Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it!
SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it!
Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.
Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too.
The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak.
That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?"
If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it.
Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it.
You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.
Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
I live in Houston. Amtrak service is VERY limited here. It only goes 2 directions so my choices are New Orleans or San Antonio. SA is 4 hours or so by car. Amtrak only goes through here Fri-Sun and even then going west it's scheduled departure time is 9:30 PM. A scheduled 6 hour train trip arives in SA at 3:30 am. No way I'm doing that. Then consider that they are on time an average of 3% with the average delay being upwards of 5 hours!!!! Down here, freight has the right of way over passenger trains so delays are very common. No way I'll take the train out of here.
This is the nations 4th largest city and our rail options from here are terrible. It used to be a booming passenger rail location with 3 stations at one point back in the glory days. Now Grand Central station is gone with a warehouse in it's place. The old Katy station is obviously gone and the trackage removed. Union Station is now a part of our baseball stadium. Even if Amtrak had a better schedule and was on time here, the station is nothing more than an over glorified phone booth located under one of our freeways. It's not a friendly place and there are many vagrants living on the benches at the station. That's a great way to attract riders! It could be free and you couldn't get them.
If cost and time were the only criteria for deciding how to travel long distance between between most larger cities, why would anybody drive? Given the relatively low cost and high speed of air travel you would think that the Interstate Highways in rural areas would be almost empty of cars. Wouldn't it be unusual to see a car with plates from several states away?
My point is this. I do not believe anybody at Amtrak or any rational supporter of long distance rail service sees any growth potential for the trains to take air travelers away from the airlines. On the other hand, with current costs for fuel, it seems that new passengers may be those that would otherwise drive.
New York to Atlanta goes this way. Drive (per Mapquest) 890 miles in 14.5 hours-assumes no traffic problems, rest or food stops. At 20MPG and $4.00 gas fuel cost is $180. Amtrak Crescent is an 18 hour run. The coach fare next week is $191 but the same seat in August is offered at $151. AAA and NARP members can get 10% off and Age 62+ get a 15% discount. Your call.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote:If cost and time were the only criteria for deciding how to travel long distance between between most larger cities, why would anybody drive? Given the relatively low cost and high speed of air travel you would think that the Interstate Highways in rural areas would be almost empty of cars. Wouldn't it be unusual to see a car with plates from several states away?My point is this. I do not believe anybody at Amtrak or any rational supporter of long distance rail service sees any growth potential for the trains to take air travelers away from the airlines. On the other hand, with current costs for fuel, it seems that new passengers may be those that would otherwise drive. New York to Atlanta goes this way. Drive (per Mapquest) 890 miles in 14.5 hours-assumes no traffic problems, rest or food stops. At 20MPG and $4.00 gas fuel cost is $180. Amtrak Crescent is an 18 hour run. The coach fare next week is $191 but the same seat in August is offered at $151. AAA and NARP members can get 10% off and Age 62+ get a 15% discount. Your call.
My call ? As originally stated; take a plane instead of either
p.s. I haven't owned a car that gets only 20 mpg in decades. Even my 1994 V-6 Pontiac Bonneville gets in the high 20's on the highway.
jeaton wrote: New York to Atlanta goes this way. Drive (per Mapquest) 890 miles in 14.5 hours-assumes no traffic problems, rest or food stops. At 20MPG and $4.00 gas fuel cost is $180. Amtrak Crescent is an 18 hour run. The coach fare next week is $191 but the same seat in August is offered at $151. AAA and NARP members can get 10% off and Age 62+ get a 15% discount. Your call.
Whether one drives or takes a commercial carrier depends on numerous values. Here are a few items one has to consider.
As a rule it costs me less to take a plane, train, or bus as long as my assumptions regarding the operation of my Toyota Corolla are valid, and I am traveling by myself.
The variable cost of driving my Corolla from New York to Atlanta would be $151 plus meals, one night accommodations and tolls. I follow the National Safety Council's advice and never run more than 500 miles in one day. However, the cost of driving jumps to $259 if I assume, as most cost accountants do, that all costs are variable in the long run. The cost of driving includes more than the consumables. It includes insurance, depreciation, etc.
The per mile cost of operating my Corolla is a function of the purchase price, financing charges, if any, time of ownership, estimated salvage value, gasoline, etc. If I had a big gas guzzling SUV that I only planned to keep for three years, the cost of driving could increase significantly.
The Amtrak fare for August 15th would be $153. It would be a better deal than driving, even after adding three meals and a drink or two in the lounge car, because I would not incur the accommodation and toll charges associated with driving. However, if I have to rent a car in Atlanta, this could change the numbers significantly. It depends on how long I would need the rent car.
