Barbara Vaughan:
> This would involve skipping Toronto, but believe me it's no great
> loss.
You realize them's fightin' words, eh? :-)
Seriously, I thought the original poster's itinerary looked reasonable
for someone who wanted to spend his time traveling and hitting a large
number of places in a short time. Clearly there are lots of points on
the route where someone who wanted to spend more time could do so by
cutting out somewhere else. But I thought the worst error was a trivial
one -- the term "New England" does not include New York State, let alone
Toronto.
> A car gives you more flexibility, but this doesn't sound like the kind
> of trip that's gonna need flexibility. You're basically just using the
> car to get places.
Given the itinerary, particularly for someone used to the long drives
found in Texas, I think car travel is clearly preferable. No fitting
your day around the train schedules, no missing the scenery by flying
over it. (And a lot of the territory to be driven through is scenic,
although not spectacularly so.)
Having said that, Amtrak's premier train route is the Washington - New
York - Boston corridor, and if you wanted to try train travel between
New York and Boston, you'd find that you get from one city center to the
other with good comfort and speed. Complicating the decision is that
there are different types of trains on the route and you pay more for
the faster ones, but their fares depend in different ways on the time
of day and the day of the week, as well as the class of travel.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Effective immediately, all memos are to be written
msb@vex.net | in clear, active-voice English." -- US gov't memo
My text in this article is in the public domain. |