It is a matter of constant frustration that it is almost never cheaper to take a train, compared to driving or flying between cities separated by a couple of hundred miles. It is lovely to sit on board rather than drive, and less hassle to negotiate even Penn Station in Manhattan than an airport security line. Yet when one is obliged (as I am) to take into consideration the cheapest option of travel, the train is left aside time and again. So the thrill of alighting the train (with such romantic names as the Empire Service, Maple Leaf, Vermonter or the Pennsylvanian) is harder to come by these days for a minister who would love to trade the road for the rails. Alas!
Reflecting on our years in England, it was probably a combination of private ownership of passenger railway lines, high fuel taxes and size of the country, but we found it was much better to travel from Yorkshire to London by train (see photo) than by car. This is about the same distance as Boston to New York, but for about 1/3 the price. See the title of the post for a wonderful snow plow mounted on a train, incidentally.
What about you, how much more would you pay for a train rather than driving, parking, etc.?