Flying vs. Train When Traveling Less Than 400 Miles

[Phoebe Vet]

Let's try Charlotte to Atlanta.  USAirways has 14 flights a day.  Delta has 11 flights a day.  Southwest Airlines has 3 flights a day.

Amtrak has one train a day and it comes through Charlotte at 2:30 AM.

[blue streak 1]

We must compare driving time to other options. The Lynchburg RR service is an example of a non freeway driving route to the northeast that takes much longer driving time than rail. + air service is almost not useable.

[Ulrich]

For short distances driving is just too convenient, unless you want to avoid traffic and parking problems in big cities. Public transportation is generally  too much of a hassle with waiting in line to check in and boarding  and getting to and from the airport/train station.. It's hard to beat just getting into your car which is waiting for you in your driveway and just going. I would rather drive 900 miles in one sitting than hassle with airports and train stations. 

[oltmannd]

GP-9_Man11786

What do you guys think? When you take all those fctors into account, would taking the train actually be faster if traveling less than 400 miles?

That's the niche!  But the devil's in the details.  The first/last mile is a problem.  If your trip is downtown to downtown and the train stations are downtown, then the train's a good deal.  But, if your city is like Atlanta or Dallas where your likely destination is out on the perimeter somewhere, then all bets are off.

If the origin and destination cities have good transit,  that helps, too.

From here - suburban Atlanta - if I have a 400 mile trip, I'm driving all tthe time.  It's 45 minutes from my house to the airport, 90 minutes more through the TSA cha-cha machine to the gate and then the flight.  Amtrak?  It's 35 minutes to Atlanta or 45 minutes to Gainesville for the once a day Crescent.  The Crescent's running times to toward New Orleans are abysmally slow everywhere (<50 mph) and not real great up to Charlotte - although above there they get better.

But, who wants to get on a train in Atlanta at 8PM to arrive in Charlotte at 1:30 AM when I can drive there in 3-1/2 hours easy with no first/last mile issues?

[Norm48327]

As regards flying, the old saw among those of us in aviation, "Time to spare, go by air" applies. There are lots of variables that wouldn't apply to either the train or driving. Departure city to destination city direct by air is an almost never thing. Delays clearing security, delays departing the airport, en route and weather delays are common. As Firelock mentioned, you will likely have to change planes at a hub.

The train and driving are surely more direct to destination even though both modes are slower.

[Firelock76]

In my case the last time I did a long-distance trip it was from my home in Richmond VA to my parents home in Estero FL.  Factoring in all the time wasters involving air travel i.e. trip to the airport, being there two hours before the flight, the transfer in Atlanta, (by the way you can't fly anywhere on Delta from Richmond without an Atlanta transfer, even if you're flying from Richmond to Norfolk), then the time involving bag retrieval and rent-a-car pickup in Fort Myers, to say nothing of the expense, I decided to drive, considering a whole day was shot in the traveling anyway.

So, driving door to door, 940 miles, took me fifteen and a half hours.  Since that's what the 20th Century Limited did New York to Chicago back in the glory days I figured I did quite well.

I used to love to fly, but it's no fun anymore.

[Ulrich]

When flying I figure in three hours to get to the airport,,to check in and go through security, and one hour to get off the plane and to pick-up my bags.  So that's four hours right off the bat that I wouldn't have if I were to drive. In four hours I can cover 240 miles, leaving 160 miles or about three hours to go. So on 400 miles its really  a draw... but driving would be alot cheaper and much more convenient. Taking the train would be slower as there again you're checking in and out, albeit with somewhat less cumbersome security screening. I find that driving is faster and cheaper than air or rail,, all factors considered, for trips under 1000 miles. 

[schlimm]

Chicago to St. Louis is gradually getting a 110 mph top speed. for the 284 mile run, 5 hr, 20-30 min. [and improving].  

Flying takes one hour, plus 2 hours at O'Hare security, etc.  and between 25 min. and 1:15 from the Loop to O'Hare (depending on traffic and cab vs. the L).  Add another 10 minutes from gate to cab and another 20+ minutes from Lambert to downtown St. Louis, and the total is between 4:00 and 4:45 flying (assuming good connections on both ends) with a lot more hassles and changes of transport vehicles + cab expenses.   So a almost draw...for now.   As the more of the ROW to StL is upgraded to 110mph, the train will become the clear choice for downtown to downtown travelers.   Suburb to suburb changes the equation.

[Murphy Siding]

    I'd have to drive 3-1/2-4  hours to the nearest Amtrak station at Omaha, Fargo, or St. Cloud, to get on in the middle of the night- provided the train was on time.

     My wife looked at taking Amtrak to visit a friend in Chicago.  It would involve a 3-1/2 hour drive to St. Cloud, Minnesota in the middle of the night, a train ride from St. Cloud to Chicago.  A wait at the station in Chicago, and then a 1 hour or so, train ride out to Hanover Park, followed by a 15 minute drive to our friend's house.  That didn't compare favorably to an 8 hour drive to Hanover Park.

[schlimm]

Depends on the average speed of train, how far airports are from downtowns and time to get there.

Also you are supposed to be at the airport two hours before flight time in most larger US  airports for domestic flights, three for international (which seems ridiculous).

[GP-9_Man11786]

cacole

You're assuming that the traveler is already downtown where a passenger train is available for boarding, and haven't taken into account how the traveler gets to the station, or whether a passenger train is even available to the intended destination.  

In many parts of the world, there are regularly scheduled passenger trains, but in the U.S. Amtrak is the only option, and provides limited service.

Well, let's narrow the parameter to say Boston to New York or San Francisco to Los Angeles. Both of those have regular passenger train service from downtown to downtown.

[cacole]

You're assuming that the traveler is already downtown where a passenger train is available for boarding, and haven't taken into account how the traveler gets to the station, or whether a passenger train is even available to the intended destination.  

In many parts of the world, there are regularly scheduled passenger trains, but in the U.S. Amtrak is the only option, and provides limited service.

[GP-9_Man11786]

Yesterday's episode of Mythbusters featured an interesting myth about weather you could actually reach your destination quicker by driving rather than flying if traveling 400 miles or fewer. It turns out that flying is faster but only by a few minutes. That got me wondering about weather it would be faster take the train when traveling the same distance. 

While flying can get you from one city to the other faster, you still have to drive to the airport, park, check your bags, and get through security. That adds at least two hours to the flight time. Then there's the actual flight. When you land, you then have to claim your bags and rent a car.

By contrast, you simply get right on the train with little hassle, so there's less time added onto the journey. You also go from downtown to downtown, although renting a car may still be needed.

What do you guys think? When you take all those fctors into account, would taking the train actually be faster if traveling less than 400 miles?