Go By Train: the civilized way to travel
"Yes sir, you really do have to let me look at that package in your crotch." " No sir, I can't let you go to the bathroom in the next forty five minutes even if it means you're going to leave a large urine stain on seat D19." In the wake of the Christmas Day crotch bomber flying into Detroit and trying despterately to 'light his fire', the airlines, security folks, median and the government are in a frenzied uproar about how to 'tighten security'. New initiatives are being discussed including not allowing people access to their overhead luggage or the restrooms during the last hour of a flight, more chemical sniffing machines and dogs, more intrusive 'visioning' equipment, and so on. The discussions proliferate like chaff coming out of the tail end of a plane escaping an enemy missile.
Several observations float into my brain as I am buffeted by the tailwind. The first is that many people seem to be assuming that our 'security protocols' should be able to forestall 100% of all attempted terrorist acts. That is an absurd proposition on the face of it and should be abandoned at the get go. A second is the bifurcated observation that our current security systems are either failing or succeeding. It's hard to give a sound measure to either proposition since the 'as opposed to what' is missing. If we did not have the current security protocols would there have been more attempted terror attacks on the US? We don't really know because we don't know what the enemy's capacity is. Would there have been fewer? Same answer. Third, does the clamor this week to amend security procedures stem from real weaknesses in the system or is it simply motivated by an industry and government PR angst that 'they must do something to forestall blame falling on their shoulders'? I suspect the latter because we are talking about taking draconian action to reduce the risk that one, yes one, person from millions of fliers in recent years might be constrained from setting his pants on fire. And the record shows that, even when they have managed to get on board a plane with some set of explosive materials, proto-terrorists are not very effectve at bringing down planes. Not at all effective truth be told.
So where is this train of thought going? Funny that trains should come to mind. I was thinking about flying down to San Francisco early next year to visit my son and his fiance. Maybe a $ 100 round trip if I got the right deal. Right now it's $ 250. But in the current climate, I not only would have to suffer the intrusions of ordinary air security, I would perhaps not be able to get up to go to the head in the last hour of a relatively short flight. As a flier who's not relaxed and fond of being in a plane anyway. And as an older person whose bladder sometimes demands attention on short notice, this seems like hell. And, I would add, flying for many folks starts out being a less than 'fun' experience so ramping up the pain is not a small issue.
The reality for many situations is that we don't have to put up with this. Nor do we have to cram ourselves into a car and spend hours on the road. The choice of taking rail seems increasingly attractive. So tonight I took a look to see what my visit to the kids in San Francisco might look like. I could get a ticket from Portland to Oakland, leaving on Thursday afternoon and arriving early Friday morning for $73 one way. The cost for BART from Oakland is no greater than BART from SFO so that's neutral. And I could get a return to Portland leaving Sunday late and getting me to Portland midafternoon on Monday for the same price. I'm not on a work trip in this scenario so 'time certain arrival' an issue that AMTRAK faces for other reasons isn't such a big deal.
A critic of this scenario would point out that it takes me eighteen hours to travel each way, a giant chunk of the day, and that I'd need to travel overnight. Correct indeed.
However, when I get on the train, and we are travelling down the rail, I don't lose time in the way I do on a plane. I am not buckled into my seat, limited in my food and beverage choices nor my activities. I am not forbidden the use of the restroom. I do not have to restrict use of my electronic devices. In fact, I am able to sit back and enjoy the passing landscape, work if I have my phone and laptop, and chow down to my heart's content if I've brought a picnic with me. Ah yes, but who wants to spend an overnight on the train in a narrow little seat?
I agree that's less than appealing. So I looked at the options from AMTRAK on the Coast Starlight. If I were to convince my lovely wife to join me for the weekend, it would make economic sense to rent a private, two bed compartment. The price is an extra $ 140 or $70 each per night. The total AMTRAK cost then runs $140 each for each leg of the trip, but a more comfortable leg it would be.
