Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers

[MurrayDelph]

25. Unless it's going to take more than two days to drive there

I won't fly. And even then, unless time-bound, I'd rather drive and see the sights.

20+ years ago, I lived in L.A., and frequently taught in San Jose. Friday's class usually ended noonish, so I could be home five hours later. But since you couldn't count on the students not wanting to come back after lunch, if I flew, I'd have to book a 6pm flight that (after luggage and transport) would get me home aground nine.

Now I live on the northern Oregon coast, and several times a year drive to L.A., which is 15-17 hours of driving, not counting stops. And I'd rather do that than fly (and not just because the nearest airport is two hours away).

Two years ago, we drove from the northernmost corner of Oregon to Los Angeles, then through Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, Badlands, Devils Tower, and Mount Rushmore, through Chicago, St Louis, Chattanooga, and Atlanta, down to Orlando and Miami. Then we came back by way of Orlando again, New Orleans, Memphis, Colorado Springs, the Colorado National Monument, and back.

That's a lot of scenery you can't see by air, and trains go where and when they are set to.

Allegedly.

The last time I traveled by train, was a trip we "won" on a radio show. It was L.A. to San Diego and back to see the Harbor Lights Christmas parade. We had to arrive at Union Station early in the morning, had "free time" in downtown San Diego until the show (that anyone could attend without tickets), and then had to wait another two hours before the train left. On the ride home, the train was siderailed for two hours, less than three miles away from Union Station. By the time I got home, the trip took 22 hours, for want would have been a three-hour drive each way.