Our RTW Legacy Site
This is a quick one.
How much do you think it would cost to do a round the world trip for one year (if you stay out of Europe since that’s a money sinkhole these days)?
Respond with a number in the comments and any further details you feel like adding. We’ll follow this up with a post detailing our budget plans and how they align with how the rest of you think.
Sometimes when I’m scanning a travel board, I’ll come across a comment that really burns my butt. (Isn’t that a funny expression? Where in the heck did it come from?) Usually the comment is in response to someone seeking information on an agency, tour group, etc, and it goes something like this:
“The porters didn’t have sleeping bags and had to sleep outside without a tent, but I saved $100 by booking with them, so I just tried not to think about.”
Now Jeff and I aren’t rich. We do have a budget for this trip. We like to find good deals. But, I absolutely, totally, completely draw the line at saving money at the expense of another human being. Nothing, nothing, nothing is more important than human life. Every human being deserves dignity and deserves to receive a fair wage for a day’s work. We are all human beings and our lives are all of equal worth. Having more money or more opportunity doesn’t make you more valuable than someone born to a life of less privilege.
Another comment that really gets me fired up goes something like this:
“Well their environmental practices are terrible, but they’re cheap, so I went with them.”
Again, the idea of saving money at the expense of something that you cannot put a price on is a practice I find deplorable. If you think a place is so beautiful/interesting/amazing/unusual that you make it a point to go there, shouldn’t you be doing whatever you can to protect this place? The maxim “”We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” comes to mind.
In my opinion, what inspires people to act in this way is a sense of entitlement. For some reason, some people get it in their head that they deserve to visit a certain place, regardless of the consequences. They believe that the fulfillment of their dream, the achievement of their goal, the status of their happiness trumps everything else. I, on the other hand, believe that if you can’t do it right, then you shouldn’t do it all. Let me be clear, I’m not advocating the luxury trip or stating that only by paying a lot of money can you do something right. I am, however, saying that you need to keep things in perspective. If paying $25 more for a trip means that your porters are well clothed and fed, can you really justify not paying it? If an extra $10 translates to your garbage being carried out rather than left on the side of the trail, can you, in good conscience, refuse to pay that $10?
I, personally, don’t think so.
Buy a few less beers, stay in a dorm room rather than a private room, take a bus rather than a plane. If you care, you’ll find the money. If you don’t care, then maybe you ought not to leave your home.
High atop our list of must-see sites in South America is Machu Picchu, “the lost city of the Incas.” This architectural and cultural wonder evokes awe from even the most jaded travelers. The remains of this lost city are remarkably well preserved. This isn’t one of those sites where you’re supposed to look at a tiny pile of stones and conjure up an image of grandeur. No, sirree. This is more like wandering into an abandoned (but ancient) town, where you expect a local to pop his head out of the window at any moment. Additionally, the location of Machu Picchu is stunning, tucked away in a valley high in the Andes Mountains, snow-capped peaks providing a photo-perfect background. If you go to Peru and don’t visit Machu Picchu, well, you’re just plain silly.
As for visiting this UNESCO World Heritage site, there are two options. One, you can take the train. Two, you can hike. We’ve already decided that we’ll hike. Machu Picchu seems like the kind of place that needs to be earned. But the decision-making doesn’t end there. Whereas once nearly every person who hiked to Machu Picchu took the “Inca Trail” (a bit of a generalized name, since there are literally dozens if not hundreds of “Inca trails” throughout South America), now there are multiple routes one can take to reach the famed city. And that’s where we need your help: Which route should we take—the famed Inca Trail or one of the “new” alternatives? Here’s a little bit of info to help you with your decision.
The classic Inca Trail: This 45-km hike typically lasts four days and starts on the Urubamba River at kilometer marker 82. (The actual trailhead is 82 km away at the village of Ollantaytambo, but no one starts from there.) The trail climbs through three major passes, the highest at 4,215 meters named Dead Woman’s Pass. It passes through jungle and cloud forest, and it also passes Inca ruins. Parts of the trail are thought to be the original stone path created by the Incas. The trail ends at the “Sun Gate” entrance to Machu Picchu, with most groups arriving there around sunrise. The trail is one-way and trekkers return to Cusco via train.
In the past decades the popularity of the trail surged so much that it was pretty much being loved to death. As a result, Peru established rules in the past year to regulate the trail. A maximum of 500 people (including guides and porters) are allowed to begin the trail each day. (But think, that’s still 2,000 people on the trail on any given day!) You are no longer allowed to trek independently but must either go with a group or hire a registered guide. You also are not longer able to simply show up in Cusco and be out on the trail in a day or two. All hikers must be registered with the authorities a month in advance, so you must book in advance. In high season, spots are booked months, if not a full year, in advance. Additionally, specific areas have been designated for camping, and the trail is closed for the entire month of February for clean-up. At this point, the cost of this hike with a reputable agency is about $400-$500 (depending on the state of the dollar…eek).
