Transit
The eternal question: New York via train or bus?
What's the best way to get between New York and Washington?
This is worth about $50 to me. Photo by Kynan Tait on Flickr.
It depends how you define "best", of course. Just about everybody knows that the cheapest way to do it is via bus, but cheapest isn't always best.
For the extra price of an Amtrak ticket you get more seating space, nicer and bigger bathrooms, a faster ride (even on the slow train, never mind Acela), the ability to get up and walk around, and a cafe car. Buses these days are pretty nice, but they're not nearly as comfortable as Amtrak.
Just how much extra cash is that comfort worth?
It's usually about $20 one-way on a bus and $100 one-way on Amtrak's Northeast Regional train. For a round trip, that's a difference of $160. If you're traveling with a partner (as I usually am), then that's a round-trip two-person cost difference of $320. I like the cafe car, but not that much. For those prices, I'll take the bus every time.
But what if the price difference were less? How much closer would it have to get for Amtrak to start looking reasonable?
It so happens that this weekend I'll be driving up to New York with family, but coming home alone and without a car. For that one-way, one-person trip, the cost difference between Amtrak ($100) and bus ($20) isn't as severe. It isn't negligible though. $80 still seems like too much, at least on my budget.
However, I'll be traveling fairly late at night, and Amtrak's night discount is bigger than Bolt's. The train I want is only $74, while the bus I want comes out to $23. That's a difference of only $51. That cafe car is looking a lot more attractive now.
After thinking about it a few minutes, I booked on Amtrak. Being able to walk around, use a nice restroom, and get food when I want was worth the extra $51 to me, but just barely. If the difference had been much more I don't think I could have justified it to myself. $30 difference: Done in a heartbeat. $60 difference: I'm not so sure.
What would you do? How much extra will you pay for the luxury of a train?
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
 | Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
Cars can be had for 20-30$ a day on the weekend rate. Weekends typically start at noon Thursday for rental companies. The more people you have the cheaper it is per person with a car.
by Pete on Aug 3, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report
Also, it's generally only a good idea if you're going round trip. The fees to drop off a rental car at a different location are often pretty high.
by BeyondDC on Aug 3, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report
by aaa on Aug 3, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report
by Eric on Aug 3, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report
To me, the time of the trip is a bigger part of the equation. The cost differential is tied not only to the amenities but the speed, as alluded to, but it isn't substantially faster at this point. For personal travel, all I need is a book and a media player, considering I can usually make myself sleep for an hour or so, therefore the bus better. For work, the train is more conducive to being productive.
by Vik on Aug 3, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report
by Anon on Aug 3, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Aug 3, 2010 3:32 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Aug 3, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report
by Cullen on Aug 3, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report
Amtrak is just an infinitely better experience (even without wifi), but the price doesn't justify it. I couldn't take my family anywhere on Amtrak. Good thing I have a car.
Oh, and I rented a car to drive from DC to Scranton, Pa. last Sunday. It cost about $160 for a one-day, one-way rental. Terrible option.
by Thrillhouse on Aug 3, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report
by Aaron on Aug 3, 2010 3:41 pm • link • report
Why is it that Amtrak charges through the nose even off-peak whereas its European Siblings apply price differentiation and yield management to the extreme.
For example I once managed to travel London to Edinburgh for 25 pounds return. ($40) No Megabus, National Express (The local Greyhound) would have swayed me. I took the train full stop.
Now for me it is easy: Bus. Yes I know it is a hassle there is not much space... But No amount of quality will change my mind.
It is well known that price, headway & time are the major factor influencing travel. Comfort and Amenities are way less important. Given that Amtrak cannot play on headway or time, they should really start getting their act together. After all the more people use train the more people are going to warm up to trains, which is in the interest of Amtrak if it wants to get more funding/ be part of the new drive for high speed rail!
by Vincent Flament on Aug 3, 2010 3:41 pm • link • report
As far as Amtrak dropping the prices, I don't know that they have much impetus because of how much of the DC-NYC travel share they currently have and how full the trains typically are. That said, I would think some specials geared at younger folks or radically dropping the prices on the less-full off-hour trains would be a smart way to dip into the Chinatown bus market.
by Steve D on Aug 3, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report
The same thing applies to the other end. Some of the buses go to Brooklyn, so if that was your destination in NYC you'd have to factor in the time it takes to get from Penn Station to Brooklyn into your train trip estimate.
Or if you live in DC's Chinatown and your destination was New York's Chinatown, then taking the Chinatown bus probably makes a lot of sense in terms of time and money.
by GraduallyGreener on Aug 3, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report
by Rob Pitingolo on Aug 3, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report
Holiday travel by bus could also be dangerous, but if you pick the times correctly it is generally smooth.
Amtrak is gearing towards business travelers, not mass transport. Given what a success it is (1/3 of trips between DC and NY on Amtrak) not sure if they should change models.
In many many third world countries bus travel is cheap and nice. Probably not safe, but long distance coaches in Mexico and Turkey offer much better experiences than the train.
by charlie on Aug 3, 2010 4:03 pm • link • report
by RideTheRails on Aug 3, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report
Are you staying inside of the city or going to other areas?
If your staying in Manhattan, or the inner parts of Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens than taking the bus or train is a good option.
If you are going to Staten Island , Nassau or Westchester counties a car might not be a bad option
by kk on Aug 3, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report
1) Train Cost: Amtrak has lowered their DC to NYC fares to $49 with 14 day advance purchase except for certain holidays. So the cost is more like $49 vs $20 for a one way trip. There are additional promotions that can impact both the price of the bus and train.
