Ok, what's up with all the Texas plates on the roads? (current)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

I don’t know why people are so adamant about comparing a sea level city and a city at elevation.

Phoenix is at about 1000 feet. So is Atlanta. Phoenix is currently 97 degrees. Atlanta has a “feels like” temperature of 76.

Cities like New Orleans, Houston are at sea level or close to. So is Yuma. Yuma at 9 pm right now has a temperature of 100 degrees. Houston has a “feels like” temperature (including humidity) of 90 degrees. New Orleans has a “feels like” temp of 86.

Well, when the humidity is low, 97 doesn't "feel like" 97. It feels like 85. And if you are in the shade, a dry 97 degrees "feels like" 80. Personally, the 1st time I felt 100 degrees in the shade, I was shocked at how nice it felt.

[CosmicAries]

Because us Texans love Arizona.

[grmi66]

I see a bunch of Texas plates down here in Tucson as well. My speculation is many of them are ex-Californians traveling west for the long holiday weekend to visit friends and family.

[recycled]

Southern California and central TX are two of the most populated regions of the western US. In the past decade or so, a huge number of people have moved from Southern Cal to central TX, and its likely the "new Texans" from CA still like to visit relatives back in CA once in awhile. I-10 connects the two regions, and anywhere on the I-10 corridor is a stopping off point for anyone driving between these two regions. Gas is quite a bit cheaper in AZ than CA, so anyone driving from TX is going to fill up in AZ before continuing on to CA.

Add in the fact that air travel within the US has become a mess - cancelled flights, high prices and crowded security lines have made it anything but a carefree way to get from A to B. Sure, it takes almost 20 hours to drive from many places in TX to many places in southern CA, but at least you are in control of the schedule, and it is not such a challenging drive most of the time (albeit a bit boring at times). Another reason many people are driving from TX to CA is that if they flew instead, the availability of a rental car is not a sure thing, and not a bargain anymore either.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by recycled

Southern California and central TX are two of the most populated regions of the western US. In the past decade or so, a huge number of people have moved from Southern Cal to central TX, and its likely the "new Texans" from CA still like to visit relatives back in CA once in awhile. I-10 connects the two regions, and anywhere on the I-10 corridor is a stopping off point for anyone driving between these two regions. Gas is quite a bit cheaper in AZ than CA, so anyone driving from TX is going to fill up in AZ before continuing on to CA.

Add in the fact that air travel within the US has become a mess - cancelled flights, high prices and crowded security lines have made it anything but a carefree way to get from A to B. Sure, it takes almost 20 hours to drive from many places in TX to many places in southern CA, but at least you are in control of the schedule, and it is not such a challenging drive most of the time (albeit a bit boring at times). Another reason many people are driving from TX to CA is that if they flew instead, the availability of a rental car is not a sure thing, and not a bargain anymore either.

My wife and I are going to SF for seveal days at the end of this month. I thought about driving but don't want to put on the miles. Bought the car in 2/2019 and it already has 50k on it.

We're supposed to arrive at SFO at 3:30 and after checking in at the hotel meet at a nearby restaurant for dinner is at 7. Will we make it? Who knows.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by recycled

Add in the fact that air travel within the US has become a mess - cancelled flights, high prices and crowded security lines have made it anything but a carefree way to get from A to B. Sure, it takes almost 20 hours to drive from many places in TX to many places in southern CA, but at least you are in control of the schedule, and it is not such a challenging drive most of the time (albeit a bit boring at times). Another reason many people are driving from TX to CA is that if they flew instead, the availability of a rental car is not a sure thing, and not a bargain anymore either.

If there were only something called "trains" that allowed people to not focus on driving, not deal with luggage or gas prices, allow them to take even more luggage than a plane would allow and even is more accommodating to other types of luggage (pets, ski equipment etc.), not be sitting on the thigh of a stranger, and allow them to actually enjoy the US landscape (watching the transition from TX to CA is definitely worth it, would recommend). While if you fly during the day you can see the change from TX to AZ (having flown PHX to DFW before), it would be much better from the train.

But yes I'm flying this weekend and it's not going to be pretty for sure. Kinda worried actually in regards to airport traffic.

[wit-nit]

Trains = brains and most transportation departments don't have any.

[Cuero]

Originally Posted by goolsbyjazz

I thought it was just a rental car situation but I'm seeing lots of vehicles that definitely are not! Are a lot of people moving here from Texas? If so, I 'd be curious to know what attracted them?

Most likely you are seeing people on vacation. Many Texans like to head to the Rocky Mountain States for summer vacations to enjoy the outdoor activities there. The lack of Public Land and parks in Texas stinks.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by john3232

My wife and I are going to SF for seveal days at the end of this month. I thought about driving but don't want to put on the miles. Bought the car in 2/2019 and it already has 50k on it.

We're supposed to arrive at SFO at 3:30 and after checking in at the hotel meet at a nearby restaurant for dinner is at 7. Will we make it? Who knows.

In October, we have to go to a close family wedding in SF. We need to rent something when we land. So instead of flying this time, we are going to drive with the dog. Like I always like to do, I rent a car in AZ (not necessarily at the airport) and put the 750 miles (x 2 for round trip) on the rental car. We are paying $300 for a minivan. Gas will cost about the same amount of $300 at $6 a gallon.

Always check out Costco travel as well! Sometimes they annihilate the competition. Not sure why... Plus with Costco, the spouse is automatically a free 2nd driver. Another technique is to drive one way and drop it off and then fly only one way. I've used this approach before. Sometimes a one-way drop-off rental is super cheap (for example, they want cars from CA to PHX for February) or super expensive (they don't want that car in that area). The same thing happens for UHauls. The time of the year is all part of the rate.

Back to flying.. In this era, do everything you can to dodge connections. Because mathematically speaking, arriving on-time with connections is producing dismal results. Currently, delays are happening 20% of the time. American Airlines has had a dismal 5% cancelations https://thepointsguy.com/news/airlin...summer-travel/ . So let's say between cancelations and long delays, you have a 10% chance of a delay or cancel (or 90% odds of making it on time to catch your connection and arriving at your destination. A crude statistical way of looking at it is you take 90% for the 1st flight and 90% for the 2nd flight and that works out to (0.9*0.9)*100==81%. 81% of the time you will be a happy customer and 19% of the time you will have a miserable experience flying.

A small percentage shift of missed flights and delays with a connection has huge consequences. If we use a 15% chance of delays or cancelations, that's (0.85*0.85)*100==72% chance you are a happy customer. Hence, connections are currently high risk. And if someone has to hit an important trip and they are using a connection, fly in a day early. IF you have two connections, the math is 0.85*0.85*0.85== drops to 61% or 39% of you not making 2 additional connections.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

I don’t know why people are so adamant about comparing a sea level city and a city at elevation.

Phoenix is at about 1000 feet. So is Atlanta. Phoenix is currently 97 degrees. Atlanta has a “feels like” temperature of 76.

Cities like New Orleans, Houston are at sea level or close to. So is Yuma. Yuma at 9 pm right now has a temperature of 100 degrees. Houston has a “feels like” temperature (including humidity) of 90 degrees. New Orleans has a “feels like” temp of 86.

I don't know of anybody who really thinks 1000 feet is "at elevation". Maybe more like 2500 to 3000 feet would be the lowest elevations where people notice weather effects. I live at 1300 feet and it is hot.