Why I Take Amtrak Instead of Flying (Most of The Time)
This article is biased. I love passenger rail and trains. I think they’re cool. I think high-speed trains are cool. And I know we need more of them to protect our environment instead of continuing to destroy it.
If you fly, it’s the most emission-intensive thing you do.
According to this European Union statistic, “Someone flying from Lisbon to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year.”
Further, as I learned in Flying Green: On The Frontiers of Aviation, we’re nowhere near being able to make flying less environmentally destructive.
Many of Amtrak’s trains are electric, and even the diesel routes are nowhere near as bad as flying. I’ll dissect this later in the article.
I believe that Amtrak is superior to short flights in many circumstances. I think most people underestimate the upsides of the train and the downsides of flying.
Let’s get into what you should consider when choosing to fly versus take Amtrak.
Amtrak vs Flying: The Overall Time Matters, Not Just Travel Time
Just because the flight is one hour and the train is four, doesn’t mean flying is faster.
Consider is the total journey time from door to door.
To decide whether the train or flying makes more sense, it depends on the speed and the distance. Planes are faster, but there’s a lot more upfront time. So the further the distance, the more it makes sense to fly. There’s a sweet spot where trains make way more sense.
Ray Delahanty aka City Nerd explains this with a nice graph in this video, which I’ve pasted below with a timestamp for you.
Flying involves numerous time-consuming steps that trains don’t:
- Traveling to airports (often located far from city centers)
- Arriving 1-2 hours before departure for security screening
- Going through TSA checkpoints
- Waiting at the gate
- Boarding procedures
- Taxiing on the runway
- Deplaning after arrival
- Retrieving checked baggage
- Traveling from the arrival airport to your actual destination
Meanwhile, train stations are typically located in city centers, have no security lines, and offer a smoother boarding and departure process.
Let’s run the numbers for a typical New York to Washington DC journey:
Flying:
- Home to JFK Airport: 75 minutes
- Airport arrival buffer: 90 minutes
- Security and boarding: 30 minutes
- Flight time: 1 hour 15 minutes
- Deplaning and baggage: 20 minutes
- Reagan National to downtown DC: 20 minutes
- Total: 4 hours 10 minutes
Amtrak Acela:
- Home to Penn Station: 20 minutes
- Station arrival buffer: 15 minutes
- Train journey: 2 hours 50 minutes
- Union Station to downtown DC: 10 minutes
- Total: 3 hours 35 minutes
The train wins by 35 minutes despite the longer “travel time” on paper.
The key takeaway: Run these numbers for your specific journey before automatically choosing to fly.
Which is More Likely to Be Delayed? That Depends on The Route
Reliability is another crucial factor when choosing between Amtrak and flying, and this is where things get complicated.
Amtrak’s on-time performance varies dramatically depending on which type of route you’re taking. The key distinction is whether Amtrak owns the tracks or not.
On the Northeast Corridor (Washington DC to Boston), Amtrak owns and controls most of the infrastructure.
This results in much better on-time performance, with Acela trains regularly achieving 85-90% on-time rates. The Northeast Corridor as a whole in 2023 had a 78% on-time performance according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
The same applies to other corridor services where Amtrak has significant control over the tracks. Other state-supported corridor routes also had a 78% on-time performance.
This is about the same as flying. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 78% of domestic flights arrived on time in 2024.
However, the story changes dramatically for long-distance routes like the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, or Southwest Chief. These trains operate primarily on tracks owned by freight railroads like BNSF, Union Pacific, and CSX. Despite federal law theoretically giving Amtrak trains priority, the reality is that freight trains often take precedence. In 2023 they only had a 53% on-time performance according to the same BTS dataset.
So when considering reliability:
- For Northeast Corridor and state-supported corridor routes: Amtrak is often as reliable as or more reliable than flying.
- For long-distance routes: Flying is more reliable.
The Time You Get Back
When comparing Amtrak to flying, there’s another crucial factor that’s easy to overlook: the quality and usability of your travel time.
On a short flight, your time is fragmented. From the moment you arrive at the airport, you’re moving through a series of discrete steps: checking in, security screening, waiting at the gate, boarding, taxiing, the actual flight (which includes take-off and landing when you can’t use electronics), deplaning, and navigating the arrival airport.
For an Amtrak journey, once you board the train, you have hours of continuous, usable time ahead of you. Here are a few factors to consider.
- WiFi and cell service: Most Amtrak routes offer WiFi, and even if it sucks, you can use your hotspot. While airline WiFi has improved, you pay for it and half the time it barely works. (Although I admit, you’ll want to read my guide on working remotely on transit if you’re clocking in a workday on Amtrak.)
