I'm starting to plan a couple photo trips, and I've been debating whether I want to fly or drive. E.g. Glacier, Zion. Leaving from the California Bay Area, spending a 5-7 days. So around 1000 miles. Normally I would automatically book a flight. But I get the feeling that a lot of photographers almost always drive, unless they're going to Antarctica
I am at least moving more towards the idea of "if I can do the drive in one day, I'll consider driving." At what distance and length of stay do you guys feel like flying instead of driving? Thank you for any advice!
I walk everywhere, Mat. That's why i have so few photos in my portfolio, it took me 6 weeks to get the ones from Zion
I think 'drive in a day' is a good rule to go by. Im starting to fly again more though, the post 911 hastles arent quite as painful as they were. At any rate, 1000 miles is more than i care to drive in a day, course if you were hitting 20 other parks in between that would change the picture.
Unless we are travelling "across the map", we tend to drive. Because my husband is disabled, though, the "burden" of driving falls to me. However, I carefully plan our trips so there will be interesting places to stop along the way to see and photograph. The drive then seems less tiresome and we both usually have a good time. I try to make the journey itself part of the "experience" . Another option that my husband and I have talked about but not done yet is to go somewhere by train. There wouldn't be the leisurely stops along the way, but we would still be able to enjoy the countryside as we go. Last tme we flew was 2 years ago to South Dakota.
The fewer days I have and the greater the distance, the more likely I am to fly. But that frustrates tarnation out of me. Whenever and however possible, I try to arrange the time or the distance so I can drive. When driving my strategy is to drive a very long day if necessary at the start of a trip, then wend my way from there with shorter drives.
In fact I've driven from the Bay Area (actually Modesto) to Zion and to Glacier. Doing either in a week would be a squeeze when you factor in driving the best part of 2 days on each end of the trip. Driving to Zion, things didn't get interesting to me till I reached the Kern River Canyon and Walker Pass, then it was tough to make travel time through Death Valley, Red Rock, Valley of Fire, Beaver Dam Mountain Wilderness, Virgin River Canyon and Hurricane to finally reach Zion. I certainly couldn't reach Zion in one day of driving, but could have "worked" all those sites via rental car in a week after a flight to Vegas. Montana/Wyoming features a similar cluster of sites while points between you and there are thinner, even if you can't do it in a day.
I've certainly slighted someone's favorite photo sites along either route in my summary, but those would make it harder to "make time" on your drive, rather than easier. You certainly wouldn't have any time for side trips while still reaching your final destination with any casual time left.
I feel like I'm talking in circles (in case you hadn't noticed), so I'll summarize: Your 5-7 days is too short to drive either route while effectively leaving time for photography, much less taking advantage of potential sites in between home and either Glacier or Zion. Double the time available, then it becomes really worthwhile to drive. Give me 10 days-2 weeks for either trip, and I wouldn't consider flying.
Understand though, that I tend to "get lost" real easy on long drives. It once took me 5 days to make the 5-6 hour drive from Death Valley to Zion. And I've "stopped by" Yellowstone on the way to Glacier, and 10 days later never reached Glacier. The 2-day drive from Seattle to our place in Colorado has taken me as long as 3 weeks! If I really need to reach Zion or Glacier and time is comparatively short, it's far "safer" for me to fly to the nearest airport.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Next month we're going to Iceland. My wife is insisting we fly. My sales job has me driving 200-400+ miles a day, so I'm very used to long drives. However, I look at it this way. The most important thing we have is time. If I have only ten days to spend in a place I've always wanted to visit, I want to maximize the time there. I want to minimize the time in transit. So, I fly. There can be exceptions. Some of our past summer vacations have had the strategy of, "We have 14 days. How far north can we get?" On our trips to Canada, the drive through rural North Dakota etc. was part of the trip. We got to see a lot of stuff. While the goal was to get up to Jasper, Alberta, we saw a lot of interesting stuff getting there too.
With airlines doing everything they can to piss me off, I'm beginning to look at driving again. But again, it depends on where. If I go to NYC later this year, I'll want to fly. Again, using the time at the destination is the reason. If we go back to Canada next year, we will drive. I have done two trips by train, both in Canada. This can work and is especially fun if you like trains and have a lot of time. The downside to trains is they take several days, and riding American trains (Amtrak) isn't quite as comfortable. You do get to see a lot of interesting stuff from a train that you won't see from a car. Just won't get to photo it. There are some cool train rides out West that shuttle you from national park to national park, and give you some time in each.
As someone who actually enoys long drives, I tend to drive when possible. This affords me a couple things. First, I can pack whatever gear I want. On some trips this may include quite a pile of camera gear, camping gear, tree climbing gear (50+ lbs of hardware, ropes, etc), video gear, etc. Gives me tons of options without having to think about the baggage charges for flying. For me, since I don't have a normal day job, time usually isn't my limiting factor but finances are. So, I figure if a flight costs me $500 plus $100 for a second bag or extra weight each way, I can drive a long way on $700 and that doesn't even involve including a rental car in teh budget. If I've got a couple day drive and finances are tight, I'll time it to hit a national forest or state park or something to camp, or just fork over the $50-75 to sleep in a hotel for the night.