Alternatives to the Inca Trail: There are two primary alternative routes to the classic Inca Trail. The first, the Salkantay Mountain Trek, lasts five days and is a bit more difficult than the Inca Trail. It leads around Mount Salkantay, which means “Savage Mountain” in the local quechua language, passing through spectacular scenery and traditional Andean villages. The landscape varies from mountain peaks, rivers, and lakes to jungles with waterfalls. The trek actually ends near the Santa Teresa Valley, from where you take a train to Aguas Calientes, and then rise early the next morning to hike (or take a bus) to Machu Picchu. Though this hike does not have the Incan ruins along it that the classic trail has, it has awesome vistas, natural beauty, and a chance to see some authentic Andean villages, and offers a more strenuous trek. It is also not as strictly regulated as the classic trail, and thus you can still arrange a hike upon arrival in Cusco rather than months in advance. Price-wise, this trek is about equivalent to the classic trail, although it is a day longer. In the November 2007 edition of National Geographic Adventure, the Salkantay Trek was named one of the “25 best new trips in the world.” It was the featured trip for South America in an article titled “Machu Picchu the Cool Way.”
The other alternative is the four-day Lares Trek, which tours the Sacred Valley at a difficulty approximate to that of the Inca Trail. This trail leads past gorgeous mountain lakes and through very traditional Andean villages where weaving is still a common practice and the herding of sheep and alpaca is a means of making a life. As with the Salkantay Trek, the actual trek ends short of Machu Picchu, and you end by taking a train to Aguas Calientes, where you overnight before ascending to the famed city. Also, as with the Salkantay Trek, the trail focuses more on beautiful scenery and village life than Incan ruins. My friends Joyce and Jack did this trip last October and thoroughly enjoyed it. This trail can be organized at the last minute, and it costs about $75 less than the classic trail.
Things to Consider:
1. All options end with you in Machu Picchu.
2. Hiking the classic Inca Trail requires advance planning, often of several months, especially in the high season. The other two options can be arranged upon arrival in Machu Picchu.
3. We will be visiting Machu Picchu in late December or early January, which is definitely not the high season. We have to keep in mind Christmas break travelers, but we have more flexibility and shouldn’t have to plan ridiculously far in advance regardless of what we want to do.
3. The classic Inca trail is a very popular route. Even with the limits it can sometimes feel crowded. (For instance, at the designated campsites at night.) I haven’t been able to track any data done yet, however, on how often the limit is reached in December/January or whether the trail is below capacity at that time. I’m not sure how many people like to hike in the rain. (Hey, I think it gives it atmosphere. And contrary to what you all may believe, I’m not made of sugar, so I won’t melt.)
4. The alternative trails, often referred to as the off-the-beaten-track alternative, are becoming more and more beaten track by the day. Backpackers who don’t like to plan in advance and budget travelers looking to bargain have made the numbers of these trails swell, and since there are no regulations they can get very crowded. I haven’t been able to dig up any concrete numbers, however.
5. If you book in advance, the price difference between the various hikes isn’t that great. You may, however, be able to bargain for a good rate with the alternative trails since you can wait until you’re in Cusco to book. There’s the possibility of getting in on an already organized trip at a bargain rate.
6. The “new” rules for the Inca Trail can seem annoying. Gone is that cherished backpacker freedom of showing up somewhere and making something happen. Gone is the ability to try the trail yourself or to pitch camp where you please. And prices have gone up as the trail has become more regulated and agencies have had to meet certain requirements. But, at the same time, these rules and regulations have helped protect the trail from too much wear and tear, it’s eliminated some of the more shady agencies, and it’s provided a better life for porters and guides. Isn’t that possibly worth the money and hassle? On the flip side, what is the status of the less regulated trails? Are the agencies being good stewards of the earth and responsible employers? Some are, but I’m sure some aren’t. A little more research will be required, but there are resources that make that easy enough.
7. Classics become classics for a reason, don’t they? On the other hand, aren’t classics sometimes overrated? And are all classics instant or do some become that way with age? Are the alternatives just classics-in-waiting?
What do you think? Cast your vote below and then leave your thoughts in the comments.
[poll id=6]
Go ahead, admit it. You’ve flipped through someone’s vacation photos and listened to their never-ending stories, smiling, ohhing, and ahhing over it all while actually thinking “Why in the hell would anyone want to go there?”
