4 ms·

You didn't say which direction QoL would change, so I guess this is technically correct.

by ProjectArcturis 3y ago

esalman 3y ago
Only in America will people crap on public transportation, at their own expense.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  I guess you're welcome to take the 44-hour train from Chicago to Los Angeles if you want. Most folks will just fly there in a few hours.
  - esalman 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/TerribleMaps/status/1694806829384044689?s=20 https://twitter.com/TerribleMaps/status/1694806829384044689?...
  - anaganisk 3y ago
    What kind of a comparison is that, lol. Argument is Car vs Train not the Plane vs Train. Trains are always better than a car for the same distance planned.
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      This still really depends on locale. Don't get me wrong here, I love trains. I'm currently living in the UK, and we're taking the Eurostar to Amsterdam next month instead of flying, even though it's more expensive and slower. And when I was in the US, I took Amtrak from Seattle to New York. But the reality is, trains are less flexible and generally slower than driving in the US. They may reduce stress, and they're definitely safer, but the trade-offs mean they aren't objectively better. For instance, Amtrak from Seattle to Portland is about 3.5 hours, and this is one of the fastest-traveling routes in the US (except the Acela); meanwhile, driving is a shorter journey on a good day, though it could be five hours or more on a bad day. Still, Amtrak is known for its delays, and there's travel to the station. When I lived in Seattle, Amtrak would probably take me around 5 hours, on average, door-to-door, whereas driving would still be about 3.5 hours on a good day, because I could start from home and go directly to my destination. And, once you're at your destination, you have more options with a car. From Portland, I could drive out to Multnomah Falls; there are no good public transit options for that. I wish trains in the US were better... but they aren't.

You didn't say which direction QoL would change, so I guess this is technically correct.

esalman 3y ago

Only in America will people crap on public transportation, at their own expense.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
I guess you're welcome to take the 44-hour train from Chicago to Los Angeles if you want. Most folks will just fly there in a few hours.
- esalman 3y ago
  https://twitter.com/TerribleMaps/status/1694806829384044689?s=20 https://twitter.com/TerribleMaps/status/1694806829384044689?...
- anaganisk 3y ago
  What kind of a comparison is that, lol. Argument is Car vs Train not the Plane vs Train. Trains are always better than a car for the same distance planned.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    This still really depends on locale. Don't get me wrong here, I love trains. I'm currently living in the UK, and we're taking the Eurostar to Amsterdam next month instead of flying, even though it's more expensive and slower. And when I was in the US, I took Amtrak from Seattle to New York. But the reality is, trains are less flexible and generally slower than driving in the US. They may reduce stress, and they're definitely safer, but the trade-offs mean they aren't objectively better. For instance, Amtrak from Seattle to Portland is about 3.5 hours, and this is one of the fastest-traveling routes in the US (except the Acela); meanwhile, driving is a shorter journey on a good day, though it could be five hours or more on a bad day. Still, Amtrak is known for its delays, and there's travel to the station. When I lived in Seattle, Amtrak would probably take me around 5 hours, on average, door-to-door, whereas driving would still be about 3.5 hours on a good day, because I could start from home and go directly to my destination. And, once you're at your destination, you have more options with a car. From Portland, I could drive out to Multnomah Falls; there are no good public transit options for that. I wish trains in the US were better... but they aren't.