I drive a lot. I grew up in Orlando and drove back and forth to college in Maine a lot, once even for a 2 week spring break. I now live in Central NY and if I plan to be there for more than a week or two, I'll drive. If my wife is coming along then that doubles the cost of flying as well. Just last week I drove 7 hours to DC on a Wednesday for a day of meetings at Geographic on Thursday, then spent hte night and headed home on Friday. Even with my Explorer and bad mpgs, it typically is cheaper for me to drive. I just try and work the timing on either side. Now if I was going to California or out west, I'd either want to be staying a while or find a couple nice spots on the way.
By the way, when I am driving, an audio book makes it go much faster!
Great suggestions from everyone. Made me think about a few different things. For me, time is usually more limited than anything else. For driving to be worthwhile I would need to stop and shoot at places along the way, which takes more time. I think I may stick to the "if I can drive it in one day" rule.
Drew, the audio book is the best advice of the whole thread!
My general rule is if it is less than 8 hours to drive I will. Most flights once you consider door to door time are going to be 6 - 8 hours if there is a change over stop. The best thing about driving is that it leaves the schedule up to you when to leave, when to return and to change your plans mid trip without the hassles of dealing with the airlines.
And on top of that, the cost of car rentals, the cost of baggage and....
I probably would not drive from my home in Colorado to Maine or Alaska... or Peru. But from the Bay Area to Zion is something I would definitely drive, and I'd probably do the route to Glacier too, just to see the land. Then again, I drove from Denver to Las Vegas and back in a day because I was bored, so I might not exactly be the marker of sanity when it comes to this.
Matt: If my destination is 1000 miles or less I generally drive. Unfortunately since I live in Houston it takes about 700 miles just to get out of Texas if I go west! However my wife and I like to camp and we tend to take lots of gear so driving is a big plus for us. Last summer though we went to Canada so we did fly. I try to take Southwest Airlines if at all possible since you still get 2 bags free. We actually flew into Portland and then made a giant circle over to the coast, up to Victoria and then on to Jasper, Banff and back to Portland. Took three weeks and it was great. We even managed to take a bunch of our camping gear thanks to Southwest's liberal baggage policy.>=))>
Posted by Rodney Ninow on June 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM
It would depend on how much time I have and how far. You only have 7 days and want to get from SF Bay to Glacier? Better fly!
It sounds as though you and your wife were born under the same star as my wife and I. We both grew up with lots of camping and love it, and given a choice we'll forgo short-duration trips to "save days" to invest in longer ones that usually feature driving and camping. And like you, it's a looooong ways to get anywhere. We're on an island with less than 100 miles of road and a minimum of 5 hours of airplanes and airports from Seattle.
We keep a 2001 4WD Tundra with a canopy in Puget Sound and use that as a departure for our jaunts, seldom less than two weeks behind the wheel and as long as 3 months. A full suite of camping gear lives in the back, and though it is driven at most 5 months a year, it's got almost 250,000 miles on it. Just getting broken in!
Looking at my photo files, I realize just how many of my photos are the result of flexibility in schedules and itineraries. The fewer days and the more miles in a trip, the less of that I can manage and the more my productivity suffers. I've driven over 500 miles out of my way to get in front of approaching storms, just to be on hand for great clouds and sunsets. I mentioned the 5 days to get from Death Valley to Zion. That's because a series of storms was passing through and I'd shoot in Death Valley as they approached, drive to Valley of Fire to get ahead of them again, then drive back to Death Valley to shoot in their wake and be on hand for arrival of the next one.
If you think that's bad, you should see me ricochet around the Colorado/Utah border chasing light from destination to destination!!!
Hank and Mel- You guys just tickle me with your responses! That's my kind of trip.
Mat- really a shame you don't have more time… There's so much to see and photograph in either place, not to mention the sights along the way. So my suggestion would be to fly and lots of good luck with hauling your gear through the airport/security.
Anyway, have a great time; will look forward to your posts after the trip.
$120 a DAY??? What kind of car, a Lamborghini? Go to one of the travel sites, there's no way a car costs $120 a day.
EDIT: I looked it up, about $86 a day, so not quite 120, but with only 200 free miles. Much more expensive than I suspected. I guess they charge a lot more to drop off in a different location. I've only done it once, rented in LA, dropped off in Denver, flew home. Don't remember it costing that much, but prices do go up.
Discussion
19 repliesI am at least moving more towards the idea of "if I can do the drive in one day, I'll consider driving." At what distance and length of stay do you guys feel like flying instead of driving? Thank you for any advice!
I think 'drive in a day' is a good rule to go by. Im starting to fly again more though, the post 911 hastles arent quite as painful as they were. At any rate, 1000 miles is more than i care to drive in a day, course if you were hitting 20 other parks in between that would change the picture.
