that one.

Seriously, what is wrong with people? When gathered together with other people, can't we all just agree to act civilized? Particularly with language... I'll use a few swear words from time to time when I know who I'm speaking with and I'm sure the situation allows for it, but never in a public setting among people I don't know. That's just not civilized. I'm not worried that a few swear words are going to permanently scar my kids or anything, but I really don't like putting them in situations like that. I'm trying to teach them that that behavior is _unacceptable_, and I don't like putting them in situations where other people are acting like it's perfectly _acceptable. _I just have to treat those situations as educational opportunities and tell my kids, "see, this is a good example of how _not_ to act" while just hoping that expanding their world view in this way ends up with a positive effect. It left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth and it will make me much more hesitant about bringing my kids on the train in the future.

I'm hesitant about even bringing my kids to the station for that matter. At the Tucson station, they've got an old steam locomotive on display, and on National Train Day they were letting kids climb in to the cab, ring the bell, etc. While my kids were in the cab, the one ancient volunteer there in the cab was saying to the other ancient volunteer, "f--- this", "f--- that", etc. Come on! It's not just that kids _might_ be present. There are kids all over this locomotive! Your whole reason for being up in the cab is to show it to kids! Seriously, what is wrong with people?


----------



## rrdude (Sep 5, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Great, now we've worked farts into this thread.

Most "Mericans just think about "out-of-pocket" costs when making a travel decision. I've long-ago stopped trying to convince friends or co-workers that rail travel is less expensive, ............"when one considers the *true cost* of driving my friend, depreciation, insurance, yada, yada, yada............" Then your coworker answers, "But I've only got $200 on my debit card......."

THAT, (right or wrong) is how many people decide on which mode to travel. The cheapest out-of-pocket ticket cost.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 5, 2012)

If a baby won't drink or take a pacifier, you can position them so they're looking at you and then yawn. They'll end up mimicing you, and it can help relieve the pressure.

For this very reason, I'd rather bring two toddlers on the train. They'll have more room to play, it will be fun for them to watch the scenery (you can point out all kinds of animals, cars, trucks, buildings), and you'll have more room to spread out period. I can't imagine hauling all of the stuff required for two toddlers through security and onto an airplane and then putting them through the pressure issues. They'll have much more fun crawling around a family bedroom and looking out the windows.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 5, 2012)

Aaron said:


> When gathered together with other people, can't we all just agree to act civilized?


I think part of the problem is that many of us have been taught that we're not really in this together. That working together for the benefit of strangers without compensation is wrong and un-American. That it's really all about how to get to the top at the expense of everyone else however you can. Pardon me for pointing this out, but we now have Gordon Gekko on the news telling us how he's going to fix our society's problems by following his tried and true method of buying us out, diving up the proceeds, and selling off whatever remains to the highest bidder. I think it's pretty clear that we've been building a society that only thinks of ourselves and will turn on each other the moment anything goes wrong. Then we wonder why nobody seems to think about the needs of anyone else. I think we know why. We just don't want to admit it.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 5, 2012)

jis said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


Oh, goodie, a couple more "Never happened to me so it doesn't exist" folks.

I guess drunk drivers, muggers and child molesters don't exist either. After all, they never happened to *YOU....*


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 5, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Oh, goodie, a couple more "Never happened to me so it doesn't exist" folks.
> 
> I guess drunk drivers, muggers and child molesters don't exist either. After all, they never happened to *YOU....*


Nor does it happen to *everyone*, as some posters imply. It has not happened to me either, sorry to tell you.

The funny thing is that I ride Amtrak because I enjoy Amtrak, not because I hate air travel. I guess I'm not a true fan.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 5, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Nor does it happen to *everyone*, as some posters imply.


[citation needed]


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 5, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, goodie, a couple more "Never happened to me so it doesn't exist" folks.
> ...


Everyone doesn't get mugged, either. I guess that means that those who do should just suck it up and walk it off, huh?...


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 5, 2012)

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Nor does it happen to *everyone*, as some posters imply.
> ...


So, are you suggesting that every single person screened by TSA gets secondary treatment? Seriously?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 5, 2012)

No, I'm suggesting that the posters you claim imply that it happens to everyone don't exist.

The fact that it happens to anyone should offend anyone that takes their civil liberties seriously. Burying your head in the ground and saying "it doesn't happen to me" means nothing to the people that do have legitimate complaints.


----------



## JayPea (Sep 5, 2012)

Ah, yes, the old "flying-is-bad-no-it's good argument. *As for me personally and ONLY me personally*(gotta make that clear right away) :lol: I haven't had much problem with TSA, other than the whole routine in general is a pain in the neck IMHO (and sometimes I have a lower opinion of it than that).  The worst problems I've had with TSA is in little ole Spokane, hardly the terrorist mecca of the world. I've had shaving cream confiscated, I've been subject to such a thorough search of my backpack that I nearly missed my flight, and in general it's like trying to enter Fort Knox. I've had far less problems in much bigger airports such as Sea-Tac and LAX. Now, all that said, I would guess that if a million people had had the identical experience with flying I have, you'd have a million different opinions on it.* Just because my experience has been (relatively) hassle-free certainly doesn't mean everyone else's has. And just because others have had very bad experiences doesn't mean others haven't had good ones. * I fly when necessary, and take Amtrak when I want to. So I guess I'm not a fan either. I would never tell anyone to fly (or not) based on my experience nor would I ever tell anyone else they're wrong about flying based on my experience. Or take the train or drive, for that matter.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 5, 2012)

This is not a "Flying is bad train is good" argument, this is a "TSA is bad no I've never had it happen to me so la la la" argument. 

