Had to choose between a cheap flight and a 12-hour train ride last month

I needed to get from Chicago to Boston for a family thing. The flight was $150 and two hours, but the train was $95 and took all day. I picked the train, even though it meant leaving at 6 AM. Honestly, it was tiring, but seeing the carbon footprint difference on that travel site made it feel worth it. Has anyone else tried a long train trip instead of flying and found it okay?

3 comments

3 Comments

barnes.mason8d ago

Yeah, I read this article about how taking the train instead of a plane for trips under like 500 miles cuts your emissions by a huge amount. It stuck with me, so I tried a long train ride last year. It was slow, but you get to actually see the country go by, which was kind of nice in a way flying never is.

jordant698d ago

My trip from Seattle to Portland on the Amtrak Cascades is what sold me. It was like eight hours but you get the whole Puget Sound and Mount Rainier view for a big chunk of it. I mean, you just can't get that from a plane seat at 30,000 feet. It does take planning, but now I check the train option for any trip under a day's travel. The legroom alone makes it better than a cramped flight, idk.

-1

the_hannah1d ago

Honestly, the biggest win for me was the lack of airport stress. No security lines, no taking off my shoes, just show up and get on. That mental peace made the longer trip time actually feel shorter.

-1