- Productive environment: Amtrak has more legroom and bigger tables as well as reliable outlets.
- No interruptions: You won’t hear announcements to stow your tray table, put your seat upright, or turn off electronic devices. There are no seatbelt signs or turbulence interruptions.
- Freedom of movement: You can get up and walk around at any time, visit the café car, or simply stretch your legs without waiting for the seatbelt sign to turn off.
Cost of Amtrak vs Flying: Don’t Forget The Luggage
Amtrak used to be more affordable than flying. That’s not always true anymore, sadly. Amtrak has adopted the dynamic pricing of the airlines under pressure to, like the airlines, turn a profit. This means in recent years Amtrak’s fares have increased.
This problem is made even worse on the Northeast Corridor because the current amount of tracks and train sets limits the amount of trains they can run. Despite high demand, they’re limited. This means they’ve raised prices to squeeze as much as they can out of the infrastructure they have.
(Another case to invest in Amtrak and rail infrastructure, not cut it, but I’m getting ahead of myself.)
However, there’s a significant cost advantage that Amtrak maintains: baggage fees.
Amtrak allows each passenger to bring two personal items, two carry-on items, and check up to two bags for free.
Most airlines these days even charge you for a carry-on.
Other Costs: Getting to the Airport
Airports are usually far from city centers, while trains are in the center with closer and better connections to public transit. With flying, you pay for this.
For example, to get to JFK Airport on transit, as I write in March 2025, costs $11.40 (subway + Airtrain.)
In contrast, getting to Penn Station to take the Amtrak is just a $2.90 subway fare (unless I take a Citi Bike, which for me is free because I have a year membership).
If you take a taxi, it’ll cost way more.
Other hidden costs when flying include:
- Parking: Airport parking can run $20-50 per day, while train stations often have cheaper or free short-term parking options
- Food: Airport food prices are notoriously high, and your options are limited to what’s inside security
- WiFi: Many airlines still charge for in-flight WiFi, while Amtrak offers it for free on most routes
- Seat selection: Airlines increasingly charge for preferred seats, while Amtrak allows free seat selection at boarding.
- Pets: If you have a pet, flying is much worse.
When you add up all these “ancillary costs,” the price gap between flying and taking the train often narrows significantly or even reverses.
Comfort and Passenger Experience
When comparing Amtrak to flying, the difference in physical comfort is immediately apparent. The standard coach seat on Amtrak is approximately 23 inches wide with a 39-inch pitch (the distance between seats), compared to the typical economy airline seat which averages 17-18 inches wide with a 30-32 inch pitch. This translates to significantly more personal space, even in Amtrak’s most basic seating class.
Regular coach seats on Amtrak are nicer than most airline business class options.
Don’t Underestimate the Scenery
Perhaps the most underrated aspect of train travel is the scenery.
I love taking the Ethan Allen Express to Vermont in the fall, with the foliage along the way.
I remember taking the train to Chicago and the sun rising to a snowy Indiana.
With Amtrak, the journey becomes part of the destination, at least for me.
Accessibility for travelers with disabilities
Amtrak stations and trains are designed with accessibility in mind, with wheelchair ramps, accessible seating areas, and dedicated spaces for mobility devices.
The boarding process is significantly more dignified – no need to transfer to a narrow aisle chair or navigate tight airplane cabins. Accessible restrooms are available on all trains, and sleeping compartments on long-distance routes include accessible bedroom options.
Service animals are welcome aboard all trains without size or weight restrictions that might apply on flights.
The Environmental Question: Just How Big is The Difference?
First I’ll talk about the obvious factor: CO2 emissions. But this is only a piece of the puzzles.
CO2 Emissions: Amtrak vs Flying
I will turn to research in the Journal of Air & Waste Management Association in their article on Savings in per-passenger CO2 emissions using rail rather than air travel in the northeastern U.S.
There is a lot of data on the massive environmental benefits of high-speed rail over flying in Europe and Japan. However, this research is specifically about Amtrak. It compared flying vs Amtrak from 16 cities, from Portland, Maine to Charlotte to even to Buffalo and Pittsburgh.
As they point out, “Amtrak uses electric locomotives only between Boston and Washington D.C., so the diesel emission factor can be used for the remainder of the system.”
Even if that’s not your route, your Amtrak equipment and speeds will be similar, so it will be a closer corollary than European research (until we build true high-speed rail, which in California is a slow work-in-progress.)
Electrifying Makes a Big Difference
Here’s what they found:
- Electric locomotives: 0.134 lb CO₂/passenger-mile. This applies to you if you’re on the Boston to D.C. route.
