Amtrak Too Expensive

[Anderson]

I just ran numbers on the trip, I do not know where they are starting from in Florida, so I started from ORL to DEN for 2 passengers on June 14 was $1874.00 one way. Round Trip is $3748.00 on 3 trains each way. All rooms booked as roomettes with meals included as Amtrak Policy states.

In comparison, I did the same trip on Delta same date, destination one way for 2 passengers, First Class is $1133.00. Round trip is $2266.00 with 2 bags included in FC, meals, drinks. One can say what they want to about the TSA, I would rather go through that instead of 3 trains any day. It is also cheaper to send clothes ahead via UPS and not lug suitcases anymore, when it is feasible.

So the bottom line is $4000 is not out of line for roomettes on Amtrak. I love to take the train, kick back, feet up, read and do what people do on Amtrak. I like comfort as well. I would get pretty restless in coach on 3 trains. They are not running half empty. I watch the Coast Starlight often, it runs consistently with 3 sleeper cars and 3-4 coach cars. We know the East Coast is blowing numbers away. I think sleeper prices are what they are. If people will pay the price for sleepers Amtrak will take their money and not look back or loose sleep.

Either option is a lifestyle choice that one can make, and there are other ones out there (I've spent too many days on long roadtrips to really try and count...I've put something like 110,000 miles on an '01 Crown Vic in four and a half years...but that's seen me put that car through portions of almost every state east of the Appalachians save CT, RI, and ME). If you like to travel, you ultimately have to make a choice in how much of your trips you want to spend en route, how much you want to spend at your destination, and what your budget is. You go from there...I know that there are companies that do bus tours (and looking at the itineraries, those look like the least pleasant way to spend my vacations that I can imagine), you can do train travel, you can fly, you can drive.

As far as my decision, I prefer the train as a means of taking my trips. Now, I wish there were better public transportation systems in a lot of places (after those 110,000 miles plus probably another 5,000 in rental cars...let's just say that the novelty has worn off), and there are plenty of places that I wish the train actually ran (and/or ran more frequently/more directly...it just isn't practical to, for example, take the train from Richmond to central Pennsylvania...when I was worried that I'd totally lost my car keys and was going to have to not drive my car home, I was faced with a messy decision of "so, how the hell do I get to Pittsburgh/Cumberland so I can actually connect southbound?). So there's a lot of inconvenience in the system, unfortunately (and it's hassle that wouldn't have been there even 15-25 years ago, too).

But...yeah. The system is far too skeletal and there are bad policies to blame (the fact that there is no policy support at the federal level for trains that are even "long corridor" operations to help overcome the interstate wrangling on such routes leaps to mind), and so you get clunky routings such as NOL-ORL via CVS/RVR (or my favorite, ORL-DAL via NYP/CHI) as well as all of the messy not-overland stuff out west. There's at least some talk of one train that might smooth out a bump or two in the system (the extended Heartland Flyer might help things), but that's only one (very partial) fix in a system with far too many holes. And of course, this only deals with the LD stuff. Just try going from upstate New York to central PA on a train, or from anywhere south of NYP and eastern Canada. The network in the NE is better than the rest of the country, but even there you have lots of obvious...issues with timings, connections, and routings that make train travel a mess there.

 

[AlanB]

I don't believe the cost of diesel or the cost of rail repairs has very much to do with the cost raise. These trains make these trips whether we are on them or not, and Amtrak does not own the rails so they are not paying directly to repair them.

In fact, since Amtrak does not own most of the rails it runs on, it is at the mercy of the freight railroads about how much money they demand to let Amtrak trains run. One example is Union Pacific company asking for something like $750 million to allow Amtrak add more service to Sunset Limited route.

The UP example is because Amtrak wants to change the agreement, but that is not the norm. For all routes that Amtrak inherited from the freight RR's Amtrak pays a fixed and very low fee.

 

[PRR 60]

Compare your fare to first class airfare. I did did SPK-Cleveland and it was the same (and I had a bedroom).

Why would you compare it to first class airfare? Coach is just fine for a four or five hour flight. Coach is not as fine for a three day train ride. The comparison should be between the class of service that is acceptable for each mode.