Maybe you thought that when I told you about the lovely ammo can toilets you get to use if you raft the Grand Canyon. Maybe it was when your high school buddy came back from Vegas and forgot that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and instead recounted every wild and crazy adventure he had to you. Or maybe it was when your cousin got engaged at the Eiffel Tower and it was all you could do not to gag.
Though I’d wager a guess that most everyone reading this blog has a pretty long list of places they’d like to visit, I think it’s fair to say that most of us also have a place or two (or three, or six, or five hundred) that we have no interest in ever making it to. Sometimes it’s just a general disinterest, an “I’d never spend my hard earned money on a trip there, but if you’re paying, well okay…” kind of feeling. But occasionally it’s a “you couldn’t pay me enough to go there” kind of feeling. Sometimes we end up there anyhow, and realize we were wrong. And sometimes we end up there and all we get is some validation that we should have trusted our gut.
I’m curious about what that place is for you. So do me a favor and fill in the blank:
I have no interest in traveling to __________________________.
It can be a city, state, country, continent, specific site. And there will be no judging. You don’t want to go there, well then, you don’t want to go there. Fine by me.
I’ll start. I have no interest in traveling to China.
Your turn.
I’m sure you all have heard, especially if you’re making it to this blog, of the tragedy in Burma from Cyclone Nargis. As bad as Hurricane Katrina was, Nargis has already killed ten times as many people, and there are many many more unaccounted for. There are stories of entire towns, houses, people and all, being literally washed off the map. Those left in its wake face even more hardship, now having to fend off disease, find food and clean water, and start putting their lives back together.
I think what strikes me most about this tragedy is how “unavoidable” it was. There are some reports that the people were not notified well enough, but first of all, there is no clear way to contact everyone as its not like there is a TV or radio in every house. Even so, I’m sure people are quite skeptical of the state run media by now, not to mention people often don’t abide by storm warnings, as we so often see in this country. The truth is that the only thing that would have really saved lives is better infrastructure, and that does not come without a stronger and more developed economy. That path was carved 30-40 years ago. So say what you will about the regime there (and we have), but there was not much they could have done to prevent this tragedy.
What they can do, however, is address the aftermath with conviction and honesty. Their people need all the aid they can get and there are people around the world willing to give it to them. This is where their actions most offend me. So far, they are making things rather difficult because of bureaucracy. The only place to get a visa into the country is through the office in Yangon, which, as you may imagine, is not very functional at the moment. I imagine this will find an expedient resolution very soon, and there are already a number of amazing organizations already in the country doing their best to provide necessities to the people of Burma. The Network for Good has a great post about the best ways to start helping the people put their lives back together. Please do what you can to help the Burmese people get back on their feet so they can go get their democratic leaders (in 2011 … if it’s not ignored this time).
Last Friday, an article I wrote about travel-related songs appeared on Brave New Traveler. (You should go check it out if you haven’t already.) Anyhow, writing it got me thinking about music and just how portable it is now. MP3 players (specifically the iPod) are ubiquitous these days. Almost everyone in the 35 and under crowd owns one, and a whole heck of a lot of people in the older age groups do too. With these gadgets, you can literally carry with you thousands of songs in your pocket. Pretty amazing. I’m certain Jeff and I will enjoy this technology multiple times while we’re on the road…on those marathon bus rides, in noisy hostel rooms, etc.
But sometimes, I’m tempted to just leave my iPod at home. Though I wrote that article on music and though I love me some good tunes, I’m not a music junkie. I’m not up on the latest bands, and half the time, I’d just rather ride in silence in the car than listen to the radio, so it’s not like I’d be missing some integral part of me. And, I have to admit, that I often find the iPod or other MP3 gadget to be more than a little annoying. For instance, while out hiking yesterday, we passed a fellow hiker walking with his earbuds in through a gorgeous stretch of woods where the birds were chirping and a creek was burbling. What? Why go out in nature if you can’t disconnect yourself? You’re missing half the experience of being outdoors.
Sometimes I think we’ve become so “connected” to technology that we’ve become entirely disconnected from the world. On my Metro ride everyday, I’d say at least 75% of the people in my car are listening to iPods. No one talks to each other. Everyone just pops in their earphones and escapes to their own world…while oftentimes taking others with them whether they want to go or not because apparently most of the world is deaf and must listen to their iPods at a volume that makes the earphones unnecessary. (Lord, I sound like an old person.) Now to be honest, I doubt too many people would talk on the Metro even without the iPods, but still, I find it bothersome when people use their iPods as a means of ignoring other people. Can you not take your stupid earphones out for one second while you’re checking out at the grocery (I’m sure the cashier would appreciate some acknowledgment), when your coworker comes to talk to you (Um, you are at work, and she shouldn’t have to yell over your music), or when you’re in the freaking great outdoors (Soundtrack already included).