2) Bus Cost: One thing that is desperately missing from the cost in the bus is the true cost of the price of fuel. The real cost of gas is not $~3/gallon when you take into effect externalities related to the environment, military costs, etc. European countries have more appropriately priced their fuel at $6-$8/gallon roughly which would increase the bus cost to be closer to the train cost. This is one of the big limiting factors with a shift toward more trains and less buses (for common routes like DC to NY) is that fuel is not priced appropriately.
by Steve on Aug 3, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report
by Madison on Aug 3, 2010 4:21 pm • link • report
by Mike Donnelly on Aug 3, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report
Same reason I rarely drive back to Detroit: an 8-9hr drive is long and comparatively cheap(about $100 round trip), where a 1.5hr flight is short and somewhat expensive ($200-$300 round trip). The economy of scale when traveling with my family often makes the car a good option when there are 3 or 4 of us.
by dano on Aug 3, 2010 4:27 pm • link • report
by slc on Aug 3, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report
Michael: Amtrak owns the tracks on the NE Corridor, so reliability to the north is much better than it is to the south -- no need to defer to freight trains.
Re wifi: yes, Amtrak now has wifi. Not sure what took so long.
by rg on Aug 3, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report
by Steve on Aug 3, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report
The cheapest fare for tonight is $74, for the Northest Regional service, leaving DC at 8:45 and arriving at 12:10 - yikes! Who will be on that train?
by M.V. Jantzen on Aug 3, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report
by sg on Aug 3, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report
Wifi is on Acela, I don't know about the regional.
Amtrak has no real incentive to lower prices in this region due to current demand. This is probably the most market oriented pricing model in the Amtrak system.
I'm taking Amtrak to Chicago at the end of the month, $83 one way, for the 17.5 hr option. Yes that's long, but I like to consider the train as part of the destination. This intangible often convinces me to travel by train rather than bus or airline.
Between DC and NY for the holidays, the train always wins, it's so enjoyable to sit there and roll past everyone sitting in the Jersey turnpike traffic...
by S.A.M. on Aug 3, 2010 4:55 pm • link • report
by eric on Aug 3, 2010 4:56 pm • link • report
by M.V. Jantzen on Aug 3, 2010 5:02 pm • link • report
I've been on a few trains in the East and West, and noticed the trains were generally about 50% full at best. That, to me, means the pricing is way off.
It might sound conspiracy-ish, but it would be difficult, even for Amtrak I think, to maintain that extreme level of incompetence -- I suspect the fares are set so as to not compete too effectively with other modes of transport.
by Peter Smith on Aug 3, 2010 5:13 pm • link • report
Planning ahead gives cheaper prices. One-week advance goes down to $215; two-weeks ahead goes down to $146; and three or more goes down to $126.
by M.V. Jantzen on Aug 3, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report
So, if I wanna go cheap, I take the bus. The Boltbus is fine and reliable, even for a tall dude like me. If I have more money to spend, I'll fly. I will also throw in the factor of location. Trains, planes and buses do depart from different locations, and people will take the distance to their home in consideration.
This all changes when I go to Europe, especially the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK where trains are fantastic (although the UK broken up system is somewhat confusing). Distances are shorter to. Holland would fit between DC and NY for its longest length north-south).
At home (in the Netherlands), I notice a large generation gap. My parents grew up owning a car and in times when the rail network wasn't as great. My brother and me were utterly bribed into transit by getting free or heavily reduced transit when we were students. For many trips (like visiting the Tour the France in Rotterdam and Goes), I don't even consider driving, despite the modest distances from my parents' place. With the large crowd, a train is always better. Dutch railway is fabulous in that with large events, they just make every train stop at the relevant stations. By making the long-distance trains stop at those smaller stations, they can increase the capacity of a location massively, with little to no extra effort. The 3 minute "delay" that the long-distance trains get due to the extra stop is insignificant.
Back to American trains. My complaint: opaque, irregular departures and pricing. I've tried the Amtrak site a few times, and it's just too hard to figure out. Too many options. In the Netherlands, most train just ride every hour, or half hour, at fixed times, from 6am to midnight. Between "the big cities" (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht), it's every 10-12 minutes, they call it "metro-style".
The Dutch railway departure schedule is so set in stone that even now, ten years after I left the country, I can I still trust my departure times (and platforms) blindly.
Furthermore, trains are priced like the metro in DC. You pay per distance, but you can get on any train you want to. Tickets are sold on the platform from a computerized kiosk. No check in, no reservations, no luggage drop off. Just buy a ticket and get on. That's convenience.
The massive difference between the Dutch and American railways systems is that they obey different masters. The Dutch system was built for passenger service. Freight gets to squeeze between (and wait for) passenger trains. Mind ou, there is plenty of freight due to the port of Rotterdam - still the second biggest port in the world. In the US, this is exactly the opposite: freight rules, and owns the railroads. Other than building new government railroads or going communist and nationalizing the railroads, I do not see how this issue can be easily fixed in the US.
by Jasper on Aug 3, 2010 5:21 pm • link • report
At any rate, I noticed that during bad weather or high delay periods (like mid morning or mid afternoon) the train ended up being much less of a hassle than flying. During winter storms, the trains were frequently sold out, just like they were during peak rush periods.
by aaa on Aug 3, 2010 5:24 pm • link • report
Meanwhile, Megabus will cost $23, leave the 10th St Art Walk at 6:30, and arrive at 7th Ave & 28th St at 10:50(ish); 4 hours 20 min.
by M.V. Jantzen on Aug 3, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report
1.) The time difference between the bus and the train is substantial. The average regional train does it in 3:30 hours. The megabus claims 4:20. 50 minutes is a 23% increase. Usually a quarter more is substantial.
2.) Amtrak does much better than break even on the NEC. It subsidizes much of the rest of the system.