If I chose to fly from New York to Atlanta on August 15th, it would cost me $126 on Air Trans. It would require no Enroute meals or accommodation charges, other than perhaps a snack at the airport. The same assumption regarding a rental car applies for the train or plane.
The cost structure for a family, however, changes dramatically. The cost of the train, assuming the first adult gets a NARP discount, the second adult gets no discount, and two children do not qualify for any discounts, would be $443.
Driving a family of four from New York to Atlanta would increase the cost somewhat because of the greater weight, but it would be minimal. Also, if the family decided on two rooms as opposed to having the kids sleep with the adults, an extra room charge would have to be added on. But the incremental charges associated with driving in the family chariot would not approach$443. This is the real reason that most middle class families choose to drive.
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: How would an Auto train if available cost compare?
It is 855 miles from Lorton, Virginia to Sanford, Florida, which are the end point stations for the Auto Train.
The fully allocated cost to drive a Toyota Corolla, based on my profile, from Lorton to Sanford would be $237.95, plus approximately $75 for one night accommodation and $40 for meals, which brings the total to $352.95. This assumes a late morning or early afternoon departure from Lorton and a late morning or early afternoon arrival in Sanford. It also assumes that the meals are taken at fast food restaurants. MapQuest shows the driving distance at 816 miles and estimates the time required to drive at 12.05 hours.
The cost to take the Auto Train would be $302. Meals are included in the ticket price, which covers a coach seat and a vehicle like the Toyota. Large SUVs and pick-ups attract a higher fare for the vehicle. The train is a better deal provided our single traveler does not get carried away in the lounge car.
The fully allocated cost with four people (two adults and two children) in the same type of vehicle would be a little more than $237.95, because of the incremental weight, plus $75 for one night accommodation and $160 for meals. The total tab to drive for four people would be $472. 95. This scenario assumes the kids sleep in the same room as the adults, and meals are eaten in fast food joints.
The cost for the adults and kids to take the Auto Train would be $524, assuming no discounts. In this scenario driving would be a better deal.
If two people drove the cost would be approximately $392.95. If they took the Auto Train the cost would be $413. Given the difference is only $20.05; the choice to drive or take the Auto Train would not be driven by the cost differential.
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: Had no idea it was that close. As Sgt schultz would say "very interesting" . Now if you ever have the time figure two heavy corridors Wash - Atl and Detroit - Florida for An auto train operation. I75 through Atlanta is full of people from the Ohio - tronto area.
I think you mean Arte Johnson of Laugh In..
Ohio to Florida along I-75 would be a teriffic market for an Auto Train. Covington KY to Lorton would work. There's no place to run it though...
The best route, NS's CNO&TP is already beyond full. Now, if the Amtrak would pay for double track....
oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey.
I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town.
-Morgan
Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town.
Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time).
Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......
I can't believe what I'm reading. Supposedly serious railfans talking about flying rather than taking the train, and then have the nerve to wonder whether or not Amtrack will survive.
Dick
Texas Chief
Texas Chief wrote: I can't believe what I'm reading. Supposedly serious railfans talking about flying rather than taking the train, and then have the nerve to wonder whether or not Amtrack will survive.DickTexas Chief
I think you're taking it wrong. It's serious railfans who want Amtrak to provide some seriously useful trains in an efficient and productive manner.
One can be a serious railfan while still not being blind to reality.
Don has the right line of thought in the previous post.
Mailman56701 wrote: Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town. Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time). Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......
Okay, maybe it was more like 6. We spent 2 hours waiting to leave Indianpolis to get to Chicago. That meant we spent another good half hour waiting to get to the terminal to get out. Then we spent another 2 or 3 hours waiting on a late plane making up a good portion of this flight. The same happeneded again in California, we were literally on the ground long enough, we could have gotten our luggage out of the bottom of the plane and walked to the terminal before we could even see the building. it was almost 8 hours.
Time they may not have. But with rising fuel costs, I suspect the airlines will take a hit harder than Amtrak. The planes are limited to their size, for the same increase, Amtrak could take an extra pair of sleeper cars.
Flashwave wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town. Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time). Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......Okay, maybe it was more like 6. We spent 2 hours waiting to leave Indianpolis to get to Chicago. That meant we spent another good half hour waiting to get to the terminal to get out. Then we spent another 2 or 3 hours waiting on a late plane making up a good portion of this flight. The same happeneded again in California, we were literally on the ground long enough, we could have gotten our luggage out of the bottom of the plane and walked to the terminal before we could even see the building. it was almost 8 hours. Time they may not have. But with rising fuel costs, I suspect the airlines will take a hit harder than Amtrak. The planes are limited to their size, for the same increase, Amtrak could take an extra pair of sleeper cars.
