Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Kirkwood
... and the train was at least 4 days one way, it’s not even close to time efficient.”

You're missing the point ... you can't see much of interest at 35,000 feet in a airplane. Train travel allows travelers to see the country at ground level, much more interesting.

17 posted on 07/04/2010 9:29:56 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: BluH2o

On the other hand, plane travel lets you go to where you want to go, and spend extended time at that destination, unlike the train where you have short stops.

If I have 10 days, I can spend 8 of them on the train across the country and back, or I can fly to Reno, spend a few days in the Northern California/Nevada area, fly to Denver, spend a few days there, fly to Chicago, spend a few days there, fly to New York, spend a few days there, then head back to San Francisco.

The train can be a fun trip, an enjoyable excursion. But it’s not a replacement for normal commutes and most travel in the US.


21 posted on 07/04/2010 9:41:47 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: BluH2o

I didn’t write that.


22 posted on 07/04/2010 9:46:38 AM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson