[
May be paywalled. PM me if you want to read this and are blocked.]
Wall Street Journal: The Romance of the American Road Trip -
No other travel experience, especially today, can beat the sense of freedom it brings (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-romance-of-the-american-road-trip-1504281812)
QuoteOne morning in Westport, Conn., in the summer of 1920, about three months after her marriage to F. Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald became slightly cranky over breakfast. She said that she hated Yankee bacon and eggs. Alabama-born and -raised, she craved Southern biscuits, "and I wish I could have some peaches anyhow."
QuoteThis made Scott smile. Jumpy, not to say reckless and self-destructive, he shared with Zelda that most familiar of American impulses: Let's go.
Quote"I will dress, and we will go downstairs and get in our car," he promised, and went on: "Seating ourselves in the front seat we will drive from here to Montgomery, Alabama, where we will eat biscuits and peaches."
Quote"Let's go" is on the minds of many people in these last days of summer, especially the getting-out-of-here, going-away, going-home mood of Labor Day weekend. And it is much simpler by car.
QuoteIn their secondhand 1918 Marmon Speedster, the Fitzgeralds set out on one of the first literary automobile trips in the U.S., which Scott recorded in his memoir "The Cruise of the Rolling Junk." The trip started as a lark: two novice drivers on a 1,200-mile journey to the deep South on bad roads. As klutzes, they experienced many mishaps and reverses and an assortment of crashes, but in its modest, merry way, it was a trailblazing effort.
And -- at the other end of the "romantic" road-trip period -- one might say that the final skewering of the cross-country road trip as an idealized venture commenced with the 1983 release of the film "National Lampoon's Vacation". Messrs. Chase, Columbus, and Ramis spared no effort to "stick it" to the various components of the road-trip idiom. Of course, that had miniscule or no effect on those of us who enjoy the journey as infinitely more than a mere method to get to one's destination -- but still I wonder if it in some way had a discouraging effect on the lesser-motivated to get out there and see the country!
At least today they could have checked on the internet ahead of time to make sure Walley World wasn't closed for renovations.
I think much of the appeal back in the day was literally being able to see things you used to not be able to...Mt Rushmore, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon etc.
Now with Internet, youtube, etc it's so easy to see all that stuff. I know seeing it in person is often a different experience, but odds are that you've seen a photo of whatever you're going to visit these days, Google Street view, Google earth etc. Back in the earlier days, you didn't necessarily know what stuff looked like. Plus with social media tools making it easier to stay in touch (Facebook, Twitter), the road trip as we know it is dead.
You couldn't see pictures of Yellowstone or Mount Rushmore in National Geographic?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 03, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
I think much of the appeal back in the day was literally being able to see things you used to not be able to...Mt Rushmore, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon etc.
Now with Internet, youtube, etc it's so easy to see all that stuff. I know seeing it in person is often a different experience, but odds are that you've seen a photo of whatever you're going to visit these days, Google Street view, Google earth etc. Back in the earlier days, you didn't necessarily know what stuff looked like. Plus with social media tools making it easier to stay in touch (Facebook, Twitter), the road trip as we know it is dead.
Seeing versus watching on YouTube or some website is a much different ball game. Nothing really can replace the actually experience of actually traveling, doing, and seeing things. Really to your point I don't think the younger generations have as much interest in travel compared to those before them. Really I think that it's more a facet of social connectivity being more of a thing than the availability of content online.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2017, 09:58:38 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 03, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
I think much of the appeal back in the day was literally being able to see things you used to not be able to...Mt Rushmore, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon etc.
Now with Internet, youtube, etc it's so easy to see all that stuff. I know seeing it in person is often a different experience, but odds are that you've seen a photo of whatever you're going to visit these days, Google Street view, Google earth etc. Back in the earlier days, you didn't necessarily know what stuff looked like. Plus with social media tools making it easier to stay in touch (Facebook, Twitter), the road trip as we know it is dead.
Seeing versus watching on YouTube or some website is a much different ball game. Nothing really can replace the actually experience of actually traveling, doing, and seeing things. Really to your point I don't think the younger generations have as much interest in travel compared to those before them. Really I think that it's more a facet of social connectivity being more of a thing than the availability of content online.
The more recent generations (and sub-generations) seem to be much more destination-oriented than journey-oriented; part of that is likely due to the advent of virtual "instant gratification" re accessing websites, availability of "on demand" films and other entertainment. It seems that if something requires the time involved in physical transport (FedEx transit time of one's favorite new "toy" notwithstanding!) -- particularly if it's the person being transported -- it's given 2nd and even 3rd looks, and a lot of contemplation, before the person "pulls the trigger" and journeys elsewhere, especially if it involves unfamiliar territory. Sometimes it seems like more and more folks are adopting the "NY/LA" concept where everything that isn't home or selected destination is "flyover" country, to be avoided whenever possible. Incuriosity, to a larger extent than I've personally seen in the past, seems to be emerging as the new norm!
The comment about "incuriosity" as the norm (a point I think has some validity) is making me picture Homer Simpson during the moon landing.
http://youtu.be/tbUrDRba9Ys
Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2017, 12:47:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2017, 09:58:38 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 03, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
I think much of the appeal back in the day was literally being able to see things you used to not be able to...Mt Rushmore, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon etc.
Now with Internet, youtube, etc it's so easy to see all that stuff. I know seeing it in person is often a different experience, but odds are that you've seen a photo of whatever you're going to visit these days, Google Street view, Google earth etc. Back in the earlier days, you didn't necessarily know what stuff looked like. Plus with social media tools making it easier to stay in touch (Facebook, Twitter), the road trip as we know it is dead.
Seeing versus watching on YouTube or some website is a much different ball game. Nothing really can replace the actually experience of actually traveling, doing, and seeing things. Really to your point I don't think the younger generations have as much interest in travel compared to those before them. Really I think that it's more a facet of social connectivity being more of a thing than the availability of content online.
The more recent generations (and sub-generations) seem to be much more destination-oriented than journey-oriented; part of that is likely due to the advent of virtual "instant gratification" re accessing websites, availability of "on demand" films and other entertainment. It seems that if something requires the time involved in physical transport (FedEx transit time of one's favorite new "toy" notwithstanding!) -- particularly if it's the person being transported -- it's given 2nd and even 3rd looks, and a lot of contemplation, before the person "pulls the trigger" and journeys elsewhere, especially if it involves unfamiliar territory. Sometimes it seems like more and more folks are adopting the "NY/LA" concept where everything that isn't home or selected destination is "flyover" country, to be avoided whenever possible. Incuriosity, to a larger extent than I've personally seen in the past, seems to be emerging as the new norm!
I think that it is fairly obvious from some of my travel posts that I mostly am on the road alone. It isn't so much the end point that isn't the issue selling a trip to anyone other but myself but rather the destination. The destination/road often has just as much if not in some cases way more to see or do than an end point destination does. Case and point would my recent trip which included Isle Royale National Park. Most people now wouldn't ever make a trip like that because reaching that island is extremely lengthy and includes a large boat ride. Thing is, if I hadn't have given I would have missed out on other things like some awesome drives like M-26 and some other sites of merit like the Mackinac Bridge. I guess it goes back to the old adage about the "destination" being the secondary thing of value on a road trip as opposed to the "journey."
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 03, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
I think much of the appeal back in the day was literally being able to see things you used to not be able to...Mt Rushmore, Golden Gate Bridge, Grand Canyon etc.
Now with Internet, youtube, etc it's so easy to see all that stuff. I know seeing it in person is often a different experience, but odds are that you've seen a photo of whatever you're going to visit these days, Google Street view, Google earth etc. Back in the earlier days, you didn't necessarily know what stuff looked like. Plus with social media tools making it easier to stay in touch (Facebook, Twitter), the road trip as we know it is dead.
1. Almost no adults are saying: Gee, I could just see it on the internet, what's the point of travel. If you're broke, poor, or fear travel...maybe. Nearly everyone else enjoys some element of going to see things. If anything, the Internet facilitates an interest in seeing things you wouldn't normally hear of.
I work with a fair number of Millenials who enjoy travel; in fact, studies show many of them would rather visit places before acquiring expensive knick-knacks. Part of that may be due to the benefits of a job which gathers frequent flier mileage and hotel points, or that we all have travel experiences to share. Going towards an even closer generation...well, it's too soon to tell. Many folks in so-called "Generation Z" aren't even adults yet, only a comparative few have had their first legal drink, even fewer have graduated college.
2. Shorter vacation times and cheaper airfare is a trade-off from driving long distances. Most people get a week at a time, and wasting three days to get to a singular major destination, spending 2-3 days there, and three days to get back isn't practical. It maybe our cup of tea (sometimes) to explore new routes, but few people see things that way. You have to realize the value of time shouldn't be discounted, regardless of income. If folks have long commutes to and from work, they're probably not as likely to want to spend even more time in their car. I don't quite think it's part of an "instant gratification" culture, it's a valuing of overall leisure time...a trend that's changed over the past few decades.
I find generalizations of groups of people to be inaccurate when applied on an individual level. When it comes to generations, doubly so.
