SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Why train travel is the best way to go
Going by rail is less expensive, more relaxing and eco-friendly.
Mon, Oct 31 2011 at 12:26 PM
Related Topics:
THE SCENIC ROUTE: Taking a train offers unique benefits. (Photo: THE Holy Hand Grenade!/Flickr)
There are a few commonly acknowledged advantages to train travel: It is much less stressful than plane travel (no TSA!) and it gives you time and space to read, sleep, watch movies or get work done — big advantages over cars.
It keeps you off the roads, meaning you're less likely to be subject to rush-hour traffic jams or construction. And depending on the route, it can be cheaper (especially once you add in the cost of the plane with getting to and from the plane, plus parking).
On a recent trip, I opted to take the train for 19 hours rather than a two-hour flight, a layover and one-hour flight, because all told, even though flying was "faster," I would end up traveling for about nine hours (taking travel to the airport into consideration, plus all the transfers and the layover time.) I knew from experience that between the lines and boarding and bag wrestling and train-to-subway-to-light-rail-to-plane I would be totally stressed out. Taking the train meant a 10-minute commute to the station and then I was off to my destination. It would take longer, but the time en route would be enjoyable, as opposed to almost 10 hours of what I consider to be nerve-wracking travel via plane (or more if I missed a connection somewhere).
But more than avoiding the pain and stress of plane travel (not to mention the crazy-packed jets and the fact that my just-a-bit-taller-than-average self is never at all comfortable in plane seats), train travel allows me to move around more like people historically have — while seeing what was in between point A and point B.
In an age when almost everyone seems to complain about disconnection (and flying), one simple way to avoid both is taking the train. Staring out the window at the landscape flying by is both incredibly relaxing and also lets you see what's between the cities. Those landscapes that we never get a chance to see inform us about seasonal change, different ecosystems, small differences between towns in the same state, and what people are doing in small, often overlooked towns.
Oftentimes you get a chance to see slices of life; on a recent trip I saw dogs playing in a backyard, children waving at the train from the shores of a riverside park, a wedding party leaving a church and a man working on a '40s-era vintage truck. These are vistas you'll never be privy to from a car on the highway, and definitely not from the height of a plane. Because trains take routes that go through the middle of towns, instead of around them, the train rider experiences what it's like to drop in on towns with one stoplight, or see how far suburbs sprawl outside of a destination city.
I got plenty of work done; Amtrak has enough outlets for everyone, and I got to catch up on my non-Internet-connected work, which in this day and age, is a boon for all of us distracted by email. And on some Amtrak routes, there's already Wi-Fi (or it's coming in the near future), so soon, the train can be a mobile office, with probably the most fabulous view ever — one that never stays the same.
Photos: Starre Vartan
Also on MNN:
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- Military dog comes home from Iraq traumatized
- 20 ways to reuse coffee grounds, tea leaves
- 10 of the top U.S. cities for nature lovers
- Justin Bieber will lose his monkey at midnight
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- Stem cell discovery reignites human cloning debate
- U.S. solider and stray cat save each other in Afghanistan
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
My wife and I have found it an idyllic way to travel. We've done round tip SF / Seattle and SF / Chicago. Can't wait for Amtrak to fix the tracks between New Orleans / Orlando so we can take it there. It is sooooo relaxing and we always get a roomette for total pampering.
19 hours is a bit of a stretch for an efficient passenger trip. To make it a more effective option, we need high-speed trains in major corridors (SF to SD, San Antonio-Dallas-Houston, NYC to Chicago, etc), leaving air travel for the long-haul trips.
If everyone at MNN would sign this petition, it would really send a message: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/tsa-petition/sign-the-petition...
Wish this was true in the UK a return ticket just cost me £164 the bus option £24
You were robbed, did you by any chance buy the ticket on day of travel, i've never paid more then £80 (and that was first class) on a train ticket, cheapest has been £4 single, its cheaper to buy 2 singles then a return in some cases
Two more comments: First, Amtrak just set an all-time record for ridership - 30.2 Million riders for fiscal 2011.