Let me be frank - I have no problem with flying. Enjoying flying and being a railfan are perfectly compatible, not mutually exclusive. Who doesn't like big machines? 

There are times that flying absolutely beats the heck out of the train.

That being said, the TSA can die in a fire. And as long as they're at the airport, I'm on the train.

And I'm not alone. There's a bunch of us out there who have had enough "Touchy-Feely" experiences to last one lifetime, thank you, and we have disposable income, and we're taking your roomettes and bedrooms and costing YOU more when you do take the train.

So see, it's in your own self interests to join me in telling the TSA to... well, you know.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 5, 2012)

Dangerously verering back to "on topic", it's also a "going through the TSA Security Theatre with a couple kids is a royal pain in the neck" thread, even when you don't have to deal with the extra credit secondary screening.

Given the choice between flying with kids and taking the train with kids, the train wins in the "ease of use" front every time.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 5, 2012)

There's pluses and minuses there too, like everything else in life.

Take my 3 year old (please! LOL)... he likes airplanes, and he likes trains.

But after 30 hours of bouncing off the walls in a roomette... well, it's not as bad as being strapped in a carseat. But it's close.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 6, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Let me be frank - I have no problem with flying. Enjoying flying and being a railfan are perfectly compatible, not mutually exclusive. Who doesn't like big machines?
> There are times that flying absolutely beats the heck out of the train.


Yeah - like going to Japan.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 7, 2012)

I like airliners and pax trains. This biggest whim I have about planes, though, are the small seats, not the TSA. Even Greyhound seats are bigger!


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 7, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> If a baby won't drink or take a pacifier, you can position them so they're looking at you and then yawn. They'll end up mimicing you, and it can help relieve the pressure.
> 
> For this very reason, I'd rather bring two toddlers on the train. They'll have more room to play, it will be fun for them to watch the scenery (you can point out all kinds of animals, cars, trucks, buildings), and you'll have more room to spread out period. I can't imagine hauling all of the stuff required for two toddlers through security and onto an airplane and then putting them through the pressure issues. They'll have much more fun crawling around a family bedroom and looking out the windows.


That seems like useful advice about getting baby to mimic and relieve the pressure that way. Thanks.

Even in coach, I personally have no problem with small children nearby babbling or walking in the aisle, as long as the parents exercise some reasonable degree of control when the young'ns get too rambunctious. In my experience the parents usually do have reasonable control -- with a few very annoying exceptions. Prime example of incompetent parenting is the parent who tries to out-shout the child or uses threats of violence (I've seen a few of these situations, on all modes of transport, or even at the supermarket -- I don't know any way to intervene or help, unless there is actual violence - I've called the cops or store security twice in the last 50 years)

But - over the last 30 years - I've changed. When I was 20-30 something and childless, "screaming babies" was how I perceived the young ones. And it bothered me a lot. Now that my own kids are grown, I just try to radiate calmness and support and I know the (babies, toddlers, screaming brats) will calm down eventually - and in most situations - doesn't worry or annoy me much at all. (Same for the "adult" babblers and sometimes drunks and dogmatic demanders)

The other passengers will have a wide range of responses - I try to calm them too as best I can - but we all have different responses - some of us want everybody else to sit quiet and never bother us at all, others want to talk, talk, talk - some are professional grumps - takes all kinds - yeah?


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 7, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be frank - I have no problem with flying. Enjoying flying and being a railfan are perfectly compatible, not mutually exclusive. Who doesn't like big machines?
> ...


As it happens, I plan to go to Japan soonish - the flight - in those tiny economy seats - seems more worrisome than traveling on the trains there (where the carry-on limits are so much less) - or the subways where it's SRO and hauling baggage - even small baggage - is discouraged.

36 hours in coach on the EB seems like nothing ( can walk, move, visit lounge and diner, recline) compared to the Pacific flight and the totally different - much faster - much more crowded trains when I get there.

But I will be flying to NRT -- no alternative - and hoping I like working with the transit there when I get there.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Oh, goodie, a couple more "Never happened to me so it doesn't exist" folks.
> 
> I guess drunk drivers, muggers and child molesters don't exist either. After all, they never happened to *YOU....*


If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, I did not say anything of the sort that you imply above. Your conjecture (actually setting up a strawman and knocking it down admirably) is entirely your contribution. I have been a critic of the TSA when it behaves poorly. But the point still remains that a vast majority of people who go through TSA barriers do so with no issues. That is not to say that some do not have huge problems. But completely getting rid of security inspection before boarding aircrafts in today's world is not an option either and has not been for decades predating the TSA. What needs to happen is that the more egregious behaviors of some TSA agents needs to be curtailed and a more transparent mechanism for remediation of the same needs to be put in place. But completely getting rid of gate security in commercial aviation is something that only people who are grossly unconnected with reality contemplate seriously.