Out of curiousity, why would coach not be considered "fine" for a three-day trip? Granted, I've never done one on Amtrak, but I've done many two-night Megabus rides without a problem. And there's no sleepers there, along with worse seating than Amtrak.

I know there are those who feel sitting in coach for three days and three nights is a nice way to travel. That's great. I don't. It's my personal taste, and I don't think I'm alone. I can easily survive, and even enjoy, a five, six or even eight hour ride in coach - Amtrak or air. But once you reach double digits in hours and throw an overnight into the mix, it's a different story. Having some additional comfort beyond a reclining seat becomes a strong desire, if not a necessity.

If I am pricing a trip, and the Amtrak option requires an overnight, then my cost comparison is coach air verses sleeper Amtrak. I will take the Amtrak option if the additional cost is not too much, or if I can cash in a reasonable number of points, or if I just feel like a train ride. Otherwise, I'll save my money and points for when Amtrak works better for me.

 

[Montanan]

I know there are those who feel sitting in coach for three days and three nights is a nice way to travel. That's great. I don't. It's my personal taste, and I don't think I'm alone. I can easily survive, and even enjoy, a five, six or even eight hour ride in coach - Amtrak or air. But once you reach double digits in hours and throw an overnight into the mix, it's a different story. Having some additional comfort beyond a reclining seat becomes a strong desire, if not a necessity.

If I am pricing a trip, and the Amtrak option requires an overnight, then my cost comparison is coach air verses sleeper Amtrak. I will take the Amtrak option if the additional cost is not too much, or if I can cash in a reasonable number of points, or if I just feel like a train ride. Otherwise, I'll save my money and points for when Amtrak works better for me.

Same here. Back when I was in my 20s, I did a number of long-distance overnight trips in Amtrak coach ... but if I have the choice I'm never doing it again. I've walked through enough "morning after" scenes in Amtrak coaches to know that the scene doesn't correspond to my notion of pleasurable travel, and the prospect of being trapped in a seat pair for 36 hours next to an unfriendly or unwashed stranger is far from appealing to me. But peoples' expectations for travel are different, and they change over time, and that's as it should be.

That said, for many journeys it's just not reasonable to compare Amtrak coach and airline coach, or Amtrak first class and airline first class. There are way too many variables involved, and price is one of them. For the journey in question, pricing for both modes is going to vary considerably depending on the specific dates involved, and how far away the travel date is. Sometimes we luck out financially in planning these things, and sometimes we don't ... and that's just the way it is.

 

[BobWeaver]

What makes you think the trains are traveling "half empty"? The fact that you're seeing high fares is indicative of the fact that they are traveling at or near capacity.

Everyone that complains about the price of ANYTHING, be it railfare, gas, airfare, anything is forgeting one simple economic principle - prices fix THEMSELVES at what the market can and will bear. If the high bucket for that trip really is $4000 (and I didn't look), then obviously SOMEONE is paying it. Just because it's beyond your capability or desire to pay it does not mean it's overpriced. It's just overpriced for you.

 

[PerRock]

Compare your fare to first class airfare. I did did SPK-Cleveland and it was the same (and I had a bedroom).

Why would you compare it to first class airfare? Coach is just fine for a four or five hour flight. Coach is not as fine for a three day train ride. The comparison should be between the class of service that is acceptable for each mode.

Out of curiousity, why would coach not be considered "fine" for a three-day trip? Granted, I've never done one on Amtrak, but I've done many two-night Megabus rides without a problem. And there's no sleepers there, along with worse seating than Amtrak.

The majority of people here on this board are of the school, that if it is overnight; you take a sleeper. It really comes down to personal preference. I usually travel coach even on long multi-night trips. But that's usually because I can't afford a sleeper, I'd take one if I could afford it. The biggest drawback most people here talk about is that you can't get your seat to lie flat. it'll always be at an angle. Some people also are afraid that their stuff will be stolen in coach. Going coach also means you have to pay for your own meals, personally I bring my own food. On a multi-night trip I'll eat one meal in the dining car, but everything else is carry-on, this of course means more baggage.

