# Inconvenience of Flying



## toddinde (Jan 29, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> "25 daily round trips?" That's more than runs than in the Northeast Corridor, where they have 47 million people, and the train passes through at least 5 metro areas with populations of 1 million or more. This thing is going to run from a suburban transit hub passing through sparsely populated desert with the only large city directly served being Las Vegas. It will require a 2-seat ride from the densely populated parts of Los Angeles, which will probably depress ridership. It seems to me they'd be better off trying to make arrangements with Metrolink to run through trains.


I suspect they’ll get it to Union Station sooner rather than later. But I think they’ll own the market. Rail always seems to be judged on a totally unrealistic inconvenience factor as if all the other modes are totally convenient. Let’s face it, air travel is a total pain. You have to get across town to the airport, get there early for security, flights are delayed and cancelled right and left. It’s terrible. Then there’s driving. It’s dangerous, it’s congested, there are trucks blocking traffic, it’s aggravating, and there are frequent delays. The bus takes away some of the dangers and hassles of driving, but it’s cramped, slow, and uncomfortable. Let’s judge the train against reality and not fantasy. The train wins hands down.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2022)

That’s an over exaggerated description of driving/flying and a very idealized view of rail transport. This site is littered with stories of delay after delay.

For me, this is flying:
1. Two hours before scheduled departure, leave the house.
2. Drive 15 minutes to the airport.
3. Walk into the terminal, stop at a kiosk and punch in my PNR. Strap a tag to my bag and hand it to the nice person at the counter.
4. While walking to security, place my wallet, watch, phones, and keys in my bag. 
5. Show the TSA agent my boarding pass and ID.
6. Remove ID lanyard, place in bag, place bag on the belt
7. Walk through metal detector.

At this point, I’m 30-45 minutes from when I left the house, and ~45 minutes until boarding starts. Usually I’ll grab some food, and then sit and read for a bit before boarding. 5 hours later, I’m in San Diego. Can’t really do that by train or driving.

Is it like that all the time? Of course not. But all modes of travel have their crap days. To claim that rail doesn’t, is just ignoring reality.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 29, 2022)

Ryan said:


> 5 hours later, I’m in San Diego.


Five hours to San Diego? It's usually more like 6 hours westbound, it might be closer to 5 hours eastbound, especially if the jet streams are cooperating. So that makes the total trip 7 or 8 hours. Of course, there's more time at the destination while you wait to claim your bags and then the drive to your final destination. If you're renting a car, there's even more time while you fiddle around with car rental shuttles and the paperwork involved with getting the rental. Basically, a coast-to-coast flight kills a whole working day. Also, my drive to the airport is 35 minutes, and I_ arrive at the airport_ two hours before flight time. The last time I tried cutting it closer, I missed my flight.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Five hours to San Diego? It's usually more like 6 hours westbound, it might be closer to 5 hours eastbound, especially if the jet streams are cooperating. So that makes the total trip 7 or 8 hours. Of course, there's more time at the destination while you wait to claim your bags and then the drive to your final destination. If you're renting a car, there's even more time while you fiddle around with car rental shuttles and the paperwork involved with getting the rental. Basically, a coast-to-coast flight kills a whole working day. Also, my drive to the airport is 35 minutes, and I_ arrive at the airport_ two hours before flight time. The last time I tried cutting it closer, I missed my flight.


Maybe it’s 6. Either way, I’m on the ground a little after 11 am PT. By the time I get my bag, get my car, drive through In-n-Out, I’m on NBSD ready for a 1300 meeting. That leaves half of a workday to accomplish things for me.

(I just went and looked at the schedule to confirm, and the early morning nonstop that I was a regular on is no more . The replacement gets in before 11, but requires a 45 min layover and plane change in Vegas)

_Edit to add: Either it’s seasonal, or just booked in the next few weeks. WN 562 departs BWI at 0620 and has you on the ground in SAN 5h15 later at 8:35 PT. That leaves a full workday to get things done._


----------



## toddinde (Jan 29, 2022)

Ryan said:


> That’s an over exaggerated description of driving/flying and a very idealized view of rail transport. This site is littered with stories of delay after delay.
> 
> For me, this is flying:
> 1. Two hours before scheduled departure, leave the house.
> ...


