3 ms·
I would absolutely take the train if it was somewhat comparable in time to flying, but that's only true for very short trips. For example, so go from SLC to SF
by beatgammit 7y ago
I would absolutely take the train if it was somewhat comparable in time to flying, but that's only true for very short trips. For example, so go from SLC to SF takes ~2.5 hours by plane, but around 18 hours by train. If it was under 8 hours by train, I would take that instead so I wouldn't have to deal with airport security.
I don't know about Europe generally, but I know the train system there is much better than in much of the US, so I'm not surprised that it's a more popular mode of transportation.
- JeanMarcS 7y agoI remember my first trip to USA, in 1993, I was with a friend in Boston, and we wanted to go to Montreal in Canada. There were 3 possibilities : By bus for H1 hours and C1 cost By plane for H2 hours and C2 cost Of course H2 was way less than H1, and C1 than C2 (I don't remember the exacts values as it was, you know, 25 years ago). But what astounded us, as Europeans, was that by train it was H1 hours for C2 cost ! It was as long by train than by bus ! So we took the bus... In France, for doing Paris - Marseille (south east, around 800 kms), it takes around 3h30 by train and 1H30 by plane. But by train, you start from inside the city and arrive inside the other city. By plane, you have to go out of the city, go through security, and then the destination airport is really out of town in Marseille too (you have to take a bus then a train). So it makes absolutly no sense taking the plane, unless you live near the airport.