I seriously doubt that (trains take a harder hit). Not with the time differences, which won't change.
Also, Amtrak is hardly exempt from long, frustrating delays for its customers, per your flight example.
oltmannd wrote: SNIPYou may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
True enough, but there are trains capable of sustained 250 mph and the record is over 380 held by the French, not Japan. With a 300 mph rail coridor connecting main cities, the airline monopoly on people travel would crumble. As fuel prices continue to escalate, we are close to the viability point. Cost too much you say? Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail.
Today, Acela NYC to Wash DC, 2.5 hrs, 160 bucks , smooth, comfortable, pleasant. Airlines same price at least twice the time or more. Acela is ~100 mph?
I travel a lot by air and you cannot go anywhere in less than 4 hours portal to portal. Add an hour for every 500 miles. NO tarmac waits included here. Even at 200 mph trains heavily erode the airplane.
Sorry if I got too close to politics.
just my 2 cents
Joe Daddy
joe-daddy wrote: oltmannd wrote: Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail. Today, Acela NYC to Wash DC, 2.5 hrs, 160 bucks , smooth, comfortable, pleasant. Airlines same price at least twice the time or more. Acela is ~100 mph?I travel a lot by air and you cannot go anywhere in less than 4 hours portal to portal. Add an hour for every 500 miles. NO tarmac waits included here. Even at 200 mph trains heavily erode the airplane.
oltmannd wrote:
Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail.
The construction of Denver International Airport did not cost the taxpayers $6 billion. The only cost to the national taxpayer would be the revenue difference between tax free bonds and fully taxable bonds generated by the bondholders and paid to the U.S. Treasury. If the bonds were general obligation bonds, as opposed to the more common revenue bonds that are issued to build airports, the local taxpayers could get stuck with some or all of principal outstanding in the case of a default. The probability of such an event is extremely rare. Last year, for example, less than one quarter of one per cent of the municipal bonds outstanding were defaulted on.
If the airport board had issued $6 billion of fully taxable bonds, at the U.S. Treasury long bond rate, which today would be 4.375 per cent, the interest cost would have been $262.5 million per year. Issuing tax free or municipal bonds, in the same environment (the average rate would be about 3.8 per cent) would have attracted an interest charge of $228 million or a difference of $34.5 million. The difference could result in a reduction in U.S. Treasury revenues, but the exact amount would depend on the marginal tax rates of the investors. If all of the bond holders were in the 35 per cent marginal tax rate, the annual loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury would be $12.1 million a year.
The loss in revenue to the national treasury would be offset in part by a reduction in the business expenses of the users and occupants of the airport. Interest is a cost of business that is passed on to the users. Because the airport was constructed with tax free bonds, the airlines pay lower landing fees and the vendors pay lower rentals. This results in greater taxable income than would otherwise be the case. And the greater taxable income means more tax revenues for the national treasury. The caveat would be if an airline using Denver International Airport is losing money and, therefore, does not have any taxable income. At the end of the day, the loss to the national treasury is minuscule, especially when one considers the size of the U.S. budget.
The bonds are serviced (interest and principal) with revenues generated by the airport, e.g. landing fees, vendor rentals, hangar fees, etc. The airport‘s revenues, costs, expenditures, expenses, etc. are captured in an enterprise fund as opposed to the general fund. In other words, it is run like a business, with the citizens of Denver and its surrounds being the stockholders.
The liability for the taxpayers, as well as the bondholders, is the potential failure of the airport to cover its operating and capital expenditures. In this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations.
The one way shuttle airfare from LaGuardia to Washington, D.C., is as low as $81. The flying time is 1 hour and 39 minutes. If one adds an hour to clear security at LaGuardia, the total time portal to portal is approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes. If one lives in Manhattan or Brooklyn, as I did for years, and is going to central D.C., Amtrak is a better deal. But if one lives on Long Island and is going to one of the Virginia or Maryland suburbs, the airplane is a better deal. It is an even better deal if one opts for BWI or Dulles.
Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes. The cost was $103.50 return. It is 196 highway miles from Austin to Dallas. The flying distance is somewhat shorter.
Trains can be viable in relatively short, high density corridors, providing the traveler is going from center city to center city. But in Texas, as an example, most travelers are going from one outlying area to another outlying area. This is the major challenge to those of us who would like to see more passenger rail options in Texas.