That’s you man, but that’s rare. I live an hour and a half from the airport, and that’s not unusual. Arrival at the destination is usually at an airport a long way from one’s destination. Flying anywhere with a change is an all day event. Trains on the other hand usually have a downtown arrival station as well as a suburban station making the train vastly more flexible, convenient, and more comfortable.


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 29, 2022)

It takes me three hours to get to O’Hare, and yet flying from Chicago to LA is still much faster and more convenient than spending three days on a train.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2022)

In my experience there always are certain itineraries where trains work much better and there are other ones where planes work much better, and of course like in everything else, there is quite a grey area in between. And of course those boundaries move around quite a bit based on individual tastes and tolerance limits.

Personally I'd go cross country by train only on a leisure trip. For any serious business I'd fly. OTOH I would not dream of trying to fly from Philadelphia to Washington DC for example.


----------



## Asher (Jan 29, 2022)

I like the train, but traveling across country connections are sketchy and one big problem is renting a car. You have to wait till a place opens which could be finding lodging for 1 night, then returning cars are a problem because of the closing time difference. And that’s not mentioning getting to and from a car rental from the station. Usually not an issue when flying.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 29, 2022)

anumberone said:


> I like the train, but traveling across country connections are sketchy and one big problem is renting a car. You have to wait till a place opens which could be finding lodging for 1 night, then returning cars are a problem because of the closing time difference. And that’s not mentioning getting to and from a car rental from the station. Usually not an issue when flying.


The main thing about rental cars is that at the larger airports, the rental counters are open 24/7. The rental car offices convenient to train stations, even in the larger cities, have much more restricted hours. In fact, I've found in some places, they're totally closed on Sundays. There are a few stations that have car rental counters. I used one in Chicago a few years ago, before they closed to the garage being demolished. Frankly, the traffic on the Eisenhower and Kennedy Expressways was so terrible, I would have been better off taking the Blue line out to O'Hare and getting my car there. I should start a thread about my experiences with Amtrak-to-rental cars across the nation over the years.


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 29, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> I should start a thread about my experiences with Amtrak-to-rental cars across the nation over the years.


I would definitely appreciate a thread like this. I’m planning a trip that involves a combination of trains and rental cars.


----------



## Asher (Jan 29, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> The main thing about rental cars is that at the larger airports, the rental counters are open 24/7. The rental car offices convenient to train stations, even in the larger cities, have much more restricted hours. In fact, I've found in some places, they're totally closed on Sundays. There are a few stations that have car rental counters. I used one in Chicago a few years ago, before they closed to the garage being demolished. Frankly, the traffic on the Eisenhower and Kennedy Expressways was so terrible, I would have been better off taking the Blue line out to O'Hare and getting my car there. I should start a thread about my experiences with Amtrak-to-rental cars across the nation over the years.



Its always been an issue for me when traveling to Seattle I always take the light rail to the airport and rent a car even if I’m taking the train back to LA. Having to return a car early and dealing with baggage is a pain.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2022)

toddinde said:


> Flying anywhere with a change is an all day event.





literally in the post above yours said:


> (I just went and looked at the schedule to confirm, and the early morning nonstop that I was a regular on is no more . *The replacement gets in before 11, but requires a 45 min layover and plane change in Vegas*)



Yes, I acknowledge that my situation is not universal. Yet you continue to make easily disproven universal statements about other modes of transportation. At the end of the day, the answer is nearly always "It depends on the specific endpoints and time constraints" and "every transportation mode has good days and bad days".

