vincenzo32951

So, to make your argument, you can add in the time and expense it takes to get to and from the airport, but not include any time and expense it takes to get to and from the train station? So if the train takes a point-to-point time of four hours, you magically arrive at your final destination -- hotel, home, etc. -- in that amount of time?

In reality, in most cases, the train is a 6-hour door-to-door trip.

sf7307

Not if you're a tourist staying in Manhattan or downtown DC. You don't have to arrive hours early (or even an hour early) for a train. They don't even post the track number until 15 minutes before the train arrives. So sure, maybe add an hour total - 30 minutes in each direction. Its still far far less hassle.

doug_stallings

Back when Acela was first introduced, the NYTimes and Washington Post both did stories about whether it was faster to take the train or a plane between DC and NYC. The plane almost always won by 5 to 20 minutes, but that's all. For the difference in price (and considering that you MUST pay at a minimum $15 per person to get to JFK from Manhattan), the train is almost always a better value, even at the hyper-inflated Acela prices.

Between Boston and NYC, however, the train makes many more compromises for speed, so you can almost always arrive at your destination 30 minutes faster if you take a plane. If having that 30 minutes is worth the price, then by all means spend the money for a plane ticket. However, if you check a bag, as most tourists do, then there's no way the plane is faster if you are talking about JetBlue from JFK. It's just an impossibility since bags must be checked an hour in advance at JFK. If it's a shuttle flight Terminal A at LGA, then I think the plane is consistently faster than a train, but those flights are almost always a lot more expensive.

So I tend to agree with everyone that the train between Boston and NYC is superior and that the timing is close enough that it's almost a wash.

vincenzo32951

We weren't talking about DC-NY. The question was NYC-BOS.

nytraveler

If one is in midtown and going to central Boston it's no where near 6 hours. You get your ticket online and only have to get to Penn station about 15 minutes before the train leaves - and you just walk out of the station in Boston and there you are.

And you take your bag on with you - you checking luggage - which takes time to check in and also time to wait for and retrieve at the other end.

Sorry - I have done this trip dozens of times by train and it has never taken anywhere near 6 hours - or even 5 hours. Also have driven several times - when I was hauling a bunch of stuff for a meeting in the trunk - and that too takes about 4 hours - barring major construction or very bad weather.

LakesideChick

Thanks for all of your input everyone, lots to consider and plan for. Looks like we will be travelling to Boston from Washington now, which probably means a flight I think.

toddpeterson

Staying in Queens would be a great idea, for an easy access to Manhattan. Holiday Inn is also okay, not that great but pretty accesible.

doug_stallings

Yes, it's usually better to fly from Boston to DC. It's a really long slog by train (a whole day of travel). Just FYI: Beware of flights that go from Boston into Dulles, which is not really all that convenient to DC. JetBlue flies from Boston to Dulles, for example, and these are often the cheapest flights. Do that if you must, but fly into Reagan National if you can.

nytraveler

If flying from Boston to DC ONLY go into Reagan - the other airports are way out of town and it will take forever - and can cost a fortune - to get to DC.

sf7307

It costs about $70 to take a taxi from Dulles to downtown DC (about 35 miles, and often very trafficky), vs. the cost of a metro ride from Reagan ($2.50?)

LakesideChick

Oh thank you!! Good information to know.