The original subthread was about whether the existence of TSA is sufficient reason to shun air travel in general, and the fact remains that it is not, no matter how much a tiny vocal group rant and rave on and on.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> The original subthread was about whether the existence of TSA is sufficient reason to shun air travel in general, and the fact remains that it is not, no matter how much a tiny vocal group rant and rave on and on.


For you (a seasoned traveler, with no special needs), that's certainly an accurate statement. But that's a decision that everyone needs to make for themselves. I'd suspect that the decision could come out differently for folks with less experience trying to haul a large family though a TSA show.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The original subthread was about whether the existence of TSA is sufficient reason to shun air travel in general, and the fact remains that it is not, no matter how much a tiny vocal group rant and rave on and on.
> ...


Absolutely. No question about that. However, as far as air travel is concerned, the actual number of people that appear to avail of air service anyway (even for completely discretionary travel) seems to strongly suggest that for a vast majority the existence of TSA is not a sufficient deterrence to traveling by air. That is of course not to say that (a) the security processes are not a pain and (b) TSA sometimes appears to be trying hard to make it so for no particular conceivable reason. But in general, inconvenience yes, but deterrence, no. Greater deterrence appears to be things like baggage fees etc., but that is an outcome of the general philosophy of unpackaging everything so that the base fare presented can be as low as possible - the RyanAir (no pun intended  ) syndrome, and planned reduction of seat inventory to sustainably increase base fares. Ironically, the latter also give Amtrak more breathing room in fare setting in air competitive markets.

Is security a pain in the butt? Of course, but what exactly is the reasonable alternative? As I said, the actual procedures can and should be streamlined, and to some extent such is taking place, but in a proper Capitalistic manner some of it requires buying into the convenience. But getting rid of it completely as dreamed by some is untenable in today's world.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


If you would like some help in your transit planning from NRT to your final destination, please PM me. I'd be happy to help you.


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


For some serious analysis of what is theatre and what might actually help security please see Bruce Schneier blog -- - no I've no connection therewith whatsoever - it's just the best analysis of risks I've seen - neither he nor me is selling anything .


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> For some serious analysis of what is theatre and what might actually help security please see Bruce Schneier blog -- - no I've no connection therewith whatsoever - it's just the best analysis of risks I've seen - neither he nor me is selling anything .


Do you have a URL for said Blog. I am interested in actually reading what he has to say. It would be really nice if there were any reasonable less intrusive method to achieve the same end.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> But completely getting rid of security inspection before boarding aircrafts in today's world is not an option either and has not been for decades predating the TSA. What needs to happen is that the more egregious behaviors of some TSA agents needs to be curtailed and a more transparent mechanism for remediation of the same needs to be put in place. But completely getting rid of gate security in commercial aviation is something that only people who are grossly unconnected with reality contemplate seriously.


Talk about setting up and admirably knocking down strawmen... ... ...



jis said:


> The original subthread was about whether the existence of TSA is sufficient reason to shun air travel in general, and the fact remains that it is not, no matter how much a tiny vocal group rant and rave on and on.


And as I pointed out, it's not sufficient reason in YOUR OPINION. Unfortunately for you, your opinion is not the only one in the world whose counts.

And yes, there are a bunch of us out here in whose opinion, the TSA *IS* sufficient reason to shun air travel in general. Obviously we're not alone - look at Amtraks ridership the last 3 years, and the Airline's - which way is whose going? And yes, if you'd had our experiences, *YOU* would be right here ranting with us I'm sure. And those of us who *ARE* avoiding the train primarily based on the TSA are a significant number relative to the long-distance train seats available, and we *ARE* taking roomettes and bedrooms, and we *ARE* driving up buckets and selling out trains for the rest of you head in the sanders.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> For you (a seasoned traveler, with no special needs), that's certainly an accurate statement. But that's a decision that everyone needs to make for themselves. I'd suspect that the decision could come out differently for folks with less experience trying to haul a large family though a TSA show.


Or people with medical issues who, due to the inanity of this and *ONLY THIS* country's baffling continuing on the War on Shoes , are not able to avail themselves of the techological miracle that lets you get through security only being virtually "inspected"...

But hey, I have no problems, so the people who do have problems, must be their fault...


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> For some serious analysis of what is theatre and what might actually help security please see Bruce Schneier blog -- - no I've no connection therewith whatsoever - it's just the best analysis of risks I've seen - neither he nor me is selling anything .


Heck, just go to Flyertalk's Travel Safety/Security subforums. You'll find plenty of people who do not have "Railfans Disease" who absolutely *DETEST* the current production of Security Theater.


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > For some serious analysis of what is theatre and what might actually help security please see Bruce Schneier blog -- - no I've no connection therewith whatsoever - it's just the best analysis of risks I've seen - neither he nor me is selling anything .
> ...


Schneier is a serious computer security expert, author of some yet-unbroken cryptography, and commentator on what might work and what isn't working in the security realm. His blog is at bruce schneier blog where he also links to many other good and bad sources on security, computer and otherwise.

In my personal view, he's one of the best analysts and commentators out there on what may work, what doesn't and why not, and what processes may help.

Actually he is selling something - his books - but you don't have to buy em for the blog and the links. And his more serious books most of us won't understand - not without a real solid background in statistics and elliptic functionals.