On our trip, that totally oblivious iPod person is not the person I want to be. I’m traveling to learn more about the world, to become more in tune with it…not my favorite songs. What’s the point of traveling around the world, if I’m always going to escape into my own private world? Will having an iPod be an easy escape from a difficult situation? Will I miss out on a fabulous conversation with a local on a bus because I’m too busy listening to my music? Will I seem out of reach, uninterested, unaware if I pop a set of earphones in? In the end, will being “connected” cause me to be completely “disconnected”?
Remember that stack of guidebooks I brought home a few weeks ago?
Yeah, that one.
Well, just in case anyone is keeping score, I’ve now made my way through 3.5 of them—Nicaragua, Venezuela, Peru, and half of Ecuador. Jeff, on the other hand, is sporting a big fat zero in his total read column. He claims that he has been very busy, which, I’ll admit, he has. But it’s not as though I’ve been slacking. Between the day job and the hiking guidebook writing gig, free time is hard to come by around here. I do have the advantage of Metro rides, however, which are excellent for reading. And there’s the fact that I like to read, and I like to plan, and he’s not so hot on either.
Anyhow, as I’ve been reading, I’ve been jotting down notes—things like where I want to go, how easy/hard it is to get there, how many days to spend in said location and in transport, how pricey it is, the best time of year to go, etc. The end goal is to shape it all into a loose itinerary, so we can do things like buy plane tickets, arrange for friends and family to meet us at specific points, and be certain that we’re not missing anywhere that we feel very strongly about.
Looking back at my notes on the places I want to visit, a very strong trend has emerged. Almost every place I’ve listed is a hot spot for outdoor activity. They are places where you can go on long treks, scale volcanoes, kayak through islets, mountain bike through jungles, raft raging rivers, camp with wild animals, etc. Sounds cool, right? Obviously, I think so. I mean, I think hiking 30 miles every weekend for 6 months is a good time. The problem is that it isn’t tenable. First, it gets pricey. You have to rent equipment, hire guides, get to out-of-the-way locales, pay admission fees, etc. But second, and perhaps most importantly, it’s exhausting. Though we’re pretty fit (and will be even more so once this hiking book is complete), we’re not crazy ultrasport people. We don’t have mad endurance. Our bodies just aren’t going to tolerate being pushed to extremes day after day. (Not to mention the kind of mood I’d probably end up in because I can just imagine how freaking hungry I’d be!)
So what we need to find is balance. Awesome outdoor adventures mixed with relaxing days in small towns or even busy days in big cities (but where we’d get a chance to shower and sleep in a bed). Yet, every time I flip a guidebook to a section about a city, I find myself uninterested. Church, museum, plaza, yada yada yada. Maybe it’s just the way they’re described. Maybe these guidebooks simply fail to capture the spirit I’m looking for. I mean, I’m not anti-city. I love New York. I love Berlin. I’ve had a great time in Stockholm, Rome, Paris, London, Dublin… But so far, I haven’t stumbled across a city description that gets my soul soaring the way the descriptions of the wild places do.
Maybe when I get to the Argentina book and Buenos Aires? I’ll let you know.
But for now, you let me know. Do you move to the beat of the city or the rhythm of nature? What is the best city you’ve ever visited, and what is it that makes a city fabulous for you? Come on, give me some reasons to start adding some cities to my list.
Theresa got an engagement ring, and I got you. It wasn’t that explicit a deal, but like every newly engaged woman, Theresa couldn’t stop staring at her ring, so I took the opportunity while she was distracted and in no condition to argue. I spent hours deciding what kind, I mean, obviously HD, but what other combination of letters would I get? DLP? LCD? But it was a labor of love, and I finally decided on your 46″ of high definition DLP goodness.
I took you home, set you up, and stared at the beauty. Even before I turned it on, it fit perfectly in the room, matched our colors and completed the apartment. And when I turned it on, my jaw dropped. The color, the intensity, the sound, the fluidity. I sat back on our couch in awe. The immersion I felt was unprecedented. Watching sports felt like having tickets to every game (except when I had to listen to Joe Morgan). The Discovery Channel was suddenly the best channel on TV.
