Mr Soy and I took a long train ride (in a sleeper car) along the west coast of the US recently. It was really fun, but we did it for the experience and not to get from Point A to Point B. A flight would have been 4 hours, the train ride was 36 hours and cost nearly 3 time as much.

According to industry trade publication Airlines For America, average ticket prices are actually lower than they were in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation. But Kralev says this is misleading since published fares don't include the taxes, fees and extra costs associated with air travel.

"[A] second bag to go to Europe is $100," he says. "How is that cheaper?"

By not bringing a second bag.

Seriously? This derptard is your source? I say dumb things all day. How about writing me a check?

Congress remains deadlocked over a new highway bill and there's a faint hope it will reach an agreement before the current bill funding transportation projects expires at the end of the month. With no agreement, highway projects across the nation will grind to a halt this summer.


That settles it. We're definitely driving this year.

Summer vacations are entirely an artifact of our education system. I'd rather take such a vacation in spring, or do christmas south of the equator. But the system doesn't like you taking a child out of their classes for a week off their schedule.

Rapmaster2000: According to industry trade publication Airlines For America, average ticket prices are actually lower than they were in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation. But Kralev says this is misleading since published fares don't include the taxes, fees and extra costs associated with air travel.

"[A] second bag to go to Europe is $100," he says. "How is that cheaper?"

By not bringing a second bag.

Seriously? This derptard is your source? I say dumb things all day. How about writing me a check?

Not bringing a second bag is great when you're just spending a weekend in Vegas. It's not so great when you're spending a month in Paris.

wildcardjack: Summer vacations are entirely an artifact of our education system.

That explains part of it, but it doesn't explain why the pensioner hotels in Europe are filled with seniors in August.

Vacations are also expensive, and considering I haven't gotten a real raise in a couple of years, I won't be taking one this year.

Of course, I also hope to be moving and buying a house toward the end of the year, but hey...

Took the train from Chicago to Austin for the hell of it earlier in the year. Didn't cost us anything more (or less) than a plane ticket and we brought the average age down 20 or 30 years. It was fun but I'm not making a habit out of it.

Long distance trains are (mostly) significantly less efficient than airplanes; they only work if you consider them to be "land cruises". Medium distance trains, if upgraded to high speed rail, can compete with airplanes. For example, LA to Chicago is never going to be a reasonable train ride; it will take several days to do, and that's never going to get upgraded to high speed rail. But LA to San Francisco is more realistic, but only in a high speed rail system like the one Califonria has planned. Now, whether or not the infrastructure expense is really worth it is an open question, especially since you have to buy expensive properties and dodge lawsuits all day (China can avoid those when they build a high speed rail, for instance).

Would love to hear anyone's experiences on it... it sure is cheap.

I'm going to Ireland this summer. I'm hoping for a Euro collapse before I go. Got the flight on points and the accommodation via house exchange (piggybacking on my parents exchange) so I have everything but day-trips and food and beer covered off.

Good times.

And yes, I know that a plane ticket on points is not really free but it certainly feels that way now.

It depends on where you're taking the train. Portland to Seattle? Efficient and competitive to taking a flight, but I can also use my laptop online or my cell phone to dick around online (or occasionally do something useful.)

Portland to the Bay Area? I'm flying.

What about parking at the train station? Is it like an airport where you can leave your car for a week or two (especially worried about the smaller stations as I would be embarking in Fraser, CO). Also, I notice the the fares are a lot less expensive going west than east from Colorado. Interesting, because the scenery is probably 100% better.

/also, the Zephyr doesn't have wi-fi yet it goes right towards Cupertino

ski9600: /also, the Zephyr doesn't have wi-fi yet it goes right towards Cupertino

The Zephyr stops in Emeryville on its west end, which is still at least 50 miles from Cupertino. If you wanted to get from Emeryville to Cupertino without a car, you would have to take BART to Millbrae, then Caltrain to one of the cities in Santa Clara County (most likely Sunnyvale or Mountain View), and then find a VTA bus that will take you to your destination in Cupertino. Unless you time it to take full advantage of the various express services, that would easily add half a day to your trip.

/recently planned a trip from Santa Clara to Chicago
//the Zephyr was intriguing, but too slow and too expensive

Krieghund: Not bringing a second bag is great when you're just spending a weekend in Vegas. It's not so great when you're spending a month in Paris.

I did 24 days in Europe with one bag and one laundry day. In January.

ski9600: Also, I notice the the fares are a lot less expensive going west than east from Colorado. Interesting, because the scenery is probably 100% better.

You hit the ocean sooner going west.

wildcardjack: Summer vacations are entirely an artifact of our education system. I'd rather take such a vacation in spring, or do christmas south of the equator. But the system doesn't like you taking a child out of their classes for a week off their schedule.



We all wish for things, that's why we put pennies in wells.

Rohlin: [us.megabus.com image 281x211]

Would love to hear anyone's experiences on it... it sure is cheap.