And yeah - he's mostly negative on the worth of the TSA nonsense - and positive on some other agencies screening. And mostly libertarian - o just check it out - he seems like a reasonable person, and very well qualified - to me.

When I reported aboard a US aircraft carrier for a Tiger Cruise last month - they had dogs sniffing my bags, the did a reasonable search - they didn't seem worried about toothpaste or shoes -- but I have no idea what the sniffing was for- anyhow -- for them a 3 inch knife is a "tool" not a weapon. What they sniffed or xrayed I don't know - but I expect it was a much more reasonable and effective search than what the airlines do - took about the same time. What the cost was, don't know.

I just have this idea that the Navy has a better idea of what to screen for than what the TSA does.

[Edit] - AND -- This is getting off-topic for Amtrak


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> But hey, I have no problems, so the people who do have problems, must be their fault...


Again that is your statement, I have not said that. I have acknowledged all along that there are some with legitimate grievances, and I accept that those should be addressed. But the point is it is nowhere near the majority or even a plurality that fall into that category, and that is just the statement of a fact.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > For some serious analysis of what is theatre and what might actually help security please see Bruce Schneier blog -- - no I've no connection therewith whatsoever - it's just the best analysis of risks I've seen - neither he nor me is selling anything .
> ...


That is true, but they still fly. The point is that there are many things that we don't like but in the overall scheme of things partake in anyway. Could things be improved? Absolutely. There is no disagreement there.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > NW cannonball said:
> ...


I know Schneier. I spent about a decade in the past working on Computer Security and Threat Assessment Standards. That is why I asked for the URL. Thanks.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> That is true, but they still fly. The point is that there are many things that we don't like but in the overall scheme of things partake in anyway. Could things be improved? Absolutely. There is no disagreement there.


Some do still fly, some don't.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > That is true, but they still fly. The point is that there are many things that we don't like but in the overall scheme of things partake in anyway. Could things be improved? Absolutely. There is no disagreement there.
> ...


Most do still fly, some don't. I wish we could make more and quicker progress towards getting the theater aspect out of the legitimate imperative of providing security for flights so that it ceases to be an impediment for those that are deterred from flying just due to the theater aspect of security that exists today. But IMHO that is best achieved by being analytical about it and pointing out to the powers that be what needs to change rather than being hysterical about it. The latter approach cause one to lose credibility as a serious contributor to the discussion and progress towards acceptable solutions.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Sep 7, 2012)

Support foreign airlines dont fly the garbage service we call American airlines industry.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Support foreign airlines dont fly the garbage service we call American airlines industry.


Foreign airlines do not fly domestic service in the US. They are not allowed to.

US airlines, while not comparable with the topmost foreign airlines, are not hopelessly bad in their international service. Many are actually quite acceptable IMHO.

OTOH, you gotta try Ryanair before singing the praises of all foreign airlines.  And yet it is a phenomenally successful and popular airline though everyone incessantly complains about it.


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 7, 2012)

So to summarize, on the incredibly remote chance that the OP is still reading this thread:

You should definitely drive from your home to San Antonio, take the train to El Paso, then fly

to Phoenix. That way you'll get to experience the benefits and pitfalls of each mode of travel.

Hope we cleared that up for you!


----------



## Ryan (Sep 7, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> Schneier is a serious computer security expert, author of some yet-unbroken cryptography, and commentator on what might work and what isn't working in the security realm. His blog is at bruce schneier blog where he also links to many other good and bad sources on security, computer and otherwise.
> 
> In my personal view, he's one of the best analysts and commentators out there on what may work, what doesn't and why not, and what processes may help.


Thanks for sharing, some interesting stuff posted there.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > Schneier is a serious computer security expert, author of some yet-unbroken cryptography, and commentator on what might work and what isn't working in the security realm. His blog is at bruce schneier blog where he also links to many other good and bad sources on security, computer and otherwise.
> ...


Cryptogram is always very good and informative in my experience.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> Most do still fly, some don't. I wish we could make more and quicker progress towards getting the theater aspect out of the legitimate imperative of providing security for flights so that it ceases to be an impediment for those that are deterred from flying just due to the theater aspect of security that exists today. But IMHO that is best achieved by being analytical about it and pointing out to the powers that be what needs to change rather than being hysterical about it. The latter approach cause one to lose credibility as a serious contributor to the discussion and progress towards acceptable solutions.


It's a lot more than the fact that it's "Just Theater", as you put it. I played my small role in their interminable production for a number of years, but the change they made to the patdown procedures 2 years ago to "Encourage Compliance" with the roll-out of the scanners was the last straw for me - I'd been through one of those patdowns before and have zero interest in repeating the experience. None.

If it was just theater, that's one thing. When it gets to be to the level it is now, it's not "Just" theater, it's just plain wrong. And if you had to go through that pat-down every time I'm sure you'd agree.

Now, if you agree with Schneier, then we're probably very close on what we'd like to see in terms of airport security.

Personally, I'd like to see the following:

*1) A return to 9/10/11 security at the checkpoint:* With the change in "In the air" policies of hardened cockpit doors, armed flight crews and no longer cooperating with hijacker demands, another 9/11 style hijacking is next to impossible. The box-cutters the terrorists brought on board were actually permitted items on 9/10/11, and if you really feel SOMETHING MUST be done then I guess the ban on those and small knives can stay. But the fact of the matter is nobody's taking a plane with a small blade any more.