A few more thoughts:
1) Unlike the old days, it's increasingly the case that the leave schedules of both mom and dad (as opposed to just dad) have to line up to facilitate a long-term road trip, making such a trip more difficult to coordinate.
2) Family sizes are getting smaller...if you've got a family of 5, road tripping makes financial sense as well. If you're got zero or 1 kid, you might just prefer to fly.
3) Highways are less novel. Whereas in the 1950s and 60s, Interstates were brand new and something to behold (yes, I know that highways existed before the Interstate System), whereas now they're aging in many cases, not as fascinating.
3a) Cars are often smaller, less conducive for road trips.
Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2017, 10:05:52 AM
I find generalizations of groups of people to be inaccurate when applied on an individual level. When it comes to generations, doubly so.
^this
I think that "incuriosity" is part of what's driving the whole self-driving car mania. Many people have no interest in looking out the window when they're in a car. To them, it's just a tin can that takes them from point A to point B - even on roadtrips, which these days are usually wholly about the destination, and more a social experience than anything else. Hence the desire among many for a car that you can just give a destination, it drives and picks the route, and the "driver" just plays on their phone or watches Netflix the whole way.
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
I think that "incuriosity" is part of what's driving the whole self-driving car mania. Many people have no interest in looking out the window when they're in a car. To them, it's just a tin can that takes them from point A to point B - even on roadtrips, which these days are usually wholly about the destination, and more a social experience than anything else. Hence the desire among many for a car that you can just give a destination, it drives and picks the route, and the "driver" just plays on their phone or watches Netflix the whole way.
See....I would use the self-driving car as a way to better explore my surroundings. Without having to pay close attention to the road, I'd able to be more observant of what is around me.
I'm all for the exploration of beautiful places by road trip. It's good for the spirit. Otherwise, I might have never experienced the grandeur of the mountains (i.e. Great Smokies, Allegheny & Blue Ridge) or parts of Michigan's eastern U.P. (I've only been as far west up there as Munising).
And as much as I enjoy the scenic places, there's nothing like the thrill of rounding the bend on I-78 in New Jersey and seeing the Manhattan skyline. No YouTube video of the same route can measure up to the live experience.
And don't forget the ever-romantic color tours! I haven't made it to New England yet, but the Great Smokies in October and the Grand Traverse area/M-22 color tours in Northern Michigan do the job quite well.
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
I think that "incuriosity" is part of what's driving the whole self-driving car mania. Many people have no interest in looking out the window when they're in a car. To them, it's just a tin can that takes them from point A to point B - even on roadtrips, which these days are usually wholly about the destination, and more a social experience than anything else.
How do you know how everyone else experiences a car ride or driving?
When I raised the point regarding "incuriosity" re road travel, I wasn't just referring to milennials, Gen X, later boomers, or any particular generational "division" (which IMO are a bit arbitrary in any case) but an overall malaise that affects a great number of folks regardless of internally or externally-applied categorizations. Whether it's simply a matter of situational reprioritization or a selective lack of input (including self-selected!), something seems to have significantly reduced the sheer numbers of folks willing to get out on the road and see what's out there! I for one would hate to think that it's due -- in part or as a whole -- to a reiteration of the classic "fear of the unknown".
Luckily I am the 1% of the "Millennials" who loves driving. My favorite new road trip over the past 2 years every fall: Chicago to Twin Cities on I-94
Quote from: formulanone on September 05, 2017, 01:43:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
I think that "incuriosity" is part of what's driving the whole self-driving car mania. Many people have no interest in looking out the window when they're in a car. To them, it's just a tin can that takes them from point A to point B - even on roadtrips, which these days are usually wholly about the destination, and more a social experience than anything else.
How do you know how everyone else experiences a car ride or driving?
People wanting to spend more time on their phones or do anything else other than drive has been mentioned as an advantage of self-driving cars for a LONG time now, and many people commenting on articles about them echo such sentiments. Plus I've talked with non-roadgeeks. My coworker even considers a car to be a moving metal prison and hates getting in one.
Me, I'm almost entirely the reverse; my travel is almost entirely about the journey, very little (or nothing, in the case of my clinching trips) about the destination.
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 08:05:33 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 05, 2017, 01:43:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 12:54:25 PM
I think that "incuriosity" is part of what's driving the whole self-driving car mania. Many people have no interest in looking out the window when they're in a car. To them, it's just a tin can that takes them from point A to point B - even on roadtrips, which these days are usually wholly about the destination, and more a social experience than anything else.
How do you know how everyone else experiences a car ride or driving?
People wanting to spend more time on their phones or do anything else other than drive has been mentioned as an advantage of self-driving cars for a LONG time now, and many people commenting on articles about them echo such sentiments. Plus I've talked with non-roadgeeks. My coworker even considers a car to be a moving metal prison and hates getting in one.
Me, I'm almost entirely the reverse; my travel is almost entirely about the journey, very little (or nothing, in the case of my clinching trips) about the destination.
That's the thing I was getting at in my post, I absolutely love the road travel. If I can't have a good road or path to take I probably won't be too interested in whatever travel is available. I purposely take the roads I think are going yield things like; old alignments, curves, grades, old railroads, abandoned buildings, or even ghost towns. Really it only gets boring for me if I have to use some suburban freeway or boring controlled access road. Usually I can maul through a national park in a couple hours running, but the road travel is where it is at...but I would say for a lot of people driving is considered a chore. To me "commuting" is a chore whereas "driving" is something that you go out and enjoy. I could go out pretty much any time on day off just to do a scenic or fun road just because I like it, that is a difficult concept for a lot of people in my immediate circle to understand.
I wholeheartedly agree, Max! If my budget had allowed it, I would have taken five or six days each way to Missouri and done more in the way of back roads to see the total eclipse, rather than three each way and sticking primarily to the interstates. I did fit in a few back roads, such as Missouri 76 west of Branson where it winds and twists through the mountains.
Quote from: ET21 on September 05, 2017, 04:22:50 PM
Luckily I am the 1% of the "Millennials" who loves driving. My favorite new road trip over the past 2 years every fall: Chicago to Twin Cities on I-94
This fall you should mix it up by driving some stretches of US 12 or US 14.
Quote from: hm insulators on September 21, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wholeheartedly agree, Max! If my budget had allowed it, I would have taken five or six days each way to Missouri and done more in the way of back roads to see the total eclipse, rather than three each way and sticking primarily to the interstates. I did fit in a few back roads, such as Missouri 76 west of Branson where it winds and twists through the mountains.
I'm hoping to open some eyes up to some friend this November. I'm basically leading a small convoy of cars to the Grand Canyon from the Central Valley in California. Basically they all assumed we would be taking I-40 but really we'll be on US 66 pretty much from Ludlow to Ash Fofk. There is some skeptics in the group but really all the fun stuff is off of I-40, I would never consider this trip if it was straight Interstate.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 21, 2017, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on September 21, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wholeheartedly agree, Max! If my budget had allowed it, I would have taken five or six days each way to Missouri and done more in the way of back roads to see the total eclipse, rather than three each way and sticking primarily to the interstates. I did fit in a few back roads, such as Missouri 76 west of Branson where it winds and twists through the mountains.
I'm hoping to open some eyes up to some friend this November. I'm basically leading a small convoy of cars to the Grand Canyon from the Central Valley in California. Basically they all assumed we would be taking I-40 but really we'll be on US 66 pretty much from Ludlow to Ash Fofk. There is some skeptics in the group but really all the fun stuff is off of I-40, I would never consider this trip if it was straight Interstate.
Did you know you can drive your car all the way down to the Colorado River? IR-6, from Peach Spring, on old US 66. You need a permit from the tribal office and it's best to have a higher clearance vehicle but I made the trip up and down in a rental PT Cruiser. The road crosses low and slow Diamond Creek a few times near the bottom.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 05, 2017, 10:40:35 AM
3a) Cars are often smaller, less conducive for road trips.
I think I agree with this point. When I had my big Buicks (and even my Jeep, actually), driving 1000+ miles in one sitting was no big deal, the car just drank up the miles while I was coddled in their La-Z-Boy seats. Then I got a compact car and even though I was getting 40+ mpg at times, I was having a lot less fun and each trip seemed to get longer and more tiring. The smaller car was much better to drive around town, and objectively better in many ways, but for long trips, I'll always miss my big, cushy Buicks.
I also agree with the point made earlier about how most people tend to have less vacation time than in the past, which makes making the most of what time you have even more important. Both times I went down to RTX in Austin, I flew, because I wasn't making any vacation or personal time at all at my part-time job, so any time off I took was unpaid. Flying in early meant I was able to meet up with friends and go straight to the Tex-Mex and margaritas my first day there.
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on September 21, 2017, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 05, 2017, 10:40:35 AM
3a) Cars are often smaller, less conducive for road trips.
I think I agree with this point. When I had my big Buicks (and even my Jeep, actually), driving 1000+ miles in one sitting was no big deal, the car just drank up the miles while I was coddled in their La-Z-Boy seats. Then I got a compact car and even though I was getting 40+ mpg at times, I was having a lot less fun and each trip seemed to get longer and more tiring.