- Diesel locomotives: 0.280 lb CO₂/passenger-mile. This applies to the rest of the network
Flying: Shorter and Smaller is Much Worse
There are two factors: the distance and the aircraft. Takeoff and landing are the most jet fuel-intensive part of flying. No matter how short, this is the same. That’s one reason shorter flights are worse.
Second, bigger aircraft are more efficient because they fit more passengers. So those small, regional jets going short distances are the worst of all.
Here are some of the numbers.
All Aircraft Types
- 0.6-0.9 lb CO₂/passenger-mile for very short flights (around 100 miles)
- 0.4-0.5 lb CO₂/passenger-mile for medium-distance flights (300-400 miles)
- 0.3-0.4 lb CO₂/passenger-mile for longer flights (500+ miles)
By Aircraft Type:
Single-aisle jets (like Boeing 737, Airbus 320): Generally more efficient, with emissions trending from about 0.55 lb CO₂/passenger-mile at 200 miles down to about 0.3 lb CO₂/passenger-mile at 600 miles
Regional jets (like Bombardier CRJ, Embraer): Less efficient, with emissions trending from about 0.7 lb CO₂/passenger-mile at 200 miles down to about 0.45 lb CO₂/passenger-mile at 500 miles
Electric, Shorter Routes Are Far Superior, Even As Antiquated as Amtrak Is
For some city pairs, especially those requiring long rail detours compared to direct flights, air travel can actually produce less CO₂, even at distances as short as 400 miles.
However, for the most competitive routes in terms of time, which are often the electric routes, Amtrak wins here.
To put this in concrete terms, a passenger taking the train from New York to Washington DC rather than flying saves approximately 150 pounds of CO2. This is equivalent to the emissions from driving an average car for about 170 miles.
But to me, this extends beyond fuel efficiency.
It’s Not Just About Fuel Efficiency: Other Environmental Benefits of Amtrak
Land Use Efficiency & Protection
Rail infrastructure requires significantly less land than airports and their surrounding clear zones. A double-track rail line can move far more people through a narrow corridor than multiple airport runways with their approach and departure paths.
Often the land airports are built on is incredibly valuable city land that could be used for housing, parks, and more.
LaGuardia Airport in NYC is a great example of this. If we imagine a world where we fly less because we have more passenger rail, we don’t need as many massive airports.
If we turn to JFK, it’s not about housing, it’s about ecosystem protection. JFK Airport is built on the once lush and protective marshlands of Jamaica Bay.
The problem with continuing to expand airports to destroy more of this is beyond the scope of this article, but it’s not good.
Reduced Urban Pollution
Trains, especially electric ones, produce virtually no local air pollutants in urban areas, unlike airports which concentrate emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other pollutants that affect local air quality and public health.
A 2021 study in Environmental Health titled “A review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in and around airports” explained how “exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.” This includes respiratory and cardiovascular problems.
Noise pollution has also been shown to lead to cardiovascular problems.
The “Full Journey” Advantage
When calculating environmental impact, we should consider the entire journey. Rail stations are typically located in city centers, eliminating the need for long taxi or car rides to distant airports—journeys that add significant emissions to the total trip.
It’s also about the potential of rail:
By supporting Amtrak, we’re supporting their efforts to electrify more routes, buy new train sets for more frequent and affordable trips, and replace more flights while bringing costs down.
We can build faster trains that make rail more appealing for an even greater range of journeys.
If We Want Better Rail Service, We Have to Invest In It — Just Like We Do Airports and Highways
The fundamental truth about transportation infrastructure is that virtually none of it makes a profit on its own. This reality applies to highways, airports, local roads, and yes, passenger rail.
The federal government spent approximately $52 billion on roads in 2021, according to the Urban Institute.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal government spent $14 billion per year on airports between 2013-2017.
Neither of these account for many other subsidies. They just reveal the simple truth that all effective transportation requires government investment.
Yet when it comes to passenger rail, the conversation immediately shifts to profitability and subsidies. Amtrak receives roughly $2 billion in federal funding annually. This is pennies compared to flying and driving.
This funding disparity explains much of the service disparity.
Countries with world-class rail systems like Japan, France, and Spain have all made massive, sustained investments in their rail infrastructure.
If we want Amtrak to offer more frequent service, faster trains, better on-time performance, and competitive prices, we need to invest in it.
For me, the choice between Amtrak and flying isn’t just a personal calculation of time, cost, and convenience, it’s also a statement about what kind of transportation future we want to build.
Appendix: Long-Distance Trains Are For the Unrushed and The Wanderers
The long-distance trains are the black sheep of the Amtrak network. They’re the slowest, have the worst on-time performance, and run on diesel. It’s still 19th-century technology and often slower speeds than we had back then.
But there’s something beautiful about a long train ride.
5 Comments