*2) Return airport security to the private sector/airports/airlines, with the TSA relegated to an oversight/inspection agency:* The FDA doesn't manufacture food, the NTSB doesn't drive trucks, there's no reason the TSA should be on the front line doing the job. This will remove the "Quasi-Federal-Agent" status of the inspectors, and ensure better quality through the public sector. Airports could either enter into competitive bid process with existing agencies, or do it themselves, just like they used to.

*3) End of the shoe/liquid/electronics carnival:* No other country on this dadgum planet is still requiring shoes to be removed, and most if not all have removed the liquid restrictions, and yet somehow airliners are not falling out of the skies on a daily basis. These restrictions are over-reactions that were enacted knee-jerk-style like everything else, and should find their way to the dustbin of history.

*4) A strict focus on WEI (Weapons/Explosives/Incindenaries):* No more fishing expeditions rifling through papers looking for "Divorce situations", no more questioning why someone is carrying so much cash, no more fishing expeditions. If it's a) Not WEI and b) Not an exigent violent crime, then get a warrant like the constitution says. No using administrative searches as backdoor dragnets.

*5) Return the HHMD and **LIMITED** patdown to that area to resolve alarms from the WTMD, and repurpose the scanners to secondary resolution only:* That was the original stated purpose of the scanners, and that's where they should be sent.

*6) A focus on developing technologies that detect explosives remotely, as hard objects are no longer as much of a threat (see #1 above):* This would return the focus on the real threat - explosives. They had walk-through puffers that worked well, but were difficult to maintain, and their manufacturer wasn't a former head of the DHS like the scanner makers are. So they got warehoused. Iron out the kinks and use them.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

Joe, I do agree with all the items you list above.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Most do still fly, some don't. I wish we could make more and quicker progress towards getting the theater aspect out of the legitimate imperative of providing security for flights so that it ceases to be an impediment for those that are deterred from flying just due to the theater aspect of security that exists today. But IMHO that is best achieved by being analytical about it and pointing out to the powers that be what needs to change rather than being hysterical about it. The latter approach cause one to lose credibility as a serious contributor to the discussion and progress towards acceptable solutions.
> ...


Do you mean 9/10/*0*1 ?


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Do you mean 9/10/*0*1 ?


Indeed I do, thank you. Where DOES the time go?


----------



## Nathanel (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> Most do still fly, some don't. I wish we could make more and quicker progress towards getting the theater aspect out of the legitimate imperative of providing security for flights so that it ceases to be an impediment for those that are deterred from flying just due to the theater aspect of security that exists today. But IMHO that is best achieved by being analytical about it and pointing out to the powers that be what needs to change rather than being hysterical about it. The latter approach cause one to lose credibility as a serious contributor to the discussion and progress towards acceptable solutions.


While I understand that point of view, I don't really think it's correct. What has "being analytical and pointing out to the powers that be" done to get improvements from the security-theater apparatus from 2000 onwards? Absolutely nothing; they aren't listening. They haven't listened to any of the quiet, credible, analytical experts from 2000 to the present, at least.

Perhaps being hysterical will get some attention; it seems like it's the only way to get things done when you have a *truly* unresponsive and ignorant bureaucracy.

Heck, the only way Amtrak got the TSA to behave itself in train stations was to *ban them from all Amtrak property*.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> There are times that flying absolutely beats the heck out of the train.
> 
> That being said, the TSA can die in a fire. And as long as they're at the airport, I'm on the train.
> 
> And I'm not alone.


At this point, I have sworn to fly only under three circumstances:

(1) From a non-US airport to a non-US airport

(2) On a private plane

(3) If absolutely forced to for business

This is due to the TSA.

I actually like flying by itself, but I can't tolerate the demeaning spectacle which commercial flights have become.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > There are times that flying absolutely beats the heck out of the train.
> ...


Avoid the likes of India then. You are guaranteed a free personal massage at each security checkpoint, twice if you are boarding a flight to the US. This is true of several other countries. US is relatively benign compared to some. 



> (2) On a private plane


That might work, though in some countries it will depend on who you know, and whose good books you are in 



> (3) If absolutely forced to for business


Fair enough



> This is due to the TSA.
> 
> I actually like flying by itself, but I can't tolerate the demeaning spectacle which commercial flights have become.


I can see your POV, though I personally do not feel as strongly about it.



Nathanel said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Most do still fly, some don't. I wish we could make more and quicker progress towards getting the theater aspect out of the legitimate imperative of providing security for flights so that it ceases to be an impediment for those that are deterred from flying just due to the theater aspect of security that exists today. But IMHO that is best achieved by being analytical about it and pointing out to the powers that be what needs to change rather than being hysterical about it. The latter approach cause one to lose credibility as a serious contributor to the discussion and progress towards acceptable solutions.
> ...


You may have a point there, though I have found that if one can locate a sympathetic ear in position of political power, it sometimes works to actually show them why something that is being pushed does not work. But, yeah, unfortunately it can be a crapshoot. You may have to find some completely unrelated political angle to have them actually act on anything. If merely being hysterical was any better guarantee at getting anything all street demonstrations of medium to large size would have led to changes they asked for, but typically that does not work either.