Another frequent trip (in my previous job) was from here to Mobile. The .gov contract seemed to swap back and forth between AA and Delta, but the only thing that really changed was "Is my layover in Charlotte or Atlanta this time". Flying to Mobile or to Pensacola, I could leave the house about when I normally departed for the office in the morning and be at the shipyard by lunchtime for an afternoon's worth of work.


----------



## Asher (Jan 29, 2022)

Convenience. If you have to get Anywhere, it’s pretty damn easy to book a flight and get there in 24 hrs. You may be inconvenienced by having to shuffle things a bit.


----------



## jebr (Jan 29, 2022)

toddinde said:


> That’s you man, but that’s rare. I live an hour and a half from the airport, and that’s not unusual. Arrival at the destination is usually at an airport a long way from one’s destination. Flying anywhere with a change is an all day event. Trains on the other hand usually have a downtown arrival station as well as a suburban station making the train vastly more flexible, convenient, and more comfortable.



Honestly, the _train situation_ you've been describing is relatively rare, and the air experience @Ryan lays out is at least somewhat common. In MSP Amtrak only has one route, and timekeeping is absolutely abhorrent traveling east. There's a few options for a day trip, but even going to Chicago is an all-day affair, since the departure time is stated as 8 AM but you can't reliably count on the train arriving in time for any evening appointment, despite the advertised 3:55 PM arrival.

Meanwhile there's five airlines that fly to Chicago non-stop, most a half-dozen times daily. All airports involved have good transit connections, and while Chicago Union Station is decently located, it's still more difficult to transfer to CTA rail from Union Station than from either of the airports. Anywhere beyond Chicago eastbound? Unless you have multiple days to dedicate to travel, just fly. After all, who knows if you'll wind up missing your connection? Read any rail forum and the general advice is to add an overnight in Chicago, at your own expense, when transferring from the Builder to another train. Even if the airlines are delayed, if I'm starting my ticketed journey by 8 AM I'll still almost certainly get to any semi-major domestic destination by the end of the day.

I'll also challenge some of your other airline assertions:

An hour and a half drive from a commercial airport is actually rather uncommon; if nothing else, EAS has likely subsidized some local airport that's within about an hour's drive to offer some daily commercial air service. There's certainly areas that are that far away, but in my experience most people are driving 1.5 hours or more mainly to get to a large airport where the flights are cheaper, not because there's no option whatsoever within 1.5 hours.
It's quite common for most flights with a transfer to be closer to half-day events rather than true all-day events, especially if you don't want them to be all-day events. As an example, when I took United MSP - ATL to save money, the way down was about 5 hours (11:28 AM CT - 5:05 PM ET) including transfers. That was enough to wake up at a very reasonable hour and still be there in time for supper with friends. On the way back we didn't depart until 2:45 PM ET, and our arrival was at 8:27 PM - certainly a half-day affair but IMO neither were "full-day affairs" even with the transfer.
Airport and train station location comparisons are very destination-dependent. For example, in MSP if you're trying to get to downtown Minneapolis the airport is actually slightly more convenient - 25 minute light rail ride from the airport instead of 45 minutes from the train station. ATL is also a bit of a wash, particularly if you want to be downtown - the airport is right on the rail line that takes 20 minutes to Five Points, versus the train station which requires a bus connection to rail or a decent walk.
Frankly, in the US outside of a few specific markets it's really hard to see the train as the more convenient option. The biggest qualm I see with air travel - security - can be made significantly more pleasant with Precheck. Yes, that means paying $85 or having some sort of other clearance method (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, and I think some sort of setup if you have federal government clearance for your job,) but when that makes it generally quite simple (metal detector + bag scan) and air travel is often the most convenient way to travel otherwise for much of the country, I think it's fair to at least note that when comparing air vs. rail.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 29, 2022)

Ryan said:


> That’s an over exaggerated description of driving/flying and a very idealized view of rail transport. This site is littered with stories of delay after delay.
> 
> For me, this is flying:
> 1. Two hours before scheduled departure, leave the house.
> ...


To me it is different.