With a different mind set, this might compare very favorably to driving. Calculated at some 600 plus miles and a car cost of $ .50 each, that's $ 300 each way. Plus, unless one wants to take a grueling run, the cost of a motel room at a nominal $ 70 minimum. Costing it out, I have $ 185 each way for a couple to drive including stopping overnight. So the economic values are not so wildly disproportionate as they might have been in the past. And the grim character of the airline experience, given a real economic value, makes me think that going by train is very very appealing.
Several observations float into my brain as I am buffeted by the tailwind. The first is that many people seem to be assuming that our 'security protocols' should be able to forestall 100% of all attempted terrorist acts. That is an absurd proposition on the face of it and should be abandoned at the get go. A second is the bifurcated observation that our current security systems are either failing or succeeding. It's hard to give a sound measure to either proposition since the 'as opposed to what' is missing. If we did not have the current security protocols would there have been more attempted terror attacks on the US? We don't really know because we don't know what the enemy's capacity is. Would there have been fewer? Same answer. Third, does the clamor this week to amend security procedures stem from real weaknesses in the system or is it simply motivated by an industry and government PR angst that 'they must do something to forestall blame falling on their shoulders'? I suspect the latter because we are talking about taking draconian action to reduce the risk that one, yes one, person from millions of fliers in recent years might be constrained from setting his pants on fire. And the record shows that, even when they have managed to get on board a plane with some set of explosive materials, proto-terrorists are not very effectve at bringing down planes. Not at all effective truth be told.
So where is this train of thought going? Funny that trains should come to mind. I was thinking about flying down to San Francisco early next year to visit my son and his fiance. Maybe a $ 100 round trip if I got the right deal. Right now it's $ 250. But in the current climate, I not only would have to suffer the intrusions of ordinary air security, I would perhaps not be able to get up to go to the head in the last hour of a relatively short flight. As a flier who's not relaxed and fond of being in a plane anyway. And as an older person whose bladder sometimes demands attention on short notice, this seems like hell. And, I would add, flying for many folks starts out being a less than 'fun' experience so ramping up the pain is not a small issue.
The reality for many situations is that we don't have to put up with this. Nor do we have to cram ourselves into a car and spend hours on the road. The choice of taking rail seems increasingly attractive. So tonight I took a look to see what my visit to the kids in San Francisco might look like. I could get a ticket from Portland to Oakland, leaving on Thursday afternoon and arriving early Friday morning for $73 one way. The cost for BART from Oakland is no greater than BART from SFO so that's neutral. And I could get a return to Portland leaving Sunday late and getting me to Portland midafternoon on Monday for the same price. I'm not on a work trip in this scenario so 'time certain arrival' an issue that AMTRAK faces for other reasons isn't such a big deal.
A critic of this scenario would point out that it takes me eighteen hours to travel each way, a giant chunk of the day, and that I'd need to travel overnight. Correct indeed.
However, when I get on the train, and we are travelling down the rail, I don't lose time in the way I do on a plane. I am not buckled into my seat, limited in my food and beverage choices nor my activities. I am not forbidden the use of the restroom. I do not have to restrict use of my electronic devices. In fact, I am able to sit back and enjoy the passing landscape, work if I have my phone and laptop, and chow down to my heart's content if I've brought a picnic with me. Ah yes, but who wants to spend an overnight on the train in a narrow little seat?
I agree that's less than appealing. So I looked at the options from AMTRAK on the Coast Starlight. If I were to convince my lovely wife to join me for the weekend, it would make economic sense to rent a private, two bed compartment. The price is an extra $ 140 or $70 each per night. The total AMTRAK cost then runs $140 each for each leg of the trip, but a more comfortable leg it would be.
With a different mind set, this might compare very favorably to driving. Calculated at some 600 plus miles and a car cost of $ .50 each, that's $ 300 each way. Plus, unless one wants to take a grueling run, the cost of a motel room at a nominal $ 70 minimum. Costing it out, I have $ 185 each way for a couple to drive including stopping overnight. So the economic values are not so wildly disproportionate as they might have been in the past. And the grim character of the airline experience, given a real economic value, makes me think that going by train is very very appealing.
Comments