Ideally getting a bureaucracy's budget slashed has an exemplary effect on them too.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

Nathanel said:


> They haven't listened to any of the quiet, credible, analytical experts from 2000 to the present, at least.


Sure they have. If they're a former head of the DHS and now work for a company with a gadget to sell.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Nathanel said:
> 
> 
> > They haven't listened to any of the quiet, credible, analytical experts from 2000 to the present, at least.
> ...


Bingo!


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

jis said:


> Ideally getting a bureaucracy's budget slashed has an exemplary effect on them too.


This is where the "Not Flying" angle really is putting our "Money where our mouth is" when it comes to the issue.

The airlines are trying to run a business. If the surly folks out front get so bad that people stop going through them to get to the goodies, then the people trying to sell the goodies are more likely to do something about the surly folks out front.

And the people with the goodies have a hell of a lot more lobbying power than the average Joe.

Now, whether the airlines ever cotton on to the fact that people are not using their product BECAUSE of the TSA, and it's hurting their bottom line, well it'll probably have to reach a tipping point where the lost business is more than what they're saving by having the TSA assume all liability for "Security". And that CBA is bound to be colored by the fact that they can continue to pin "Low overall traveler numbers" on the "economy", and not TSA.

But last I checked, AMTRAK is not exactly "the hound" when it comes to fares... and their ridership is expanding, near capacity on many routes... at the same time that the airlines are slashing flights - still traveling with high load factors, but way less overall passengers, despite a faster and often cheaper trip.

I wonder why that is? Well, for one, I paid $800 one way for a bedroom on the Crescent last-minute (in FEBRUARY, mind you) and took 28 hours to travel north to my Grandfather's funeral, rather than $369 one way on Southwest to be there in 3 hours. Why? The TSA.

So when the economy DOES turn around, and they won't have that old canard to hide behind? Who knows.

Yes, I'm sure Southwest will not miss my $369. But acquiescing does nothing to change the system. If enough people vote with their feet, there WILL be change.

P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 7, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Yes, I'm sure Southwest will not miss my $369. But acquiescing does nothing to change the system. If enough people vote with their feet, there WILL be change.


If by "change" you mean "more taxpayer money to bail out airlines", you're absolutely correct.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure Southwest will not miss my $369. But acquiescing does nothing to change the system. If enough people vote with their feet, there WILL be change.
> ...


Hey, that's on the folks who keep voting for the same retreads hoping they'll change.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 8, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.


Um... wow. Just wow. If this is happening in February... well, let's just say prices are going to go up again, and those new Viewliners can't come soon enough. Amtrak might actually become profitable, as people were speculating. Then, of course, train-haters will attack it for being an "elitist" service which is "too expensive" -- train-haters gotta hate trains.


----------



## Phil S (Sep 9, 2012)

Cardinal rooms are also sold out over a month out -- fall colors I guess. This is all great for Amtrak turning a profit but that's not what its goal should be. Rather it should be trying to provide a reasonably low cost transportation alternative that uses less energy (lower carbon footprint) than either flying or driving. If at the same time it can get us there faster than the plane or the car (counting time as door to door) that's even better. I htink passenger rail in this country certainly could meet these goals but a lot will have to change politically before it will happen. The question of course is how much of the cost should be recouped from tickets and how much subsidized by various govts. To answer that requires looking at ALL the costs incurred by each mode of travel, not something that is easily (ever?) done.

FWIW I consider $200-250/night for a rommette plus meals very reasonable. Not sure I see any reason why i should need to pay a lot more than that.

Sept. 27 is the start of my trip east --ALY/LAX/NOL/CVS with 2 nights in NOL. Any of you regulars gonna be on any of those trains?

Phil S


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 9, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.
> ...


It's probably due to Mardi Gras, which falls on February 12, 2013. I imagine that's probably a heavy travel week to/from New Orleans.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 9, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have.  This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.

All rooms were sold out completely on the days before and after that week, too. That's just how much the demand is on the Crescent right now.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 9, 2012)

JoeBas said:


> Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have.  This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.
> 
> All rooms were sold out completely on the days before and after that week, too. That's just how much the demand is on the Crescent right now.


This year or last year? Fat Tuesday is February 12 next year. I'm so confused. 

Anyway, that's kind of crazy. I didn't realize so many people wanted to go to NY in mid-February. It's not like the weather is balmy.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 10, 2012)

Sorcha said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have.  This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.
> ...


Fat Tuesday, 2012, was on 2/21. Six days prior was 2/14 (or 2/15 depending on definition of "day")


----------



## gordonlee (Sep 17, 2012)

In general, here's my rule of thumb:

Anytime I need to get to NYC I take the train (I live in Miami). Reason being: I've missed innumerable business meetings and family events due to delayed and cancelled flights. The New York airports are scheduled beyond their capacity and all it takes is a raindrop or some gusty winds and the 3 airports go into "traffic management mode" which means they hold you on the plane at your origination city for 2 to 3 hours before they let you in the air.

A flight to NYC manages to eat up an entire day (leave for airport at 9am, arrive at airport at 10am, 11am flight delayed 3 hours (or more), land in NYC around 5pm, get to Manhattan hotel around 7pm.

