I flew from NYC to Boston, took the train back, and timed it to see which was faster. The result was closer than I expected.

I flew up to Boston from New York and took the train back to see which one was faster.Thomas Pallini/Business Insider

• Airplanes have long replaced trains as the dominant form of travel in the US but the competition still runs strong in the Northeast.
• Traveling by plane over train isn't automatically the fastest or more convenient option as the airport experience alone can add hours to a journey.
• I flew Spirit Airlines to Boston and returned to New York on Amtrak's Acela to see which mode of transportation was faster.

"To fly, or to take the train," that is the question. And the answer is not always simple, especially in the Northeastern US.

On longer trips, the answer is clear: flying beats rail every time. But for cities on the Northeast Corridor, specifically New York, Boston, and Washington, DC, the clear choice is not always as obvious and each traveler has a personal preference on which is better.

Flights are shorter than train trips but require getting to an airport, enduring a security screening, and possibly incurring delays, all of which increase the overall travel time. Train travel offers the ability to arrive at the station minutes before departure with no security checks required, though the possibility of a delay remains.

On a recent trip from New York to Boston, I decided to answer the question once and for all and timed myself as I traveled between the two cities. I flew Spirit Airlines for the first half of my journey and took Amtrak's high-speed Acela for the second half to see which one was faster.

Read more: Spirit Airlines' low-cost model puts it in the perfect spot to be the big winner of the pandemic, a Deutsche Bank analyst says

Full disclosure: I'm an aviation enthusiast, as my job suggests, but I do also enjoy a good train trip.

Here's which one was the better option for the 200-mile trip between New York and Boston.