4.) Amtrak fares are based directly on the % of tickets booked (just like the bolt bus!). If it's expensive, it's because there aren't many seats left. Expensive=success.
5.) I'm not sure why we think the bus has more schedule options. Mega bus shows 15 buses in a day. Bolt bus, across a few departure/destination spots shows 12. That's 27, or a little more than 1 per hour. Amtrak shows 36 for the same exact day, or 1.5 trains per hour (every 40 minutes). How's that not straight up better, if not more comparable? There are, presumably more bus companies offering more rides, but it seems that with enough competitors that'd be easy. How many trains do we expect Amtrak to run? They may own the tracks, but last time I checked there were a few other trains that ran on the same tracks, including hundreds of NJT trains that use the same 2 tracks of tunnel into NYP.
ANYWAY! While I definitely think that the train is the way to go, there's a reason the bus is cheaper, and, like all things, you make the choice that maximizes your own personal benefit. I wouldn't pooh pooh anyone's choice, even if they're a little crazy (like driving!). I must say that I've done the train, bus, and car (never flown, but getting to the airport in NYC sucks), and generally the train is straight up the best.
by Matt on Aug 3, 2010 5:34 pm • link • report
Plus tolls & gas, etc - that's formidable. If we do a little research. Your car will get, say 35 mpg hwy. That's 6.9 gallons at 2.50 a gallon for $17.25. It's $8 for any of the tunnels/bridges to NYC. We're at $25.25. It's $2 for a baltimore tunnel, $5 for the MD toll, $4 for the DE toll, $8.70 for the NJTPK (this varies, I admit, sometimes higher, sometimes lower). That's another $19.70, so we're up to $36.95. You can fiddle with the numbers some, and I'm also not sure about sales tax on the rental, but I mean,$300 sounds fair. Even with 4 people, the train would be a better option. The big problem with all of this is that car ownership pushes people to drive. Of course the train is expensive when you're already paying thousands of dollars a year for a car.
by Matt on Aug 3, 2010 5:43 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Aug 3, 2010 6:08 pm • link • report
by charlie on Aug 3, 2010 6:13 pm • link • report
The bus works for short weekend trips at times when you don't expect traffic. Fortunately, that's been most of my trips. The train is more comfortable and the driver doesn't forget he's going to 33rd st and not downtown.
by Rich on Aug 3, 2010 7:10 pm • link • report
In my experience, Boltbus is ALWAYS the most expensive. I prefer megabus, because bigger bus = more open seats usually, but Ill take DC2NY if it's cheaper. Ive traveled many times for less than $10, and thats for the round trip.
by Bike share on Aug 3, 2010 7:15 pm • link • report
Viva La Amtrak!!
by Brigid on Aug 3, 2010 7:35 pm • link • report
You know there are other ways to get to NY from DC besides taking I-95 and the NJ Turnpike, right? Last year I drove from College Park to Middletown, CT to visit my friend in college. Went through Pennsylvania along I-83, I-81, I-78, etc. Total cost from tolls? $5 and that was from crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge once.
If you have a little time on your hands you don't HAVE to let the toll authorities of MD, DE, NJ and NY rape you.
by Reza on Aug 3, 2010 8:20 pm • link • report
All I have to say is be glad the distance from DC to NYC is short enough that you get to choose between train and bus. Out here between LA and SF the question is "drive or fly?"
by Chris Loos on Aug 3, 2010 8:29 pm • link • report
by Steve on Aug 3, 2010 8:52 pm • link • report
We're hanging in there. Unfortunately NIMBY communities along the HSR right-of-way are in full litigation mode. Suprisingly, they're mostly up by SF and not here in SoCal. Progressive my ass.
Also, governor candidate Meg Whitman has come out against HSR. So if she wins, it could be a disaster. We shall see.
by Chris Loos on Aug 3, 2010 9:28 pm • link • report
Remember though that Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor (DC-Balt-Phil-NYC-Boston) is one thing, and Amtrak everywhere else is totally different in terms of convenience, speed, and *especially* on-time performance which is horrible on many routes. For example, it takes the same time to travel to NYC from DC as it does to Richmond...seriously. High-speed trains in general are really only practical as a primary mode of transportation in densely populated regions such as the Bos-Was Northeast, South/Central Florida, or the California coast. Trains everywhere else in this country such as Amtrak's DC-Chicago Capitol Ltd. are for tourists or people who live in small towns along the route far from major airports.
by King Terrapin on Aug 3, 2010 9:39 pm • link • report
one thing that hasn't been mentioned: theft. on amtrak, people are constantly getting on and off, and can move freely from one car to another. i've seen both pickpockets and larger scale theft of bags on amtrak. much harder to do on the bus.
by AJ on Aug 4, 2010 7:04 am • link • report
Of course, 2 of the 3 trips back to DC were on the Sunday after Christmas and had issues (one was a pre-double decker Megabus that was governed to 50mph, another was a Boltbus that was in an 8 mile backup in Delaware). Maybe this year I will take the train back.
by Jason on Aug 4, 2010 9:06 am • link • report
So while the total travel time (including getting to the airport/security (which is really an non issue at BWI or DCA) may be the same as taking the train, it is the savings at the other end of the flight that makes it an advantage over driving, the bus, or the train.
by Matt on Aug 4, 2010 9:07 am • link • report
Jasper: Waar komt u uit Nederlands? Mijn vader komt uit naar Sneek.
by Boots on Aug 4, 2010 9:07 am • link • report
by anon on Aug 4, 2010 9:12 am • link • report
The typical cars, in my opinion, provide rather comparable comfort to that of a bus, other than that instead of getting up & touring the length of the train you can only get up & walk the length of the bus.