With the train, I basically end up losing only 2 to 3 hours and during the time I'm on the train, I've got my mobile wireless hot spot WiFi, my cell phone and I can do what I need to do, arrive at NY Penn Station about 11am and head right to the office and NOT lose an entire day due to the airlines.

Now, I will usually fly back home to Miami from NYC because it's not all that important to me if the flight is 6 hours delayed or cancelled because I've already had my business meeting / family function.

BTW: I'm writing this on the Silver Meteor, just coming into Deerfield Beach having started in NYC yesterday evening.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 17, 2012)

gordonlee said:


> In general, here's my rule of thumb:
> 
> Anytime I need to get to NYC I take the train (I live in Miami). Reason being: I've missed innumerable business meetings and family events due to delayed and cancelled flights. The New York airports are scheduled beyond their capacity and all it takes is a raindrop or some gusty winds and the 3 airports go into "traffic management mode" which means they hold you on the plane at your origination city for 2 to 3 hours before they let you in the air.
> 
> ...


Great to know that businessmen love the train! And it looks like you are taking the train back to MIA as well. It looks like Amtrak could do really well if they improved more businessman-heavy routes, like NYP-CHI and WAS-CHI.

Anyway, hope you had a great trip and thanks for support Amtrak!


----------



## gordonlee (Sep 19, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> gordonlee said:
> 
> 
> > In general, here's my rule of thumb:
> ...



Yep, I enjoyed the trip very much.

My next trip is Miami to Los Angeles on American Airlines. Don't know if the news reached any of you, but there has been a strange surge in majorly delayed and cancelled flights the past few days, curiously starting around the time the bankruptcy court judge threw out the pilots contract.

I'm really a bit worried that they're going to cancel my flight at the last minute and then I'm stuck. Would be nice if Amtrak reactivated the Jacksonville - New Orleans segment again making a true southern transcontinental route a reality.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 20, 2012)

Phil S said:


> Cardinal rooms are also sold out over a month out -- fall colors I guess. This is all great for Amtrak turning a profit but that's not what its goal should be. Rather it should be trying to provide a reasonably low cost transportation alternative that uses less energy (lower carbon footprint) than either flying or driving. If at the same time it can get us there faster than the plane or the car (counting time as door to door) that's even better. I htink passenger rail in this country certainly could meet these goals but a lot will have to change politically before it will happen. The question of course is how much of the cost should be recouped from tickets and how much subsidized by various govts. To answer that requires looking at ALL the costs incurred by each mode of travel, not something that is easily (ever?) done.
> 
> FWIW I consider $200-250/night for a rommette plus meals very reasonable. Not sure I see any reason why i should need to pay a lot more than that.
> 
> ...


WOW!!! You mean, those of us who pay the government 25% or more of our hard earned wages need to pay for you to ride a train? ITS UNSUSTAINABLE AND AMTRAK WILL SHUT DOWN IF THIS IS THE MINDSET UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC PERCEIVES ITS EXISTENCE!

FWIW, if someone considers $300-$400 a night for a roomette and meals, then they should be allowed to pay that before your $200 - $250.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation! If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you. If there aren't enough people for that, then perhaps it shouldn't exist.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 20, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you.


I would assume then that you're also opposed to ending the government subsidies for other modes of transportation, including the added on effect of making every physical item you purchase more expensive due to higher shipping costs?

Also, the "get a job" comment was wildly unnecessary. I know that insulting people that you disagree with by saying that they're just too lazy to work and expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave is a hallmark of the current political campaign, but you don't really need to stoop to that level to get your point across.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 20, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!


And yet, one of the biggest reasons that the Government does subsidize Amtrak is because it's providing lower cost transportation to everyone via subsidized roads & air travel. If we were paying fully for those forms of transit, Amtrak would be able to raise fares and it would still be cheaper than the other forms of transportation, meaning that Amtrak might well be able to wean itself off of subsidies.

But if things not paying for themselves is the golden rule for "existing/not existing" then wave good bye to driving and flying as we know it today.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 20, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation! If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you. If there aren't enough people for that, then perhaps it shouldn't exist.


Holy cow. That's a lot of assumptions in one sentence. I have a full-time job, but I say some prices are unreasonable, be they hotel rooms in Chicago's Loop, a new gadget, or a $400 roomette I'm only going to use for one night. That doesn't mean I expect you to subsidize me or that I'm a lazy, unemployed girl waiting for my handouts. It just means I'm frugal. Saying a price is too high is just that: making a statement. God forbid someone have an opinion about prices.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 20, 2012)

Ryan said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you.
> ...


You are right. I apologize.

You should get a job *that provides an income level allowing you to do what you want*....[Note: that could be a $30k/yr job if you don't mind a studio apartment in a small town in the midwest.]

I would love to travel the world. I chose a career that is very rewarding but doesn't pay me enough to do it. No government is obligated to provide me with lost cost transporation to see the world - even see my own birth place.



AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!
> ...