As the years have past, you have been the focal point of Super Bowl parties, Kentucky Derby parties, and Rock Band parties. Now, I’m not your biggest TV addict out there, I barely have to time watch my Lost and NBC Thursday comedies, let alone sporting events or video games. But when I have time and want to watch, I like knowing that you’ll give me the best picture out there. And that you look good and balance the room even when you’re not turned on.
I will miss my TV and all of the entertainment it gives me while we’re gone, but I have a feeling that I will find more entertainment in the adventures we’ll be having. I’ll have to be more proactive about it, but hey, that’s a good thing. And I know that when I return, you’ll still be there for me to put in my basement and once again be my center of mindless and stationary entertainment.
Taking a trip outside of the United States is a little bit like going to kindergarten—you have to be sure you have your shots or you might not be admitted. Whether it’s from having a member of the opposite sex touch you on the playground (the formally established way of getting cooties) or having someone poop on their hand and then touch your food (the less established but much more terrifying way of getting cooties), no one wants to get the bug.
So I’ve been doing a bit of research on the Center for Disease Control’s Travel page to determine just how many times Jeff and I need to get stuck in the arm before we set out and what the various concoctions will protect us against. By using their destination list to investigate every possible country we might visit on our round the world trip, I came up with a comprehensive list:
Additionally, we need all the standard immunizations, the ones we had to get as kids—diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella… Fortunately, we didn’t have crazy parents who thought vaccines were evil, so we’re all good here.
So what this breaks down to is eight vaccines. One—yellow fever—is required. Two—hepatitis a and b—we already have. Three—tetanus, typhoid, polio—are recommended and we plan to get. And two—Japanese encephalitis and rabies—we aren’t certain about.
Why not just go ahead and get them all, you ask? Well, for one, I don’t really like getting stabbed in the arm and I don’t want to risk side effects if the vaccines aren’t necessary. Am I actually going to be somewhere where Japanese encephalitis is prevalent and will I be there in the season when the mosquitoes that carry it are active? Since I still have to get all the rest of the rabies shots, will having one really do me any good?
The second issue is simple, money.
Even though Jeff and I are lucky to have fabulous insurance, we’re left high and dry when it comes to adult immunizations. Apparently they’d rather treat the typhoid after we get it. So how much is it going to cost us to get all these immunizations? Well, oddly enough, figuring that out is tough. You’d think one dose of yellow fever vaccine would have a set cost, but you’d be wrong. I called various clinics—public and private—in DC and Maryland and even one in Kentucky, and I got a range of prices—from $90 to $150 for yellow fever. Obviously, go with the cheap one, right? Well, um, not necessarily, because while they might have a low price for yellow fever, their typhoid price could be sky high. And don’t forget that office visit charge. I’ve outlined the price range for each vaccine that we definitely plan to get below:
And though it looks like we could get away with it costing $225 each, that’s not the case, since no one place offers all of the shots at the lowest price. If we get vaccinated here in our area, we’ll each be paying a minimum of $310. (I got these price quotes a few months ago, so they may have gone up.) In Louisville, we could get them for $281 (but of course, we’d have to pay to get there, so that’s no savings, unless we’re already in town for some other reason). Ouch! And that’s the cost, not the stab in the arm.
Add in the vaccines we’re not sure about and the cost soars. Japanese encephalitis requires three jabs, at approximately $90 a piece, and the rabies shot also requires three shots, priced at over $150 a poke. So you’re looking at $270 for the Japanese encephalitis and $450 for the rabies! I’m not one to take health concerns lightly, and I do value my life very highly, but you have to wonder where to draw the line. What’s being smart and what’s being paranoid?
[poll id=5]
We’re in the entertainment and education business. That’s what this blog is. It’s information in a (hopefully) entertaining form. Maybe that’s a bit high minded. Maybe we’re just entertainment. And on that note, calling it a business is pure folly. It’s just something we enjoy. But that’s why I’m putting up this post. We’re taking a look at the site and trying to make it a better experience for you readers out there (like, for starters, the addition of a favorite posts on the sidebar). So with that in mind, we have a few questions we’d love some feedback on.
What else should be highlighted for new readers in the favorite posts?
What do you want us to write more about? Options include nostalgia over our past trips, logistic planning for this trip, romantic musings about inanimate objects, more pictures (or “picture of the day” type posts), the insanity in our daily lives, commentary on travel news, or anything else you think would make this site more enjoyable.
What do you hate? What could we make disappear from this site? What types of subjects should we never post about again?
What features could we add to the site as a whole to make it a better browsing experience? All ideas, whether a specific plugin or a general thought, are highly encouraged.
This website being a dictatorship and all, this may be your only chance ever to provide us with feedback, so let loose, fire away, seize the opportunity. Much obliged.
You must be logged in to post a comment.