Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

Well, yes, Amtrak in the Northeast is convenient if you want to go downtown at a stop. It’s mostly a poor choice if you want to rent a car and go somewhere else in which case you’re probably better flying or just driving in the first place.

Not sure about car-centric philosophy. It’s about the destination for a given trip. No judgement about it.

View on HN

When I was in my early 20s, I flew into Providence, RI. I was too young to rent a car, and too poor to take a taxi all the way to my final destination, so I had to take it to the place downtown where the busses all crossed paths. I only learned later that where the taxi dropped me off was about a 5-to-10-minute walk from the Amtrak station. If I'd taken the train, I could have eschewed a leg of my trip (and embarked from a station closer than my local airport).

This was, in fact, one of the experiences which informed my previous statement.

I've made the same trip by car and train. Train is by far the most convenient and relaxed. I would drive about the same distance from home to the local station (those exist) as I would in order to get to the airport, park for free 10 minutes before boarding, and do it at an hour that was not ungodly (which was a necessity for flights for pricing reasons). Every minute dealing with TSA and arcane terminal navigation is worth 10 sitting in a large, seatbelt-free Amtrak seat. I am happy to judge: your characterization sounds like someone who doesn't actually have much experience riding trains - and, specifically, walking out of a train station and navigating to their destination. This is frustrating because you seem rather assured.

I have plenty of experience riding trains and they’re great if e.g. I’m going to midtown Manhattan. They’re far less of an advantage if I * have to* rent a car and go out to visit a company in a suburban office park as is often the case.

Do you really rent cars in that case, rather than use a taxi?

I occasionally have meetings at similar places in Europe. If I'm alone and have time, I generally prefer to take a bus if it's reasonably convenient (at least every 20 minutes, not raining too much, easy to pay for, up to 10 minutes walk at the other end). I quite like the 'thinking time' of walking the last bit.

If a bus isn't reasonable, or (usually) if I'm with a colleague, I'll take a taxi. It wouldn't really occur to me to rent a car.

I rent cars all the time going to suburban office parks and even more so if I’m also going to do a hike in some state park or whatever—where there may not even be cell phone reception. I might be marginally more inclined to get an Uber than do a rental than in years past but only marginally.

In a few weeks I’ll be going to a conference in Monterey and will be doing some other activities around the conference in some parks and I’ll definitely rent a car.

To be clear I won’t generally rent a car if just within eg SF but I’m often going places outside the city where I’m not even staying somewhere I can walk to my destination. And typically I wouldn’t in Europe.

Do mind that it's often more cost effective to take the train and you have more rental options. I've taken the train from WDC to NYC at times because there were better rental options there when travelling further north.

There is absolutely no way I would take a train into NYC for a cheaper rental option requiring me to drive out of the city. Driving to NYC is already my fastest option but I hate doing it so I basically drive an hour in the wrong direction to catch a train.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com