3 ms·

Travel time to/from the station only matters if you're closer to the rail station than the airport. As for time to fly, I've made the trip between various airpo

by dwg 9y ago

Travel time to/from the station only matters if you're closer to the rail station than the airport. As for time to fly, I've made the trip between various airports (SFO, OAK, SMF) and LAX via Southwest many times. I try to arrive about 45 minutes prior to take off and so the whole trip takes about 2 hours. Even adding time to wait for a checked bag would probably still be faster than the high speed train.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Keep in mind airline miles. I take the shuttle out of LGA to D.C. over the Amtrak. The shuttle is cheaper and I get the comfort of earning miles. I've already invested into making flying comfortable. Lounge-access credit cards, Global Entry (which grants TSA Pre-check), upgrade-giving status, et cetera. I'd need trip time or cost cut in half relative to air travel to make switching worth it. I'm not the median consumer. But weighted by likely usage, I'm closer to the average.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I optimize miles too but, for short distances, it's mostly not worth it. For Boston to NY I essentially always take the train which is more comfortable if not necessarily faster. And Amtrak points are probably actually more useful for me in general than airline points. I'd get 500 points on United and use of the lounge but, really, that's not worth a whole lot. Amtrak is already basically as comfortable as an airline upgrade--which is hard to get on a weekday peak travel slot.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Keep in mind airline miles. I take the shuttle out of LGA to D.C. over the Amtrak. Anecdotally: people where I work do a lot of traveling between our NYC and DC offices. Only one person flies rather than taking Amtrak...
  - tootie 9y ago
    I did a bunch of trips recently. Flying is usually faster and cheaper, but more likely to go awry. Taxis to airports can vary widely in speed and cost. Flights can be delayed, security lines, etc. Train is easy, consistent and comfortable. Always power, Wi-Fi and cell signal too.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Train is easy, consistent and comfortable Fair enough. I'm an infrequent NYC-DC commuter. And my preferred mode to JFK from the city is via the LIRR, a rail route. It takes longer, most of the time, but less time on average. Most importantly: it's consistent.
- dwg 9y ago
  Of course it's all just going to depend on your situation: * How often you travel * How much you will be able to take advantage of perks * How close you are to various terminals/airports * How far you regularly need to go * How you like to travel (fast & cramped, slow & spacious) etc.
inferiorhuman 9y ago
At least at the San Francisco end, the terminus is in the heart of downtown San Francisco near a bunch of major transi tlines. SFO is 45+ minutes away via BART (OAK is a little closer, SJC is way further away). SFO via car is going to be highly variable, less than 45 minutes best case, but worse in traffic. Additionally there's the problem of airport expansion. There aren't a lot of palatable options as filling in the bay is (rightfully) a non-starter for most people. High speed rail wouldn't replace air travel but it would complement it (especially with the related regional improvements like electrifying Caltrain).
- dwg 9y ago
  Yeah I see no problem with more choices if they make sense. My reply was in refutation to the point that flying is not faster than high speed rail because of time needed at airport, which is not my experience. Since travel time to/from the station/airport depends on the situation, it doesn't make sense to include it in a general statement (to which I was replying).

by dwg 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Keep in mind airline miles. I take the shuttle out of LGA to D.C. over the Amtrak. The shuttle is cheaper and I get the comfort of earning miles. I've already invested into making flying comfortable. Lounge-access credit cards, Global Entry (which grants TSA Pre-check), upgrade-giving status, et cetera. I'd need trip time or cost cut in half relative to air travel to make switching worth it. I'm not the median consumer. But weighted by likely usage, I'm closer to the average.

ghaff 9y ago
I optimize miles too but, for short distances, it's mostly not worth it. For Boston to NY I essentially always take the train which is more comfortable if not necessarily faster. And Amtrak points are probably actually more useful for me in general than airline points. I'd get 500 points on United and use of the lounge but, really, that's not worth a whole lot. Amtrak is already basically as comfortable as an airline upgrade--which is hard to get on a weekday peak travel slot.
rayiner 9y ago
> Keep in mind airline miles. I take the shuttle out of LGA to D.C. over the Amtrak. Anecdotally: people where I work do a lot of traveling between our NYC and DC offices. Only one person flies rather than taking Amtrak...
- tootie 9y ago
  I did a bunch of trips recently. Flying is usually faster and cheaper, but more likely to go awry. Taxis to airports can vary widely in speed and cost. Flights can be delayed, security lines, etc. Train is easy, consistent and comfortable. Always power, Wi-Fi and cell signal too.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Train is easy, consistent and comfortable Fair enough. I'm an infrequent NYC-DC commuter. And my preferred mode to JFK from the city is via the LIRR, a rail route. It takes longer, most of the time, but less time on average. Most importantly: it's consistent.
dwg 9y ago
Of course it's all just going to depend on your situation: * How often you travel * How much you will be able to take advantage of perks * How close you are to various terminals/airports * How far you regularly need to go * How you like to travel (fast & cramped, slow & spacious) etc.

inferiorhuman 9y ago

At least at the San Francisco end, the terminus is in the heart of downtown San Francisco near a bunch of major transi tlines. SFO is 45+ minutes away via BART (OAK is a little closer, SJC is way further away). SFO via car is going to be highly variable, less than 45 minutes best case, but worse in traffic. Additionally there's the problem of airport expansion. There aren't a lot of palatable options as filling in the bay is (rightfully) a non-starter for most people. High speed rail wouldn't replace air travel but it would complement it (especially with the related regional improvements like electrifying Caltrain).

dwg 9y ago
Yeah I see no problem with more choices if they make sense. My reply was in refutation to the point that flying is not faster than high speed rail because of time needed at airport, which is not my experience. Since travel time to/from the station/airport depends on the situation, it doesn't make sense to include it in a general statement (to which I was replying).