round-trip from NYC to DC

We're flying into New York City for three days next month.
We then have to get to Fairfax,VA (near DC) for four days
before returning to the Big Apple for three days.

What is the best way for us to get from NYC to Fairfax or DC?
We hope to avoid going to JFK and making another flight.
I guess I'm thinking in terms of an express train between NYC and DC.
Is this Amtrak or is there a bullet train operated by someone else
that we should take? Thanks for any help.


--
"Anything else you're interested in is not going to happen
if you can't breathe the air and drink the water.
Don't sit this one out. Do something. You are, by accident of fate,
alive at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet."
(Carl Sagan)

On 2006-06-12 17:43:01 -0400, Rita said:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:31:43 -0400, jdoe wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

We're flying into New York City for three days next month.
We then have to get to Fairfax,VA (near DC) for four days
before returning to the Big Apple for three days.

What is the best way for us to get from NYC to Fairfax or DC?
We hope to avoid going to JFK and making another flight.
I guess I'm thinking in terms of an express train between NYC and DC.
Is this Amtrak or is there a bullet train operated by someone else
that we should take? Thanks for any help.
if you are going to a place inDC itself Amtrak is a good choice if
your destinations is in the VA suburbs, you can take a shuttle plane
from LGA to DCA, if your destination is in the MD suburbs you can get
a cheap flight to BWI

Amtrak's regular trains are fine -- the supposedly faster train is not
that much faster so as to warrant the extra cost. It is not exactly
a "bulllet" train as in France.

And that's only if they are free from the power outages that happened a
couple of weeks ago, that stranded many many people in the whole
stretch between Washington and NYC - including in tunnels under the
Hudson.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust Amtrak. I'd rent a car and drive, even given
the strong possibility of traffic tie-ups.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:45:44 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2006-06-12 17:43:01 -0400, Rita said:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:31:43 -0400, jdoe wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:45:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

We're flying into New York City for three days next month.
We then have to get to Fairfax,VA (near DC) for four days
before returning to the Big Apple for three days.

What is the best way for us to get from NYC to Fairfax or DC?
We hope to avoid going to JFK and making another flight.
I guess I'm thinking in terms of an express train between NYC and DC.
Is this Amtrak or is there a bullet train operated by someone else
that we should take? Thanks for any help.
if you are going to a place inDC itself Amtrak is a good choice if
your destinations is in the VA suburbs, you can take a shuttle plane
from LGA to DCA, if your destination is in the MD suburbs you can get
a cheap flight to BWI

Amtrak's regular trains are fine -- the supposedly faster train is not
that much faster so as to warrant the extra cost. It is not exactly
a "bulllet" train as in France.

And that's only if they are free from the power outages that happened a
couple of weeks ago, that stranded many many people in the whole
stretch between Washington and NYC - including in tunnels under the
Hudson.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust Amtrak. I'd rent a car and drive, even given
the strong possibility of traffic tie-ups.

And there's always the bus. The cheapest buses travel from Chinatown
in Manhattan to the tiny Chinatown in DC. This is a good searchable
listing:

http://www.chinatown-bus.com/

It looks like Fairfax is accessible from DC by Metro via the Orange
Line:

http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm

I think the Amtrak power outages are sufficiently unusual to probably
not warrant avoiding Amtrak, though. The Boston-Washington Northeast
Corridor of Amtrak is very heavily used, and there is no doubt in my
mind that the motivation to avoid major delays and breakdowns on the
system is strong.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

On 2006-06-12 19:51:46 -0400, Pan said:

I think the Amtrak power outages are sufficiently unusual to probably
not warrant avoiding Amtrak, though. The Boston-Washington Northeast
Corridor of Amtrak is very heavily used, and there is no doubt in my
mind that the motivation to avoid major delays and breakdowns on the
system is strong.

I'm sure you're right about the motivation. The trouble is money.
Amtrak is so miserably funded that it's unable to keep its network
modernized. Congress routinely short-changes it, and the result is that
it's an early 20th century railroad in the 21st century.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:31:43 -0400, jdoe wrote:

if you are going to a place inDC itself Amtrak is a good choice if
your destinations is in the VA suburbs, you can take a shuttle plane
from LGA to DCA, if your destination is in the MD suburbs you can get
a cheap flight to BWI

OP said he's going to Fairfax. Flying is probably bad advice -- we take Amtrak
to and from NYC all the time, as it's much more cost efficient.

The regular Amtrak is the way to go. The more expensive trains typically save
you only 15 minutes or so. Depending on exactly where you're going in Fairfax
County (or Fairfax City), you could take the train to either Union Station in DC
or to Alexandria, VA. You can then complete your trip by either subway (Metro)
or cab.

Tell us exactly where in Fairfax you're going and we'll advise in more detail.

-- Larry

sechumlib wrote:


I'm sure you're right about the motivation. The trouble is money. Amtrak
is so miserably funded


What does that mean? "Miserably funded"? If they don't have
enough money, RISE PRICES. If that means they lose more
money than before, it means that they are in an
unsustainable business, which I suspect is the case.

Doug McDonald

On 2006-06-13 09:25:44 -0400, Doug McDonald
said:

sechumlib wrote:


I'm sure you're right about the motivation. The trouble is money.
Amtrak is so miserably funded


What does that mean? "Miserably funded"? If they don't have enough
money, RISE PRICES. If that means they lose more money than before, it
means that they are in an unsustainable business, which I suspect is
the case.

If they "rose prices", there might be a little problem of driving off riders.

I agree that the business, in its present form, is unsustainable
without subsidy. I'm not sure that means we shouldn't have passenger
trains.

On 2006-06-13 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe said:

why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

Well, I see this thread is another that has degenerated into political
rants by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Plane users DON'T pay their own way entirely. Air traffic, airport
costs, security, etc., etc. are subsidized by the government.

Likewise with highways. The entire cost of the road (except for toll
roads) is subsidized by the federal or state government.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:

why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

Because without the trains between NY and Washington the traffic on
I-95 would be even worse than it already is?

Do you really think highway users pay their own way? Federal highways
are almost entirely supported by gasoline taxes, tolls, and other
vehicle taxes. State and local highways and roads get a large amount
of their funding from bond sales, property taxes and other local
revenues.
--
Barbara Vaughan

My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:37:13 -0400, jdoe wrote:
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:39:03 GMT, sechumlib
| wrote:
|
| On 2006-06-13 09:25:44 -0400, Doug McDonald
| said:
|
| sechumlib wrote:
|
|
| I'm sure you're right about the motivation. The trouble is money.
| Amtrak is so miserably funded
|
|
| What does that mean? "Miserably funded"? If they don't have enough
| money, RISE PRICES. If that means they lose more money than before, it
| means that they are in an unsustainable business, which I suspect is
| the case.
|
| If they "rose prices", there might be a little problem of driving off riders.
|
| I agree that the business, in its present form, is unsustainable
| without subsidy. I'm not sure that means we shouldn't have passenger
| trains.

| why should people who never step foot on a train subsidize those who
| use trains? let the train users pay their own way just like plane
| users do and highway users do. trains are the only, (other than mass
| transit) method of travel that requires massive subsidies.

are you high? do you really think the airline industry has never been
subsidized? make sure your brains are loaded before you shoot off your
mouth...