is train travel safer than flying

Amtrak Guide

By train travelers for train travelers, amtrak vs flying: pros and cons.

There are pros and cons to Amtrak travel and pros and cons to getting on a plane. Your interest in seeing the country, need for on-time arrival or quick travel time are some of the top deciding factors when choosing between these transportation options. See below to learn more about Amtrak vs. flying.

Pros of Amtrak Travel

More luggage allowed.

You can bring more luggage on Amtrak trains than on planes, and no liquid restrictions. Two personal items and two pieces of luggage can be brought on board the train ( size and weight restrictions apply ). Additionally, you can check up to four bags if your starting station and train route has checked bag service. The first two checked bags are free. Look up your starting station on Amtrak.com to view checked baggage information.

Arrivals and Departures May Be Easier

For air travel, it is recommended that passengers arrive at the airport one to two hours before the flight. With Amtrak, you can show up 30 minutes to 1 hour before the scheduled train arrival, and as a bonus, no security lines. Your nearby Amtrak station might also be closer than the airport, so consider drive time when choosing whether to fly or take the train.

Once you arrive at your destination via train, you also don’t have to walk through an airport to exit or have a long commute into the city. Many Amtrak stations are right in the middle of town, so you can get off the train and be at your destination. Transfers to local transit are also at or near many Amtrak stations, and it is easier to request a Lyft, Uber or taxi without airport crowds.

Privacy (including private rooms, bathrooms and beds)

The long-distance Amtrak routes have sleeper cars that have roomettes and bedrooms with doors and beds. Bedrooms also have private toilets, sinks and showers. These private travel spaces may be helpful during the Covid-19 pandemic to reduce contact with other people on the train.

More Space to Move

Another perk of Amtrak over air travel is that you can get up, walk around through multiple train cars, take a shower (if you have booked sleeping accommodations), sit down at a table to eat meal and on some routes, sit in the observation car to view the scenery.

Great Views of America

While it’s amazing to view the ground from 30,000 feet up, being eye-level with different landscapes across the United States is a unique way to experience the country without driving.

Environmentally-Friendly

According to 2018 EPA data , planes emit more greenhouse gases in the United States than trains. So if traveling in an environmentally-friendly way is important, Amtrak is the better option, especially on shorter trips.

Fewer Weather Delays

Flights are quickly delayed due to lightning and major storms, but these threats have less impact on trains since they travel on the ground. Amtrak trains may also be able to depart more easily during snow and ice storms. With air travel, runways have to be cleared at airports and planes deiced.

Inexpensive Regional Trips

If you are traveling a short distance on Amtrak, such as within the same state or to a neighboring state, ticket prices can be inexpensive. For example, a coach ticket between Chicago and Detroit or between San Diego and Los Angeles can be as low as $40. And a Miami to Tampa trip priced on August 30, 2020 was under $30 one way and Dallas to Austin only $15.

Cons of Amtrak Travel

Amtrak delays can be common, especially on long-distance routes where Amtrak might be asked to yield to freight trains on shared tracks. Despite this, Amtrak trains were on-time about 73% of the time in 2018, per United States Department of Transportation . In comparison, major U.S. airline carriers were on time 79% in the same year ( source ).

Longer Trip Times

It’s typically faster to travel by plane than by train, especially when your destination is across the country. A three-hour flight might be two nights on a train. However, regional rail trips or travel within the same state may be comparable or faster than flying, especially if you can arrive at an Amtrak station 30 minutes before the train departure vs 1.5 hours before a flight (hour saved).

More Expensive Tickets (in some cases)

Amtrak tickets tend to be higher than air fares if you book a roomette or bedroom as the price includes meals and private accommodations. However, Amtrak coach seats are often cheaper than coach seats on a plane, especially if you purchase tickets in advance.

Car Rentals are More Complicated

Most airports have car rental counters and cars at the airport, making it easy to pick up a car. While there are some rental car offices in walking distance of Amtrak stations, in many cases, you’ll need to find a rental car agency that will pick you up (or take a taxi, Uber or Lyft to get your rental car). Additionally, not all train stations have a nearby car rental option, so be sure to do your research. Sometimes the closest station to your final destination won’t have rental cars, so you’ll need to exit at the station before or after if you need to pick up a car.

More Information

7 things to pack for an Amtrak trip

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Are Trains Safer Than Planes?

Tuesday's devastating Amtrak crash that has left eight dead and more than 200 injured — and sparked a showdown over Amtrak funding in Congress — has put a glaring spotlight on train safety. Though train derailments are actually quite common, each time a deadly incident like this occurs, it's normal to question the entire mode of transportation in general. While most people might know that motorcycle and car travel are the most risky forms of transportation, in light of the Amtrak crash, you might be wondering one thing: is riding on trains safer than flying on airplanes ? If you're a frequent train traveler, you might not like the answer.

That sounded pretty foreboding, so let me give a disclaimer that, regardless of the comparison, train travel is still a very safe mode of transportation. Train accidents, like plane crashes, get a lot of attention precisely because they're so rare. According to a 2013 study by economist Ian Savage, trains are the second-safest mode of transportation in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of deaths per billion passenger-miles caused by trains was 0.43. In comparison, the number of deaths caused by cars was 7.3 and the number of deaths caused by motorcycles was a disturbing 213.

But trains are still only the second-safest option, with the first-safest option being — you guess it — flying.

According to that same study, the number of deaths per billion passenger-miles caused by airplanes is a measly 0.07 . And this statistic is just one of many that illustrate just how safe air travel is.

Last September, the Swiss-based Bureau of Aircraft Accidents listed the average rate of crashes was 2.1 per one million flights, which means you have a one in 15,000,000 chance of being in a plane crash. You are 15 times more likely to get struck by lightning . And this statistic was determined after the series of high-profile crashes that made aviophobes swear off flying for good, like the mysterious MH370 disappearance and the downing of MH17.

Similarly, in 2012, The New York Times cited Arnold Barnett, a professor of statistics at M.I.T., for this statistic: between 2008 and 2012, the odds of dying in a plane crash for passengers in the U.S. were one in 45 million flights . The Times further emphasized the point by revealing that with those odds, a passenger could fly every single day for an average of 123,000 years before dying in a plane accident.

And a Forbes report from March, which came out in the wake of the Germanwings crash, went even more specific by listing the odds of dying in a plane crash on one of the 39 bottom-ranked airlines with the worst accident rates as one in 2 million . Still very unlikely.

But, as I mentioned before, the overwhelming evidence that flying is safe should not take away from your confidence in train travel. Ultimately, it is also very rare to die in a train crash, especially for passengers. According to the National Transportation Safety Board's stats, of the 891 train deaths in the U.S. in 2013, only six of them were passengers . The vast majority were pedestrians or drivers who were struck by a train.

Another factor to consider in comparing train accidents and plane crashes? While trains have more accidents, plane crashes typically kill a lot more people per incident. In 2014, there were 990 plane-related deaths, but only 21 fatal airliner accidents. That's an average of 47 deaths per flight. So if you think of accidents in terms of how deadly they are of average, then flying would be significantly more deadly than riding a train.

But at the end of the day, the main point through all these statistics is: both flying and riding in trains are safe ways to travel. When you're in a car, however, always wear your seat belt. And just try to avoid motorcycles altogether. Images: Getty Images (3)

• Newsletters
• Help Center
• A.M. ATL Newsletter
• Trump Georgia case
• Weekend Things to Do
• Mother's Day in Atlanta
• Georgia Decides: Voter Guide
• AJC Peachtree Road Race

Train vs. plane: Is Amtrak safer than flying during COVID-19?

DETROIT — As segments of society reopen and the world rushes to get vaccinated, more Americans may lose their fear of flying and once again crowd airports and airplanes.

But those still wary of catching COVID-19 may wonder: Is taking a train safer?

Amtrak doesn’t directly make that claim on its website. But the rail system’s officials have posted videos that agree with prominent experts on viral transmission: Amtrak trains are likely safer than planes for avoiding the deadly virus.

Amtrak rider Erin Silverman of Bloomfield Hills got off the train on the night of Feb. 5 in Troy, after riding the rails all the way to and from Denver. Silverman is a travel agent, operating a Cruise Planners franchise from her home. She said she was impressed with Amtrak’s COVID-19 precautions.

“They were very serious about having people wear masks. They announced several times, you must wear the mask over your nose and mouth or we can kick you off,” she said.

Another safety factor? Airline seating is much more confined than the seating on Amtrak cars, Silverman said.

“Delta is the only airline that is still blocking the middle seat. All the others have people right next to you,” she said. In contrast, Amtrak conductors “were very strict about keeping everyone socially distanced.” Silverman called her trip “a relaxing way to travel.”

In late January, airline executives and employees told reporters they welcomed a new executive order by President Joe Biden, who ordered mask-wearing on all airplane flights as well as on other public transit that crosses state lines. Biden’s order came after months of sporadic voluntary enforcement of mask-wearing by airlines and after a petition from Consumer Reports magazine, signed by more than 60,000 people, demanding a government rule for masking up during flight.

Yet, Amtrak mandated masks for all passengers and employees beginning last spring. At the same time, the rail service announced that it would begin strictly monitoring where passengers sit and how many board each car.

“In 2019, we were selling every seat — now we’re filling only half of each train’s capacity, and we’re strongly encouraging people to sit apart,” said Marc Magliari, spokesman for Amtrak.

Also, Magliari said: “We have significantly more spacing (than airlines and buses) between our seats. We have no middle seats, so each passenger either is seated beside a companion or you have an empty seat next to you.”

Trains also are safer than planes, in part, because many train stations have open-air platforms where travelers board, Dr. Aaron Rossi told USA Today in October. That’s far less risky than the indoor settings of airport security lines and waiting areas where passengers gather and sit before boarding. Rossi is a medical doctor in Pekin, Illinois, and CEO of Reditus Laboratories, a company that conducts COVID-19 testing.

Amtrak’s ridership hit an all-time record nationwide in 2019, then skidded by about 90% in April when cases of COVID-19 began soaring. Since then, ridership crept partway back to its pre-pandemic level while Amtrak operated fewer trains and strictly enforced social distancing in coaches that could carry twice as many passengers.

Amtrak was created by the Congress in 1971 when the nation’s existing railroads said they’d no longer carry passengers. For decades since, the system struggled to get funding and to upgrade service on key routes like the Wolverine, Amtrak’s line that links Chicago to Detroit, then runs north through Oakland County to Royal Oak, Troy and Pontiac.

For decades, improvements crept at the pace of a freight train inching through a switchyard. Despite the release of a report in 1985 called “Detroit-Chicago Corridor: High Speed Rail,” nothing much changed. Then, in 2009, Amtrak installed a new high-tech safety system on 97 miles of track it owns in western Michigan reaching into Indiana. Those improvements allowed all Amtrak trains in that stretch to bump up their speeds. Since 2012, they’ve rolled as fast as 110 mph there.

About five years ago, with ridership rising after the Great Recession ended, Amtrak launched a long-awaited modernization effort. Finally, the signals of change are growing obvious. Despite the setback of the pandemic, riders can climb aboard not only what Amtrak touts as a safer mode of travel, but also one that’s improving.

In Michigan, a clear example is a batch of recently upgraded locomotives and soon-to-arrive, new passenger cars. On Jan. 25, a test train with no passengers pulled new coaches from Chicago to Pontiac, then back again to Chicago on Jan. 26. The new coaches, built in the U.S. by the German multinational company Siemens, will be pulled by almost-new Siemens Charger locomotives, which Amtrak began introducing in the Midwest in 2018 and 2019, according to Amtrak officials.

Siemens says these SC-44 Charger locomotives have a top speed of 125 mph, although they can’t roll nearly that fast just yet between the Motor City and the Windy City. Each is said to boast a 4,400-horsepower diesel engine made by manufacturer Cummins in Indiana, which generates electricity that powers four electric motors to turn the drive wheels. According to online data, these locomotives burn about 10% less diesel fuel per mile than the old engines they are replacing and spew far less pollution, reducing by about 90% the two banes of diesel exhaust — oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, the diesel “soot” that’s noxious to human lungs.

The new cars could be put into service as soon as this spring, said Michael Frezell, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Transportation, which purchased the cars and owns much of the track Amtrak uses between Detroit and Chicago.

So, what’s holding back higher speeds across Michigan? The need to extend safety systems and upgrade more track, officials said.

East of Kalamazoo, where the track needs improving, Amtrak’s maximum speed is 79 mph. Amtrak hopes this slower stretch of track, owned by MDOT since 2012, can be upgraded by the end of 2022. When that happens, Amtrak could reach its potential to consistently outshine the experience of driving a car from Detroit to Chicago with lower costs, less time and more convenience — not to mention no fear of getting a dreaded three-figure parking ticket in Chicagoland.

Last spring, Amtrak reduced its Wolverine service from three round trips daily to just one a day between Pontiac and Chicago. Running on normal schedules are Amtrak’s other Michigan trains — the Blue Water service that links Chicago to Battle Creek, Lansing, Flint and Port Huron; and the Pere Marquette between Chicago and Grand Rapids.

A looming question is whether once most Americans are vaccinated and people begin to return to flying, can Amtrak maintain its momentum and rebuild its ridership to pre-pandemic levels, then keep it growing. All of that may, literally, require an act of Congress.

Last year, the rail system’s executives — along with their boosters in the nonprofit Rail Passengers Association — had hoped to cap their record-breaking 2019 ridership with a crucial win in the U.S. Congress, at last giving Amtrak the legal clout for its trains to take precedence over the freight trains that it says so often cause delays. With COVID-19′s onrush, that hope was shunted to a political siding.

Federal law says freight trains must yield to passenger trains when both want to use the same track. However, too often, freight operators ignore the rule, according to Amtrak.

A Free Press article last year documented that Amtrak’s trains had become routinely late across much of the nation, with Michigan trains the very latest. Nationwide, Amtrak was on time only 60% to 70% of the time in many states in 2019. And in Michigan, the on-time rate was just 43%. Even worse, on the popular route from Chicago to Detroit to Pontiac, on-time performance occurred just 33% of the time. Amtrak officials documented the late arrivals with detailed records of “freight train interference,” showing a chronic problem of passenger trains being forced to wait while freight trains crawled ahead.

In a letter dated Jan. 22, Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn, who took the top job last spring, sent a letter to each member of Congress, citing Amtrak’s 50th anniversary this year. Flynn asked for “a predictable and long-term source of federal funding” to continue modernizing the system.

But more money, to buy faster locomotives and sleek new cars on upgraded track, can’t do much for train travelers if a poky freight train blocks their way. So Flynn also asked Congress to give Amtrak the right to sue freight rail operations in federal court, “so we can ensure our customers are not unnecessarily delayed by freight trains, and arrive on time.”

If the lawmakers see it Amtrak’s way, many more travelers may ride the rails for reasons other than COVID-19 concerns.

About the Author

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Credit: Special

Credit: John Spink/AJC

Credit: Family photo

Credit: Jessica Brooks

Credit: Disney

Is it safe to travel by train during a pandemic? Doctors and cleaning experts weigh in, plus details on new protocols from Amtrak.

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

• As some Americans resume travel, many are eyeing close-to-home domestic destinations.
• Additionally, many may be considering ways to safely travel to see friends or family for the upcoming holidays. 
• If you're planning to venture beyond a short drive but don't want to board a plane, traveling by train is an alternative option.
• To find out if train travel is safe, and how to best protect yourself, we talked to experts that include two doctors, a disaster recovery firm owner with a coronavirus arm, and a representative from Amtrak.
• Read more: Is it safe to travel for the holidays? Here's what doctors, a microbiologist, and a travel pro told us.

The novel coronavirus continues to spread across the globe and the US, and many states are currently seeing spikes in cases. Despite this, many Americans have resumed travel in some measure.  

But rather than immediately return to previous habits, people are looking for safe vacation alternatives during COVID  and eyeing private Airbnbs (largely considered safe by experts) , or  hotels  with  stringent new cleaning policies . 

Some will eschew air travel in favor of ground transportation to visit regional destinations that are close to home, either with the family vehicle or by car rental , which medical professionals consider rented cars fairly low risk for virus transmission .

With the holiday season just around the corner, these trends are likely to continue (and experts also have timely advice you should consider before packing your presents into a suitcase this year ).

Trains offer another way to travel for both regional and long-distance routes. For travelers who prefer to stick closer to the ground and avoid planes, or for those who would rather nap, read, and take in the sights over managing navigation and traffic, trains offer a good alternative.

And while you'll have more space to spread out than in an airplane, traveling by train still generally involves interfacing with many people — so, is train travel safe?

For answers, we talked to experts including a pair of doctors, a cleaning company owner with a new coronavirus division, and a representative for Amtrak.

Here's what they say about how to know if train travel is clean and safe, how to take extra precautions when you ride, and the level of potential risk exposure compared with other modes of travel.

If you do decide to board, be sure to read our review of taking Amtrak's Viewliner Roomette cabin from New Orleans to New York. We broke down what it's like to board, sleep, and yes, use the bathroom, on a train during COVID, with plenty of pictures to help document the experience. Additionally, be sure to read our guide to the coronavirus safety gear you should pack if you really must travel during COVID-19 .

How do I know if the train is clean?

The most important thing to keep in mind when traveling (or leaving the house at all) is to understand how the virus is generally transmitted, which is directly from person to person by way of respiratory droplets.

Now apply that fact to various modes of getting around. Airplanes and airports present plenty of opportunities for exposure through in-person encounters. Rental cars provide far fewer. But unlike renting a car, riding a train will indeed likely expose you to other travelers as well as staff during your journey.

"Remember that most of the transmission of the coronavirus is respiratory — it's not through inanimate objects," says Dr. Thomas Russo, chief of the division of infectious disease at the University at Buffalo, who also notes that much-discussed pre-clinical and asymptomatic possibilities for exposure. That means the bulk of the risk in train travel comes from fellow passengers and staff on the train and in the station.

So, your chief concern if traveling by train should be minding your social distance, and also maintaining impeccable hand hygiene.

What are train operators doing to make travel safer in the pandemic?

National railroad service Amtrak has rolled out a host of new safety measures meant to facilitate a safe travel experience. All travelers must wear masks, and Amtrak is limiting ticket sales on reserved services to allow for social distancing. Additionally, for most routes, the Amtrak website will show you what percent of seats are currently booked when you look to buy tickets.

Amtrak has also enhanced cleaning protocols at the station, with added measures for social distancing. Signage at Amtrak's busiest stations indicates safe distances in high-traffic areas, and protective plastic barriers have been installed at customer counters. Staff and passengers must also wear masks in stations.

"As states have started relaxing their restrictions and we restored some services, we are seeing an increase in ridership," notes Roger Harris, Amtrak EVP, chief marketing and revenue officer. "With that, we are limiting bookings on most trains to allow for more physical distancing in seating areas. Individuals traveling alone may use the seat next to them for personal belongings, while friends and family members will easily find seats together."

Harris notes that more travelers will likely choose the train, compared with air travel or other modes of public transportation as the pandemic continues, saying, "We expect that this summer ridership will continue to increase."

Dr. Edo Paz, VP of medical at the digital primary care provider K Health  notes that distancing measures will be key to a safer experience on a train. "Physical distancing plays a big part in keeping passengers safe. Combined with wearing protective gear like masks and gloves, these protocols suggested by the CDC and implemented by Amtrak can make traveling by train a safer experience."

Do note, however, that a vacant seat next to a passenger still does not guarantee the CDC-recommended minimum distance of six feet from others elsewhere in the car.

Amtrak , which serves more than 500 destinations in 46 states and three Canadian provinces, also offers a unique class of service that might especially appeal to travelers in the COVID-19 era: private rooms . While these are not new, Amtrak is re-branding them given circumstances surrounding the pandemic and has announced enhanced cleaning protocols for safety. 

The rooms are available on long-distance routes in a variety of sizes to accommodate solo travelers, couples, and groups of families or friends. A standard room features two seats that can be converted into beds, and comes with complimentary Wi-Fi, charging outlets, and an expansive window for taking in the views. It's not unlike a moving hotel, both in terms of amenities and also potential risk exposure. 

For an idea of sample pricing on a long-distance, popular route down the US West Coast, consider that from Seattle to Los Angeles on the Coast Starlight, one passenger in a Roomette could pay as low as $432; one passenger in a Bedroom would start at $807; and one passenger in a Family Room would go as low as $630.

These prices apply for the full length of the route and not all passengers travel from the very beginning to the very end of the route. As a result, these prices can vary quite drastically. For example, if traveling only for a portion of the route from Seattle to LA, prices will be far lower than these sample fares.

A regular seat on the same route starts under $100. But the Roomette and Bedroom sleeper options come with meals, too.

We reviewed the Roomette experience recently on a route from New Orleans to New York, which cost $478 for two people, and took roughly 30 hours. While some people might balk at the thought of a long-distance train journey, our writer is now officially an Amtrak convert.

"I enjoyed the privacy and comfort of the Viewliner Roomette sleeper car and felt Amtrak delivered on promises for strong COVID-19 policies. The journey was smooth, aided by helpful staff and attendants, and we arrived on time, almost to the minute at New York Penn Station," he wrote .

Cabins are, admittedly on the older side, and Wi-Fi won't always be dependable, but Roomettes are similar in price to flying long distances or the cost of a multi-day road trip, which offers good value for two people traveling together. 

For cost comparison, you could expect to fly nonstop for about the same cost or less, with advanced notice and flexibility. Obviously, you'd arrive much faster, but for many people who travel this way, speed is not the goal. Instead, there's comfort in watching beautiful stretches of the American countryside passing slowly by for a trip that's both functional and relaxing. 

There's also added convenience in being able to show up right at boarding and arriving directly into a city center with no complicated public transport, traffic, or parking.

Cafe service is available to both coach and sleeping car customers along select routes. When it is available, seating will be closed and offered as carryout only. Travelers may bring items back to their seats or private rooms.

There are new markers and signage promoting physical distancing leading up to the cafe counter, and protective plastic barriers are being installed at cafe countertops. Amtrak is also temporarily offering flexible dining service on long-distance routes and encouraging customers in private rooms to opt for room service. Amtrak does not currently, nor did it previously, offer bar cart service. However, customers in private rooms may make beverage orders via an Amtrak attendant.

If you're considering a trip, routes include such destinations as Glacier National Park, the Grand Canyon, Canyonlands National Park, or Disney World. Of course, wherever you disembark, you're on your own to manage your own safety.

What extra precautions should I take when riding a train during the pandemic?

Dr. Russo — like most public health professionals — advises wearing a mask in any situation in which you might encounter other people, and certainly, that goes for a train environment. Again, direct person-to-person contact is the most typical way the virus is transmitted, and masks help mitigate risk.

Compared with direct contact with people, your risk will be much lower through exposure to particles that may linger on surfaces within a train. "The virus on surfaces dies off over time — it's not that viable over time on inanimate objects," Dr. Russo says, noting that there is a "small but finite risk from inanimate objects."

Therefore, you should regularly wash and disinfect your hands and surfaces where the virus could exist on the train, in the station, or elsewhere in the course of your travels.

"The virus is very susceptible to disinfectant," Dr. Russo says. "So if you want to afford yourself an extra level of protection, wipe any areas down with a disinfectant wipe that your hand touches."

John Marroni, owner and president of the disaster recovery company National Restoration, which now has a dedicated coronavirus arm , agrees. "When boarding a train, you are going to be among people, so first and foremost, wear a mask," he says. "Secondly, always keep hand sanitizer on your person."

In addition to frequently sanitizing and washing your hands on a train, "Do your very best to make sure you try not to make contact with high-touch areas," Marroni says. He notes that on a train, these areas might include, "doors, handrails, and seats especially — areas with the most frequent human contact."

Whether or not cloth seats pose a particular danger is not yet fully clear. "According to the CDC, coronaviruses on surfaces and objects naturally die within hours to days. When it comes to any fabric or cloth items, the infectious droplets could penetrate deeper into the fabric due to its porous structure," Dr. Paz says in regards to trains' cloth seats, noting, "however, this is not very well studied."

Is train travel safer than airplane travel?

Comparing the overall safety of train travel to commercial airplane travel involves taking into account many factors.

First, unlike trains, airplanes have advanced airflow and filtration systems that make the air much safer: flow rates are high, air supply is pure thanks to HEPA filters, and it's directed in a controlled manner, from ceiling to floor, to limit mixing.

However, airplane cabins are also smaller enclosed spaces than trains, which can mean closer proximity to more travelers and greater potential risk exposure. Dr. Paz says the safety of each of these two modes of travel is really going to vary depending on the specifics and the number of the particular travelers involved. 

"When comparing a mode of transportation, whether train or airplane travel is safer is dictated largely by the passenger," Dr. Paz says. "By maintaining social distance from others, using face coverings, and frequent hand washing, you can drastically decrease your chances of contracting COVID."

What if another train passenger has COVID-19?

Let's consider a scenario in which someone else on the train is infected — whether symptomatic and actively coughing and spreading virus particles, or asymptomatic. You could become infected through direct and prolonged contact with that person. For instance, if you were sitting near each other in the same train car.

However, Dr. Russo notes that the virus is known to settle out of the air relatively rapidly — about one to three hours under experimental conditions and perhaps much less in real-world scenarios — so the air quality is not likely to be a concern if an infected person was on the train, but disembarked, say, the day before.

Would a health expert ride on a train?

Given the level of exposure to risks through train travel, would our experts travel this way while the pandemic continues?

"While not ideal, as the lesser of the evils, trains are a moderately safer method of travel during this pandemic," Marroni says, comparing train travel with other public modes of transportation, including the relatively riskier proposition of air travel. "And they are easier to disinfect because the turnover per person is not as frequent as other means of public transportation."

In the end, his verdict is this: "Yes, all things considered, it's relatively safe — and safe enough that I would travel by train myself, as long as I felt disinfecting protocol was being properly enforced."

For his part, Dr. Paz is less enthusiastic. "Ideally, the fewer people entering and leaving a train, the better," he says, nothing. "I still recommend that passengers hold on non-essential travel when possible."

For more reporting on whether it's safe to travel right now, click a link below to jump directly to related coverage:

• Is it safe to travel for the holidays? Here's what doctors, a microbiologist, and a travel pro told us.
• Is flying safe right now? Experts break down the risks associated with boarding a flight during COVID-19.
• Is it safe to stay in a hotel right now? An infectious disease doctor, a cleaning expert, and hotel reps all share what you should know before you check-in.
• Are Airbnbs safe? We spoke to experts, a company representative, and an Airbnb host to share everything you should know before booking someone's home .
• Which is safer: Airbnb or hotels? Here's what doctors say
• Are rental cars safe to drive right now? We talked to 3 leading experts to find out.
• Staying in a hotel will be very different post-pandemic — here are new safety and cleaning plans and precautions being implemented by every major hotel brand
• 6 safer, expert-backed ways to take a vacation during the pandemic, from road trips to private vacation homes and remote campsites

Subscribe to our newsletter. You can purchase syndication rights to this story here. Disclosure: This post is brought to you by the Insider Reviews team. We highlight products and services you might find interesting. If you buy them, we get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners. We frequently receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising sales team. We welcome your feedback. Email us at [email protected] .

• Main content

Going by train vs. plane: Is taking Amtrak safer than flying during COVID-19?

DETROIT – As segments of society reopen and the world rushes to get vaccinated, more Americans may lose their fear of flying and once again crowd airports and airplanes.

Those still wary of catching COVID-19 may wonder: Is taking a train safer?

Amtrak doesn’t directly make that claim on its website, but the rail system’s officials posted videos that agree with experts on viral transmission: Amtrak trains are probably safer than planes for avoiding the virus.

Amtrak rider Erin Silverman of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, got off the train on the night of Feb. 5 in Troy, after riding the rails all the way to and from Denver. Silverman, a travel agent who operates a Cruise Planners franchise from her home, said she was impressed with Amtrak's COVID-19 precautions.

"They were very serious about having people wear masks. They announced several times, you must wear the mask over your nose and mouth, or we can kick you off," she said.

Another safety factor? Airline seating is much more confined than the seating on Amtrak cars, Silverman said.

" Delta is the only airline that is still blocking the middle seat. All the others have people right next to you," she said. In contrast, Amtrak conductors "were very strict about keeping everyone socially distanced." Silverman called her trip "a relaxing way to travel."

In late January, airline executives and employees told reporters they welcomed an executive order by President Joe Biden, who ordered mask-wearing on all airplane flights as well as on other public transit that crosses state lines. Biden’s order came after months of sporadic voluntary enforcement of mask-wearing by airlines and after a petition from Consumer Reports magazine, signed by more than 60,000 people, demanding a government rule for masking during flights.

Amtrak mandated masks for all passengers and employees beginning last spring. The rail service announced that it would begin strictly monitoring where passengers sit and how many board each car.

“In 2019, we were selling every seat – now we’re filling only half of each train’s capacity, and we’re strongly encouraging people to sit apart,” said Marc Magliari, spokesman for Amtrak.

Magliari said, “We have significantly more spacing (than airlines and buses) between our seats. We have no middle seats, so each passenger either is seated beside a companion or you have an empty seat next to you.”

Trains are safer than planes, in part, because many stations have open-air platforms where travelers board, Aaron Rossi told USA TODAY  in October. That's far less risky than the indoor settings of airport security lines and waiting areas where passengers gather and sit before boarding. Rossi is a medical doctor in Pekin, Illinois, and CEO of Reditus Laboratories, a company that conducts coronavirus testing.

Amtrak’s ridership hit an all-time record nationwide in 2019, then skidded by about 90% in April when cases of COVID-19 began soaring. Since then, ridership crept partway back to its prepandemic level while Amtrak operated fewer trains and strictly enforced social distancing in coaches that could carry twice as many passengers.

Amtrak was created by Congress in 1971 when the nation’s railroads said they’d no longer carry passengers. For decades since, the system struggled to get funding and to upgrade service on routes such as the Wolverine, Amtrak’s line that links Chicago to Detroit, then runs north through Oakland County to Royal Oak, Troy and Pontiac.

For decades, improvements crept at the pace of a freight train inching through a switchyard. Then in 2009, Amtrak installed a high-tech safety system on 97 miles of track it owns in western Michigan reaching into Indiana. Those improvements allowed all Amtrak trains in that stretch to bump up their speeds. Since 2012, they've rolled as fast as 110 mph there.

About five years ago, while ridership was rising after the Great Recession, Amtrak launched a long-awaited modernization effort. Finally, the signals of change are growing obvious. Despite the setback of the pandemic, riders can climb aboard not only what Amtrak touts as a safe mode of travel but also one that’s improving.

In Michigan, a clear example is a batch of upgraded locomotives, and new passenger cars are soon to arrive. On Jan. 25, a test train with no passengers pulled new coaches from Chicago to Pontiac, then back to Chicago on Jan. 26. The coaches, built in the USA by the German multinational company Siemens, will be pulled by almost-new Siemens Charger locomotives, which Amtrak introduced in the Midwest in 2018 and 2019, according to Amtrak officials.

Siemens said these SC-44 Charger locomotives have a top speed of 125 mph, although they can’t roll nearly that fast just yet between the Motor City and the Windy City. Each boasts a 4,400-horsepower diesel engine made by manufacturer Cummins in Indiana, which generates electricity that powers four electric motors to turn the drive wheels. The locomotives burn about 10% less diesel fuel per mile than the old engines they are replacing and spew far less pollution, reducing by about 90% the two banes of diesel exhaust – oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, the diesel “soot” that's noxious to human lungs.

The new cars could be put into service as soon as this spring, said Michael Frezell, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Transportation, which purchased the cars and owns much of the track Amtrak uses between Detroit and Chicago.

What’s holding back higher speeds across Michigan? The need to extend safety systems and upgrade more track, officials said.

East of Kalamazoo, where the track needs improving, Amtrak's maximum speed is 79 mph. Amtrak hopes this slower stretch of track, owned by MDOT since 2012, can be upgraded by the end of 2022. When that happens, Amtrak could reach its potential to consistently outshine the experience of driving a car from Detroit to Chicago, offering lower costs, less time and more convenience – not to mention no fear of getting a dreaded three-figure parking ticket in Chicagoland.

Once Americans are vaccinated and people return to flying, can Amtrak maintain its momentum and rebuild its ridership to prepandemic levels, then keep it growing? All of that may, literally, require an act of Congress.

Last year, the rail system’s executives – along with their boosters in the nonprofit Rail Passengers Association – hoped to cap their record-breaking ridership numbers in 2019 with a crucial win in Congress that would give Amtrak the legal clout for its trains to take precedence over the freight trains that it says so often cause delays. After COVID-19's onrush, that hope was shunted to a political siding.

Federal law says freight trains must yield to passenger trains when both want to use the same track. Too often, freight operators ignore the rule, according to Amtrak. 

The Detroit Free Press, part of the USA TODAY Network, reported last year that Amtrak’s trains had become routinely late across much of the nation, and Michigan trains were the very latest. Nationwide, Amtrak was on time 60% to 70% of the time in many states in 2019. In Michigan, the on-time rate was 43%. On the popular route from Chicago to Detroit to Pontiac, on-time performance occurred just 33% of the time. Amtrak officials documented the late arrivals with detailed records of “freight train interference,” showing a chronic problem of passenger trains forced to wait while freight trains crawled ahead.

 In a letter dated Jan. 22, Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn, who took the top job last spring, sent a letter to each member of Congress, citing Amtrak’s 50th anniversary this year. Flynn asked for “a predictable and long-term source of federal funding” to continue modernizing the system. 

More money, to buy faster locomotives and sleek new cars on upgraded track, can’t do much for train travelers if a poky freight train blocks their way. Flynn asked Congress to give Amtrak the right to sue freight rail operations in federal court, “so we can ensure our customers are not unnecessarily delayed by freight trains and arrive on time.” 

If the lawmakers see it Amtrak’s way, many more travelers may ride the rails for reasons other than COVID-19 concerns. 

Contact Bill Laitner: [email protected]

clock This article was published more than  3 years ago

Is train travel a safer option this holiday? This is what experts say.

Over Thanksgiving weekend, the Transportation Security Administration reported a massive bump in travelers passing through airports, and AAA predicted nearly 50 million people would be traveling by car. Those numbers suggest there could be another travel bump in the next few weeks around Christmas.

While driving and flying are the most popular travel options, where does taking a train fit into pandemic travel? During the 2019 fiscal year, Amtrak carried a record 32.5 million passengers; however, an Amtrak internal analysis in April showed a 95 percent drop in ridership because of the coronavirus . ( Air travel was also down by 96 percent).

Gina Suh, head of the Mayo Clinic’s travel clinic, says train travel isn’t too dissimilar from air travel. There’s not enough data on either to say which is safer, but the same risk factors are at play. It’s all about how many people you come in contact with during your journey.

These 3 tools can help you navigate quarantine and testing policies by state

“That could mean if you are in a crowded train station, if the train itself has it has a density of people around you — whether that’s passengers or crew members — that could still pose a risk,” Suh says. “That [risk] could be mitigated and reduced with mask use, but it’s still possible [to become infected].”

According to Amtrak’s website , it is limiting bookings on reserved trains to allow for more social distancing (family members may still sit next to each other) in addition to carrying out extensive deep cleaning and sanitizing of trains before service. It has installed signs to encourage social distancing in high-traffic areas, such as the stations and cafe cars, where it has also put up plastic barriers at the customer counters.

Additionally, Amtrak now shows the capacity of its trains online as people shop for tickets, which may help customers choose emptier options.

The company requires customers over 2 years old and employees to wear face coverings while onboard and in stations unless they are actively eating or drinking or in their own private room with the door closed. Those with medical conditions who cannot wear masks must wear a face shield as a substitute.

Those measures don’t guarantee risk-free travel on board.

Joseph Khabbaza, a critical care medicine specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said travelers can be meticulous about their plans and still “the wild card is you don’t know who’s going to be close to you and how close they’re going to be, what are their personal views, and how they have been approaching these last seven or eight months.”

A traveler tested negative for covid-19 before a flight. He had the virus and infected 4 passengers.

Khabbaza recommends train travelers book a private roomette or bedroom if they can afford to and if they are available.

“You can isolate from really everyone, so that, of course, becomes essentially just as safe as driving in your car,” Khabbaza said, although you may still have to encounter people if you go to the dining car or a communal restroom or when you exit the train.

For those who can’t get a private room, Khabbaza recommended accessing fresh air for improved ventilation, even though Amtrak says all of its trains have onboard filtration systems with a fresh air exchange rate every four to five minutes. He has also been recommending face shields to patients.

“If a window is able to be opened, that always helps getting droplets to disperse very quickly, making it very unlikely that they will make it to another person in enough of a concentration to transmit infection, especially if masking is enforced,” he said.

However, Amtrak doesn’t allow passengers to open windows any longer because of safety regulations and the central air conditioning. An alternative option for passengers in the coach class is to choose seats near train doors that open during stops.

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Ali Wunderman (@aliwunderman)

Travel writer Ali Wunderman has taken a couple long-distance Amtrak trips during the pandemic, from Montana to the Bay Area in August and from Portland, Ore., to Chicago, then to Boston in September and October.

Wunderman said coronavirus precautions fluctuated from destination to destination. She noticed more thorough sanitation on her Portland-to-Chicago route, and less mask enforcement from Chicago to Boston. At night, she saw passengers traveling in coach with masks down as they slept, and during the day, mask use seemed “intermittent at best” in communal areas.

“That made me not want to gather in any kind of a public space while on the train whatsoever,” she said. “In the dining car people wouldn’t wear a mask while they were actively eating, but it seemed like they would use eating — just like on planes — as an excuse to keep their mask off.”

Wunderman’s advice for travelers considering taking trains this holiday season is to book a roomette or fly instead.

“I would only travel by train right now if I could get a private room” she said. “There’s no doubt about that.”

Travel during the pandemic:

Tips: Safe holiday travel | Coronavirus testing | Sanitizing your hotel | Using Uber and Airbnb

Flying: Pandemic packing | Airport protocol | Staying healthy on plane | Fly or drive | Best days to fly

Road trips: Tips | Rental car s | Best snacks | Long-haul trains | Foliage finder | Art road trips

Camping: First-time | Camping alone | Meal planning | Glamping | National parks

Places: Hawaii | Machu Picchu | New York | Private islands | Caribbean | Mexico | Europe

Bus Vs Train Vs Plane Travel: Pros and Cons

By: Author Zachary Friedman

Posted on Last updated: February 8, 2024

Categories Bus Travel , Travel

Home » Travel » Bus Vs Train Vs Plane Travel: Pros and Cons

While traveling overland between cities, you often have a choice between several modes of transport. In this guide, I break down the pros and cons of bus vs train travel to help you decide which is the best way for you to get to your next destination. I’ll cover comfort, amenities, cost, convenience, environmental impact, safety, and more. I’ll also outline the pros and cons of your third option, flying. Hopefully, this guide helps you choose the best transportation option for your trip.

Over the past 12 years, I’ve traveled through 66 countries across 6 continents. My style of travel is to fly into a region and then travel overland. Over the years, I’ve ridden hundreds of buses and trains. In this guide, I’ll share my experience.

I’ve also made this Youtube video to outline the main points of the article.

Train Travel Pros

• You can get up and move around- In my opinion, this is the best reason to choose the train over the bus. Most long-distance trains allow you to get up from your seat without disturbing the passenger next to you. You can exit your cabin and walk around in the hall. You can also walk between cars to the dining car. You’re not stowed up for hours at a time in the same seat like you are on a bus.
• Trains offer more amenities- Long-distance trains often offer dining, a full bar, and completely flat beds. Shorter distance trains often offer power outlets, wifi, and reclining seats. These amenities often aren’t available on buses.
• More scenic- Train tracks are built in the most efficient manner between two points. They don’t follow a road. You’ll travel through scenic and rural parts of the countryside that you otherwise wouldn’t get to see. You’ll travel through places that haven’t been spoiled by infrastructure and human activity. The scenery you see on from the train is much more beautiful than a motorway. Some train routes are a destination of their own.
• You can lay down flat and get a good nights sleep on a train- If you book a bed on a sleeper train, you can lay down completely flat and stretch out. You’re not stuck in a seated position all night. This allows you to get a solid night of sleep and wake up rested. Some of the best sleep that I have ever gotten has been on a train. Something about the way the train rocks and sways on the tracks just lulls me to sleep. The sound of the wheels rolling on the track adds to the atmosphere. On a bus, you can never lay down completely flat. The quality of sleep is poor.
• Trains are more environmentally friendly- Trains use less fuel per passenger than buses, cars, or planes. If you care about the environment, the train is probably the greenest mode of traveling long distance. The only greener option is walking or bicycle touring. Schedules are more reliable- Because they don’t have to deal with traffic, trains usually run on time. This means you won’t experience as many unexpected delays or late arrivals as you do when taking the bus.
• You can carry more luggage on a train- Luggage allowances are usually less strict on trains. In fact, oftentimes your luggage isn’t even weighed before you board. Many long-distance trains even have a car for luggage and cargo. There’s really no limit to the amount of stuff you can bring with you. For example, after crashing my motorcycle in Vietnam , I put it on a train with me to the next big city so I could recover. That’s not really an option on the bus.
• Trains are faster- For some routes, you’ll reach your destination significantly faster if you travel by train. This is particularly true with bullet trains which can reach speeds exceeding 300 km/h. No bus goes that fast. Of course, for some routes, the bus is the faster option. Be sure to do your research before booking your ticket if you’re in a hurry.
• Train stations are more comfortable than bus stations- This is a generalization but usually, train stations are larger and offer more seating and amenities than bus stations. The reason is that in many countries, each bus company has its own station which is usually just a ticketing office with a few seats. Train stations are usually much larger.
• Finding the train station usually easier- Most cities only have one train station. Particularly large metropolises may have two. This makes finding the station a breeze. Everyone knows where it’s at. A big city could have dozens of different bus terminals. Finding the right one can be a challenge if you don’t know your way around.
• Train travel is healthier- While traveling long distance, no matter which mode of transport you choose, you’ll spend hours sitting in the same position. This puts you at risk of a dangerous condition called deep vein thrombosis (DVT). To read about the condition and its cause, check out this article from the Center for Disease Control. The best way to prevent this condition from developing is to get up and walk around every 2-3 hours. This is really only possible on a train. On a bus, you can sit for 6+ hours between meal and bathroom brakes. This can be seriously dangerous for your health.
• Trains are romantic- Something about riding a train reminds us of times gone by. Our ancestors traveled by long-distance train over one hundred years ago. It’s a historic and sophisticated mode of travel.
• Trains are higher class- For whatever reason, people tend to consider train travel to be a higher class activity. It doesn’t have same social stigma that bus travel carries. Of course, this only matters if you’re the kind of person that cares what others think.
• Trains are cool- Some of us are just fascinated by trains. I can’t explain why but I am one of those people. I don’t have a model train set up in my basement* but I think that would be pretty awesome. Whenever I have the choice between a bus and train, I choose the train.

Train Travel Cons

• More expensive- The biggest drawback of taking the train is the cost. Train tickets are usually significantly more expensive than bus tickets. Sometimes up to twice the price. In some regions, it’s even more expensive to take then train than it is to fly. Both the US and the UK have this problem.
• Fewer destinations- Train lines are limited. Most countries only have one or two. A significant number of countries don’t have any trains at all. This means that you can usually only access larger cities by train. Buses, on the other hand, go almost everywhere on earth. You can access even the smallest villages by bus. For example, in Africa there are very few train lines. Check out my guide to bus travel in Africa for more info.
• Trains offer fewer departure and arrival times- For most popular routes, there are only one or two trains operating per day. You have to leave at those times. Buses often operate on a much more regular schedule. For example, between two big cities, there may be a bus leaving every half hour.
• The ride can be rough- Some older or poorly maintained train lines are incredibly bumpy and shaky. This makes getting comfortable or falling asleep nearly impossible. Of course, modern trains are incredibly smooth. So much so that sometimes you can’t even tell that you’re moving. Buses can be bumpy as well if the road conditions are poor or the bus is old.
• Trains are loud- The metal on metal sound of the train wheels rolling against the track makes a lot of noise. Some people have trouble sleeping because of the noise. Of course, modern trains are designed to be very quiet inside.
• Slightly more dangerous- Deaths by train accident are so rare that this point is almost irrelevant but I found this statistic pretty interesting so I thought I’d throw it in. According to this statistic , train travel is slightly more dangerous than bus travel. With rail travel, there are .6 deaths per billion kilometers traveled compared to .4 deaths per billion kilometers traveled by bus. I found this pretty surprising.
• Trains can’t easily access mountainous regions- Trains can’t climb as easily as buses. For this reason, you’ll rarely find train lines running through mountainous regions. In mountainous countries, you’ll usually have to take the bus.
• Train tickets sell out more quickly- This is my personal experience. If you want to take the train, you usually have to book further in advance than if you’re taking the bus. Seats sell out more quickly. I experienced this in India. For most routes, there are fewer train seats than bus seats available.

Bus Travel Pros

• Cheaper- The bus is almost always the cheapest transport option available. Tickets are often significantly cheaper than rail or air equivalents.
• More destinations- Buses travel almost everywhere. You can take the bus to even the tiniest of villages. Anywhere that there is a road, a bus can go. For example, I traveled by bus through the Omo Valley of Ethiopia to villages that couldn’t be accessed by train or air.
• More departure and arrival times- For popular bus routes between cities, there is often a bus leaving every hour. Sometimes even more frequently. In this case, if you can’t leave the city until the afternoon, for example, you won’t have to wait around too long. Trains, on the other hand, only offer a couple of departures per day at most. You might have to wait all night until the next departure.
• Smoother ride- Buses offer the same or better ride quality than most cars. Older trains tend to shake and sway on the tracks. Of course, new buses and trains are both incredibly smooth.
• Quiet- Road noise is rarely a problem. Buses also don’t suffer from the metal on metal sound that train wheels have against the tracks. Of course, if a loud passenger sits near you, you’re in for a noisy ride. Once, while traveling to Seattle on the Greyhound bus, a particularly annoying woman kept yelling at the driver to stop so she could smoke. Eventually, the driver stopped at a truck stop and kicked her off the bus. Everyone clapped for our hero of a driver.
• Slightly safer- Buses have fewer deaths per billion hours traveled at 11.1, and by billion journies at 4.3. Rail travel has 20 deaths per billion journeys and 30 deaths per billion hours according to Wikipedia. Both modes of travel are safer than traveling by car.
• Buses can access mountainous regions- Anywhere there is a road, a bus can go, for the most part. Trains generally can’t access mountainous regions. Of course, there are some exceptions to this.
• Bus tickets don’t sell out as quickly- For many routes, you can just show up at the station and buy your ticket hours before travel. If you want to take a train, you often have to buy your ticket well in advance. Of course, bus tickets do sell out. It’s a good idea to book at least a day in advance if possible.
• Buses can be faster- For some routes, bus travel times are shorter than trains. If you’re in a hurry, do your research before booking tickets.

Bus Travel Cons

• You can’t move around- While riding the bus, you pretty much have to wait for a bathroom or meal break to get up and move around. There is just nowhere to go while the bus is moving. On a couple of occasions, I’ve been on buses where the driver kept driving for over 6 hours without stopping. During that time, everyone was stowed up in their seats without any way to move.
• Fewer amenities- Bus services are pretty basic. There is no food service or bar. The seats don’t lay flat. Most buses don’t have outlets or wifi. Of course, there are exceptions. I found long-distance buses in South America to offer a surprising amount of amenities including meal service, entertainment systems, and comfortable seating. The experience is almost like taking a flight.
• Less scenic- Buses travel on the fastest road available between destinations. That’s usually the highway. These usually aren’t too scenic. Highways are flat and surrounded by human development. Trains, on the other hand, pass through untouched, beautiful land that you otherwise wouldn’t get to see.
• You can’t lay down flat- Some bus seats are better than others, but none really lay completely flat. This makes getting a good night of sleep nearly impossible for some people. Trains generally offer beds. Here, you can get a good night of sleep and arrive at your destination well-rested.
• Less environmentally friendly- Buses burn more fuel per passenger than trains. These days, many people are choosing to travel less for the benefit of the environment. Trains are pretty energy efficient.
• Less reliable- Buses must put up with city traffic. Usually, they account for this in the schedule but traffic can be unpredictable. An unexpected accident can cause an hour of delay. Trains don’t have to put up with traffic so they can keep a more reliable schedule. Of course, there are exceptions. Trains often run just as late due to mechanical issues or incompetence.
• You can’t carry as much luggage- Most bus lines have a similar luggage policy to airlines. That is one carry on bag and one checked bag. Generally, your carry-on bag must be smaller than 62 linear inches and weigh less than 50 pounds. The checked bag must fit either under the seat in front of you or in the luggage storage above the seats. Of course, baggage policies vary by bus line. You can also pay a fee to carry extra luggage. Trains usually have much less strict luggage policies. Some don’t even measure or weigh your luggage if it’s within reason.
• Buses are slower- Because they can’t travel at the same speeds and they have to deal with city traffic, buses generally have longer transit times. This is particularly true in Europe. For example, the bus from Amsterdam to Berlin takes 8 hours 15 minutes. The train takes just 6 hours 4 minutes.
• Bus stations are less comfortable- Many large cities don’t have a central bus station. Instead, small bus offices are located all over the city. These small offices typically don’t offer any amenities other than a few seats and a restroom if you’re lucky. Train stations, on the other hand, are usually large with plenty of seating, restaurants, shops, and more.
• Finding the bus station is sometimes a challenge- Because bus stations are often small and numerous, finding the right location can take time when you’re in a large and unfamiliar city. Most cities only have one main train station. This makes finding your way to the station much easier.
• Bus travel is less healthy- This mostly has to do with the amount of time that you must spend seated while riding the bus. If you spend enough hours seated in the same position, your blood can begin to clot. Usually in your leg. The clot of blood can break loose and make its way to your lungs. Here, it can cause serious problems. This condition is called deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The solution is to get up and walk around every 2-3 hours. You just can’t do this while riding a bus. You can, however, if you take a train.
• Buses are lower class- One of the main reasons that people tend to dislike riding the bus is psychological. People associate bus travel with the lower class. There’s a certain negative social stigma to riding the bus. This bothers some types of people.
• Buses aren’t cool- There really isn’t any history or novelty to bus travel. It’s just a cheap way to get around. After all, nobody builds a model bus route in their basement.

Which Mode of Travel is Better? Bus Vs Train

Both the train and bus will get you to your destination in a safe and relatively reliable manner. The choice mostly comes down to cost, availability, and personal preference.

While researching for this guide, I read about a couple of interesting studies that were done to determine which mode of travel commuters preferred. Researchers performed surveys in cities all over the world.

They determined that people everywhere generally preferred trains. Through more surveying, the researchers were able to come up with several possible reasons why.

One common reason was psychological in nature. Many people simply associate buses with bad transport and trains with good transport. This could have to do with history, marketing, physical differences between buses and trains, or our culture.

Another common reason that people prefer trains to buses seems to be social in nature. Many people consider the bus to be lower on the hierarchy of transportation methods. It has a negative stigma. Possibly because the bus is commonly used by people in the lower class. Because of this, some people feel ashamed of admitting to riding the bus. Most people don’t feel this way about riding trains.

A Third Mode of Transport: Air Travel

For longer or overseas routes, air travel is often your only reasonable option. For shorter trips, air travel may not be the best choice. In this section, I’ll outline the pros and cons of taking a flight rather than ground transport. In this analysis, I assume that you fly economy class.

Air Travel Pros

• Faster- A flight allows you to travel to the other side of the planet in less than a day. Trains and buses can’t even cross a large country in that amount of time.
• Can cross bodies of water- For overseas travel, sometimes your only reasonable option is to fly. Taking a ship across an ocean just isn’t practical for most trips. Most travelers simply don’t have the time or desire to spend weeks at sea. Of course, you can’t travel overseas by bus or train.
• Flying costs less for long journies- These days, budget airlines often allow you to fly for less than the price of a train ticket. In some cases, flying is even cheaper than taking the bus. The reason is that you must factor in the price of food when traveling long-distance overland. A bus trip across a continent may take several days. You’ll have to eat during that time. You may even have to stay in a hotel at night. Before buying a bus or train ticket, always check the price of flights and factor in any additional costs that you’ll have to cover. You may be surprised.
• Airports are comfortable and full of amenities- Airports offer plenty of seating, restaurants, bars, and shops. The best airport that I have visited was Incheon in South Korea. While on a 12 hour layover, I took a tour of Seoul and enjoyed a shower after getting back to the airport. All for free. If I had to choose between waiting around an airport, bus station, or train station, I’d choose the airport every time.
• Flights are more reliable- Because airlines cater to a business clientele, the must remain on schedule. Of course, there are occasional delays.
• Finding the airport is easy- Most cities only have one and everyone knows where it is. Some larger cities have 2-3. Airports are usually served by public transport as well. Higher class- There is no negative stigma to flying. Fellow passengers will generally be from a higher social class than those you meet on a bus.
• It’s cool- Aviation is fascinating. I’m still blown away by flight even though I’ve flown hundreds of times.

Air Travel Cons

• Expensive- Flights generally cost more than bus or train tickets. This is particularly true with journeys that would take less than a day traveling by ground. Having said that, budget airlines often offer rates that are competitive with bus or train ticket prices. It’s best to always check prices before booking. Sometimes you get a pleasant surprise with a low fare.
• Flying is a hassle- In order to fly, you must pack your bag in an airline acceptable manner, arrive at the airport a couple of hours early, check-in, go through security, wait to board and deboard, then wait for your luggage at baggage claim. The whole process is slow and inefficient. You can’t just show up like you can at a bus or train station.
• Airports are inconveniently located- Due to the noise, airports are usually built far outside of the city that they serve. Oftentimes 20 miles or more from the city center. This increases your costs and transit times. When you take the bus or train you conveniently arrive in the city center.
• You have to book in advance- In order to get a decent price on a ticket, you should make your reservation at least 2 weeks in advance. When traveling during the busy holiday season , you’ll want to book several months in advance. Most of the time, you can book trains and buses just a few days in advance. Sometimes you can just show up and buy a ticket minutes before departure.
• You can’t move around easily- While flying, you’re pretty much stuck in your feet. There are no breaks where you can get up and walk around. Of course, you can get up to go to the bathroom but that’s about it. Unfortunately, this means disturbing the passenger next to you if you don’t have an aisle seat.
• You can’t carry much luggage- Airlines are particularly strict about the size and weight of your bags. Most airlines allow checked bags to be up to 62 linear inches (158cm) and 50 pounds (23 kilos). Carry-on bags typically must be less than 45 linear inches (about 114 cm) and 22 pounds (10 kilos). Every airline is slightly different. Make sure you check the limits before your flight. Also, be sure to weigh your luggage so you know you’re not over the limit. When traveling by bus or train, baggage allowances are much less strict. Oftentimes bags aren’t even weighed.
• You can’t carry certain items on an airplane- Anything that could be considered a weapon is prohibited. I had a butter knife confiscated because it had a slightly serrated edge. You must also limit your liquids to 100ml or 3.4 oz bottles. These limits make packing for certain trips a bit of a challenge. For example, I like to camp and hike. Tent stakes, trekking poles, and camp stove fuel are all prohibited. Of course, you can always check a bag, but even then many items aren’t allowed due to the fear of explosion. This includes aerosols, fuels, and large batteries.
• Flying is unhealthy- As mentioned above, the risk of DVT is higher during flights because you can’t move around. I also feel that I tend to get sick after a flight more often than a bus or train ride. Maybe due to the air quality or pressure changes.
• Less scenic- Once you reach cruising altitude, there’s not much to look at. While traveling overland, you can at least enjoy viewing the land as you pass by. I will admit, viewing a massive city from the air as you approach for landing is pretty incredible. I’m always blown away by the sprawl of the Los Angeles metro area even though I’ve flown into the city dozens of times. Mountains are also incredibly impressive from the air.
• Flying is less environmentally friendly- According to this interesting article about the carbon footprint of various modes of transport from mnn.com, a flight produces around 3 tons of CO2 per passenger. Traveling by train cuts that number in half. If you’re the type of person that cares about being green when you travel, you may wish to limit the number of times that you fly. 
• You can’t lay down flat- In order to pack in the maximum number of passengers, airline seats barely even recline. Of course, if you’re willing to shell out for business or first class, you can get a lay flat seat.
• Slightly less safe- Statistically speaking, flying is incredibly safe. Much safer than driving yourself. It is, however, slightly more dangerous than taking the bus or train. I found this statistic pretty surprising. I had always assumed that air travel was the safest option.

How to Decide

While deciding which mode of transport to choose, the first thing to take into consideration is cost. Check the price of flights, the train, and the bus before booking a ticket. You need to stay within budget. If you’re not sure how much you can afford to spend on transportation, check out my guide to help you make an accurate travel budget.

I don’t always choose the absolute cheapest option. My preferred mode of travel is the train. When the price is reasonably close to the price of the bus, I’ll buy a ticket. If the flight is cheaper, I’ll fly. If a bus ticket is significantly cheaper than either, I’ll take the bus instead. Generally, the bus is my least favorite mode of travel, comfort-wise.

Next, I consider the time of departure and arrival. This depends on your personal preference. Most travelers don’t want to arrive in an unfamiliar city in the middle of the night.

I’m not a morning person so I avoid early departures. If I have the choice, I like to travel by night. The main reason is that I can save on a night of accommodation. This saves me on average $10-$25 on a hotel or hostel. It also saves time. By traveling at night, I can arrive in a new destination with a whole day ahead of me. I haven’t wasted the day sitting around in transit.

My Experience

Each mode of transport has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. The choice partially comes down to personal preference. Some travels hate to fly and avoid it at all cost. Many luxury travelers would never set foot on a bus or train. They value time more than money.

I consider my self a bit of a train enthusiast. One of my bucket list trips is to take the Transsiberian railway from Moscow to Vladivostok. Possibly with a detour to Mongolia. Another train ride on my bucket list train ride is the iron ore train in Mauritania. I hope to take those rides and write about them in future posts.

Do you prefer taking the bus or train while traveling? Share your experience in the comments below!

More from Where The Road Forks

• How to Plan a Round-the-World Trip
• Backpack Vs Suitcase for Travel
• How to Provide Proof of Onward Travel
• How to Meet People While Traveling Alone

Zachary Friedman is an accomplished travel writer and professional blogger. Since 2011, he has traveled to 66 countries and 6 continents. He founded ‘Where The Road Forks’ in 2017 to provide readers with information and insights based on his travel and outdoor recreation experience and expertise. Zachary is also an avid cyclist and hiker. Living as a digital nomad, Zachary balances his professional life with his passions for hiking, camping, cycling, and worldwide exploration. For a deeper dive into his journey and background, visit the About page. For inquiries and collaborations, please reach out through the Contact page. You can also follow him on Facebook.

Sharing is caring!

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Sunday 30th of January 2022

Concerning the fact that bus travelling is less safe then train travelling. It is not true. The problem is that statistics, train accidents includes all death and injuries related to train. Most of deaths comes because train can hit other vehicles, bycicles and people who cross the tracks. Train passengers are safe and very rarely get injured during train travel, but train accidents includes all accidents where train are involved. If train hits a car and kills somebody, it is a train accident.

Monday 26th of September 2022

@Ivan Dusan, Oh, so it's only OTHER people who are more likely to die. Great, I feel so much better now! Sign me up!

November 19, 2020

Evaluating COVID Risk on Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Stay safer on different forms of transportation

By Sophie Bushwick , Tanya Lewis & Amanda Montañez

Getty Images

With COVID-19 reaching the most dangerous levels the U.S. has seen since the pandemic began, the country faces a problematic holiday season . Despite the risk, many people are likely to travel using various forms of transportation that will inevitably put them in relatively close contact with others. Many transit companies have established frequent cleaning routines, but evidence suggests that airborne transmission of the novel coronavirus poses a greater danger than surfaces. The virus is thought to be spread primarily by small droplets , called aerosols, that hang in the air and larger droplets that fall to the ground within six feet or so. Although no mode of public transportation is completely safe, there are some concrete ways to reduce risk, whether on an airplane, train or bus—or even in a shared car.

Credit: Amanda Montañez

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

At a casual glance, air travel might seem like the perfect recipe for COVID transmission: it packs dozens of people into a confined space, often for hours at a time. But many planes have excellent high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that capture more than 99 percent of particles in the air , including microbes as SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID. When their recirculation systems are operating, most commercial passenger jets bring in outside air in a top-to-bottom direction about 20 to 30 times per hours. This results in a 50–50 mix of outside and recirculated air and reduces the potential for airborne spread of a respiratory virus. Many airlines now require passengers to wear a mask during flights except for mealtimes, and some are blocking off middle seats to allow more distancing between people. Companies have also implemented rigorous cleaning procedures between flights. So how does this translate into overall risk?

“An airplane cabin is probably one of the most secure conditions you can be in,” says Sebastian Hoehl of the Institute for Medical Virology at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany, who has co-authored two papers on COVID-19 transmission on specific flights, which were published in JAMA Network Open and the New England Journal of Medicine , respectfully. Still, a handful of case studies have found that limited transmission can take place onboard. One such investigation of a 10-hour journey from London to Hanoi starting on March 1 found that 15 people were likely infected with COVID-19 in-flight —and that 12 of them had sat within a couple of rows of a single symptomatic passenger in business class. (The results were published this month in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases .) Most of these flights occurred early on in the pandemic, however, and in the case of the March 1 flight, masks were likely not worn, the researchers wrote. Meanwhile a recent Department of Defense study modeled the risk of in-flight infection using mannequins exhaling simulated virus particles and found that a person would have to be exposed to an infectious passenger for at least 54 hours to get an infectious dose. This finding assumes the infected passenger is wearing a surgical mask, however, and it does not account for the dangers involved in removing the mask for meals or talking or in moving about on the plane.

With flying, COVID risk really comes down to how closely one sits to other people and for how long, whether or not everyone is wearing a mask, and how infectious any passengers are at the time. If you happen to be seated close to a person who is actively “shedding” the virus, especially if it is a long flight or that person is not wearing a mask, there is a higher chance that you will get the disease. But if you are seated relatively far from others, and everyone is wearing a mask, your risk is probably fairly low. Being in a crowded airport or taking a taxi to get there could be a bigger concern, though.

Subways and Trains

This past spring the novel coronavirus tore through New York City , reaching a peak of thousands of new cases per day in April. Initially some researchers blamed the metropolis’s bustling subway—which carried 5.5 million commuters on a typical pre-COVID weekday—for making it the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. But later reviews of the evidence suggest mass transit systems have not been major drivers of viral spread . In August the New York Times asked several international transportation agencies whether any superspreading events had been linked to mass transit, and they said none had. A September report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) examined the coronavirus’s spread in cities around the globe that had robust public transit systems. It found no correlation between mass transit use and transmission of the virus. Many of the cities in question required commuters to wear masks.

The APTA report suggested that commuters should reduce risk by wearing a mask and staying six feet apart and that train cars should be well ventilated. Most major cities’ subways and trains constantly recirculate a mixture of fresh air and older air, both of which are pulled through a filter rated on the MERV (minimum efficiency reporting value) scale. MERV-13 filters are less efficient than HEPA filters, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends them for reducing the number of airborne viral particles. A number of subway and train systems use lower-rated MERV filters that are still capable of at least reducing the volume of coronavirus in the air. The APTA report notes that on most systems’ subway cars and buses, new air replaces stale air almost 18 times an hour. Passenger train operator Amtrak claims to cycle air through cabins 44 times an hour. But even with fresh air available, an infected passenger can still transmit the coronavirus to someone who is sitting in close proximity—so riders should attempt to space themselves out and avoid densely packed cars whenever possible. Mask wearing reduces risk and is now mandatory on many forms of transit in the U.S., including New York City’s subway and bus systems, as well as Amtrak trains throughout the country. Finally, experts suggest that limiting the length of a ride can also be helpful: 15 minutes on a subway is safer than a multihour train trip.

Many buses have HVAC (heating, ventilating and air-conditioning) systems similar to those on subways and trains , with one additional factor: buses are more likely to have windows that open. Windows, as well as open ceiling vents, allow fresh air to enter the vehicle. In addition, in a city system (as opposed to a long-distance ride), buses make frequent stops. Doing so allows outside air to flood in each time the doors open. In a case study of a bus in China , a passenger with the novel coronavirus was able to infect many other riders, including those seated up to seven rows away. There seemed to be less risk of transmission , however, for people who were seated near windows and doors that could open.

In addition to snagging window seats, bus riders should look for the same safety features they would on a subway: a mask requirement, good ventilation and adequate spacing between passengers. Limiting rides to short trips may also be helpful. Some bus companies have installed clear partitions between drivers and passengers. Doing so might limit the spread of virus-carrying droplets from coughing, sneezing, breathing or speaking but is unlikely to prevent viral transmission via smaller airborne particles.

Taxis, Ubers and Lyfts

Before the pandemic, many people would not think twice about ordering a ride-share car or hailing a taxi. But now the idea of being in such an enclosed space with a stranger can seem like a life-and-death proposition. It is nearly impossible for drivers and passengers to remain six feet apart in a car, so transmission is definitely possible. An NEJM study in March reported on a Thai taxi driver who fell ill and tested positive for the coronavirus after driving some tourists who had been coughing but wearing a mask. Reliable data on the frequency of COVID transmission in cars is lacking, however.

Keeping the windows open and making sure the air system is set to take in outside air instead of recycling it should reduce the risk. Wearing a mask also probably helps, and ride-share companies Uber and Lyft both require drivers and passengers to do so. These companies have also stopped offering car pools (except in Uber’s case for people who work together), so passengers are only exposed to the driver and anyone in their own party. Some drivers have even installed a plastic shield between the front and back seats. But as is the case with buses, these barriers would likely only protect against larger droplets, not aerosols. Shorter rides—especially those under roughly 15 minutes—pose a lower risk than long ones. And keeping conversation to a minimum could also reduce the danger because talking is known to release aerosols that can spread the virus. If the rate of community transmission in your region is low, chances are that taking the occasional taxi or ride-share car is not a huge risk—provided you wear a mask and keep the windows open as much as possible.

Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here . And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Climate Forward

Trains are cleaner than planes, right.

The surprising carbon footprint of an Amtrak trip across America.

By Hiroko Tabuchi

Recently, I did something I’ve long dreamed of. I took the train across America.

The views were majestic, particularly as we swayed through the West. The Wi-Fi was bad, and the food not much better. But I wanted to do it partly because trains are cleaner than flying.

But when I got back home and crunched the numbers, I discovered something surprising: it would have been less polluting for me to have flown.

As a climate journalist, I often fly to report my articles, but I’ve always worried about the climate cost. Flying in jets that burn a lot of fuel is probably one of the most polluting things we do. By taking a flight to report on a problem, I’m basically making that problem worse by causing tons of planet-warming emissions that are heating up our planet to dangerous extremes.

So when I started to work on a story that would involve spending time with two climate scientists at Stanford University — one who wants to rid the school of fossil fuel funding, the other fully funded by Exxon — I wondered whether I could try something different.

What if I traveled from New York to Stanford by train, a method of transportation that generally has a far smaller climate footprint ?

The most direct route was to take the Lake Shore Limited train to Chicago, then the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, Calif., just outside San Francisco.

That 3,400-mile journey would take a daunting 72 hours. But I convinced my editors to let me use a work day, plus a few vacation days, to take the trip.

I was set. And I was doing my part to save the planet. Right?

Wrong. In short, I took a train across America and ended up emitting more planet-warming emissions, not less. I’ll explain why in just a bit.

The journey itself was epic . I boarded a packed train at New York Penn Station and was quickly speeding along the Hudson River at sunset. After a train change in Chicago, and traversing Iowa and Nebraska, we reached the Colorado Rockies. Our ascent from the flat plains to the green forests, then through the snow-capped Rockies, the deserts of Utah and the panoramic Sierra Nevada, was nothing short of magical.

It was also a slog. A sleeper cabin would have cost more than $2,000, so I was in an upright seat the entire trip. (Compression socks helped.) That still cost $600, about the same price flying the same route would have cost during the holiday season. I’d heard that the dining car was expensive, so I brought along vegetable sticks, crackers, cheese, hummus, instant noodles and miso soup. I tried to work on the Lake Shore Limited, but the Wi-Fi was down. There was no internet at all on the California Zephyr.

But then I did the math on my emissions.

A nonstop flight from New York to San Francisco emits, on average, about 840 pounds of carbon dioxide per economy class passenger, according to Google Flights, whose data is independently reviewed . That’s equivalent to burning 420 pounds of coal, or more than the annual emissions of someone living in Cameroon. Air travel is wildly polluting.

But what about trains? I tracked down several estimates of carbon emissions per passenger-mile, including Amtrak’s official estimate. What I got back: My cross-country train journey had emitted somewhere from 950 to 1,133 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger.

There are a few reasons for this result. Amtrak is far cleaner than flying where its tracks are electrified, along the Northeast Corridor, from Washington to Boston. But outside the Northeast, Amtrak trains run on diesel, a highly polluting fuel.

What’s more, Amtrak’s trains are decades old. (Its single-level Amfleet cars were built in the late 1970s.) Add to that generous seat pitches, large old-fashioned private rooms for longer-distance trains, a longer, winding route across the country and “per-passenger-mile emissions go through the roof,” said Justin Roczniak , a co-host of “Well There’s Your Problem,” a podcast about engineering.

Amtrak is still the more climate-friendly option for the vast majority of travelers, who on average travel 300 to 400 miles, said Olivia Irvin, a spokeswoman for the rail company. (That is, not many people are crazy enough to go cross-country by train.) A 2022 Department of Transportation study found that traveling by train from Los Angeles to San Diego generated less than half the emissions , per passenger, of flying, or driving. For Boston to New York, an electrified route, taking the train generated less than a fifth the emissions of flying or driving.

It’s when journeys start getting longer than about 700 miles that planes start to gain an advantage on trains. Planes burn the most fuel when they take off and climb to altitude. That makes short flights very inefficient — you’re burning all that fuel only to travel a short distance. (Some countries, like France and Spain , have tried to ban the shortest flights when rail alternatives are available.)

Longer flights also tend to use larger aircraft, which provide economies of scale. And aircraft have become more fuel-efficient over the years. But choosing flights with several connections, for example, can quickly add to your footprint, because you’re taking off and landing multiple time

Flights for the same route can differ in terms of emissions by a factor of three, according to Dan Rutherford, director of research at the International Council on Clean Transportation, who advises Google on its flight emissions calculations. And comparing air and train travel can be tricky: Amtrak does not provide emissions estimates for different seat classes. Airplanes also emit other pollution like nitrogen oxides and soot, and form contrails , all of which warm the planet further.

And experts agree that aviation is going to be one of the hardest industries to decarbonize. With trains, electrification is already readily available. The technology is there. China, for example, has managed to electrify 70 percent of its train lines over the past decades and made them faster, too. And as the electric grid gets cleaner by adding more solar and wind, so will trains that run on electricity from that grid.

An electric, long-distance passenger plane is much further in our future.

Whether Amtrak will ever electrify outside of the Northeast corridor is another question, however. In America, tracks are owned by freight companies, which have resisted electrification. (Freight trains are also why some Amtrak trains stop frequently to make way. And all that stopping and starting makes America’s passenger trains even less energy-efficient.) Amtrak is currently updating its fleet with newer diesel trains, albeit ones that are less polluting and slightly faster.

One thing I did learn during my cross-country train journey: There are still a lot of Americans who love trains. The trains I took were booked solid. Among my fellow travelers were a college student traveling to see her long-distance boyfriend, and grandparents on a family trip (but they didn’t want to travel by car with their grandchildren).

But would I travel cross-country by train again? Probably not, unless Amtrak electrified the route. We can only dream.

More climate news

Only 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers accounted for 80 percent of global fossil fuel carbon emissions in the last decade, a new report reviewed by Axios shows .

The Biden administration’s $7.5 billion investment in electric car charging has only produced seven stations in two years, The Washington Post reports .

Most of the European Union’s embattled farming subsidies go to meat and dairy products, researchers reported in The Conservation .

An earlier version of this newsletter stated incorrectly the train’s route after leaving Chicago. It traversed Iowa and Nebraska, not Indiana and Nebraska.

An earlier version of this newsletter also described incorrectly the pollution from airplanes. It contains nitrogen oxides, not nitrogen.

How we handle corrections

Hiroko Tabuchi covers the intersection of business and climate for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York. More about Hiroko Tabuchi

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Giant batteries are transforming the way the United States uses electricity. Here’s how .

Are carbon offsets for air travel worth it? A lot of them don’t work and some might even be harmful, but there are alternatives .

Cattle ranches have ruled the Amazon for decades. Now, new companies are selling something else: the ability of trees to lock away planet-warming carbon .

“Buying Time,” a series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

June 1, 2020

Due to travel restrictions, plans are only available with travel dates on or after

Due to travel restrictions, plans are only available with effective start dates on or after

Ukraine; Belarus; Moldova; North Korea; Russia; Israel

This is a test environment. Please proceed to AllianzTravelInsurance.com and remove all bookmarks or references to this site.

Use this tool to calculate all purchases like ski-lift passes, show tickets, or even rental equipment.

Train Vs. Plane: 5 U.S. Routes Where the Train Beats the Plane

Get a Quote

{{travelBanText}} {{travelBanDateFormatted}}.

{{annualTravelBanText}} {{travelBanDateFormatted}}.

If your trip involves multiple destinations, please enter the destination where you’ll be spending the most time. It is not required to list all destinations on your policy.

Age of Traveler

Ages: {{quote.travelers_ages}}

If you were referred by a travel agent, enter the ACCAM number provided by your agent.

Travel Dates

{{quote.travel_dates ? quote.travel_dates : "Departure - Return" | formatDates}}

Plan Start Date

{{quote.start_date ? quote.start_date : "Date"}}

Share this Page

• {{errorMsgSendSocialEmail}}

Your browser does not support iframes.

Popular Travel Insurance Plans

• Annual Travel Insurance
• Cruise Insurance
• Domestic Travel Insurance
• International Travel Insurance
• Rental Car Insurance

View all of our travel insurance products

Terms, conditions, and exclusions apply. Please see your plan for full details. Benefits/Coverage may vary by state, and sublimits may apply.

Insurance benefits underwritten by BCS Insurance Company (OH, Administrative Office: 2 Mid America Plaza, Suite 200, Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181), rated “A” (Excellent) by A.M. Best Co., under BCS Form No. 52.201 series or 52.401 series, or Jefferson Insurance Company (NY, Administrative Office: 9950 Mayland Drive, Richmond, VA 23233), rated “A+” (Superior) by A.M. Best Co., under Jefferson Form No. 101-C series or 101-P series, depending on your state of residence and plan chosen. A+ (Superior) and A (Excellent) are the 2nd and 3rd highest, respectively, of A.M. Best's 13 Financial Strength Ratings. Plans only available to U.S. residents and may not be available in all jurisdictions. Allianz Global Assistance and Allianz Travel Insurance are marks of AGA Service Company dba Allianz Global Assistance or its affiliates. Allianz Travel Insurance products are distributed by Allianz Global Assistance, the licensed producer and administrator of these plans and an affiliate of Jefferson Insurance Company. The insured shall not receive any special benefit or advantage due to the affiliation between AGA Service Company and Jefferson Insurance Company. Plans include insurance benefits and assistance services. Any Non-Insurance Assistance services purchased are provided through AGA Service Company. Except as expressly provided under your plan, you are responsible for charges you incur from third parties. Contact AGA Service Company at  800-284-8300 or 9950 Mayland Drive, Richmond, VA 23233 or [email protected] .

Return To Log In

Your session has expired. We are redirecting you to our sign-in page.

Rail travel is cleaner than driving or flying, but will Americans buy in?

Executive Director of the Center for Railway Research and Education, Michigan State University

Disclosure statement

Andreas Hoffrichter is employed by Michigan State University in the Center for Railway Research and Education and is researching low and zero-emission railway motive power technologies. The Center receives grants from state governments to investigate alternative motive power technologies.

Michigan State University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Transportation represents a large portion – about 29 percent – of U.S. emissions, and the share has been rising in recent years . Rail proponents often argue that investment in trains and public transportation is a key part of making transportation cleaner , and indeed, the Green New Deal calls for greatly expanding high-speed rail .

I’m a scholar of rail , and it’s clear to me that the quickest way to decrease greenhouse gases from transportation is to travel by train and move goods by rail instead of on the road or by air.

To explain why, it’s worth comparing rail to other modes of transportation on energy consumption and emissions, and to look at some of the developments that can make rail more widely used in the U.S. and less reliant on fossil fuels.

Energy and emissions profiles

Transportation by rail is a major part of the transportation system in most countries, including in the U.S., which has the longest freight railway system in the world with approximately 140,000 miles. Rail passenger services are essential in many areas, primarily in population centers such as New York and Chicago, and intercity rail has a significant market share in some corridors, such as the Northeast. Rail also offers long-distance routes connecting many smaller communities with each other and the large metropolitan areas in the country.

Data show that rail has a significantly lower energy footprint than trucks and passenger cars. Rail transport, with hard steel wheels on steel rail, has lower resistance to motion than road transportation. And the convoy formation of individual rail cars into trains also adds to its better energy and environmental performance.

A common measure for transportation capacity is ton-miles for freight and passenger-miles for passengers to indicate that a ton of freight is moved for one mile and for passenger systems that a passenger is moved for one mile.

Freight rail accounts for about one-third of the ton-miles and consumes only about 2 percent of the transportation energy in the U.S. The higher efficiency can be illustrated this way: On average, freight railroads move a ton of cargo for around 479 miles on a gallon of fuel , which is about 11 times more energy-efficient than trucks on a ton-mile basis.

Passenger rail is around three times more efficient than a car on a passenger-mile basis at current occupancy levels. The lower energy consumption leads to lower greenhouse emissions .

How US and European rail differ

Often there is the perception that the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to rail, but in many cases that is not true. The country has, arguably, the best freight rail system in the world, which is owned, operated and financed by private companies. Passenger service in specific corridors is comparable with the European counterparts: for example, in the Northeast. On long-distance routes and in less densely populated areas, however, there are often empty seats on Amtrak trains.

The primary difference between Europe and North America could be summarized like this: In America there is a freight rail system with some passenger, while in Europe there is a passenger rail system with some freight – the emphasis is different.

A further difference is that the rail network is private in the U.S. and operated to yield a profit, while in most other countries the rail infrastructure is owned by the government (similar to the freeway system in the U.S.) and heavily subsidized.

To compete with air for passenger transportation

Running passenger and freight trains on the same lines is possible but poses many challenges, as the characteristics of the two train types are very different; freight trains tend to be long, heavy and comparatively slow, while passenger trains are short, fast and comparatively light. If there are not too many trains on a line, this mixed traffic can be managed, but if there are a lot of trains, then separate infrastructure is the way forward.

When journey times are less than four hours , people usually prefer to travel by train instead of alternative options, such as air or road. For many corridors in the U.S. it would be necessary to upgrade existing lines or to build new infrastructure to achieve competitive journey times.

For the high-speed rail projects in California , which the state recently decided to scale back , and Texas , where trains would be able to travel at speeds of 200 miles per hour or more, those states are building new infrastructure. Higher-speed options often allow existing rail tracks to be upgraded to accommodate speeds of around 110 miles per hour to around 125 miles per hour, and such projects are being implemented in Florida and the Midwest .

Routes to better environmental performance

The majority of trains in the U.S. are diesel-electric, where a diesel engine runs a generator , supplying electric traction motors that turn the wheels. However, electricity can also be supplied by the grid to trains via wayside infrastructure, and this option accounts for about 4.5 percent of rail energy, more than for any other mode, with the majority being used in transit and commuter operation, and some intercity rail . Therefore, when the electricity generation mix becomes less greenhouse gas-intensive, those rail systems automatically follow.

For the lines where wayside electrification is not economically feasible – imagine routes that are long, such as Chicago to Los Angeles – or where traffic is relatively low, rail will continue to rely on on-board electric power generation.

Rail is developing options to reduce emissions for lines without wayside electrification too, with advanced diesel engine technologies , and exploration of less polluting energy options, including natural gas. Florida East Coast Railway has converted the majority of their locomotives to liquefied natural gas .

Having batteries to supply power to trains can significantly reduce or fully avoid conventional wayside electrification, decreasing cost and visual impact as no overhead wires are necessary on the right-of-way. These are suitable for relatively short distances and where power demand is low, such as light rail and streetcars. Detroit’s QLine , for example, operates 60 percent on battery power, or “off-wire.”

Hydrogen fuel cell applications to rail, often referred to as hydrail, enable long range with a lower environmental footprint than diesel, and such trains for regional passenger service are already in operation in Germany . In the U.S., the technology is being investigated by some passenger and transit railways, including in North Carolina , and its use for freight rail is being explored as well.

Even without these advances, rail is already more environmentally friendly than road or air. Dramatically expanding rail use, particularly passenger service, will require government investment in more frequent service on existing lines, starting service to areas that don’t have access to rail currently, reducing journey times and building out a larger passenger rail network.

• Energy efficiency
• Transportation
• Green New Deal
• Transportation policy
• Passenger trains

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

When to take the train instead of flying or driving

Editor's Note

Most people immediately think of driving or flying when thinking about their transportation choices, rather than taking a train. And it's true the U.S. is far behind many other countries when it comes to train route options and frequency. However, on many routes, traveling by train can be an excellent way to get around, whether you're looking for a scenic view along the way or want to avoid driving or flying between point A and point B.

Train travel is often cheaper than flying, in part because you can generally take more with you before paying extra baggage fees. It can also be more convenient and relaxing than driving, especially if you'd be driving in an unfamiliar place or driving for many hours nonstop to get to your destination.

So when you are planning your next trip, don't discount train rides in your transportation strategy. There are several times when it might make sense to look into traveling by rail instead of plane or car. Here are some things to consider:

Want more travel news and advice? Sign up for TPG's daily newsletter.

Fares may be better than flying

This year, travelers can't assume that taking the train is radically less expensive than flying. While we've seen increasing airfares this summer , trains have been increasing their prices, too.

I recently looked into a quick weekend trip up to Boston to see family and friends. Looking at fares on Amtrak , a round-trip coach fare between New York City and Boston starts at $200 on the Northeast Regional, while a business-class round trip on Acela starts at $316. For the same dates in August, I'd be paying $257 for a flight in basic economy.

This cheapest train option, however, also means leaving New York at 2:40 a.m. — so unless you're a true night owl, you'll probably want to pay a little more to leave at a more convenient time of day.

Compare that, however, to the cheapest airfare option — where you're going to get a small seat, limited baggage and all the hassles of air travel, such as security checks and potential weather delays. That can make a train ride start to seem like a deal.

On the West Coast, the difference between plane fares and train fares is greater. For example, I could take a train from Seattle to Portland, Oregon, for just $72 in coach or as low as $112 in business class on those same dates. I'd pay at least $297 to fly the same route in basic economy.

Related: Amtrak is attracting new travelers; sees shift from business to leisure passengers .

More allowances for luggage

When you fly in the U.S., you're generally allowed one carry-on and one personal item for non-basic economy tickets. You can then pay extra for checked baggage (usually at least $30 per additional bag, unless you have elite status or a credit card that offers free checked bags as a benefit). If your trip requires more luggage, flying can get even more expensive.

Traveling by train means you can usually bring more baggage for less money. In the U.S., Amtrak allows each traveler to bring two personal items, two carry-on items and two checked bags — all included in your fare. You can then check up to two additional bags for $20 each. Compared to air travel, that's quite a deal.

Related: 7 reasons why your next family vacation should be a train trip

Less chance of delay

This summer we have seen unprecedented numbers of flight delays . Between understaffed airports and summer storms , flying can feel like a game of roulette.

While many flights are still running smoothly, airport arrival times are not a guarantee. When the TPG team raced from New York City to Washington, D.C., we found that flying was faster than taking the train, but that's in part because we got lucky with a thunderstorm-free sky.

While it is possible for a train to also be delayed, and a train journey may take a little longer than it would on a plane that does not run into any hitches, booking a train ticket can potentially help avoid hours of sitting in airports wondering when your flight is actually going to depart.

Scenic train rides instead of road trips

If you're looking for the cheapest traveling option, driving is often the go-to — but with the current cost of gas , that price discrepancy might not be as large as you're used to. While there's something to be said about blasting music with the windows down on a road trip , don't discount the beauty of scenic train rides.

You won't have to worry about battling traffic or your bags not fitting into the car. You actually get to sit back and enjoy the process when you let someone else (a train conductor, to be precise) get you to your destination.

There are plenty of scenic train rides you can take rather than strapping in for a long car drive in the U.S. or abroad. If you're planning a trip to the Rocky Mountains , there's a beautiful train ride you can book from Denver to Moab, Utah, called Rockies to the Red Rocks . If you're traveling across Europe , you can take a EuroCity train from Geneva to Milan and witness snowcapped mountains across the lake as you go.

Related: 14 of the most scenic train rides on Earth

Train rides give you more room than a car, and you'll be able to really take in the views as you pass by rather than keeping your eyes on the road. Plus, they are a great alternative when abroad if you're hesitant to drive long distances in countries where you've never been before.

Bottom line

Not only can it save you money to travel by train, but you also can end up seeing some incredible views along the way.

Of course, it doesn't always make sense to pick a train instead of driving or flying. Large families who own a car may be better off on a road trip where there's more flexibility to stop along the way. And longer distances (especially in the U.S., where train routes are more limited than in other parts of the world) will likely be better navigated by plane.

For those who live in or are traveling to cities where Amtrak or other train services operate, however, traveling by rail can be a great alternative that saves you money, prevents stress over potential delays and allows you more space and comfort on your journey.

Additional reporting by Michaela Barrett.

Featured photo by Education Images/Getty Images.

5 Changes That Have Made Flying Safer

By Allison Hope

Despite many of us who have a fear of flying , air travel is actually safer than riding a train, driving, or even walking across the street. But hey, we can’t blame you for wondering how a giant hunk of metal flying 500 miles per hour miles high is a physical possibility.

In 2015, major airline accidents occurred in just one in 3.1 million flights, according to the International Air Transport Association. That number is slightly worse than 2014, but marks a 30 percent improvement over the past five years. We saw just 136 fatalities in the past year, which means that another 3.5 billion people touched down without major incident.

The 1970s and '80s, on the other hand, were marked by a much higher rate of major accidents, with peaks in 1972 which saw 2,429 fatalities, and 1985 with 2,331. That plane crashes are less common than ever before is no accident (pun intended). We’ve learned from previous mistakes and benefited from advances in technology, all of which have made air travel safer than ever. Here are five changes that have taken safety to new heights:

1. Pilot Fatigue Rules: Following an investigation in Missouri after flight 5966 crashed short of the runway killing 11 of the 13 passengers and all crew in 2004, the FAA implemented recommendations to limit the amount of time a pilot can fly and allow for adequate rest between flights. Human error is often the reason things go south, and ensuring a prepared and well-rested flight crew is paramount for safe travel .

2. Aircraft Redundancies: I once overheard a flight attendant joke to the pilot that he did a good job of pushing the button so the plane could take off and land and fly itself. That isn’t so far from the truth. Newer planes are fully automated, and important functionality has built-in redundancies so if something fails, there’s a backup that kicks in and take over.

3. Satellite Technology: An increasing number of airlines are installing satellite technology including iPads and similar GPS devices in cockpits. This allows pilots to more effectively map out routes, avoid bad weather, and generally navigate better. Believe it or not, our cell phones have better technology than most planes. It’s a good thing that’s starting to change.

4. Locked cockpit doors: The largest number of aviation fatalities in 2001 can, sadly, be attributed to 9/11, when terrorists ambushed the cockpits of four commercial airliners and then and flew those planes into buildings (except in the case of United Flight 93, where passengers intervened). Since then, armored cockpit doors have been required in all aircraft. This has not only proved useful in deterring similar terrorist attacks, but has also come in handy for unruly customers and even crew who try to meddle with the flight deck.

5. Passenger Awareness: Long gone are the days when we would dance and sip cocktails and smoke cigarettes on airplanes. Many regular travelers can recite the safety demonstration by heart and understand that we need to buckle our seatbelts when we’re seated even if the sign isn’t illuminated. One possible reason: more Americans are flying than ever before , meaning the number of people exposed to airline safety briefings is higher than it has ever been.

“There is room for improvement in all modes of transportation,” said National Transportation and Safety Board spokesperson Keith Holloway. “There have been improvements in all modes of transportation specifically as it relates to technology, but we continue to advocate for further improvement in this area so that it becomes more standard.”

So what’s left on the list? Every time there’s a major incident, the NTSB investigates and develops safety recommendations to prevent future accidents of similar nature. The NTSB has a “ 2016 Most Wanted List ” that outlines the top transportation safety recommendations. The suggestions relevant to air travel are:

Reducing fatigue-related accidents by better education pilots and other vehicle operators about medical conditions and drugs that impair ability and implementing programs to help inform and screen employees better;

Disconnect from deadly distractions like portable electronic devices when pilots don’t need to use them for work duties;

Require medical fitness for duty, including more stringent protocol and regular testing, as “pilots are increasingly testing positive for over-the-counter sedating medications.”

Prevent loss of control in flight in general aviation, which equates to increased pilot training and use of technologies like AOA (angle-of-attack) indicators—they're the plane equivalent of the lights or alerts that tell you when your car tires aren't evenly filled or you need to buckle your seatbelt.

So the next time your blood pressure spikes as the plane door closes, know that you’re more likely to get hit by lightning—twice—than face death at 30,000 feet.

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Traveller. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Better trains are coming. Will America get aboard?

We're entering a boom time for American rail — including bona fide high-speed trains.

Why it matters: Train travel can be faster, more convenient and cleaner than driving or flying.

• But hurdles — ranging from a lack of investment to geographic and political challenges — have held trains back in the U.S. compared with global peers.

Driving the news: Brightline West, which calls itself the nation's only private intercity train service provider, recently broke ground on a 218-mile route that'll provide high-speed service between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga, California (just east of Los Angeles).

• The company aims to run "zero emission, fully electric trains capable of speeds of 200 miles per hour," with total route times of two hours — about half the driving time.
• A station at Rancho Cucamonga will let riders transfer to other transit networks that'll bring them to L.A.

State of play: There's already Brightline service in Florida, which, as of last fall , connects Miami and Orlando — with hopes to expand to Tampa.

• The Florida line isn't high-speed, but it's "pleasant," "comfortable" and "a vastly more relaxing experience" than driving, Axios' Jeff Weiner writes in his Axios Miami review.

Yes, but: While Brightline's ridership is growing, it recently lowered its estimates for passenger growth in the Sunshine State.

• It's now forecasting 4.9 million riders this year, down from around 7 million, per Bloomberg — which also points out that the Florida service "lost $192 million in the first nine months of 2023."

Meanwhile, tried-and-true Amtrak is hoping to double ridership by 2040 through service improvements, train upgrades, infrastructure projects and more.

• New "Borealis" service connecting Chicago and the Twin Cities launches this month, marking "the first time in 45 years there will be twice-daily service" on that route, per the Star Tribune.
• Faster service is also planned for the vital Northeast Corridor, while new trains on this route, called Airo , are also on the way for several lines.
• Airo trains will offer "modern comfortable seating, spacious restrooms and a contemporary food service experience," Amtrak says.

A rendering of business class aboard Amtrak's modern Airo train. Image courtesy of Amtrak

What they're saying: "There are plans in place with funding to basically replace the Amtrak fleet in the next decade, and that has never happened before," Amtrak president Roger Harris tells Axios.

• That's a "huge transformational opportunity, especially from a customer experience point of view," he said. "People will have modern trains with modern amenities and comfort."

Amtrak is also taking the reins on a long-envisioned high-speed rail project linking Dallas and Houston, CNBC reports .

• The project still faces major hurdles but could help connect and support the region's booming population .
• "This is something that we genuinely believe is a tremendous long-term economic and social opportunity to improve connectivity between these two cities and remove congestion," Harris says.

Meanwhile, in California, a publicly funded project aims to connect Sacramento and San Diego — but it has faced big delays.

• The proposed California High-Speed Rail is up against serious right-of-way and financial challenges .

Between the lines: Almost all of these projects are getting a huge financial boost from the 2021 infrastructure law.

• Brightline West got $3 billion in federal funds, though the rest of the project will be privately funded, the company says.
• It has also received $3.5 billion in Transportation Department bonds.

Reality check: The great rail line of history is littered with ambitious train projects that never saw the light of day, or emerged as a shadow of their proposed selves.

• Building major new train lines is expensive, time-consuming and arduous — requiring not just big bucks, but buy-in from local communities, lawmakers, etc..
• Convincing car- and plane-loving Americans to give trains a shot is another problem entirely — though fast, reliable and comfortable intercity service could make its own case, as it seems to be doing in Florida.

The bottom line: All aboard — if all goes well, that is.

Get the rundown of the biggest stories of the day with Axios Daily Essentials.

How To "Bid" On Amtrak To Upgrade Your Seating Class

Sitting in coach can be uncomfortable, but how do you acquire an upgrade through Amtrak? Their unique system allows you to bid on better seats.

• Amtrak offers a unique bidding system for upgrades that is very different from airlines.
• You may not know if your bid was accepted until right before boarding time.
• To guarantee an upgrade, consider joining the loyalty program or booking your preferred class in advance.

We know that a lengthy train ride with Amtrak can be costly , so finding opportunities to upgrade your class for a lower price is always welcome. Travel hackers have identified cost-saving measures for Amtrak that help to reduce the bill, but Amtrak offers an official approach as well.

Instead of traditional upgrade methods, Amtrak works with a bidding system, which allows travelers to identify what price they determine is acceptable for an upgrade. How does this process work? It's actually quite streamlined and only involves a few steps. However, don't expect an immediate response to your bid request while traveling via Amtrak.

Everything Confirmed So Far About Amtrak's New Self-Check In

There is a unique system for amtrak upgrades, instead of seniority or the luck of the draw system, amtrak uses this method.

Many travelers are used to the many different upgrade routes that airlines offer, such as Delta. Delta allows travelers to receive upgrades through miles, status, seniority, and sometimes even if you ask nicely. However, Amtrak takes an entirely different approach by using a bidding system.

For those who purchase a coach ticket for their upcoming train trip, an email will be sent out between the time of booking and your departure date. Typically, Amtrak will send it out a few weeks before your travel date. The email will direct you to a link where all the available upgrades are listed. Depending on your trip type, you may see opportunities to jump to first class or even to stay in a roomette while aboard the train.

Under the various upgrade options, you will see an area where you can designate your chosen bid rate. Amtrak will start the price at a minimum level and will offer insight into what strength level your bid holds.

For example, if you only bid the very minimum, it will tell you that your selection is weak. Alternatively, if you increase your bid to a higher level, you will see the rating move from weak to strong.

The Bidding System Doesn't Update You Until Boarding Time

Amtrak likes to keep you in suspense until the bitter end.

If you are prepping for the Amtrak route that goes from Los Angeles to New York City , and you're waiting with bated breath to see if your bid was accepted, we have bad news. You rarely get a response from Amtrak on your bid until right before boarding time.

At times, you may luck out and hear the day before, but it's unlikely that you will get advance notice of what your seating arrangements will be on the train.

It's likely that Amtrak waits to inform you because they often bring in last-minute bookings that they could receive full funding for instead of a reduced rate via the bidding system. It's not until right before departure that they have a clear image of what they are working with as it pertains to empty seats and possible upgrades.

How To Plan A Cheap Amtrak Train Trip With Friends

If you want to guarantee an upgrade, this is the way, the bidding system is nice, but this way is foolproof.

If you are looking to embark on an epic summer Amtrak trip , and you want to ensure that you are comfortable for the ride, you will want to bypass the bidding system. The chances of receiving the upgrade via bidding vary drastically depending on the route, how many passengers there are, and what the bid amounts are.

However, there is another option to aim for reduced-price upgrades. If you utilize the train service frequently, you may have enough Amtrak loyalty points saved to get a complimentary upgrade without paying cash.

Amtrak passengers can use their points for lounge visits, class upgrades, or gift cards. The program is easy to sign up for on the Amtrak website, and you gain points with every trip you take.

Even though using the loyalty program offers a higher likelihood that you will garner an upgrade, there is really only one foolproof way to guarantee that you are sitting pretty for your next train trip. Although you will pay full price, booking your preferred class at the time of purchase is the only way to rest assured that you will have the type of seat you want.

If you are on a shorter train trip and can better handle coach for the duration, chancing it with the bidding system is a good choice. However, if you are going cross-country and need to have ample space for your legs to stretch, then take all the guesses out of the game and just book your preference when you purchase your ticket.

Avelo starts flying this week from Knoxville to New Haven, a neighbor to New York City

For the first time in more than a decade, a new airline lifted off from McGhee Tyson Airport.

New Haven, anyone?

Avelo Airlines , a budget carrier founded in 2021 that specializes in short flights between small airports, will fly from Knoxville to its Connecticut hub twice a week on Thursdays and Sundays beginning May 9.

When the airport announced Avelo would be its first new airline since Frontier in 2011, there was some collective head scratching. Few Knoxville residents had heard of the airline, and perhaps fewer could list attractions in New Haven, Connecticut.

But the flights allow McGhee Tyson and Avelo to create a gateway to New England through New Haven, a spot for great pizza and an academic hub thanks to Yale University.

Despite a connecting train, Knoxville is the real Avelo destination

The coastal city also has a train station that takes riders on a two-hour trip directly into New York City's Grand Central Terminal. Despite that, Knoxville is the real destination here.

Behind the scenes, Avelo learned Connecticut travelers want to fly to McGhee Tyson. One of the main reasons is to visit Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is the most visited national park in the country.

Welcoming 13.3 million visitors in 2023, it's not even close.

"We're the destination, not the other way around," Brian Simmons, chair of the Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority's board of commissioners, told Knox News at the February announcement.

Knoxville to New Haven offers more connections to New England cities

The Avelo announcement was welcome news for locals with connections to New Haven, especially Yale alumni and those with family and friends in Connecticut. Tweed New Haven Airport is within a short drive of other New England cities − roughly 45 minutes to Hartford, 90 minutes to Providence, Rhode Island, and just over two hours to Boston.

"By the time you get to Tweed and take a train over to New York City, you're probably still on the runway at LaGuardia," Avelo spokesperson Courtney Goff said.

If you want to test the theory, McGhee Tyson offers flights to LaGuardia on American and Delta.

Could Avelo be the airline that inspires others to expand in Knoxville?

Knoxville's airport now has nonstop flights to 30 destinations on six airlines, the most in its history. It also has more passengers than ever before.

In 2023, the airport served a record 2.8 million flyers and expects to break the record again this year.

Some travelers weren't so thrilled with the Avelo announcement. The airport teased a new airline and destination were coming, leading some to believe elusive carriers like Southwest or JetBlue might be on the way.

But any new airline brings with it the opportunity for more destinations and other airlines.

"We are growing organically with existing airlines, but we also have other airlines that are very interested in coming here, and we're proving that we can have a new airline come and establish service and be successful," Simmons said.