I was an ardent Amtrak Regional rider up until I took my first trip on Bolt Bus, and with much regret I've since become a bus rider. When I can get comparble seats, power ports (which are also infrequent on trains outside of dining cars), and wifi (a gift only to Acela)... it's increasingly tough to justify spending more so I can get less.
Amtrak's major gain is in increased reliability... sure, it's not perfect; but of course buses get stuck in traffic, too. So far the only reason left I'll take Amtrak is if I need to get to NYC during the AM or PM peaks; or perhaps if I'm catching a flight at Newark.
If I'm headed to Canada, bus definitely wins. I took the Adirondack once and it felt like I was rolling downhill through the entire state... a beautiful ride, but it was the border which convinced me: it's one thing to wait as an officer checks your car, not too bad to wait as officers check a bus, but checking a whole train feels like forever. Though seeing some fellow passengers get ejected at the border was somewhat entertaining. Plus I like German Shepherd Dogs.
If headed to Philly: I drive, but that's solely because it's where I grew up & know my way around. Parking is easy if you know where to go, and my neighborhood cheesesteak place isn't particularly transit-proximate. That last reason is actually the real reason why I drive to Philly. Mmm... Dalessandro's.
I'd absolutely love to ride Amtrak more frequently, it's kind of sad that an arguably more efficient form of transportation ends up being considerably more expensive & is unable to provide comparable amenities. Granted, when buses have so little overhead... I suppose it makes some sense.
by Bossi on Aug 4, 2010 9:33 am • link • report
by Jasper on Aug 4, 2010 9:33 am • link • report
by RagingBoehner on Aug 4, 2010 10:36 am • link • report
Last two times I've gone there, I've done WAS-MET up and SIR-Ferry-Subway-Boltbus back. Latter is far cheaper but has a lot more drama.
by Jason on Aug 4, 2010 10:36 am • link • report
The unreserved train to NYC is fairly cheap. But because it's an unreserved train, unless you spring for business class, you'll find people standing in the aisles after a couple of stops. That's how high the demand is.
As Matt mentioned, the NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak. it's the only money maker. It's also the only tracks Amtrak owns. the delays in the rest of country come because freight trains get priority over passenger trains and in essence, kick the passenger train off the tracks for a few minutes. Multiply that by several freight trains and you end up with delays lasting from an hour to 8 (trust me, don't take Amtrak from SF to LA).
by lou on Aug 4, 2010 11:03 am • link • report
From a copy of Amtrak's press release at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/t-415658.html:
"The new all-reserved service ensures every passenger a seat every time they board a Regional train"
by Steve on Aug 4, 2010 11:06 am • link • report
@Bossi- Dalessandro's rocks. I was there a few weeks ago with some friends from East Falls.
by merarch on Aug 4, 2010 11:40 am • link • report
As a rule, don't purchase a ticket coming from or going to south of Washington, they are almost always late due to freight railroad issues.
by Randall Myers on Aug 4, 2010 11:43 am • link • report
Last year, when I was just as strapped for time as I am for cash, I ended up flying round trip to DC because it was less than the train by $40! That is insane--it clearly indicates all that is wrong with our transportation system.
I don't know the NE Regional is so much more expensive than the trains on the West Coast.
by David P. on Aug 4, 2010 12:02 pm • link • report
by Matthew Bryant on Aug 4, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report
by Francis DeBernardo on Aug 4, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report
If you had a 1% cash back card, you would only get $30 for doing that. Some cards give more for certain categories of spending, but most likely you'd only get at most about $50 for the $3,000 of spending. Therefore, one-way tickets with miles accrued through the card basically cost you $30-50.
You can book the award tickets up to the last minute as long as the train isn't completely full — none of the capacity controls that airlines use.
I always travel DC-NYC via train and always use miles. Basically, it costs me $30-50 one way every time even last minute. That makes it a good deal.
by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report
by Ralph on Aug 4, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report
As has been mentioned by others, if you join Amtrak's frequesnt rider program, Guest Rewards and you use an Amtrak Chase Mastercard to buy your tickets, you lower your net cost below $49.
You can also get a 10% fare discount on Regional when you join the National Association of Railroad Passengers (www.narprail.org) and buy your ticket 3 days in advance. That discount is not available on the $49 fare but you can use it to lower the cost of traveling on Friday and Sunday.
My riding experience -- Amtrak is frequently 20 minutes late but very rarely more than one hour late.
by Steve Strauss on Aug 4, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report
NikolasM above has it right: the NE corridor is Amtrak's cash cow. So the guiding principle is not "how do we make environmentally friendly, comfortable travel between NE cities available to as many people as possible?" (as it should be for a government service) it's "how do we squeeze the NE business travelers to subsidize unprofitable routes from Montana to Chicago?"
by Erica on Aug 4, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report
Amtrak barely has the available funds to maintain its existing fleet and infrastructure, and has not had the resources to pour into purchasing new railcars for more frequent and/or longer trains. Transit systems like WMATA that face growing ridership have responded by increasing service frequency and lengthening trains (the results of this increase in service have stretched the capacity of WMATA to the breaking point, but that's another discussion). If WMATA were like Amtrak, there'd be about a third as many railcars available, they'd all be ancient 1000 series, and fares would be sky-high (think in the range of $10 per trip) in order to _discourage_ ridership.
Commuter rail agencies like MARC and NJ Transit bought new cars to respond to increasing ridership. Amtrak decided instead to charge more money for scarce seats. Also, Amtrak does own double-decker Superliner cars, but these are too tall for the ancient and decrepit Baltimore tunnel. The newer gallery cars run by MARC, obviously, do fit in the tunnel.
