Since I do a fair amount of travel in the US, and as much as I can get away with outside of it, I wanted to talk today about the roadtrip, and how it compares to two other modes of long-distance travel: the plane and the train, probably unsurprisingly.
Specifically, I want to focus on the freedom and pleasure aspects that so frequently get attached to the idea of the roadtrip in American literature and culture. Which forms of transportation allow you the greatest freedom? Which provide the greatest chances for random discovery? And which will allow you relaxation and pleasure if this is your vacation (whether frequent as in Europe or rarely taken as in the USA)?
1. Freedom depends on flexibility
I would argue that the plane is the great loser in the question of which form of transit gives you the greatest freedom. You cannot easily change where you are going on a plane, and they are pretty much inherently point-to-point travel: you can't get off the plane early unless you're skiplagging, and even that is just skipping a connection, not getting off midflight (hi, DB Cooper, if you're still out there).
Not an exit point.
It might seem like the car wins here, and it is true that if I'm driving I can take the car wherever the road will let me.
Burnin' rubber in the Mustang can indeed be flexible.
But while this is true, I have a lot less flexibility in what I do while I'm driving the car. If I'm inattentive, let alone watching Harry Potter while driving, bad things are going to happen. "I am the captain of my soul," but also I am captaining a vehicle that will run into things if I don't stop it.
A train seems less free: it runs on literal rails. I have to go where it goes, just like a plane.
But that's a very US-Amtrak-small network approach. If the train network is like the Dutch NS (complaints from the Dutch aside) or the London Overground (same point about local objections), it works much more flexibly.
I got off here randomly, just to take a picture of the sign for my London blogs about transit. I then walked across the neighborhood/town and got back on another train to go to another place.
So in a decent and well-designed (even if not perfect!) system, the train gives me a significant degree of flexibility and freedom as well.
And lest someone complain that the Overground is not intercity (it kinda is, depending on your definition of what a city is), I think the same applies to National Rail, for all its flaws.
And on the train, I can read, watch Harry Potter, or zone out to my heart's content. I am free to just be, not to direct the vehicle.
A view I would not be able to stare at if I drove from Paris to Amsterdam, but which I spent quite a bit of time watching while taking the train.
2. Random activities are also about flexibility
Surprise! The plane loses here too! While I love the little Blues Brother display in Midway Airport in Chicago, otherwise I'm not doing a lot of serendipitous discovery while flying from place to place.
This plane is going to Toronto Billy Bishop Airport, and good luck stopping.
There's a Bluey episode about a roadtrip, and they spend some time stuck behind the so-called Grey Nomads, RVing seniors, and then take a detour (along with said Nomads) to a roadside attraction. It's cute! It's true! You can detour off your route for random informational signs or to see what everyone else is visiting.
But beware! Sometimes those random places are actually pretty far from the interstate or equivalent. Sometimes the best thing you're seeing is the gas station you needed to stop at for fuel. And sometimes it's really cool.
The same applies to a train, at least if the train schedule means you won't lose all your time if you get off at a stop. If you're on the once-daily California Zephyr, it's more like a plane. If you're on the 147 train-daily Amsterdam to Haarlem route you're pretty good to stop if you want. Or if that's too close (they are much closer than any 2 California Zephyr stations), consider the 10 daily high-speed Paris to Amsterdam trains.
Random park? Cool. Got there on a train.
3. Relaxation can't require focus
Look, maybe you're someone who feels like they're most relaxed behind the wheel of a car. I'm just going to suggest that maybe you could let someone else do some of the work?
Only 2 people on these trains need to be paying attention (give or take).
It's two per on these planes, too. Well, and the flight attendants.
I hope to God all these people are paying attention (sorry for the crowded street--for related reasons I don't have many photos of cars on the interstate).
Driving a car can be fun, and certainly people do do it for fun! But driving as transportation is not the same as driving for fun. It's a method of long-distance transport that requires your attention, your focus, and your dedication (or your life). And yes, you can play your own music in the car--but can I recommend a pair of headphones?
Driving also produces lock-in that actually can reduce your likelihood of stopping for all the random things that otherwise might be the advantage of a car: when I'm behind the wheel, I'm focused on driving safely and getting myself to my destination, so I don't really have time or focus to pay attention to what might come up. On a train I can flip through my phone to think of whether I want to get off at another station; unless I'm a passenger I better not be doing that in a car!
In summary: yes, cars can and do provide noticeable advantages over trains and planes in terms of your ability to simply pull over and do something. But they provide noticeable disadvantages in terms of attention and stress, and the need for focus detracts from some of the other feelings of freedom. There's nothing wrong with taking a long roadtrip, but it would be a real blessing if we in the US would provide some greater opportunities to take a traintrip--and of course, there's a reason really long trips are usually by plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment