9 ms·

You don't have to drive? If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy.

by tkinom 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago
>You don't have to drive? You don't have to take the freeway ("interstate"). You can always go for smaller roads. >If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy. If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. If we're talking about seeing places and travelling to see the "real side, kooky, etc" as he mentions, then driving is a far better option. It doesn't take reading Jack Kerouac to know this.
- thebaer 11y ago
  > You don't have to drive? They're saying you don't have to focus on driving. On a train you can watch the scenery pass and not pay attention to piloting your mode of transportation.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. That's part of the the point; you don't have to think that way. You actually don't have to think or plan at all. You're not trying to consciously get from point A to point B. You're just sitting, thinking, reading, and going where the train takes you. It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. I suppose Jack Keroac or someone who would write Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance may do the same thing in a car, but I've never done so.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. You have a point on the "relaxing" thing. OTOH, the problem I see with that is that it doesn't really "take" you to those places, it just passes through them. You can watch them go by, but not stop and check them out.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      Yeah, for sure. I don't really want to stop and dwell, I like moving through things quickly.
- mindslight 11y ago
  It really depends what you're up for. I would take the train again in a heartbeat if it lined up logistically. But I'm not currently looking to invest in another road trip. A plane makes a single day into a complete waste, plus the stress of having to deal with blue shirted fondlers and their enabling hordes who worship that "terrorism" tripe. But it gets you there the quickest. Driving interstates/secondary highways direct wastes several days, but perhaps you have a bunch of stuff to transport. If you did this and enjoyed "seeing the country", you owe it to yourself to plan another trip with more time. Taking the train uses several days, but they're relaxing and you can appreciate the scenery transitions without having to worry about logistics. It's probably the easiest way to "see things" while your goal is still the destination. A proper road trip will let you see what you can see from the train, plus a whole lot more, plus actually stopping and checking things out rather than just passing by. But the journey itself has to be your goal. I wouldn't recommend it for any less than 8 days (one way), otherwise you're just doing a slower canonball run.
  - findjashua 11y ago
    "blue shirted fondlers" - found the name for my next band

You don't have to drive? If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy.

by tkinom 11y ago

You don't have to drive? If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy.

>You don't have to drive? You don't have to take the freeway ("interstate"). You can always go for smaller roads. >If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy. If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. If we're talking about seeing places and travelling to see the "real side, kooky, etc" as he mentions, then driving is a far better option. It doesn't take reading Jack Kerouac to know this.

thebaer 11y ago
> You don't have to drive? They're saying you don't have to focus on driving. On a train you can watch the scenery pass and not pay attention to piloting your mode of transportation.
austenallred 11y ago
> If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. That's part of the the point; you don't have to think that way. You actually don't have to think or plan at all. You're not trying to consciously get from point A to point B. You're just sitting, thinking, reading, and going where the train takes you. It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. I suppose Jack Keroac or someone who would write Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance may do the same thing in a car, but I've never done so.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. You have a point on the "relaxing" thing. OTOH, the problem I see with that is that it doesn't really "take" you to those places, it just passes through them. You can watch them go by, but not stop and check them out.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    Yeah, for sure. I don't really want to stop and dwell, I like moving through things quickly.
mindslight 11y ago
It really depends what you're up for. I would take the train again in a heartbeat if it lined up logistically. But I'm not currently looking to invest in another road trip. A plane makes a single day into a complete waste, plus the stress of having to deal with blue shirted fondlers and their enabling hordes who worship that "terrorism" tripe. But it gets you there the quickest. Driving interstates/secondary highways direct wastes several days, but perhaps you have a bunch of stuff to transport. If you did this and enjoyed "seeing the country", you owe it to yourself to plan another trip with more time. Taking the train uses several days, but they're relaxing and you can appreciate the scenery transitions without having to worry about logistics. It's probably the easiest way to "see things" while your goal is still the destination. A proper road trip will let you see what you can see from the train, plus a whole lot more, plus actually stopping and checking things out rather than just passing by. But the journey itself has to be your goal. I wouldn't recommend it for any less than 8 days (one way), otherwise you're just doing a slower canonball run.
- findjashua 11y ago
  "blue shirted fondlers" - found the name for my next band