To get to an airport that has direct flights across country or enough direct flights or direct flights at a reasonable price, means just as much travel as getting to a train station that is convenient.

Mostly, to get to that good airport means I have to stay overnight to catch a reasonable flight and be assured that I won't get stuck in traffic. The same train that leaves from the big city station also leaves from a smaller, much less crowded one and the parking at the train stations I go from is always free unlike the outrageous prices even at the closer, multi-flight close airports since parking is a big moneymaker for them.

The plain ride itself is never nice and sometimes worse. Tight seating, inability to get up and walk around, carts blocking the aisles when you need to go to the restroom and unexpected delays near landing time and you really have to go but can't get up and can't get off quick enough at he terminal make it worse. Those bumps in the air are scary unlike a train where a bump doesn't make me feel like the wheel is going to fall off or the engine just blew up.

There's nothing to see, nothing to do but stare straight ahead in your highly cramped seat - even first class seats don't allow you to go around someone in many planes. Looking at clouds or at tiny lines called freeways and land you can't see close enough to identify anything, is no fun.

The train takes longer but the train is as much a part of the trip as the enjoyment when you get there. And if you don't need to get there in a rush or can afford the longer, enjoyable trip, the train is a lot better.

And I worry far less about the train. As bad as Amtrak is, their cancellation policy, compensation policy and what they do for you if there is a delay may be inconsistent, sometimes unconscionable or just unfair but it is still light years ahead of the airlines as are their check bag non-charges as well as lack of extra fees for everything and anything. That makes for a far less stressful time before travel and less worry during the trip when problems occur. 

But, I agree with you, the plane is much better for you. That makes the train better for me.


----------



## jebr (Jan 29, 2022)

me_little_me said:


> The train takes longer but the train is as much a part of the trip as the enjoyment when you get there. And if you don't need to get there in a rush or can afford the longer, enjoyable trip, the train is a lot better.



This is the crux of the issue. Yes, coach seating on a plane is uncomfortable, but for basically any flight beyond a couple of hours, the Amtrak option would have an overnight. Even the longest day trip I can think of (NYC - SAV) requires 15.5 hours on the train but only 2.5 hours on a plane. The Amtrak seat is more comfortable, but it better be if I'm sitting in it for 6x as long!

For trips that require an overnight, not only are you paying with your time, but now you're either paying with your comfort or with your wallet. Amtrak roomettes are quite expensive, often more than even airline business/first class, plus now I'm having to take a day or more additional PTO if I want the same amount of time at my destination. For me, unless there's a specific train that I want to take I'll deal with the cramped seat for 3 hours for under $200 instead of paying nearly $1000 for a roomette for two nights and having to take two full days off of work each direction instead of half a day. Sure, it's only $250 if I take Amtrak coach, but now I'm having to sleep for two nights in a recliner that doesn't even have an arm rest between me and my neighbor. Again - not worth the trade-off unless I really want to do a specific route.

I do like taking the train! I wish it was more practical - if the timekeeping was better, I'd gladly take a couple extra hours to take the train whenever I wanted to go to Chicago. But I simply don't see the train as super realistic for long distances for most Americans, most of the time. And if we want to advocate well for rail, we need to acknowledge those shortcomings and mitigate them as best as possible. Hand-waving them away does nothing but keep rail travel irrelevant for most Americans most of the time.


----------



## jebr (Jan 29, 2022)

Also, in terms of "scenery outside the window," yes Amtrak has quite a bit of scenery, but there's also plenty of scenery when flying as well. Here's one example:


----------



## lstone19 (Jan 30, 2022)

Ryan said:


> Maybe it’s 6. Either way, I’m on the ground a little after 11 am PT. By the time I get my bag, get my car, drive through In-n-Out, I’m on NBSD ready for a 1300 meeting. That leaves half of a workday to accomplish things for me.
> 
> (I just went and looked at the schedule to confirm, and the early morning nonstop that I was a regular on is no more . The replacement gets in before 11, but requires a 45 min layover and plane change in Vegas)
> 
> _Edit to add: Either it’s seasonal, or just booked in the next few weeks. WN 562 departs BWI at 0620 and has you on the ground in SAN 5h15 later at 8:35 PT. That leaves a full workday to get things done._



I spent several years of my life doing block times (scheduled length of flights) for a major airline. Winds are seasonal with westbound headwinds stronger in the winter than summer. And airlines adjust for that - at my carrier, we had five domestic block seasons per year.

