Winging It

Very much in agreement with the column about the benefits of Amtrak. I use it all the time, even going to Boston… there’s a train that leaves here at midnight and gets into South Station at 7 a.m. that I’ve found quite useful.

And one of these days, I’m going to have to get to the airport so far in advance that it might well take me six hours to get me from here to there by plane.

Hi Tom,

The Amtrak vs. Airlines article was great, but I don't necessarily agree with your points in this paragraph, "For many business trips, of course, Amtrak (www.amtrak.com) isn't a practical alternative. While a round trip between Philadelphia and New York, Washington, and a few other nearby cities is easy to do in a day, Philadelphia-Boston takes about six hours each way. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor isn't cheap, either, especially if you use the slightly higher-speed Acela trains."

I think Philadelphia-Boston day trips on a train can be just as practical as airline trips when you really start thinking about how long it takes to get between the cities by air, especially if you don't want to get airport at 4:30AM to 5:45AM (me).

If I was told today that I had a business meeting coming up on February 13th in Boston, when I'd look into flying there, I would see that the US Air flights would cost $958 plus tax and fees. I could leave at 9:15am and get there by 10:34am. That would get me into central downtown Boston about 11:10am or so. To get that plane, I'd have to leave home, to feel comfortable about getting there on time and getting through security, at about 7:00am, so I'd have to be up at 6:00am and I would have spent almost 4.5 hours in transit. I actually like getting to the airport with more time to spare, so for me, it would probably have been longer in transit. Getting home after a 4 hour meeting, I could take a 6:15pm plane home to PHL getting in at 7:50pm. That would get me home about 8:30pm or so (Carry-on luggage only). That would mean about another 4 hours in transit home and $1,000 for the privilege.

If I took Amtrak, I'd take the 6:34am Acela Express and get to Boston Back Bay at 11:31am, about a half hour later in downtown Boston than the plane. I'd have gotten up at 5:30am for the train and been at 30th Street at about 6:10am. I would have been about 5.5 hours in transit. Going home I'd take the 4:35pm Acela and get to 30th Street at 9:20pm and home by 9:35pm, about 5.5 hours in transit. The Acela would have cost me $281.

I could easily accommodate the 4 hour meeting using either transportation method. My total travel time on the plane would have been at least 8.5 hours for the day, or about 11 hours by train (That's assuming both the train and plane were on time, which is more likely for the train these days, although I will admit I've certainly hit delays use Amtrak from time to time.).

The difference is that via plane I would have the hassle of airport security, and unproductive time in the plane, plus the waiting in the airport which I hate. Plus these days in those early morning flights between 7:00am and 9:30am, you usually sit on the tarmac, in the plane for 20 minutes or more.

On Acela, I would be in much more comfortable conditions than the plane, would not have to get to the station all that early, and the station in Boston is right in the thick of things, no more than a 5 or 10 minute cab, or more likely walk, to the meeting. The train would have a power outlet to plug in my computer, and with an aircard I'd be on the Internet the entire trip. Oh, and the trip via Acela would cost me more than $670 less than the flight.

I take Amtrak regularly between PHL and NYP, and often between PHL and BBY (Normally always Acela as it cuts about 1 hour each way from the trip). Periodically I take Amtrak to Washington DC, and if there is no flight special pricing, to Richmond, VA, I take Amtrak there too.

It doesn't surprise me that the public likes Amtrak.
Railroads are still popular with the public and need to be
funded more by the government.

I live next to the Main Line of the Paoli local. I see the
Harrisburg train - Amtrak - go by. Trains have a certain
mystique and safety factor that aircraft simply don't have.

If I were an Amtrak executive, I would bring back the old
Pennsylvania railroad cars and lure tourists and enthusiasts
with those trains. Those cars and trains were among the
most popular in the United States.

A train can serve a fine meal and get people to their
destination in a timely fashion, without losing a beat.

Airplanes are often delayed and baggage is often a hassle.
Trains have the advantage of being safer and less time-
consuming.

I say bring back safe and speedy trains.

Thanks.

Nice to read your article on Amtrak vs. flying. I believe while you talked about air fares rising, you neglected to talk about high much Amtrak has boosted its fares between Philadelphia and New York. When I was doing the daily commute to NYC in 2001-2002, the cost for a monthly ticket was $ 550.00. Check it now. It's risen to (gulp) $ 1,050/month! Yikes, who can afford that? And that's not to say what it costs to park @ 30th street. I can also tell you that there were many nights when the train left NYC anywhere from 15-65 minutes late. I also used to see how late Acela was from Boston to NYC--typically 2 hours late-in good weather. Ah well, there's always SEPTA!

My son goes to Boston University and Amtrak is the only way to go. We live in Bucks County and by the time we go down to the airport and wait for security and the flight to take off...it's not worth it. He gets a comfortable seat, plugs in his laptop and 5 1/2 hours later ....hes there. No problems. We think it is great and MUCH cheaper then flying.

I would use the train to see family back east if I could. However that said, I can't. I could catch a train from Washington state, no problem. However, a large majority of my family lives within 47 miles of Nashville, BIG PROBLEM. Till AmTrak returns to Nashville (Clarksville would be even better) I will make very rare trips to see family.

Charles A. Nelson
852 SW 1st Ave
Oak Harbor WA 98277