In the end going by coach is fine for an multi-night trip, just not preferable by some (most here); even to the point that they'll fly over doing it.

peter

 

[me_little_me]

I tried to book a trip with Amtrak, as I love to travel by train. Amtrak is by no means a luxury trip and you must put up with constant delays and often not being on time to your destination. But, I adore train trips. When I priced a trip from from Port Charlotte, Florida to Denver Colorado with a "roomette" for me and my husband, it would cost almost $4000.00! Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money for that trip? We could fly for less than half of that amount! We have taken European Cruises for less than $4000.00. Back in the early 2000's we took an Amtrak multi-city trip from Port Charlotte, Fl. to New Orleans, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago and we had a full bedroom. The cost of that trip was much less than 4000 for both of us. Amtrak has priced themselves way out of my travel budget. It is truly a shame as it is a wonderful way to travel. I don't believe the cost of diesel or the cost of rail repairs has very much to do with the cost raise. These trains make these trips whether we are on them or not, and Amtrak does not own the rails so they are not paying directly to repair them. Rather than have half empty trains riding the rails, it would make more sense to lower the prices and fill the trains. Our government would surely be going "green" by substantially subsidizing Amtrak rather than cutting their funds. Amtrak has priced themselves out of existence and that is truly sad. My Grandchildren will never know the fun of an Amtrak vacation.

Silly comparison. Would you compare the cost of a cruise up the Mississippi to flying the equivalent distance? No, because the plane is simply trnsportation, NOTHING ELSE!. It is not fun; the food, if you get any, is second rate; the treatment atrocious; the hassles abominable. If you don't consider the train to be anything more than a way to travel, then, in your example, you are right. Comparing transportation to transportation, it is slower and more expensive as would be the aforementioned cruise. If you consider the train to be part of, if not the best part of, a vacation trip, then you simply can't compare it to flying unless you think self-imposed torture is fun.

Don't compare poisoned apples to oranges. The end results are quite different.

 

[RRUserious]

"Poisoned apples to oranges" Gotta remember that one.

That's what I was also saying. What does a cruise up the Pacific Coast cost? What does a plane trip over the same route cost? That's about as equivalent as a train and plane trip. I think the rail system mostly doesn't serve people in a hurry. Trains run a niche business. They do routes that simply don't make sense for planes, such as daily commutes. They also do scenic tours of parts of the country. Planes really serve a niche business, too. They move bodies the fastest way possible, and what they can do to passengers is really a function of the speed at which they move them. You can be crammed into the smallest possible seat, and customers will accept it ONLY because they are aware how short t he time is for them to be packed so tightly. Plus, with ticket prices competed down to the last nickel, people also get very little at a very small price. That's the business model.

I think the biggest hassle is that there is very little in between. But I would say that once you know the price of a comfortable trip on a slow conveyance, maybe it will change the airline traveler's perspective on paying for business class or first class. After all, with those classes you are NOT crammed into so little space, you STILL get there faster, you may have a much shorter checkin line, you may get food included and slightly better inquality. In short, this is where airlines stretch into the gap between air and land travel. So if you don't like the extremes, then consider coughing up the extra money that gives you all these extra benefits. DON'T settle for whatever the cheapest prices buys you.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Compare your fare to first class airfare. I did did SPK-Cleveland and it was the same (and I had a bedroom).

Why would you compare it to first class airfare? Coach is just fine for a four or five hour flight. Coach is not as fine for a three day train ride. The comparison should be between the class of service that is acceptable for each mode.

Out of curiousity, why would coach not be considered "fine" for a three-day trip? Granted, I've never done one on Amtrak, but I've done many two-night Megabus rides without a problem. And there's no sleepers there, along with worse seating than Amtrak.

The majority of people here on this board are of the school, that if it is overnight; you take a sleeper. It really comes down to personal preference. I usually travel coach even on long multi-night trips. But that's usually because I can't afford a sleeper, I'd take one if I could afford it. The biggest drawback most people here talk about is that you can't get your seat to lie flat. it'll always be at an angle. Some people also are afraid that their stuff will be stolen in coach. Going coach also means you have to pay for your own meals, personally I bring my own food. On a multi-night trip I'll eat one meal in the dining car, but everything else is carry-on, this of course means more baggage.