For the flight quoted above, my checking says that 5:15 you saw is for summer. That seems a little short to me but only by about 10 to 15 minutes. Right now in winter, they have it scheduled at 6:00. The difference between winter and summer in the U.S. is not going to take 45 minutes out of a trans-con schedule. If 6:00 is correct today, 5:15 is not correct for summer.


----------



## TheCrescent (Jan 30, 2022)

toddinde said:


> I suspect they’ll get it to Union Station sooner rather than later. But I think they’ll own the market. Rail always seems to be judged on a totally unrealistic inconvenience factor as if all the other modes are totally convenient. Let’s face it, air travel is a total pain. You have to get across town to the airport, get there early for security, flights are delayed and cancelled right and left. It’s terrible. Then there’s driving. It’s dangerous, it’s congested, there are trucks blocking traffic, it’s aggravating, and there are frequent delays. The bus takes away some of the dangers and hassles of driving, but it’s cramped, slow, and uncomfortable. Let’s judge the train against reality and not fantasy. The train wins hands down.



I despise driving and wouldn't take a bus (except for a short trip in a city if there is no subway option).

I fly over 50,000 miles a year on American Airlines and I haven't found that about air travel. Yes, there are some bad days when flights are delayed right and left, but the on-time percentage of my flights is better than the on-time percentage of the Crescent. Crews and airport staff on American are generally pretty nice, the on-board and at-the-airport product is consistent and the technology is pretty good (you can do almost anything with the app, instead of having to call). With TSA Pre-Check, waits at security are maybe 10-15 minutes at most. And on board, at least in first class, it's classier than "first class" on Amtrak LD trains (although the Acela is at least equal, if not better, in terms of food, drinks and comfort).

Let's not be blind as to why air travel dominates: it's usually faster, more frequent, more consistent and has a more comprehensive network than Amtrak does. The main advantage of train travel for me is that the wasted time (time going to the station, waiting at the station and not being able to work onboard) is minimal compared to air travel; Amtrak could do a lot more to market that benefit of train travel, and there are plenty of potential rail options that Amtrak could offer and market but doesn't.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 30, 2022)

anumberone said:


> Its always been an issue for me when traveling to Seattle I always take the light rail to the airport and rent a car even if I’m taking the train back to LA. Having to return a car early and dealing with baggage is a pain.


What I always do at Boston and have done in Denver is stop by the station and check my baggage, and then return the rental car. This takes some research, as there really isn't any parking for the baggage area at Denver, and the one at Boston is really in the back of the post office; you have to go through a gate, and it's not clear that the parking spots are legal. But I'm in and out so fast that it hasn't been a problem. Actually, the Enterprise in South Boston will drive you back to the station in the car you rented, so you don't have to take out the baggage, but I've found that dealing with the checked baggage first is more convenient.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 30, 2022)

jebr said:


> Also, in terms of "scenery outside the window," yes Amtrak has quite a bit of scenery, but there's also plenty of scenery when flying as well. Here's one example:
> 
> View attachment 26948


Unfortunately, when I fly, I need to reserve the aisle seat in order to have convenient access to the restroom.  However, if the plane is empty, and I have the whole row to myself, like I did on my flight to China, I do like to look out the window.




