5 ms·
To be fair, Europe also kind of sucks at long distance trains. If you want to go the same distance as Seattle-Chicago in Europe by train (say Lisbon-Warszawa or
by dagw 2y ago
To be fair, Europe also kind of sucks at long distance trains. If you want to go the same distance as Seattle-Chicago in Europe by train (say Lisbon-Warszawa or Rome-Northern Sweden) you're often looking at 40-50 hours, mainly due to having to make 5-7 connections.
- wslh 2y agoWhich is obvious because they are different countries? And, also tourists select specific countries to visit so your "use case" is very rare. Edit Rare = majority of tourists in Europe go to specific cities and countries. There are trips between countries but it is rare to go around ALL Europe by train. Trains are significantly more expensive that flights.
- albumen 2y agoIf continental Europeans want to visit another distant European country, that's a rare use case? Or are you only referring to e.g. US tourists visiting Europe?
- wslh 2y agoTake a flight, much cheaper.
- nutrie 2y agoNot at all rare. I used to make somewhat regular business trips by train from Prague to Berlin.
- wslh 2y agoYou =/> major tourists [1]. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/487572/leading-european-city-destinations/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20Paris%20and%20the%20%C3%8Ele,and%2017.4%20million%20arrivals%2C%20respectively https://www.statista.com/statistics/487572/leading-european-....
- pantalaimon 2y agoBut that’s not very far - there are multiple services on this route and the trip takes just 4h
- nutrie 2y agoYeah, I admit it’s not a great example.
- anal_reactor 2y ago> Which is obvious because they are different countries? 1980 called and wants your attitude back.
- kthielen 2y agoIs it rare because it’s painful, or painful because it’s rare?
- seadan83 2y agoA lot of the former, which then makes it habit and also the latter too.
- dagw 2y agoTrains are significantly more expensive that flights Unless you actually want to travel around ALL of Europe (or even all around a few countries in Europe), in which case trains get cheaper again, thanks to things like the interrail ticket.
- wslh 2y agoThat's true, and it requires more planning and available time. I'd like to add a perspective on the contrast between Europe and the U.S. in this context. Having partially lived in both regions (across various European countries, though my main base is Buenos Aires, Argentina), one of the things that bothers me most about the U.S. is the car-centric culture. It feels almost artificial in 2024, as if it’s been taken to an extreme (I say this with a grain of salt). I don’t intend to start a flame war, but it’s surprising to me that in many areas where a 45-minute walk would be natural, there are no pedestrian paths. I’m not suggesting that cities like Los Angeles should be entirely pedestrian-friendly, but there are places where basic walkability is neglected, despite the infrastructure being suitable. What I want to convey is that it's difficult to compare both regions' approaches to moving, and say that the article is amazing!
- eszed 2y agoA large part of this is that ~no Americans would ever consider a 45-minute walk "natural".
- ghaff 2y agoI'm not sure a 30-45 minute walk in cities like NYC, Boston, SF, etc. is considered all that rare. And while that length of walk is probably not someone in the average suburb is doing on local roads, plenty of people will go walk a few miles in a forest or park. Certainly not everyone but also not ~no based on what I see out and about.
- eszed 2y agoWe should distinguish between 1) a 30-45 minutes of walking in an ordinary day, which I agree that people in well-urbanized areas routinely do, but suburbs don't; 2) an intentional 30-45 minute recreational / for-exercise walk, which a) some, but not enough Americans (and, I suspect, smug Europeans, if they're honest; full disclosure: I don't) do anywhere near every day, and b) many urbanites will drive / take transport somewhere to do, but is (ironically) easier out-the-door on your average suburban streets; and 3) a one-way 30-45 minute journey on foot to some particular place. I took GP to mean the last of these, which I think is uncommon, even in cities (I mean, public transport is right there, right?)
- gcanyon 2y agoNot arguing against your "majority" characterization, it's certainly true, but throwing out there that my wife and I travelled by train: Oslo to Stockholm to Copenhagen to Hamburg to Amsterdam to Brussels to Luxembourg to Paris to Nice to Monte-Carlo to Milan I think I have the order right? And all of that cost something under $500 each.
- nutrie 2y agoThat, and train tickets are a nightmare, unless you don’t care about the price.
- pantalaimon 2y agoThe ÖBB NightJet is surprisingly cheap, e.g. I payed 59€ for Berlin - Vienna in a sleeper coach
- dagw 2y agoAs long as you are just going between two cities with a direct train line it's trivial. The problem is if you are trying to take a train between two cities without a direct train line, like if you wanted to go from Berlin to for example Lisbon instead of Vienna.
- nutrie 2y agoExactly, that’s an organizational nightmare and you just don’t know where you end up stuck.