'Crawl, walk, run method' could mean more Avelo flights are coming

Avelo belongs to a class of airlines known as " ultra low cost carriers ," which were critical in helping U.S. airports recover from the pandemic by taking leisure travelers on domestic vacations. The airline uses a "crawl, walk, run method" for new flights, Goff told Knox News via email.

That means adding service slowly at first, like the twice-weekly trip to New Haven, before adding more flights if there's demand. Avelo has left other similar airports after only a short stay but is confident Knoxville is a good fit.

Inbound seats on the inaugural flight are nearly full, Goff said.

Avelo fleet comprised of Boeing 737 planes, but not those 737s

Avelo's fleet is composed of Boeing Next-Generation 737 planes, not to be confused with its 737 Max planes, which travelers are avoiding after a series of fatal crashes and non-fatal mechanical failures.

Other ultra low cost carriers are Allegiant, Breeze Airways, Frontier, Sun Country Airlines and Spirit Airlines. Allegiant operates a base at McGhee Tyson, stationing four Airbus A320 aircraft there.

Breeze, Sun Country and Spirit are likely contenders for the next airline to come to Knoxville.

Seven new flights at McGhee Tyson just in time for summer travel

Available airplane seats from Knoxville could increase as much as 40% this summer compared to last summer, thanks to new destinations and bigger planes. Legacy airlines American, Delta and United will swap regional jets for larger aircraft on select flights.

McGhee Tyson is adding seven new flights this summer:

• Avelo Airlines to Tweed New Haven Airport beginning May 9.
• Frontier Airlines to Philadelphia International Airport beginning May 16
• Allegiant Air to Orlando International Airport beginning May 17
• Delta Airlines to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport beginning June 7
• Allegiant Air to MidAmerica St. Louis Airport beginning June 13
• Allegiant Air to South Bend International Airport beginning June 14
• Allegiant Air to Jacksonville International Airport beginning June 14

Avelo's inaugural flight took off from Knoxville around 10:50 a.m. May 9 after a water cannon salute and a ribbon cutting. Flights to Connecticut can be booked at aveloair.com for as low as $56.

Daniel Dassow is a growth and development reporter focused on technology and energy. Phone 423-637-0878. Email  [email protected] .

Support strong local journalism by subscribing at  knoxnews.com/subscribe .   

Ukraine war latest updates: 'Fierce battle' after Russia launches attack in Kharkiv - as Ukraine says it was 'prepared'

Russia has launched an attack in Kharkiv away from recent battlegrounds, Ukraine has said - as Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists his forces were "prepared" for the assault. Two civilians have been killed in the attack, a local governor has said.

Friday 10 May 2024 15:03, UK

• Putin's military launched an advance away from the frontline in the early hours of this morning
• Ukraine says its forces are fighting to repel the attack on the Kharkiv region
• Russian forces have advanced a kilometre, according to Ukrainian sources
• Push follows speculation Moscow is seeking to open new front
• Ukraine's president says forces were 'prepared' for assault
• Ed Conway : Russian oil still seeping into UK - the reasons why sanctions are not working
• Live reporting by Narbeh Minassian

As we've been reporting today, Ukrainian officials are claiming intense fighting is under way in the northeastern region of Kharkiv, with shelling targeting the city of Vovchansk.

Ukraine has sent reinforcements to the area, the defence ministry has said, as Russian infantry tried to penetrate Ukrainian defences.

The bombardment has killed at least one civilian in the city, with another five injured, which has prompted the evacuation of about 3,000 people.

Another person was killed in a nearby village.

"The entire town is under massive shelling now, it is not safe to stay here," Vovchansk administration head Tamaz Hambarishvili told Ukraine's Hromadske Radio.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine's military had anticipated the attack and calibrated its response.

"Now there is a fierce battle in this direction," he was quoted as saying by Ukraine's public broadcaster Suspilne.

Russian military bloggers said the assault could mark the start of an attempt to carve out a "buffer zone" that Vladimir Putin vowed to create earlier this year to halt Ukrainian attacks on Belgorod and other Russian border regions.

Ukraine has previously said it was aware Russia was assembling thousands of troops along the northeastern border, close to the Kharkiv and Sumy regions. 

While the Kremlin's forces launched their most recent ground offensive in eastern Ukraine, intelligence officials said they expected the Kremlin's forces to attack in the northeast as well.

Ukraine may have to brace for electricity shortages this summer as Russia continues to target the country's energy sector, the grid operator's head warns.

Volodymyr Kudrytskiy, the head of Ukrenergo grid operator, said: "We will definitely face challenges in the summer and these challenges will be primarily related to capacity shortages due to damage to power plants."

There have been blackouts across the country since late March, when Russia launched massive drone attacks on power stations, raising the issue of decentralisation of generating capacity. 

After the latest attacks on the energy system, Ukrenergo imposed power supply restrictions on industrial consumers, while the government urges the population to save electricity.

"We realise that today is not the most difficult situation yet, we have not yet seen the real summer heat and air conditioning systems are not yet in use," Mr Kudrytskiy added.

Hydro-electric power plants produce less electricity in the summer, he says, when nuclear power plants also undergo regular mandatory repairs.

Ukraine received emergency power aid from EU countries in the morning, Ukrenergo says. 

During the day, it expects to import electricity from Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Moldova.

The country has lost about 80% of its thermal power generation, Ukrainian officials have said, relying increasingly on the three nuclear power plants that produce about 60% of its electricity.

In the UK, a British man accused of orchestrating arson attacks on Ukrainian-linked businesses in London on behalf of Wagner Group - a proscribed terror organisation - is set to face trial next year.

Dylan Earl, 20, has been charged under the National Security Act 2023 - the first case to involve alleged offences under the new spy laws.

Today, Mr Justice Jeremy Baker set a date of 2 June 2025 for Earl and four other men to appear in an eight-week trial.

Earl is accused of being in contact with a handler in Wagner before checking out targets "in relation to activity intended to benefit Russia".

The Wagner Group, whose former leader Yevgeny Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash last summer , is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.

After news emerged of the charge, the Foreign Office said it had summoned Russia's ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin.

Court documents show Earl is accused of recruiting and paying others to carry out an arson attack at an industrial unit in Leyton, east London, on Ukrainian-linked businesses owned by Oddisey and Meest UK.

A fire on 20 March needed 60 firefighters to bring it under control, and the alleged target of the fire is labelled as "Mr X" in the charges.

The charges: 

• Earl, of Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire, is charged with aggravated arson reckless as to whether life will be endangered, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, preparatory conduct to an act endangering life or a person or an act creating a serious risk to the health and safety of the public in the United Kingdom contrary to section 18 National Security Act 2023, and assisting a foreign intelligence service contrary to section 3 National Security Act 2023.
• Jake Reeves, 22, of Croydon, south London, is accused of aggravated arson reckless as to whether life will be endangered, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and agreeing to accept a material benefit from a foreign intelligence service, contrary to section 17(2) and (11) of the National Security Act 2023.
• Paul English, 60, of Roehampton, southwest London, and Nii Mensah, 21, of Thornton Heath, south London, are both charged with aggravated arson reckless as to whether life will be endangered, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
• Dmitrijus Paulauska, 22, of Croydon, is accused of having information about terrorist acts, contrary to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000. 

Paulauska was released on conditional bail while the other four defendants were remanded into custody.

Russian shelling of Vovchansk, in the Kharkiv area, has killed one civilian and injured another five, according to the region's governor.

Another was killed in a nearby village, Oleh Synehubov adds.

As we have reported today, Ukrainian officials say fighting is intensifying in the Kharkiv region, with Russian troops trying to "break through" and create a buffer zone (see our 12.32pm post).

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has just told a press conference Ukraine's forces were prepared for a new Russian ground assault on the border of the northeastern Kharkiv region.

"Ukraine met them there with troops - brigades and artillery," he said, adding Russia could send more troops to support its attempted advance.

More now from Kharkiv, where fighting appears to be intensifying.

Ukraine's defence ministry says its forces are repelling an attack in the Kharkiv region, with Kyiv sending reinforcements after an attempt to "break though" at about 5am this morning.

A high-ranking Ukrainian military source says Russian forces have advanced 1km near Vovchansk, in the Kharkiv region.

The source, who declined to be named, said Russian forces are aiming to push Ukrainian troops as far back as 10km from the border to create a buffer zone.

Russian attacks on the region may be a sign Moscow is seeking to open a new front in the war, with reports of a recent build-up of troops in the area suggesting Russia wants to divert and spread Ukraine's depleted defensive forces.

"At approximately 5am, there was an attempt by the enemy to break through our defensive line under the cover of armoured vehicles," the ministry said.

"As of now, these attacks have been repulsed; battles of varying intensity continue."

Russia's Victory Day celebrations yesterday, which every year commemorate the Soviet Union's defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War, was "reduced in scale", according to the UK's ministry of defence.

In an intelligence update shared on X, the MoD says parades were cancelled in 24 cities this year, primarily in regions bordering Ukraine, likely "due to poor security".

This compares to 21 cancelled parades last year, the ministry adds.

The major parade was in Moscow, with "less modern military equipment on display when compared to pre-war parades", although the fly-past was reinstated.

Of the 30 units on show, the MoD says, two-thirds came from military academies and youth and veteran groups.

There was also an "absence of heavy armoured vehicles", with just the one battle tank leading the procession - a Second World War-era T-34 tank, which traditionally kicks off the parade.

There were 20 battle tanks in 2020, the MoD says.

"With the significant losses in Russian personnel and equipment as a result of the Ukraine war, there was no opportunity for Russia to use the parades to use demonstrate military strength," the MoD concludes.

Russia is capitalising on Ukraine's shortage of weapons and ammunition to seize the initiative on the battlefield.

After two years of protracted attritional warfare, Russia is once again on the front-foot in Ukraine.

If the West is to deny President Putin a strategically important success in Ukraine, it will need to find new ways to combat Russia's aggression.

To date, the West has limited Ukraine's ability to strike back at Russia by restricting the use of Western weapons - particularly long range missiles - to Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, for fear of escalating the conflict.

However, Ukraine needs the maximum flexibility possible if it is to prevail over its numerically superior adversary - this is one of the core topics covered by our  military analyst Sean Bell in this week's RedMatrix podcast .

Russian momentum

The US's $60bn package of military aid to Ukraine was finally agreed at the end of April after months of delay.

As Bell highlights, President Putin is capitalising on Ukraine's shortage of weapons to intensify his offensive operations in the Donbas, where his forces are gaining momentum and seizing numerous small settlements.

Whether these tactical gains can develop into a strategic breakthrough remains to be seen, but momentum is a vital component of warfare - and Russia has it.

Securing approval in the US for the $60bn of military aid was not a simple process. 

Understandable concerns over the relative priorities of domestic issues amid support for a non-NATO nation thousands of miles away divided opinion; it was no coincidence that US secretary of state Antony Blinken highlighted the delivery of US military equipment and ammunition had created "jobs for the US".

No strikes on Russia

The aid package also included a number of long-range missiles - the US Army ATACMS.

These systems have the range to threaten all Russian forces in occupied Ukraine, and could be crucial in helping Ukraine turn the tide of the war back in Ukraine's favour.

However, defence secretary Lloyd Austin reiterated these weapons could not be used to target within Russia itself.   

Wars on this scale consume vast resources. Russia relies on its oil exports to provide revenues to invest in its national defence industrial base, and also purchase vast quantities of munitions from North Korea and Iran.

Therefore, President Zelenskyy has deliberately targeted some of Russia's immense oil refining capacity to reduce Russia's oil revenues.  

However, any reduction in global supply of oil inevitably increases the price. Austin was questioned on this point at one of the defence department hearings, where it was suggested this was one of the reasons that the US placed limitations on the use of US weapons.  

Putin's sabre-rattling

In contrast, during a visit to Kyiv earlier this month, Lord Cameron announced it is up to Ukraine to decide how to use British weapons and insisted it has the right to strike targets on Russian territory .

This notable shift in stance from the UK prompted the Russian foreign ministry to claim this would have "catastrophic" consequences.

As Bell notes, President Putin knows strategic success in Ukraine relies on deterring increased Western support for Ukraine, and to date, his sabre-rattling has successfully tempered Western political appetite for an escalation.  

Regardless of the political rhetoric, the West faces a stark choice.

Ukraine is utterly dependent on Western support to stem the Russian invasion. President Putin knows this, so he is using all tools at his disposal to deter increased Western involvement.

However, should Putin prevail, what next?

If a nuclear superpower is at liberty to attack any non-nuclear power without consequence, that has profound implications for global security.   

But how far is the West prepared to go to stop Putin's brutal offensive?

Russian sabotage groups tried to break through into Ukraine, according to Kharkiv's governor, as Moscow steps up its shelling of the region.

Oleh Synehubov said the attempts were rebuffed by Ukraine's armed forces, who "confidently hold their positions" and have not lost "a single metre".

He said shelling continued in the town of Vovchansk throughout the night, but the Russian group "does not pose a threat to Kharkiv".

"Its forces are sufficient only for provocations in the northern direction," he claims.

But he did call on residents to stay in shelters as Russia "makes no difference" between military and civilian targets.

We reported this morning that Ukrainian officials say a Russian missile attack injured two people and set three houses on fire in the northeastern city of Kharkiv (see our 9.04am post).

Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-biggest city, lies 30km from the Russian border and is particularly exposed to aerial attacks. 

Pictures from the scene appear to show badly damaged homes from the latest round of airstrikes.

Moscow's mayor says anti-aircraft units intercepted a drone over the south of the city early this morning.

Nobody was injured and no damage was caused by falling debris, according to Sergei Sobyanin, who says the drone was downed over the Podolsk district just south of the capital.

Russia's defence ministry claims a total of five Ukrainian-launched drones were destroyed overnight over the Moscow area as well as over the Bryansk and Belgorod regions bordering Ukraine. 

The governor of Bryansk region, which borders Ukraine, said there was no damage or injuries as a result of the attack.

According to a NATO official's estimate last month, Ukraine has disrupted 15% of Russia's oil refining capacity as it steps up drone attacks across the border.

Just yesterday, Kyiv claimed a drone travelled 1,500km into Russia to hit a major oil processing plant in Bashkortostan, also known as Bashkiria, as we reported earlier (see our 8.48am post).

Drone attacks targeting Moscow, however, are rarer.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free