In the end going by coach is fine for an multi-night trip, just not preferable by some (most here); even to the point that they'll fly over doing it.

peter

You can count me in that school, too. I won't take the train if I have to do Coah overnight. I would look for an alternative bus schedule during the day and stay a night a a hotel. Then keep going till I get to where I need to go. It there is no bus OR train, then I don't know what to do! Good thing is, planes serve less places!

 

[Anderson]

Compare your fare to first class airfare. I did did SPK-Cleveland and it was the same (and I had a bedroom).

Why would you compare it to first class airfare? Coach is just fine for a four or five hour flight. Coach is not as fine for a three day train ride. The comparison should be between the class of service that is acceptable for each mode.

Out of curiousity, why would coach not be considered "fine" for a three-day trip? Granted, I've never done one on Amtrak, but I've done many two-night Megabus rides without a problem. And there's no sleepers there, along with worse seating than Amtrak.

The majority of people here on this board are of the school, that if it is overnight; you take a sleeper. It really comes down to personal preference. I usually travel coach even on long multi-night trips. But that's usually because I can't afford a sleeper, I'd take one if I could afford it. The biggest drawback most people here talk about is that you can't get your seat to lie flat. it'll always be at an angle. Some people also are afraid that their stuff will be stolen in coach. Going coach also means you have to pay for your own meals, personally I bring my own food. On a multi-night trip I'll eat one meal in the dining car, but everything else is carry-on, this of course means more baggage.

In the end going by coach is fine for an multi-night trip, just not preferable by some (most here); even to the point that they'll fly over doing it.

peter

I'm in that school as well. I've overnighted in coach on two occasions: Once down to Florida back in 2005, and once when escaping from a bad Model UN conference in New Haven, CT in about 2007 (well, technically it was 2-1 BC, but...not a sleeper). Neither are experiences that I'm terribly keen to repeat...I wound up being very tired and a bit sore, though at least on the Florida trip, I was pleasantly surprised with an excellent breakfast (french toast, bacon, milk).*

*The fact that I made the absurdly out-of-date move of taking this trip in a suit and tie didn't help, but the hat did help me sleep when I tipped it down to shield my eyes from whatever light was coming from above.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Is a Bentley Mulsanne too expensive? No. It's selling to the kind of people who want that anachronism. Too exPensive is a pure opinion.

 

[sechs]

Even international First Class passengers have to suffer the whims of airline travel. Most International F is far from having a private room. Unless we talk First Suites.

Check first class on Emirates and Singapore (towards the end):http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-comparing-airbus-a380-photos,0,7651978.photogallery

I think that my point still stands, however. Sleeper service on Amtrak is more like international first class, which is much pricier.

 

[RSG]

Airlines go point to point, and the cost is extremely low if the departing city and arriving city are a popular pair. So as I always say, if the scenery in betwen is of no value or importance, then most times the flight cost will always win out.

That's really only true in a limited number of circumstances, and less so today than at the turn of this century and less so then than 10 years before that.

The cost of doing business in air transport keeps rising, yet airfares stay largely the same, on a "base rate" comparison. However, since there's a widening shortfall between costs of doing business and revenue, airlines (and the government) have figured out ways to make up the shortfall, through increased taxes and 'fees" [another term for 'tax']. The end result being that as long as you travel without luggage, are sufficiently nourished and hydrated prior to your flight, and are wearing comfortable--though probably not classy--clothing, you can travel for little more than the published airfare, and still arrive at the airport about the same time you did 20 years ago. If, however none of those things are true, you will spend a lot more for flights which are more overcrowded and allow less flexibility (in numerous ways) and will need to make a number of allowances, including arriving at the airport about the same time you may have for an international flight not too many years ago.

In the interior West, traveling to a neighboring state is often not possible via scheduled airline without going through one of four cities in usually one (or more)-removed states and the only point-to-point service is in some instances where Southwest Airlines makes a connecting stop. Otherwise, it's the same basic hub-and/or-spoke service made popular post-deregulation and not that much different from current day passenger train travel.

