As someone who abhors air travel — at best I relegate it to one of life’s necessary evils — and is currently unable to drive himself anywhere, I much prefer traveling by rail whenever it’s reasonable to do so. The often ridiculous expense is a trade-off between comfort and — thanks to living within the Northeast Corridor — time.
Taking a long-distance trip by rail has long been an ambition of mine, if not cross country to San Francisco for example, then at least somewhere halfway. To Chicago perhaps. (I’m long overdue for a trip out there.)
Sadly, as GOOD Magazine’s Ben Jervey points out rail travel in the U.S., at least outside the Northeast Corridor, is hardly efficient nor practical for most people.
3 responses so far ↓
1 What Liz Said // Jul 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I do love traveling by rail, but seriously… Connecticut feels so freakin’ long when you’re coming from Boston. So glad I don’t have to do that trip anymore.
2 Selophane // Jul 16, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I have travelled extensively by rail in the US. I’ve taken Amtrak from NY to NOLA, NY to SF, NY to Montreal, Jacksonville to LA, and NY to DC.
Most of those have been overnights in a sleeper cabin. The short trips have been Coach and Business coach. All in all I find it a much more human experience, especially the long distance trips, they make you realize how vast the country is. You just have to think of them as land cruises and the cost is justified.
3 tom // Jul 16, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The main problem with the long distance trains is that they follow very unreliable schedules. Some arrive on time, but others arrive hours, even days, late. I’ve always wanted to take a trip out West on the train, but that may have to wait until after I retire. For now, I travel frequently up and down the NEC, but it is getting very expensive lately.