A M T R A K HIGHWAY ROBBERY

[blue streak 1]

Samantha:  How would an Auto train if available cost compare?

[Anonymous]

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 15^th 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 15^th, 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.

 

[Mailman56701]

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]

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.

 

[CG9602]

I believe what oltmannD meant to write was that Amtrak has instituted the "yield management" pricing practices that are similar to what the airlines practice, in that as the train fills up, the remaining seats gradually increase in price. This makes sense in that Amtrak has been under the gun for raising its revenue for as long as it has been around. While we may not like it, that is the way it is.

As for not offering service, that is the result of investment in one mode (highways) while disinvesting in another mode (railroads). What with the high prices of fuel and transportation that are going to remain with us, the passenger train will have to act as a placeholder until we the people are willing to reverse the decades of neglect and disinvestment in passenger rail. I can assure you that any acts to reverse the decades of neglect will not be cheap, and attempts to build anything like the Grand old stations of yore will be quite expensive -- more expensive than, say, attempting to retain the infrastructure.

We the people have yet to learn that once some of this infrastructure is gone, *its gone.*

What I'm trying to say here is that if we want service, then we should expect to have to pay for the additional track, roadbed, and stations and facilities necessary for support of such service. If only enough funding is provided for only one train per day each way, then that is what you are going to get. If you want faster or more frequent service, then ante up the funds. Once the stations are gone, then it will be all the more expensive to re-install their facilities. Don't expect more than one train per day if you fail to provide funding for such. If we wish to see trains with 4-6 frequencies per day each direction on all the routes, then we are going to have to fund the rail system provider to the degree that we fund our highways. In other words, don't expect service for which you did not pay.

[fredswain]

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.

[oltmannd]

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? 

[Mailman56701]

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. 

[oltmannd]

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.

[FTGT725]

The cheapest airfare I could find was on Spirit Airlines with a two week advance purchace was $274.  Driving would cost about the same. You didn't state how soon you wanted to travel but I can tell you with $4.00 per gal gas, that is HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Diesel is even higher so that's impacting all modes of transportation.

[SR1457]

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!