But it shouldn't be. Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

What I don't like to see is that the trains are for whomever want to ride them whenever they want, and at any price they want to pay. I want to ride a train every day. When I look for a new job, I check out the transit issue to see if I can find a job that allows me to take a relatively comfortable train ride. I almost had that in New Mexico before my company went belly up. Savannah doesn't quite have that level of service (and I'm not a bus nut). So I drive. I cringe and I drive. My choice. I get to ride the rails perhaps once a year. Twice if truly blessed. Do I wish the fares were lower? Sure. I want more for my money. But I'm not going to say that I'm entitled to it, or that the fares *should* be lower.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 20, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Yes, check with Greyhound which cut 50% of its service because it still cannot manage to cover its costs, despite the fact that they run their buses on the government subsidized roads & highways.

Sorry, but Greyhound isn't doing any better than Amtrak!


----------



## tubaia (Sep 20, 2012)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!
> ...


And it isn't just the mega airports that get government subsidies. Our small municipal airport that has no scheduled flights, only small private planes (mostly Cessna, etc.), gets huge subsidies. Any time that any upgrades or repairs are done, we receive federal grants of 75-90% of the cost. While we do live in a rural Midwest area, it isn't like we're out in the backwoods of Alaska where air travel is a necessity.

Since I don't have my own airplane, this airport doesn't help me get anywhere anyway. I have to use the highly subsidized roads to drive over an hour to the nearest commercial airport, which uses those EAS dollars to attract one airline that provides 2 flights a day, and is still too expensive for many people (often twice as expensive as larger airports that are a couple hours further - $700 round trip flights isn't unusual).


----------



## George Harris (Sep 20, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.


Much as I would like to believe you, the reality is not there. A few:

British Rail. Railtrack was a disaster. A number of other components of the components of the privatization have ended up costing the government more, not less.

Alan ahs already mentioned Greyhound. There are numerous routes that no longer have any service of any kind. How about Trailways, which was always to me the better of the two which folded completely as a national system.

As to the EAS example: Maybe true for that one you mention, but does not appear to be that way generally. the "next to nothing" price certainly is not true. The norm appears to be that a service is provided that few of the people "served" can afford to use despite still losing buckets of money.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 20, 2012)

George Harris said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.
> ...


I can think of one more that is particularly germane.

Long Distance Railroad-Operated Passenger Service. Completely privately run. Many trains had good ridership but still lost money _under private operation_. They _really_ lost money after a government "subsidy" was pulled (First class mail) that represented 40% or more of revenue.

An historical footnote: There were 2 competing proposals to "save" the passenger trains, one was a new entity to run the passenger trains (what became Amtrak), the other was to directly subsidize continued railroad operated passenger trains.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 24, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> 1348147400[/url]' post='394926']It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!


Actually it is. It always has been, it always will be. Why do you think the government builds and maintains roads? ("Go build your own road or use a toll road, you moocher off the government teat!") Your federal income taxes have now subsidized more road building (>$50 billion) in the last four years than they have subsidized Amtrak over its entire 40-year history. As long as we're subsidizing, let's subsidize the more effective means of transportation.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 24, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> But it shouldn't be. Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived.


This is simply false.



> There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound.


Government subsidized roads. HEAVILY subsidized.



> And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.


Not even close -- the subsidies are still very large, even with the "el cheapo" airlines using secondhand, ready-to-break planes.



> But I'm not going to say that I'm entitled to it, or that the fares *should* be lower.


You know? People should feel *more* entitled. We are *entitled* to a government which provides a decent level of public services, including a public road system, a public passenger and freight railway system, public water service, public power distribution, public sewer, public trash collection, public (municipal) broadband Internet, etc. These are all things where "private industry" makes a hash of it, overcharges, underprovides, and -- once monopoly is achieved -- often starts acting like an unaccountable private government. I wouldn't *prohibit* private industry from screwing around with these areas, but in practice infrastructure is something which is best managed by government, if you want decent results.

Now, subcontracting some aspects of operations to private enterprise is fine (as with Essential Air Service), but design, planning, oversight, scheduling, management, and pricing policy for infrastructure, including transportation, is a job for government.

(In terms of economic theory, this is because transportation infrastructure does not have the characteristics of a commodity -- and if you start really looking into it, "market competition" works reliably only for commodities.)


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 24, 2012)

Of note, the only method of passenger transportation where the user routinely pays all the costs is walking, and even that's only true when walking on dirt trails -- and not even always then (some trails need to be cleared of vegetation more often than can be done by the mere trampling of feet). In a previous era, people travelling by horse sometimes paid all their costs, but only the rich could afford horses exclusively for riding (other people used "dual purpose" horses which were also work horses).

Without government subsidies, passenger transportation just stops happening and people just stop travelling.

Freight recovers more of its costs from users, but without government subsidy, it's still massively underprovided. Think "silk road" levels of service.

There is a reason why transportation is government-subsidized. Provide more transportation, and it benefits everyone -- but it doesn't benefit any individual enough for that individual to build or maintain the road or railroad (aside from some "captive industry" cases like mines). There's a collective action problem, which is exactly what elected government is there to deal with.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 24, 2012)

Nathanael, you make many good points in your posts. Would you consider joining AU as a member?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 24, 2012)

the_traveler said:


> Nathanael, you make many good points in your posts. Would you consider joining AU as a member?


Alan already asked him in another thread and Nathanael gave his reasons in that thread as to why he would not join.


----------

