6 ms·

I don't know about 8 hours, but for a lot of semi-local business, I've started taking my car or a train (if available). Even if you have pre-check (and especial

I don't know about 8 hours, but for a lot of semi-local business, I've started taking my car or a train (if available). Even if you have pre-check (and especially if you don't), you're looking at a ~40 minute drive, uber, or public transit ride to the airport, all with their own cost, followed by an hour or more of downtime and further indignity of being corraled and scanned, followed by 30+ minutes of waiting on the tarmac after landing. Then you get to wait to get off the plane. If you were crazy enough to check luggage, add another ~20 for that. Then you're in an airport, not exactly in the city center, without transportation. Get on a shuttle to rent a car or go wait for transit. All told, it's easily 2+ hours on top of your flight. On a train, I get out my laptop, do some work (the wifi is usually free; eat shit, gogoinflight), maybe nap a bit, and arrive in about the same total time. Much nicer.

flukus 10y ago
And unlike on a plane you have enough space to actually use your laptop.
- WaxProlix 10y ago
  Totally - there are actual tables, and trains are seldom as packed as planes consistently tend to be.
nemo44x 10y ago
I live in NYC and whenever I go to DC I always take the train. It's about the same time as flying but with less chances of delays. I flew once and was delayed for 8 hours and have taken the train ever since. I drove once but that was slightly slower than the train and not as relaxing as sitting back with a drink and a laptop. To Boston though I usually fly. It is actually much faster if you leave at the right times to avoid traffic which you'd want to do if driving too. It's about 100% faster in my experience. I drove to Chicago once and that was about 12 or 13 hours. I've flown a bunch of times and it takes, door to door (depending on when you leave, etc) about 4 hours total. So it's much faster.
- steveklabnik 10y ago
  I live in NYC but Pittsburgh is my hometown; I have even been preferring a train to go that far these days. I was Diamond on Delta in the past, just gonna miss platinum this year because I flew off-airline enough; I fly a lot, but if a train is feasible I tend to prefer it.
  - freditup 10y ago
    NYC to Pittsburgh is actually a subpar trip in terms of Northeast train travel. It's smooth-sailing from NYC to Philly and Philly to Harrisburg, but once you get west of Harrisburg, speeds drop drastically and the resulting trip is much slower than driving. This is because the tracks are shared with other trains and run through mountainous terrain. Because the trip isn't great, it's not that heavily used and Amtrak only runs one train a day each way between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. It's a shame really! A high speed track between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would really improve accessibility for the city and be well used I think. I know there's been some talk of it, but no real progress made.
- ams6110 10y ago
  I took Amtrak from Chicago to Las Vegas once. Never again. Trip took 48 hours and two locomotive breakdowns.
  - jcao219 10y ago
    Another thing about Amtrak is, they do not own their tracks. Instead they use tracks from other companies and have to yield priority to them. The American train system will always be much slower than necessary because of these system delays. There is a very good youtube video on this subject.
    - 15thandwhatever 10y ago
      Depends on the part of the US. The Northeast Corridor[1], where the DC-NYC route that was previously mentioned is part of, is owned primarily by Amtrak -- so they get priority on the rails and can run as often (and as fast) as they please. However, they share the rails with other passenger rail lines so both entities cooperate on scheduling and maintenance. Not to mention that there are sections that are designated as high speed sections, consist of 4 tracks (1 local and 1 express track in each direction), and is electrified. Plus, there are regional transportation agencies (and Amtrak) that operate locomotives capable of 150mph+. Yes, I know this speed pales in comparison to Europe, but as far as I'm aware, it's still faster than any other rail system in the US. That's why when Northeast US people rave about Amtrak service (between Boston and DC), and everyone else doesn't, both sides think the other side is crazy due to a myopic view. What suffers in the Northeast is delivery of freight, so almost all of it needs to go by truck, which contributes to traffic congestion, and drives even more people to mass