Second, many here are comparing to driving. Guess what: since the Feds have not increased the gas tax since 1993 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/1067.html), our highway system is heavily subsidized (about 47-52% subsidized, depending on the year).
@SixDegrees: Yes, Business Time is money. But my travel time is also money. I love to fly, and I've flown over 300,000 miles. However, (for me, personally) I get very little work done on the plane. Whereas on the train, I feel very comfortable and productive. So, I think for business travel in the 300-750 mile range, train travel is the only way to go (I leave in the morning on Amtrak for a business conference).
I agree that train travel is less stressful than air. Better for vacations, when the travel is actually part of the vacation. I took trains in Italy, they were clean and efficient - loved it. We need to take some direction from Europe and upgrade our system!
I just took a train from Ok. to Ca. I had a great time. Meeting people. A small girl had her birthday on the train and the staff and our car made it very nice for her. My ony problem was the bath rooms needed to be cleaned between Chicago and ont. Ca. But i would ride it again. I really like rail travel.But i am retired and have nothing but time.
Yes, Amtrak is struggling. I've traveled them and they have a long ways to go. Yes, time is money (but only if you're getting paid for it) but also getting there is half the fun. I've traveled all over Europe on the train. They are clean and efficient and always on time, much better than air service.
Trains excel at moving freight - they can haul absolutely enormous tonnage using very little fuel. They are horrible for most passenger travel, though, because they are so much slower than air travel, and for business travelers time is money.
The article would play much better if it proposed replacing long-haul trucking - which is very energy inefficient in comparison - with train hauling. But proposing it as a viable alternative to air travel is a non-starter.
Good thing you were only going to a location you could walk to after the train arrived eh? Otherwise you not only wasted 10 hours but also needed to pay for taxis. Of course, in many cities they are not readily available so you would need to rent a car.
This article is a joke unless you live inside a big city and only travel to other big city interiors.
I am curious as to what your point is? There are hundreds of more train stations than there are airports. You can leave your car in the parking lot (should you so desire) although I do not recommend it anymore than in a long term airport parking lot which is fairly expensive and not very secure.
If you fly, would you not need to rent a car? I do not mean to argue, I just do not understand your post.
Until we get the mag-lev, we'll fly. Then there are the 800 mile /hour tube train technology. We have to get more energy. Have your representatives initiate NAWAPA, North America Waper and Power Alliance to have our love trains get real. Not to mention 6 million new productive jobs would be required which would put a tax base in place to run our nation intelligently.
I sincerely hope you are "opting out" of the airport body scanners:
"U.S. Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanner"
http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/stories/us-glossed-over-cancer-...
I called amtrak and asked how much for a ticket to Hawaii and they laughed at me!
All of the Amtrak trips I have taken have been hours late, the roomettes are filthy, clean bedding was missing, the AC broke for 24 hours, servers don't wash their hands after handling used dishes, toilets overflowed into the hallways, and once a squatter had to be evicted from my roomette - that was the trip with no bedding. After all that, I decided to drive.
Ridership on Amtrak is way up. Build some High Speed Rail--Atlanta to Charlotte and Phoenix to San Diego come to mind-- and we can have some flexibility in our transportation options.
Take in mind the cost of that, Currently NE Corridor is the only High Speed Rail in America now, but to expand is extremely expensive, and not possible now, as Electrifying for high speed rail will be for a time when the US can afford to build new High Speed rails.
Rail travel isn't going to take off unless it is expanded dramaticly and unless people can take their cars along. Americans are too married to their vehicles. I just made a trip from Ohio to Lincoln, Nebraska by car. It's about a 13 hour drive. If I'd been able to simply drive my car up a ramp onto a flatbed train car, have someone tie it down, get in a nice comfortable rail car, and then drive my car back off once I got to Lincoln, I would have jumped at the chance.
Pages