Samantha wrote:snipIn this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations. snip Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes.
snip
In this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations.
Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes.
That is great news thanks for clearing up my obvious misconception about airport funding. So there is absolutely no reason not to invest in a pay as you go 250 mph rail infrastructure as well, right?
Someone dropped you off at the right gate curb, you had no line at security and the boarding and taxiing only took zero minutes? Simply amazing! You'd think the rest of us airline customers would be a much happier lot, eh?
joe-daddy wrote: Samantha wrote:snipIn this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations. snip Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes. That is great news thanks for clearing up my obvious misconception about airport funding. So there is absolutely no reason not to invest in a pay as you go 250 mph rail infrastructure as well, right? Someone dropped you off at the right gate curb, you had no line at security and the boarding and taxiing only took zero minutes? Simply amazing! You'd think the rest of us airline customers would be a much happier lot, eh?Joe Daddy
If an operator could cover the costs of building and operating a viable passenger rail system, using the same financing tools available to airports, I would be all for it. See my comments regarding transport subsidies.
I drove to the airport. It took about the same amount of time as it would have taken to drive to the Amtrak station in Austin. The gate to gate time, which includes taxing at both ends, was 55 minutes or about 20 minutes longer than the flight time. There were about 20 people in front of me at the security line in Austin. I don't remember how many people were in line at Dallas' Love Field. As is the case at Austin's Bergstrom Airport, Love has multiple security lines, and they move quickly. In fact, at Love they have an "experienced flyer" line for people who pack lightly and know what can and cannot be taken on the airplane.
I have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours.
Samantha wrote: snipI have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours.
Always, when it is the busiest, Monday mornings, Thursday afternoons and/or Friday mornings. I always plan 2 hours total to get to the airport, else I will miss 1/3 of my flights.
Interesting discussion!
Joe
While I would love to join in on dissing the airlines and the whole "feel-good" airport security situation, the fundamental reason why airlines have it over AMTRAK is availability.
I live in the Detroit metro area, but if I want to travel by rail to almost anywhere, I have to go to Chicago first. As a case in point, I have relatives in Memphis. To get there by rail, I have to to to Chicago, then wait for the City of New Orleans. The return connection is less desirable. If I want to go to NYC, I have to go to Chicaga, and then travel back east, through Toledo, a mere hour or so south of Detroit. An extra 6+ hours on the train (not counting layover time).
By plane, I pick my city pairs and there are, usually, multiple flights per day. Maybe I have to suffer an intermediate stop, but there are lots of direct flights. From 2 or 3 per day to, maybe, a dozen or so per day. The train, well, from Detroit there are 3 per day, but many locations are served only by 1 a day, or not even.
What I'm getting at is it's a matter of convenience. If the train is convenient, people will take it, especially if the cost is about the same. Problem is, the train is, generally, neither convenient nor perceived to be such. Two strikes.
joe-daddy wrote: Samantha wrote: snipI have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours. Always, when it is the busiest, Monday mornings, Thursday afternoons and/or Friday mornings. I always plan 2 hours total to get to the airport, else I will miss 1/3 of my flights.
I worked at a luxury limousine company which specialized in corporate airport trips. Our rule was arrive at the airport before departure: 2 hours international, 90 minutes domestic. Naturally if the customer asks for tighter scheduling we'd explain the rule, give them what they ask, document that it was at their request, and keep our fingers crossed.
The president of the customer companies never asked us to deviate for his trips. Some smaller fish would ask. I don't remember any asking a second time if they missed their flight, although I did notice a few individuals who stopped using our service. We didn't have any tactful way to tell if they got fired, got their corporate travel privileges restricted, or decided on their own to use another service. Their employing company however did continue using us.
I acknowledge that my corporate anecdote skews towards peak usage, but not everybody can go off peak, in fact if they did then it would no longer be off peak.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Depends on what airport you're leaving from. I allow 45 minutes for the State College, PA regional airport to get ticketed and clear security, but I've never needed more than 15-- even though most of the planes are now the 50 seat jets instead of the old 34 seat props on the commuter airlines that service it. Only during 06:00-07:15 when 5 planes leave do I allow an hour.
Samantha, the Austin airport is my favorite. Bright and new, easy to get to, car rentals just a walk across the street, good and varried food, short lines at the ticket counter and security, friendly employees, short waits for luggage, and a good terminal layout. I fly it about 4 times a year. Its only 6 hours from when I leave my house, fly United commuter from State College to Washington Dullas, about a 1 1/2 layover in Dullas, and United non-stop to Austin.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.