transit for long distances (which makes it easier to make a convincing case for expanding passenger rail operations). Or to relocate to more densely-populated cities that have rail access. One interesting by-product of this, is diesel engines are banned in New York City rail tunnels, so the only way to get freight from New Jersey into New York city, is via a 140-mile detour known as the the Selkirk Hurdle[2]. In other parts of the US, the rails are owned by freight companies (BNSF, CSX, etc), so their customers' cargo gets priority, and Amtrak suffers because they don't automatically win the "battle" like they do in the Northeast. Additionally, in these areas, due to the lack of electrification, Amtrak has to rely on an aging fleet of diesel locomotives[3] that break down often, and when they do, everything gets backed up. Couple this with the fact that the only section of Amtrak's network that's profitable is the Northeast Corridor and there's less incentive to throw good money after bad, and also leads to politicians calling for the defunding or even eradication of Amtrak. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#Locomotives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#L...
nathancahill 10y ago
It goes both ways. I used to live in Denver, and it was faster for me to ski in Alta (after flying to SLC) than it was for me to drive to I-70 ski resorts on a weekend.
- matwood 10y ago
  How quick is the flight and ski in Alta? I don't remember that being the case at all when I lived in Denver especially if you went to a place like Loveland, A-Basin, Breckenridge or Copper. Vail was a bit farther and more possibilities for road issues though.
  - nathancahill 10y ago
    55 min flight + 45 min Uber Ski to Alta. Only comparable with bad weekend traffic/snowy conditions on I-70 for sure.
wpietri 10y ago
Yup. A few years back some friends and I went from SF to LA for a conference. We all left home at the same time. The people who drove and the people who flew arrived at the hotel within 15 minutes of one another. It was a real eye-opener for me.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Part of the problem is non-linearity of delays. If you are delayed 45 minutes in traffic towards the airport, you may miss your flight and have to wait 6+ hours for another. With driving, if you are delayed 45 minutes, then you are just delayed 45 minutes at your final destination. Because of this, people frequently spend a lot of non-productive time at the airport, because they are afraid of the (small) chance that they can miss their flight entirely.
- Cd00d 10y ago
  When you're trying to be price sensitive for your reimbursement (say, keeping startup runway in mind), the 55.5 cents per mile reimbursement very quickly overtakes the cost of other forms of transit.
phil21 10y ago
I can't imagine driving 6-7 hours vs. flying. As it is for especially tight schedules I can get up at 4:30am to catch a 6:00am flight, and be at a 9am meeting in downtown Chicago with 45 minutes to prep. That's including the 20 minute uber on the MSP side and 45 minute Blue Line ride to the loop. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 5 minutes in security on either end. Door to door is 3.5-4 hours pretty reliably. I have colleagues that prefer to drive that, and I only do it if it's the last option available. For me, the driving is my full day and them I'm exhausted while taking a flight I can nap or do work - much less unproductive time. I think a 4-5 hour one-day drive is about my limit before I'll look hard at flight options. I also don't mind taking a flight for work on my "own time" since I find the whole process rather peaceful and can just zone out reading/catching up on news. Driving you'll have to pay me :) To each their own though - I know without precheck and being able to jump the standby list flying would be much more miserable. It's certainly a race to the bottom that's sad to watch.
- elorant 10y ago
  But what if the car could drive itself? Would you prefer it then?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    You are describing a very inefficient train ;)
    - Qwertious 10y ago
      IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains. Also, trains have public seating, which means they Can't Have Nice Things thanks to various anonymous assholes - in comparison, most people don't wreck their own car.
      - beachstartup 10y ago
        > IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains the US does a lot of trains, but generally for short distances on commuter corridors, and municipal light rail. we don't do high speed passenger rail, which is probably what you're thinking of.