On holiday weekends when trains generally sell out fast, Amtrak charges even more money, and generally doesn't add more cars to trains (as they don't have many to spare).
Think about how many more people would want to ride the train if tickets cost $32 one way instead of $88. Amtrak can't handle that many new riders, so they charge $88.
by RK on Aug 4, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report
1) Cost: it's effectively gas & tolls. Instant winner (unless you're alone, when a bus will be slightly cheaper).
2) Speed: Train wins, but when you add the overhead of getting to the train station and getting to your final destination, it might be a tossup.
3) Traffic: Can kill your trip time in a car, but also affects bus trip time just the same.
So what about parking? This seems to be the big downside people mention for cars.
Here's the thing about parking in NYC. Non-metered parking is not regulated except for street sweeping. Depending on your destination, it can be very easy, and once you find a spot, you're good until the next street sweeping which will generally get you through a weekend and then some.
I have made many car trips to manhattan (destination: upper west side) and never had to look for parking for more than 10 or 20 minutes. While that might be annoying if I was going home after a day of work, it's nothing when I plan to dump my car there for the weekend.
It's harder in areas south of Central Park, but still doable. And you can always park wherever, and take the subway to your ultimate destination. I've done this too.
The bottom line is, the train is insanely overpriced, and the bus is barely cheaper than driving alone and much less comfortable/flexible.
The reality is that driving makes sense most of the time. I've driven to NYC dozens of times and never had any experience bad enough to make me consider another way, given it's also about tied for the cheapest.
by Jamie on Aug 4, 2010 3:17 pm • link • report
The reason Amtrak's time is good on the Bos-Wash corridor is because they own the tracks. They don't own the tracks for the rest of the system and often have to wait on a spur for freight trains to pass. Most Amtrak delays have nothing to do with Amtrak.
by beatbox on Aug 4, 2010 3:20 pm • link • report
by beatbox on Aug 4, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report
by Steve S on Aug 4, 2010 3:40 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Aug 4, 2010 4:20 pm • link • report
The train almost always wins hands down for me. If you travel at off-peak times, the tickets are reliably $74 each way DC-NYC and return. Yes, this usually means taking a cab home from Union Station for me, but I live in NE, so that's really only about $10, and I typically travel with a friend, so that lowers the price even more. Add in my AAA discount (10%) and my round-trip cost runs about $140. Taking the 5:30 AM (Friday) train out and the 10 PM train back rocks, too, because Amtrak is so comfy, it's so easy to sleep, and you get a little more time on your NY weekend! Plus, you get on at Union Station and off at Penn Station, which for me is extremely convenient.
I'm kinda upset they raised the price on my other option...you used to be able to get the U.S. Air shuttle from DCA-LGA for $64 each way. Yeah, yeah, wait at the airport, security, blah, blah. All tolled my travel usually totaled about 2:30, which beats even the train by almost an hour, and often featured the River Visual approach. Stupid price increases. :(
by Ms. D on Aug 5, 2010 1:15 am • link • report
The former reason is why MARC doesn't use electric locomotives outside of rush hours, the MBTA never got electric locomotives for Boston-Providence service, and why NJ Transit's ACES often switches to diesel as soon as they can.
by Jason on Aug 5, 2010 9:28 am • link • report
I love trains, I really do. But there is no reason to run a train from Los Angeles to New Orleans when each passenger is subsized in the amount of $462 (the worst performing route). You might as well just buy every single passenger a plane ticket instead and save money and probably the environment too.
Imagine if all those subsidies went to routes that were used by a significant number of people, instead of ferrying a handful of luddites on impractical, little-used, multi-day routes? There's no reason to run trains thousands of miles with few passengers.
I don't think Amtrak needs to make money, but we do need to think about which routes are just totally pointless, when you could actually put someone on a plane for less money than the subsidy alone. That money would be far better spent on lowering prices in heavily-traveled areas where we could see a benefit by bringing the price point down and getting a lot more people out of cars.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm
by Jamie on Aug 5, 2010 9:40 am • link • report
But, before anyone definitively decides on driving for their next trip, they need to make sure they think about the TRUE cost of driving. Everyone thinks about gas and tolls, and most people remember to think about cost of parking in NYC, but very few people remember that your car adds on miles and depreciates in value when you drive. AAA publishes a guide every year on the "true" cost of driving. When I've done calcs based on my '07 Hyundai, I've found that generally the "true" cost of driving is at least double what the cost is for gas alone.
Not to mention, longer trip times = more time spent on food and coffee during the trip.
I travel from Richmond, VA (where I live) to Wilmington, DE (where my parents live) quite often, and I use Amtrak whenever possible. It is often late but very rarely more than 1/2 hour delayed. Compare that with I-95 in Northern Virginia which is a mess 12 hours of the day, not to mention I-95 north of Baltimore and into DE.
Also, my only bus experience is with Greyhound, but I found their customer service to be absolutely abysmal (and their website is awful). In contrast, I'd say at least 95% of the Amtrak employees I've encountered seem genuinely personable, friendly, and helpful.
I do agree that it is dumb of Amtrak not to offer WiFi on all their trains. Just based on how cheap it was for me to create a WiFi hotspot in my home, I can't imagine it'd be a humongous cost for Amtrak to do the same thing on all their trains.
by Marc on Aug 5, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report
Just a couple things to add on:
I agree that longer trips drive up costs for food, but pretty much all modes between DC & NYC tend to be pretty comparable time-wise. In that sense, I probably eat most on trains simply because I usually plop myself in the dining car & food is so handy. Whereas when I drive, I don't stop; and likewise the express buses don't, either.
w/ Greyhound, my only experience has been with Bolt & I've found their customer service to be great. Agreed with Amtrak 100% -- they've always been helpful, and I even outright missed a train and they still gave me a full refund. I certainly wasn't seriously expecting one when I strolled up to the ticket window.
