If time doesn’t matter, then trains all the way.
It really depends. If I’m going across the country (US), then plane is really the only option unless I have *lots *of time available. But for anything shorter, I prefer driving, because you actually get the chance to see the country you’re traveling through.
Earlier this year, we took our first train trip, from Washington DC to New York, in the middle of a 2-week trip. It was little more than a ‘commuter’ trip, but it really turned us on to the idea of travel by train. Sadly the infrastructure here in the US isn’t really set up to allow that too much, but we’re looking forward to trying it on our next trip overseas. We’re in the early planning stages of a trip to visit friends in Berlin, and we’re thinking about flying into London, then taking a train to Germany. It looks like the cost savings over flying all the way would be enough to pay for a couple night’s hotel rooms in London/Paris/Brussels.
Motorcycle.
You actually experience the land that you’re travelling through and are immersed in the experience, instead of viewing it through a simulated TV screen (windshield, cabin window, etc.).
When I was young, travelling cross-Canada by rail was significantly cheaper than flying.
I miss those days. I remember spending a few days over New Years’s on a train from Toronto to Vancouver and meeting a couple of girls, one who was going to Vancouver and one who was only going as far as Edmonton. Before the trip was over, Edmonton girl suggested that we all get off at Edmonton, “get jobs at the mall” (West Edmonton Mall, which is a mega mall containing an amusement park and other wacky things) and rent a cheap apartment together.
The other girl was persuaded - I could not. (I was eighteen at that time.) I don’t recall anything remotely like that ever happening to me on a plane.
I love the open road, especially the Blue Highways. No other kind of travel gives me the same sense of freedom. Other modes of transport may be necessary depending on my ultimate destination, but given enough time I’ll choose driving every time.
Kind of depends on how much time we have.
For one thing, if we fly, the first part of the trip is a 100 mile drive to the airport. And then you have to rent a car at your destination (usually). And flying is becoming more and more of a giant pain in the ass.
If we have enough time, we drive. I don’t particularly like driving, but it does not bug me. My Wife and I have no problem with 1000 miles straight through. Though we often do only about 700 miles a day.
We are driving to the East coast this fall. 1800 miles one way. Sort of have to drive because my Wife is racing an IronMan, and we need to take her bike and all her gear.
Actually, 2000 km was a bit of an exaggeration. The cut-off between driving and flying for me is probably more like 1000 km (depending on whether I want to have my car at the destination).
Airplane, without a doubt. By “long distance” I mean something that is at least five or six hours by car or rail away (we’re talking about 500-600 km.) I’m talking Chicago-to-New York, or Chicago-to-Los Angeles trips. For something like Chicago-Milwaukee, rail or car would be my favorite.
Buses suck. Absolutely suck. I’ve done enough 24-50 hour journeys on a bus to never want to step foot on one again. Rail is great, where you have a great rail system, like throughout the European continent. I loved taking a train, as long as it was no more than a six hour journey. I’ve gone from the UK to the Balkan peninsula by train a couple times, and that was no fun, either.
Whenever I can, I will take a plane.
I love a good road trip. When I have the time, that is, to actually drive there. If I don’t, then I fly.
So driving to see my sister in Southern Arizona? Yep, if we’re taking a week long vacation and sight seeing on the way. If I just want to go for a quick visit to see her for the weekend or whatever, then I would fly. Next spring we’re driving to TN to see my brother. We could fly, but then we’d have to rent a car and drive to his town. Plus, we’d miss the journey itself. I can’t wait to see so much of the country. Thankfully we have two weeks to do it.
If travelling completely across the country, like to New York or Boston, we just fly because it would simply take too long to drive. But if I had a month, I would totally drive cross country.
The train! Even though it’s (apparently) more dangerous than the plane, I feel safer. The turbulence gives me really bad anxiety attacks. Which is swell, since I’m waiting at the gate as I type this, and my flight leaves in an hour…
For everything further than 50 km I prefer train over car - I can use the time for reading, working or dozing. The longest distances I have travelled by train were Jerez de le Frontera to Stuttgart and Moscow to Kazan’ (both about a day’s travel by train).
Train. I don’t drive, and I get motion sick on ariplanes, buses, and in cars, so the train is definitely the best for me. I disagree that the train isn’t fun. In addition to the romance of riding the rails, the scenery is great from a train, and you really feel like you’re seeing the country (and not just the patchwork of farmland that you see from an airplane).
If I have the choice, train by far. You get the pretty scenery that you would by car, but none of the traffic, none of the stress, none of the responsibility of driving, and a fraction of the risk of having an accident.
Plus, it’s cool. You can pretend you’re in the 1930s, without having to deal with the smoke and cinders of a coal-powered engine flying in through your window and into your eyes and on your clothes.
Edit: Out West, though: roadtrip by car. The train is best in the congested East Coast megalopolis in which I live.