There is a “fly or drive” Web tool at BeFrugal.com that helps make specific comparisons easier, even by way of providing an estimate of the environmental effect of flying versus driving on a specific trip. I found it useful, if not entirely accurate.
After I typed in my trip itinerary details, the fly-or-drive calculator estimated that flying would cost $752.39 and that the trip would take four and a half hours each way. The cost included $229.40 for round-trip airfare, $50 for checking a bag both ways, $350 for car rental for my four-day trip, $120 for airport parking in Tucson, and a few incidentals.
That was a bit high. My actual airfare was $275 on Southwest, which does not charge for a checked bag. At Los Angeles International Airport, my Avis rental car — which turned out to be an upgrade to a totally age-inappropriate fire engine red Mustang, was about $175, not including gas. And long-term parking at the Tucson airport is cheap, $3.99 a day in a private lot with five-minute shuttle service to the terminal. From my home in Arizona to the hotel in Long Beach, the actual trip took five hours
In the Corridor markets where Amtrak can be considered a transportation resource (sorry volks, the LD's simply are not), that tool's value would surely be enhanced if they were included.
Finally, let it be noted that Mr. Sharkey is not a "train hater", as the subject of one of his recent columns was a "trip report' of a Tampa to New York ride he took aboard the Silver Star.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
A bit gimmicky really. The website obviously has no concept of airline schedules and pricing varies wildly. Airlines don't fly very short distances on the mainland, and not many people drive very long distances. So one can only compare middle distance - which is where most intercity rail sits. So yes, I think it could be useful if trains were included, but to be *really* useful then it needs to consider airline schedules and rail schedules - as an option for the user.
posted