As for wifi, keep in mind that a personal network isn't moving & also has far fewer security controls than a service on public transit would have. While I certainly pine for wifi on trains & it's absolutely something that is not a particularly major technical hurdle, I'll condede it's certainly more difficult than setting up a network at home. ...Though sometimes setting up a network at home can also be excruciatingly difficult :)
by Bossi on Aug 5, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report
It's a mistake to think of the national network trains as primarily running from the start to the end, or that you could just replace the service by buying every passenger a plane ticket. A single national network train serves hundreds of city pairs! I did the calculation once for the Empire Builder, which is Chicago to Portland (OR) and Seattle, and I counted 999 possible city pairs. You can't replace all those trips with airplane trips. There's a broad spectrum of trip lengths, from a few hundred to nearly two thousand miles.
And as for Amtrak in general--the trains I've managed to ride, both NE Corridor and National Network--appear to be filled up, even at the prices Amtrak charges. If they're at capacity, there's no need reason to lower prices, because they can't sell much more of their service.
by thm on Aug 5, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report
If you are going to New York in the winter or over holidays take the train. The city gets so busy it can take a long time just to go around the block. We went up for the Dec 18th storm and glad we took a train. On the way home we were able to get on a train we weren't booked on and got home within an hour of the scheduled time. Not happening on a bus or a plane.
For the plane you have to add in the extra time you need to be at the airport and the time you sit on the tarmac. My husband used to commute to NYC and could sit on the runway for an hour or two especially on a Friday night. And forget if a storm came through. Plus once you get to NYC you have a $30 or more cab ride into the city.
Those cheap train tickets are not just early in the morning or late at night. I have checked and found them throughout the day as long as you plan well enough in advance.
So the train gets my vote.
by Stephanie on Aug 5, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report
I realize the losses aren't going to be that much for most passenger-trips, the plane ticket thing was just to emphasize the point.
But on lesser-used routes, the cost of running trains is far more expensive than buses would be. You can definitely replace all those trips with bus tickets.
The question is, why should we be heavily subsidizing trips on lesser-used routes (e.g. the Texas Eagle, that is 2/3 subsidized) instead of just running buses instead? Wouldn't we get a lot more bang for our buck (as a nation) by putting that subsidy money into routes that people actually might use? Wouldn't we get a lot more people out of cars and into trains if it was remotely cost-effective to take the train to Philly or New York?
It's not like traffic is a major problem between (e.g.) Chicago and San Antonio. What is the real benefit to society in offering one money-hemmhoraging train per day on a little-used route?
That train ticket cost 230 bucks and is subsidized 66%. That bus ticket costs between 120 and 150 bucks, and obviously is not subsidized.
The bus actually gets you there about 8 hours sooner, too.
While any sane person would fly, the fare math is just the same (proportionally) for all the short trips in between. The bus is always cheaper, and Greyhound is a for-profit operation.
While I believe in the benefits of train travel, in the big picture, unless the route is popular enough, is it really money well spent? It's not like there's no alternative. There is a cheaper alternative (the bus) and there's a faster alternative (the plane).
by Jamie on Aug 5, 2010 4:14 pm • link • report
Coming back was a tough call, though. I knew it would take longer on Sunday afternoon on the bus, but the train fare is during peak fare times. Paying for the train would cost us $444.50. That is a lot of dough compared to the $100 or $120 we could get for the bus fare.
I had accumulated enough Amtrak miles for almost two tickets, so I bought enough miles for three tickets total (Amtrak was offering a special 30% bonus on purchased miles). In the process I learned that it would actually be cheaper to buy the miles and then convert them to a ticket than to buy a child's ticket for my daughter. So I did that, and we were done.
Total return cost: all my accumulated miles + about $138 to buy more miles.
However the train had a long delay--which is typical, so we didn't save much time over the bus. Then there was an enormous line for taxis at Union Station.
by Steve O on Aug 5, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Aug 5, 2010 7:01 pm • link • report
by Steve on Aug 5, 2010 7:54 pm • link • report
Who do you think paid for the tracks the train travels on? Yes, the entire world is subsidized. It's called taxes.
Now once we've established that, the trains enjoy a much more significant subsidy per passenger mile than the buses do.
"Cheap gas"
Most U.S. trains run on deisel, you know, same as buses.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 7:39 am • link • report
Trains are not a solution to every transit need in this country, and if you really believe they are then you are a fool. Isn't it possible that some of our existing, less-used Amtrak lines would be better served with buses? If you disagree, then do you favor building more long-distance lines until the country has a train in every podunk town?
The Chicago-San Antonio route had 251,000 riders last year. That is 680 passengers a day on average.
The New Jersey Turnpike, on the other hand, serves 200,000 cars per day between exit 11 and exit 14.
You really think that a few greyhound buses, that instead of running once a day could serve the demand of specific parts of that route better, would not be a better use of energy and resources? Those buses already exist, of course, and probably aren't full. Nor is the train, obviously.
My point is that we would do far better to spend money lowering the fares in places where there is a much higher demand for transit, providing a better disincentive against driving, than in providing heavily-subsidized, yet exquisite, transit options in little-used routes.
The same money that is spent subsidizing those 250,000 passengers a year out would probably get far more people per year into trains somewhere else.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 7:56 am • link • report
I agree with Jamie that if we look at what we have now, then we can do better by tweaking it one way or another. What I think I and many others would prefer to see, though, is a much, much larger vision. Unfortunately, the U. S. gets so bogged down in analysis that they lose the forest for the trees (case in point--Tyson's non-tunnel). We are incapable of thinking big when it comes to re-imagining our transportation system.
by Steve O on Aug 6, 2010 9:02 am • link • report
"We are incapable of thinking big when it comes to re-imagining our transportation system."
I agree, but I think the mistakes have to do with planning in urban centers, not cross-country transit.
People love to compare us to Europe, how you can go everywhere on a train there. But the population density of most of Europe is three times that of the United States. China, also, despite being huge, is four times as densely populated as the U.S.
What works well in places like that may not be the best solution for every need here.
At the same time, I very much believe we should be making similar investments in parts of this country that do have heavy transit corridors and dense populations, such as much of the East and West coasts, as well as urban transit systems. We do a very poor job of planning for population growth and as a result our transit systems are always strained and struggling to keep up with demand, and the constant construction (and high prices) makes people less interested in using them.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 9:12 am • link • report
Just returning from Spain, with its 46 million people. I suspect its size and density is roughly similar to 8-10 states on the East Coast. They are adding to their high-speed rail network every year, which already kicks our butt. And supposedly they are an almost bankrupt country. Frankly, it was embarrassing to make the comparison.
by Steve O on Aug 6, 2010 9:30 am • link • report
It just comes down to costs and benefits, though. You will never get any substantial number of people on those trains if it costs a lot more than a plane ticket, and takes a lot longer. But if the time is not too much worse than flying (which is possible for routes up to a certain distance, probably around 1000 miles) then you'll get people willing to pay more than a plane. Or if the cost is not too much more than driving, you'll get people out of their cars.
The success of Acela is exactly that. People are willing to pay more for a better way to travel. I will sometimes pay substantially more to fly out of National, for example. An under 3-hour train trip to NYC with no airport hassle involved is a far better option than a plane or driving... but it's FAR more expensive than any other option, meaning it's mostly used for business travelers.
We should be heavily subsidizing train routes where the amount of traffic exists to make it have a real impact on reducing auto and airline traffic, and the subsidies needed obviously decrease dramatically as usage increases.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 9:36 am • link • report
That's a good point, but it's a hard comparison to make. While I bet it's true that Americans "travel" a lot more, generally, because we mostly have cars, I bet that Chinese take far more trips using non-private transportation than Americans do.
That is, most Americans don't even think about not driving for any trip under 3-4 hours. That's not an option for most Chinese. So while they may have fewer overall trips, every single one will be on a train or bus for most Chinese.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 9:39 am • link • report
If we were to instead imagine an America in which only 50% of trips were made with cars, what would our transportation system look like then? (and our cities/towns) And if we can imagine that in, say 40 or 50 years, then what investments do we make starting now to make that vision a reality? If we make only minor changes on the margin, then the results will be minor gains on the margin. If we wait until people stop driving their cars to give them a better alternative, then we will be waiting a long time.
And back to the China/US comparison. Americans travel about 600 billion passenger miles per year by air. I couldn't find a complete number for China, but their top three airlines fly about 180 billion passenger miles (U.S. top 3 fly about 300 billion domestically). If HSR is mostly a replacement for air travel, then it would appear the US has at least as much existing demand as China does.
by Steve O on Aug 6, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report
You need a certain critical mass to make trains the right option. China and Europe have 3-4 times our density, and further, their population is less concentrated in urban centers like ours is.
You have to draw the line somewhere. If there just aren't enough people making trips between certain points, then trains don't make sense.
I think where the U.S. is on that is that we have too many trains serving some routes (long haul Amtrak lines) and not enough serving other routes (shorter trips serving population centers).
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
You're correct, that we need to think ahead. I think this is not just a how can / should we serve transportation needs with the existing living patterns, but how should we serve transportation needs. Planes are good for longer distance but should be basically barred from local service. The NY airports would be much less crowded if they didn't have flights from DC and Boston flying into them. Then we also need good train connections to our airports. CDG in Paris is a TGV station at the airport. Newark airport has a train station with Amtrak, but that is not true of most other airports.
Encouraging higher density pods would make pod to pod transportation economic. Smaller regional areas should have train stations that take you to make regional areas for flying. Medium size cities should not have tiny regional airports, but rather train service every hour or two to large cities with direct service to their large airports for longer distance travel. The US has a problems not in that we have a large countries but that we are not concentrated in close pods of density.
by Steve on Aug 6, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
That's when the car was invented. We quadrupled in size in the last hundred years, and we're still only 1/3 the population density of Europe which has less than doubled in population. Put another way, our population density is today less than half of what Europe's was 100 years ago -- and far more centralized.
You can't blame us for not being forward thinking when we were facing a completely different situation as those two countries. Europe, which industrialized around the same time we did, clearly had a population distribution that made extensive train service sensible in the 1900's. China is only just industrializing in the last few decades and has a totally different economy and government. Apart from the fact that cars are unaffordable to most Chinese, they have the benefit of 100 years of Western industrializing history to help guide them now.
The question is where do we go from here? I think we need to forget about long-haul trains, and focus our effort on the coasts (mostly) where the population density makes rail transit desirable and cost effective.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
I have mixed feelings about shifting subsidies from slow routes to popular routes. Clearly the NEC needs more capacity. However, the slow routes all over the country need to be upgraded rather than eliminated. How did the railroads that built them manage to be profitable for so long (before they went under and freight took over)?
An idea that has been mentioned before is making it easier for competing carriers to operate on the same rails. Would this work to increase capacity on the NEC? Perhaps rail corridors should be subsidized similarly to roads and barriers to entry lowered for rail carriers.
by Matthias on Aug 6, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
That's easy.