In fact I've driven from the Bay Area (actually Modesto) to Zion and to Glacier. Doing either in a week would be a squeeze when you factor in driving the best part of 2 days on each end of the trip. Driving to Zion, things didn't get interesting to me till I reached the Kern River Canyon and Walker Pass, then it was tough to make travel time through Death Valley, Red Rock, Valley of Fire, Beaver Dam Mountain Wilderness, Virgin River Canyon and Hurricane to finally reach Zion. I certainly couldn't reach Zion in one day of driving, but could have "worked" all those sites via rental car in a week after a flight to Vegas. Montana/Wyoming features a similar cluster of sites while points between you and there are thinner, even if you can't do it in a day.
I've certainly slighted someone's favorite photo sites along either route in my summary, but those would make it harder to "make time" on your drive, rather than easier. You certainly wouldn't have any time for side trips while still reaching your final destination with any casual time left.
I feel like I'm talking in circles (in case you hadn't noticed), so I'll summarize: Your 5-7 days is too short to drive either route while effectively leaving time for photography, much less taking advantage of potential sites in between home and either Glacier or Zion. Double the time available, then it becomes really worthwhile to drive. Give me 10 days-2 weeks for either trip, and I wouldn't consider flying.
Understand though, that I tend to "get lost" real easy on long drives. It once took me 5 days to make the 5-6 hour drive from Death Valley to Zion. And I've "stopped by" Yellowstone on the way to Glacier, and 10 days later never reached Glacier. The 2-day drive from Seattle to our place in Colorado has taken me as long as 3 weeks! If I really need to reach Zion or Glacier and time is comparatively short, it's far "safer" for me to fly to the nearest airport.
With airlines doing everything they can to piss me off, I'm beginning to look at driving again. But again, it depends on where. If I go to NYC later this year, I'll want to fly. Again, using the time at the destination is the reason. If we go back to Canada next year, we will drive. I have done two trips by train, both in Canada. This can work and is especially fun if you like trains and have a lot of time. The downside to trains is they take several days, and riding American trains (Amtrak) isn't quite as comfortable. You do get to see a lot of interesting stuff from a train that you won't see from a car. Just won't get to photo it. There are some cool train rides out West that shuttle you from national park to national park, and give you some time in each.
Kent in SD
I drive a lot. I grew up in Orlando and drove back and forth to college in Maine a lot, once even for a 2 week spring break. I now live in Central NY and if I plan to be there for more than a week or two, I'll drive. If my wife is coming along then that doubles the cost of flying as well. Just last week I drove 7 hours to DC on a Wednesday for a day of meetings at Geographic on Thursday, then spent hte night and headed home on Friday. Even with my Explorer and bad mpgs, it typically is cheaper for me to drive. I just try and work the timing on either side. Now if I was going to California or out west, I'd either want to be staying a while or find a couple nice spots on the way.
By the way, when I am driving, an audio book makes it go much faster!
Drew
Drew, the audio book is the best advice of the whole thread!
There's always that to factor in.
And on top of that, the cost of car rentals, the cost of baggage and....
I probably would not drive from my home in Colorado to Maine or Alaska... or Peru. But from the Bay Area to Zion is something I would definitely drive, and I'd probably do the route to Glacier too, just to see the land. Then again, I drove from Denver to Las Vegas and back in a day because I was bored, so I might not exactly be the marker of sanity when it comes to this.
It sounds as though you and your wife were born under the same star as my wife and I. We both grew up with lots of camping and love it, and given a choice we'll forgo short-duration trips to "save days" to invest in longer ones that usually feature driving and camping. And like you, it's a looooong ways to get anywhere. We're on an island with less than 100 miles of road and a minimum of 5 hours of airplanes and airports from Seattle.
We keep a 2001 4WD Tundra with a canopy in Puget Sound and use that as a departure for our jaunts, seldom less than two weeks behind the wheel and as long as 3 months. A full suite of camping gear lives in the back, and though it is driven at most 5 months a year, it's got almost 250,000 miles on it. Just getting broken in!
Looking at my photo files, I realize just how many of my photos are the result of flexibility in schedules and itineraries. The fewer days and the more miles in a trip, the less of that I can manage and the more my productivity suffers. I've driven over 500 miles out of my way to get in front of approaching storms, just to be on hand for great clouds and sunsets. I mentioned the 5 days to get from Death Valley to Zion. That's because a series of storms was passing through and I'd shoot in Death Valley as they approached, drive to Valley of Fire to get ahead of them again, then drive back to Death Valley to shoot in their wake and be on hand for arrival of the next one.
If you think that's bad, you should see me ricochet around the Colorado/Utah border chasing light from destination to destination!!!
Mat- really a shame you don't have more time… There's so much to see and photograph in either place, not to mention the sights along the way. So my suggestion would be to fly and lots of good luck with hauling your gear through the airport/security.
Anyway, have a great time; will look forward to your posts after the trip.
EDIT: I looked it up, about $86 a day, so not quite 120, but with only 200 free miles. Much more expensive than I suspected. I guess they charge a lot more to drop off in a different location. I've only done it once, rented in LA, dropped off in Denver, flew home. Don't remember it costing that much, but prices do go up.
So if you flew, how would you get around?