To illustrate that point, I priced airfare last week for a conference trip I'm taking next month. The best airfare from the nearest airport to the destination [Reagan Washington National] involved two connections and an all-day travel schedule. The most direct route (one connection) was 60% higher in cost. The base rail fare on Amtrak from the nearest station? About the same as the lowest above-referenced airfare.

There may be many reasons for using commercial air travel as a mode of transportation over other options, but cost alone is often not the primary one any more.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Even international First Class passengers have to suffer the whims of airline travel. Most International F is far from having a private room. Unless we talk First Suites.

Check first class on Emirates and Singapore (towards the end):

http://www.latimes.c...78.photogallery

I think that my point still stands, however. Sleeper service on Amtrak is more like international first class, which is much pricier.

THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY "UNLESS WE TALK FIRST SUITES!" I KNOW THAT EK AND SQ HAVE PRIVATE ROOMS, BUT ARE THEY NOT "FIRST SUITES?" DL OR AA F IS NOT AS GOOD AS AN AMTRAK ROOMETTE!

 

[jebr]

Airlines go point to point, and the cost is extremely low if the departing city and arriving city are a popular pair. So as I always say, if the scenery in betwen is of no value or importance, then most times the flight cost will always win out.

That's really only true in a limited number of circumstances, and less so today than at the turn of this century and less so then than 10 years before that.

The cost of doing business in air transport keeps rising, yet airfares stay largely the same, on a "base rate" comparison. However, since there's a widening shortfall between costs of doing business and revenue, airlines (and the government) have figured out ways to make up the shortfall, through increased taxes and 'fees" [another term for 'tax']. The end result being that as long as you travel without luggage, are sufficiently nourished and hydrated prior to your flight, and are wearing comfortable--though probably not classy--clothing, you can travel for little more than the published airfare, and still arrive at the airport about the same time you did 20 years ago. If, however none of those things are true, you will spend a lot more for flights which are more overcrowded and allow less flexibility (in numerous ways) and will need to make a number of allowances, including arriving at the airport about the same time you may have for an international flight not too many years ago.

In the interior West, traveling to a neighboring state is often not possible via scheduled airline without going through one of four cities in usually one (or more)-removed states and the only point-to-point service is in some instances where Southwest Airlines makes a connecting stop. Otherwise, it's the same basic hub-and/or-spoke service made popular post-deregulation and not that much different from current day passenger train travel.

To illustrate that point, I priced airfare last week for a conference trip I'm taking next month. The best airfare from the nearest airport to the destination [Reagan Washington National] involved two connections and an all-day travel schedule. The most direct route (one connection) was 60% higher in cost. The base rail fare on Amtrak from the nearest station? About the same as the lowest above-referenced airfare.

There may be many reasons for using commercial air travel as a mode of transportation over other options, but cost alone is often not the primary one any more.

Agreed. That's what actually started me into looking into Amtrak for long-distance: it's much cheaper. I'm going out to Idaho this summer, and flights are a minimum of $391. Consider in the cost of parking (or the inconvenience of finding a free overnight parking lot and taking transit to the airport from there), the cost of even one checked bag (sorry, I can't have a week's worth of stuff in a carry-on!), and suddenly the cost is a minimum of $450, probably $500+ if I can't park for free.

Contrast that to Amtrak, which is only $257, and that's including a connection to literally a mile from my destination one of the ways. (The other way involves a three-hour drive to ELK, which still isn't much further than the drive to BOI from TFI.) Baggage may cost me $10 if Greyhound becomes really picky with the luggage (though I should be fine) and even the free one can be a standard checked bag, not just a small carry-on.

Yes, travel time is a bit more. Instead of leaving at 11:00 PM on day 0 (since I can work a full day beforehand, instead of taking time off...it's a 2.5 hour drive to the Amtrak station or the airport) and arriving at 4:35 AM on day 2, I could be there sometime on the afternoon of day 1. So a few waking hours on either end of the trip.