I think it all depends on personal taste. I find the soft ride on many large cars to dull my senses after an hour or two, which isn't very inspiring and seems to make a long journey a bit more unbearable. I want my car to keep me attentive, at least to a degree where I'm not concerned about it. That's not to say some medium-sized sedans like the Mazda 6, the Ford Fusion, or going a little bigger, the Dodge Charger, seem to offer a good combo of ride and responsiveness without sapping my attention. We have a minivan (Mazda 5) that's great for 12-hour hauls because it doesn't feel floaty.
One's form and seat positing also matter; I've driven some large and/or luxurious vehicles which were uncomfortable after 30 minutes. Or that I'd drive all week and can never quite get comfortable. Some others just seem to have the worst type of headrests, or pinching points in my upper or lower back.
I'm quite comfortable after 8-9 hours in my own little car, and could drive a Ford Focus/Fiesta all day long. I prefer a somewhat sharper-turning vehicle and a compliant ride with a narrower range of damping, and sometimes a smaller car has that built right in.
It also depends on the type of roads you like to drive on and what kind of surfaces you'll be dealing with over long distances. To each their own.
^ I definitely agree with that sentiment.
My previous car was a Pontiac Vibe 2.4 L with a manual transmission. I now drive a larger Ford Escape, which is a much nicer appointed vehicle with a larger cockpit, and a higher centre of gravity. While the Escape is a much, much nicer car than the Vibe was, the Vibe was much, much more fun to drive, even for long trips. The low centre of gravity and manual transmission made it far more of a nimble car than the Escape, which made the driving experience more favourable in my opionion.
Quote from: dmr37 on September 21, 2017, 04:49:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 21, 2017, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on September 21, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wholeheartedly agree, Max! If my budget had allowed it, I would have taken five or six days each way to Missouri and done more in the way of back roads to see the total eclipse, rather than three each way and sticking primarily to the interstates. I did fit in a few back roads, such as Missouri 76 west of Branson where it winds and twists through the mountains.
I'm hoping to open some eyes up to some friend this November. I'm basically leading a small convoy of cars to the Grand Canyon from the Central Valley in California. Basically they all assumed we would be taking I-40 but really we'll be on US 66 pretty much from Ludlow to Ash Fofk. There is some skeptics in the group but really all the fun stuff is off of I-40, I would never consider this trip if it was straight Interstate.
Did you know you can drive your car all the way down to the Colorado River? IR-6, from Peach Spring, on old US 66. You need a permit from the tribal office and it's best to have a higher clearance vehicle but I made the trip up and down in a rental PT Cruiser. The road crosses low and slow Diamond Creek a few times near the bottom.
I did, never took it all the way to the river in a vehicle but a couple of my off-road buddies did do BIA 6 over a decade ago. There are some really good dirt trails and roadways up there in that part of Arizona, Arizona Desert Dog is covering a lot of them on his Youtube channel as of late.
Quote from: formulanone on September 21, 2017, 08:27:40 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on September 21, 2017, 08:36:15 PM
If I was going to take the road less travelled, I would definitely prefer the nimbler vehicle with the manual transmission. But if I'm pulling 12-15 hours on the open interstate in one sitting, I'll take the couch on wheels. But YMMV.
I know that, to me, (mumbles) mph was just as comfortable and effortless in my 3800 Buicks as the posted speed limit...but doing those speeds in a much smaller vehicle (the Focus) felt flat-out, especially with the engine turning about 1500 rpm more than it was in my V6 cars (even with a sixth gear). If I kept to two over the posted limit, I could easily get 40 mpg, but then my little red hatchback became a rolling chicane on I-20 and I-85. :paranoid:
I recently drove my 2014 Fusion from my house in Virginia to GingerMan Raceway in Michigan, about 700 miles, and it was pretty fine, although it was a tad stiff-legged on rougher stretches thanks to the 18-inch wheels and 45-series tires, and the fuel economy with the 1.5 EcoBoost and six-speed auto was disappointing. I think my best tank was 34 mpg, my overall trip average was closer to 31-32 or so.
Next year I would like to find an entry for the West Coast LeMons Rally (https://24hoursoflemons.com/lemons-rally/), driving from Virginia to California for the rally start, doing the rally, then driving back for it. The classic American land yacht seems to be the perfect candidate (I found a '76 Coupe DeVille with the 500-ci V8 on Craigslist the other day), but perhaps I ought to try something a little unconventional, like a stone-base-model Toyota pickup (http://autoweek.com/article/car-life/28-states-22-days-broke-ass-budget-stripper-toyota-pickup)!