Beijing airport, cleared for landing.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Jan 30, 2022)

Here in Maine outside of a few expensive Cessna puddle jumper services and EAS to Presque Isle we basically have 2 airports Portland Jetport and Bangor, both of which feature connections to other Northeast airports, for a price. For those living in Central or Southern Maine it is often cheaper to ride Concord Coach to Logan Airport and get a flight there. Pre COVID there was hourly service through most of the day from Portland. This is usually more convenient than the Downeaster especially if you have luggage as going from BON to Logan requires 2 subways and a shuttle bus whereas Concord Coach drops you off right at the terminal.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 30, 2022)

jebr said:


> For trips that require an overnight, not only are you paying with your time, but now you're either paying with your comfort or with your wallet. Amtrak roomettes are quite expensive, often more than even airline business/first class, plus now I'm having to take a day or more additional PTO if I want the same amount of time at my destination.
> 
> I do like taking the train! I wish it was more practical - if the timekeeping was better, I'd gladly take a couple extra hours to take the train whenever I wanted to go to Chicago. But I simply don't see the train as super realistic for long distances for most Americans, most of the time. And if we want to advocate well for rail, we need to acknowledge those shortcomings and mitigate them as best as possible. Hand-waving them away does nothing but keep rail travel irrelevant for most Americans most of the time.


You missed one of my points. The $1000 you mentioned (and that is your example for a really long trip - two nights wold be more unrealistic than one) is what you list as travel. But for many, it is not just travel, it is a vacation cost. If you don't consider those days as vacation and you use all your vacation time elsewhere, then it is not worth it if there are better uses of your time and money. When I traveled for business, I took my wife with me because the hotels combined with meals (like Amtrak rooms) are little or no more for two than for one and so the cost per person is much less.
I never go to use all my vacation because my company counted my vacation/holiday time as working time for evaluating my performance i.e. they counted 52 weeks and how much money I "earned" for the company for those 52 weeks so vacations/holidays hurt me. The train time allowed me to work while enjoying myself. I wish I had done more of it but, as everyone says, Amtrak doesn't go there or if it does, it isn't often enough.
Train will never be a replacement for planes except on shorter distances but can be a competitor for them on the longer ones.


----------



## jebr (Jan 30, 2022)

me_little_me said:


> You missed one of my points. The $1000 you mentioned (and that is your example for a really long trip - two nights wold be more unrealistic than one) is what you list as travel. But for many, it is not just travel, it is a vacation cost. If you don't consider those days as vacation and you use all your vacation time elsewhere, then it is not worth it if there are better uses of your time and money. When I traveled for business, I took my wife with me because the hotels combined with meals (like Amtrak rooms) are little or no more for two than for one and so the cost per person is much less.



I'm using MSP - ATL. Granted, the routing isn't very favorable to Amtrak, but I'm also assuming the connection will be made in Chicago to the Cap (and in WAS to the Crescent.) It's a trip that my spouse and I make every year or two - and we almost always fly. However, even if I count something shorter like MSP - NYP I'm still looking at $600+ with two full days and an overnight.

I get that the train can be part of the vacation, but that still requires some sort of tradeoff. My job basically requires uninterrupted connectivity for my entire shift, although I could work remote - and at least in the circles I'm in most jobs are either like this or require being on-site for the full shift. Taking the train means taking those days as PTO - no way around it. Assuming that I still want a certain number of days at my destination, that means adding those on top. If you can work remote with intermittent connectivity, that's great - but you're still spending a large portion of that time working instead of fully "on vacation" - and in an accommodation that doesn't really have a ton of space (compared to a hotel room) to set up a workspace.

Finally - cost. I'm not super picky with my rooms, but I can often get a deal for a hotel room priced around $100-$125/night that's reasonably located and is at least on par with an Amtrak roomette. So for two nights, that's $250 (so $450 instead of $1000.) For food of Amtrak quality, I can go to the nearby grocery store and get the 3 for $10 Hungry Man meals - walla, $20 for two days worth of food!  In all seriousness - cost is probably closer to $10-$20/meal for something of quality compared to a good Amtrak meal - so for two days let's be generous, assume $75/day for food, and even with that we're still only at $600 for one-way flight + two days hotel + two days food. On a round-trip, that's a $800 premium plus 4 PTO days on the train - and my food options are much better off of a train than on!