Better than most bus companies such as trailways. Still of course better on a long trip greater than 3 hours than amtrak. Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

wildcardjack: Summer vacations are entirely an artifact of our education system. I'd rather take such a vacation in spring, or do christmas south of the equator. But the system doesn't like you taking a child out of their classes for a week off their schedule.

Fark that, My dad would take me to deer camp for a week and send me back with a note:
"To whom it may concern. Please excuse vudu for the last week and he was at hunting camp. Any questions may be directed to me. Signed, Mr. kungfu"

I went to the USA - Scotland soccer match the weekend before I started my final semester of my MBA..... and I'm going to NYC for a bachelor party the weekend after I finish.

My summer travel options are JUST fine, thank you.

/6 weeks to go

Franco: Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

Obsolete technology is not necessarily cheaper. In particular, older trains tend to be less fuel-efficient, and therefore cost more to run even when in perfect working condition. And when they do break down, the odds that off-the-shelf replacement parts will be available are lower, which means either buying a new train or having the replacement part custom-made.

Geotpf: For example, LA to Chicago is never going to be a reasonable train ride; it will take several days to do, and that's never going to get upgraded to high speed rail.

Well sure, if by "several" you mean "two".

I took Amtrak from LA to NYC in February, and I enjoyed it a lot. I was able to actually see the scenery, and I was allowed to have sharp things and bottles of liquid, like a goddamn adult.

/didn't have to take my shoes off either

anfrind: Franco: Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

Obsolete technology is not necessarily cheaper. In particular, older trains tend to be less fuel-efficient, and therefore cost more to run even when in perfect working condition. And when they do break down, the odds that off-the-shelf replacement parts will be available are lower, which means either buying a new train or having the replacement part custom-made.

do you know how i know you don't know what you are talking about?

Dragonblink: I was allowed to have sharp things and bottles of liquid, like a goddamn adult.

like a cooler full of beer!

asciibaron: anfrind: Franco: Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

Obsolete technology is not necessarily cheaper. In particular, older trains tend to be less fuel-efficient, and therefore cost more to run even when in perfect working condition. And when they do break down, the odds that off-the-shelf replacement parts will be available are lower, which means either buying a new train or having the replacement part custom-made.

do you know how i know you don't know what you are talking about?

Are you going to offer a better explanation, or are you just going to be a jerk?

Rohlin: us.megabus.com

Would love to hear anyone's experiences on it... it sure is cheap.


The bus from Chicago to Nashville was filled with clean and curious people.
The bus from Chicago to Memphis was filled with sleezy smelly scumbags.

anfrind: asciibaron: anfrind: Franco: Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

Obsolete technology is not necessarily cheaper. In particular, older trains tend to be less fuel-efficient, and therefore cost more to run even when in perfect working condition. And when they do break down, the odds that off-the-shelf replacement parts will be available are lower, which means either buying a new train or having the replacement part custom-made.

do you know how i know you don't know what you are talking about?

Are you going to offer a better explanation, or are you just going to be a jerk?

I would imagine that except for concerns like higher fuel usage based on weight, it costs about the same to move any sort of mass transit no matter how many people are using it. The fewer people using a form of transit, the more expensive each ticket needs to be to recoup costs. Trains aren't very popular, so they can't spread out the costs like airlines can.

Tiber727: anfrind: asciibaron: anfrind: Franco: Amtrak is the devil incarnate. How can a rail system subsidize by the government be more expensive than the bus or a plane. With technologically obsolete trains no less.

Obsolete technology is not necessarily cheaper. In particular, older trains tend to be less fuel-efficient, and therefore cost more to run even when in perfect working condition. And when they do break down, the odds that off-the-shelf replacement parts will be available are lower, which means either buying a new train or having the replacement part custom-made.

do you know how i know you don't know what you are talking about?

Are you going to offer a better explanation, or are you just going to be a jerk?

I would imagine that except for concerns like higher fuel usage based on weight, it costs about the same to move any sort of mass transit no matter how many people are using it. The fewer people using a form of transit, the more expensive each ticket needs to be to recoup costs. Trains aren't very popular, so they can't spread out the costs like airlines can.

I won't claim to be an expert on trains, but I know that the locomotives used by Caltrain (a popular commuter line that links San Francisco with Silicon Valley) have hybrid diesel-electric engines, which are more fuel-efficient that pure diesel engines. It still only gets something like eight miles per gallon (not sure what's typical of non-hybrid locomotives), but since each train can carry a few hundred people, the fuel usage per passenger is still pretty good. Caltrain has also been working on switching to electric locomotives with overhead wires, which has a high startup cost (new locomotives plus nearly a hundred miles of overhead wires) but long-term should reduce the operating costs dramatically--especially if they do it in such a way that they can run smaller trains at more frequent intervals during non-peak hours (not sure if they actually will, however).

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Amtrak has the means or the will to modernize its fleet, no matter the potential long-term savings.