There were no interstates or jet planes.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 4:14 pm • link • report
Increasingly stringent federal regulation also had a strong hand in the demise of the railroad era.
by Bossi on Aug 6, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report
WiFi: As noted, the Acelas and the major stations on the NEC now have free WiFi. Amtrak has announced that they will be adding WiFi to all their trains with the various California corridor and the NEC Regional trains next up to get WiFi. Not clear when, the press release several months ago stated work would be starting this fall. Figure the Regionals will get WiFi by early next year.
Power: Amtrak has been adding power outlets to all their coach cars when the cars come in for overhaul. All of the Amfleets I have encountered on a number of trips on the NEC over the past 18 months have had power outlets at each seat in coach.
Electrification: The NEC segment from new Haven to Boston was electrified (ir overhead catenary) around 10 years ago. Prior to that, Amtrak had to switch to diesels north of New Haven. MBTA likely does not run electric locomotives on the their commuter part of the NEC because the rest of their commuter system is diesel powered and not worth it to them to get electric engines for only one of their lines. On electric vs diesel costs, don't know the relative Amtrak numbers for electric vs fuel costs, but some of the power for the lower part of the NEC has been "green" since Penn railroad electrified it because it comes from dedicated 25 Hz generators at the Safe Harbor & Conowingo dams. The electric engines can also capture energy from regenerative braking and put it back on the overhead catenary.
Population density of US versus Europe: I don't have numbers handy, but if you remove the Rocky Mountain states, the Dakotas, New Mexico, and the western part of Texas for the Continental US, I suspect the population density of the US gets a lot closer to Europe, even with the population of CA, OR, WA mostly concentrated to the coastal area and the central valley in CA. The rest of the US is where it make sense to build HSR or improved intercity rail with several somewhat higher speed lines on freight lines connecting the mid-West & Texas to the west coast through the larger cities in CO, NM & AZ. The USA with a population of over 300 million is no longer a sparsely populated country except in the open ranges of the west.
As for the question of this thread, my choice when traveling DC to NYC is Amtrak. Faster and more comfortable than the bus and more reliable. If Amtrak can get the modest level of funding they need to replace old bridges & tunnels, fix bottlenecks on the NEC, the longer term goal for travel times for the Acela class train is 2:30 and then 2:15 (in twenty years using Amtrak slow incremental we have to beg for funding approach to get the NEC up to a state of good repair). A 2:15 travel time for a premium priced train and a sub 3 hour travel time for a Regional train will take business away from the airlines, more people switching away from driving, and probably the buses, although the buses will continue to be the cheapest transit alternative.
by AMF on Aug 6, 2010 4:32 pm • link • report
Well, true, I mean everything costs a lot more than it did back then (even in adjusted dollars). I mean, the Hoover Dam was built for $49 million dollars - in today's equivalent dollars, $750 mil. Not even half a streetcar system!
On the other hand, hundreds of people were killed in its construction and the result is considered an environmental catastrophe by some.
Sure, there's a huge cost to federal regulations on massive public works projects, but there's also huge benefits. I'm glad things are not done that way any more.
by Jamie on Aug 6, 2010 4:34 pm • link • report
"the longer term goal for travel times for the Acela class train is 2:30 and then 2:15 (in twenty years using Amtrak slow incremental we have to beg for funding approach to get the NEC up to a state of good repair)."
Last month I traveled from Madrid to Barcelona--386 miles--in 2 hours 38 minutes. It's sad that maybe in 20 years we'll be able to travel 250 miles in 2:15. And, I might add, in a corridor that has bigger cities and is considerably more dense than Madrid-Barcelona.
by Steve O on Aug 6, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report
The train is generally a time saver around the holidays, however, because it doesn't have to deal with a five mile backup at the toll booth at the end of the Jersey Turnpike. And the train shines in bad winter weather.
By the by, the DC2Rehoboth service has been a success so far, according to what a bus company official told me today. He said it has actually turned a profit in its first year, and that a large percentage of its riders do day trips...
going up early Saturday morning and coming back Saturday night. Because it can take the bus lane, it's MUCH faster than waiting hours at the Bay Bridge. He claims it's barely over two hours, real time from DC to the Beach.
by Mike S. on Aug 6, 2010 7:37 pm • link • report
A one-way Northeast Regional trip from Washington to New York can often be had for $49, but only if travel is booked fifteen days or more in advance. Also keep in mind that, unlike the airlines and bus companies, an Amtrak reservation can be canceled up to the time of departure for a full refund, and can generally be modified without penalty. So if you think you're likely to travel on a certain date more than 14 days in the future, go ahead and make a reservation to get the lowest fare. You can always cancel later.
Particularly in the Northeast Corridor, the train is also environmentally superior. For one thing, the railroad is electrified, allowing emissions to be contained at the power plant, and permitting an easier switch to renewable electricity sources. Also, if fewer people ride trains, there will still be a similar number of trains operating, but if fewer people ride buses, there won't be as many buses on the road.
The National Association of Railroad Passengers is addressing the issue of high fares with Congress and with Amtrak management. In the long term, the key to lowering fares is increasing capacity, thereby spreading out the high fixed costs inherent in railroading over more passengers. If you want to be a part of our movement to improve the quality and quantity of American train travel, please join us.
by Malcolm Kenton on Aug 9, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report
For the extra money you save a little time in transit, and likely some stress over being on the public roads. At peak bus times in NYC (at least on Bolt and MegaBus' stop at Madison Sq. Garden) there is often a crush of people waiting for their bus. When traffic delays the arriving buses it can mean tacking on minutes or hours of waiting for the bus to arrive. This can add to the overall stress of taking the bus, as well.
Other considerations: Sometimes the train is late/breaks down, and there's no wi-fi on the non-Acela trains.
by Fabian on Aug 10, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report
Add a Comment