Sure, Amtrak can be a competitor, but it's an extremely weak one currently beyond very specific market segments.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 31, 2022)

toddinde said:


> Trains on the other hand usually have a downtown arrival station as well as a suburban station making the train vastly more flexible, convenient, and more comfortable.


Where I travel trains usually have one station with few or no overnight parking spaces in a part of town with few services and limited service hours that has seen better days.



jebr said:


> Honestly, the _train situation_ you've been describing is relatively rare, and the air experience @Ryan lays out is at least somewhat common.


It's common if you fly regularly, are familiar with the airport, know the rules and processes, and possess status and/or paid access.



TheCrescent said:


> Let's not be blind as to why air travel dominates: it's usually faster, more frequent, more consistent and has a more comprehensive network than Amtrak does.


It's faster, more frequent, and more consistent _because_ it has a more comprehensive network. Amtrak's skeletal network is huge factor in how practical it is.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 31, 2022)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Where I travel trains usually have one station with few or no overnight parking spaces in a part of town with few services and limited service hours that has seen better days.


Parking costs? Not enough Parking? Not at the many stations I leave from including Charlotte, Salisbury, Greensboro & Cary in NC, Greenville & Charleston in SC, Savannah and Jessup, GA and Hinton, Prince & White Sulfur Springs, WV. Only Atlanta has paid parking for my departure stations but I avoid that by having kids there.


Devil's Advocate said:


> It's faster, more frequent, and more consistent _because_ it has a more comprehensive network. Amtrak's skeletal network is huge factor in how practical it is.


YES! The government has subsidized air traffic with zillions of $$$ to make it a big success and tried to slowly starve Amtrak at the same time by underfunding it. Then we look at the two and say "See? Flying is so much better!"


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 31, 2022)

me_little_me said:


> Parking costs? Not enough Parking? Not at the many stations I leave from including Charlotte, Salisbury, Greensboro & Cary in NC, Greenville & Charleston in SC, Savannah and Jessup, GA and Hinton, Prince & White Sulfur Springs, WV. Only Atlanta has paid parking for my departure stations but I avoid that by having kids there.



On the other hand, the main station I leave from, Baltimore, the parking is $20 a day, so if I take an overnight trip, it will cost me $40. Basically, for anything other than a day trip, I just use Uber or a taxi to g to and from the station.



> YES! The government has subsidized air traffic with zillions of $$$ to make it a big success and tried to slowly starve Amtrak at the same time by underfunding it. Then we look at the two and say "See? Flying is so much better!"



Come on, even in the golden age of rail, when the network was great and the service was great (at least on some trains, if you were willing to pay), a coast-to-coast trip was still 4 days and three nights. Flying 5 to 6 hours (OK, 8 to 10 hours if you don't have a direct flight available) will always be cheaper and more convenient for the vast majority of long-distance travelers in this country no matter how much money the government puts into Amtrak.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 1, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Come on, even in the golden age of rail, when the network was great and the service was great (at least on some trains, if you were willing to pay), a coast-to-coast trip was still 4 days and three nights.


Nothing in the posts to which you're replying said anything about coast to coast travel. Out of hundreds of flights I can count the number of times I've traveled coast-to-coast on a single hand so maybe that's not the universal standard some people seem to think it is.



MARC Rider said:


> Flying 5 to 6 hours [...] will *always* be cheaper and more convenient for the vast majority of long-distance travelers in this country no matter how much money the government puts into Amtrak.


How can something "always" be true when it was demonstrably untrue as recently as a few decades ago?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 1, 2022)

The discussion started with me discussing my travel experiences through the lens of a BWI-SAN flight, as that is my most common trip these days. Also living in Baltimore, I'm sure that's the context in which @MARC Rider made his remarks.


----------