flukus 10y ago

And unlike on a plane you have enough space to actually use your laptop.

WaxProlix 10y ago
Totally - there are actual tables, and trains are seldom as packed as planes consistently tend to be.

nemo44x 10y ago

I live in NYC and whenever I go to DC I always take the train. It's about the same time as flying but with less chances of delays. I flew once and was delayed for 8 hours and have taken the train ever since. I drove once but that was slightly slower than the train and not as relaxing as sitting back with a drink and a laptop. To Boston though I usually fly. It is actually much faster if you leave at the right times to avoid traffic which you'd want to do if driving too. It's about 100% faster in my experience. I drove to Chicago once and that was about 12 or 13 hours. I've flown a bunch of times and it takes, door to door (depending on when you leave, etc) about 4 hours total. So it's much faster.

steveklabnik 10y ago
I live in NYC but Pittsburgh is my hometown; I have even been preferring a train to go that far these days. I was Diamond on Delta in the past, just gonna miss platinum this year because I flew off-airline enough; I fly a lot, but if a train is feasible I tend to prefer it.
- freditup 10y ago
  NYC to Pittsburgh is actually a subpar trip in terms of Northeast train travel. It's smooth-sailing from NYC to Philly and Philly to Harrisburg, but once you get west of Harrisburg, speeds drop drastically and the resulting trip is much slower than driving. This is because the tracks are shared with other trains and run through mountainous terrain. Because the trip isn't great, it's not that heavily used and Amtrak only runs one train a day each way between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. It's a shame really! A high speed track between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would really improve accessibility for the city and be well used I think. I know there's been some talk of it, but no real progress made.
ams6110 10y ago
I took Amtrak from Chicago to Las Vegas once. Never again. Trip took 48 hours and two locomotive breakdowns.
- jcao219 10y ago
  Another thing about Amtrak is, they do not own their tracks. Instead they use tracks from other companies and have to yield priority to them. The American train system will always be much slower than necessary because of these system delays. There is a very good youtube video on this subject.
  - 15thandwhatever 10y ago
    Depends on the part of the US. The Northeast Corridor[1], where the DC-NYC route that was previously mentioned is part of, is owned primarily by Amtrak -- so they get priority on the rails and can run as often (and as fast) as they please. However, they share the rails with other passenger rail lines so both entities cooperate on scheduling and maintenance. Not to mention that there are sections that are designated as high speed sections, consist of 4 tracks (1 local and 1 express track in each direction), and is electrified. Plus, there are regional transportation agencies (and Amtrak) that operate locomotives capable of 150mph+. Yes, I know this speed pales in comparison to Europe, but as far as I'm aware, it's still faster than any other rail system in the US. That's why when Northeast US people rave about Amtrak service (between Boston and DC), and everyone else doesn't, both sides think the other side is crazy due to a myopic view. What suffers in the Northeast is delivery of freight, so almost all of it needs to go by truck, which contributes to traffic congestion, and drives even more people to mass transit for long distances (which makes it easier to make a convincing case for expanding passenger rail operations). Or to relocate to more densely-populated cities that have rail access. One interesting by-product of this, is diesel engines are banned in New York City rail tunnels, so the only way to get freight from New Jersey into New York city, is via a 140-mile detour known as the the Selkirk Hurdle[2]. In other parts of the US, the rails are owned by freight companies (BNSF, CSX, etc), so their customers' cargo gets priority, and Amtrak suffers because they don't automatically win the "battle" like they do in the Northeast. Additionally, in these areas, due to the lack of electrification, Amtrak has to rely on an aging fleet of diesel locomotives[3] that break down often, and when they do, everything gets backed up. Couple this with the fact that the only section of Amtrak's network that's profitable is the Northeast Corridor and there's less incentive to throw good money after bad, and also leads to politicians calling for the defunding or even eradication of Amtrak. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#Locomotives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#L...

nathancahill 10y ago

It goes both ways. I used to live in Denver, and it was faster for me to ski in Alta (after flying to SLC) than it was for me to drive to I-70 ski resorts on a weekend.

matwood 10y ago
How quick is the flight and ski in Alta? I don't remember that being the case at all when I lived in Denver especially if you went to a place like Loveland, A-Basin, Breckenridge or Copper. Vail was a bit farther and more possibilities for road issues though.
- nathancahill 10y ago
  55 min flight + 45 min Uber Ski to Alta. Only comparable with bad weekend traffic/snowy conditions on I-70 for sure.

wpietri 10y ago

Yup. A few years back some friends and I went from SF to LA for a conference. We all left home at the same time. The people who drove and the people who flew arrived at the hotel within 15 minutes of one another. It was a real eye-opener for me.

oh_sigh 10y ago
Part of the problem is non-linearity of delays. If you are delayed 45 minutes in traffic towards the airport, you may miss your flight and have to wait 6+ hours for another. With driving, if you are delayed 45 minutes, then you are just delayed 45 minutes at your final destination. Because of this, people frequently spend a lot of non-productive time at the airport, because they are afraid of the (small) chance that they can miss their flight entirely.
Cd00d 10y ago
When you're trying to be price sensitive for your reimbursement (say, keeping startup runway in mind), the 55.5 cents per mile reimbursement very quickly overtakes the cost of other forms of transit.

phil21 10y ago

I can't imagine driving 6-7 hours vs. flying. As it is for especially tight schedules I can get up at 4:30am to catch a 6:00am flight, and be at a 9am meeting in downtown Chicago with 45 minutes to prep. That's including the 20 minute uber on the MSP side and 45 minute Blue Line ride to the loop. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 5 minutes in security on either end. Door to door is 3.5-4 hours pretty reliably. I have colleagues that prefer to drive that, and I only do it if it's the last option available. For me, the driving is my full day and them I'm exhausted while taking a flight I can nap or do work - much less unproductive time. I think a 4-5 hour one-day drive is about my limit before I'll look hard at flight options. I also don't mind taking a flight for work on my "own time" since I find the whole process rather peaceful and can just zone out reading/catching up on news. Driving you'll have to pay me :) To each their own though - I know without precheck and being able to jump the standby list flying would be much more miserable. It's certainly a race to the bottom that's sad to watch.

elorant 10y ago
But what if the car could drive itself? Would you prefer it then?
- kuschku 10y ago
  You are describing a very inefficient train ;)
  - Qwertious 10y ago
    IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains. Also, trains have public seating, which means they Can't Have Nice Things thanks to various anonymous assholes - in comparison, most people don't wreck their own car.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      > IIRC the USA doesn't really do trains the US does a lot of trains, but generally for short distances on commuter corridors, and municipal light rail. we don't do high speed passenger rail, which is probably what you're thinking of.