▲ 254 ▼ How far can you get in 8 hours of driving starting from 5 European capitals (europe.pub) submitted 1 day ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz 76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Bobbysaurus@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (7 children) We do understand that, don’t you worry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 7 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Europeans in America are always like "The Grand Canyon is beautiful! Now let's drive over to see the Statue of Liberty!" Just teasing, I love you Europeans permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago It is cause there is nothing to do in-between. It is all empty. Our brain can't wrap around that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CobraCommander@quokk.au 6 points 23 hours ago You’d be surprised. So many Europeans (and Americans) think they can do little day trips in Australia to places multiple days of non-stop driving away. permalink fedilink source parent [–] chisel@piefed.social 1 point 23 hours ago (3 children) Sure, but so often it's "Americans are complicit idiots since half the country doesn't simply protest in the same city" and "dumb car-brained Americans won't even build highspeed rail between LA and NYC" 🙄 Even smaller-scale things like the definition of rural are so drastically different from places like the UK that they just don't translate. The distances and population density differences are huge but simultaneously subtle enough that reasonable-ish sounding yet wildly impractical takes are a common occurrence online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children) "dumb car-brained Americans won't even build highspeed rail between LA and NYC" I mean the rail system in the US could definitely be better. Like NYC to LA on Amtrak is scheduled for nearly 3 days of travel and since it's Amtrak you're probably going to be 4 hours late in Chicago and LA so closer to 4 days. For reference NYC to LA on Greyhound is scheduled at the same amount of time but you'd have to be an idiot to think Greyhound is getting you anywhere close to on time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chisel@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (1 child) Even if you could solve the impossible land acquisition problem and build non-stop highspeed rail in a straight line between LA and NYC, it'd still be much faster to fly the ~2500 miles than to take a train. It's 6 hour flight vs a well over 12 hour train ride. Passenger rail doesn't exist on that scale in the US because it's prohibitively expensive and, even if it were free, obsolete at that distance. It could be better for intrastate or travel on along the coast, but then you run into the land and cost issues. See: California working on this for nearly a decade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 1 point 15 hours ago Yeah high speed rail across the country is pretty infeasible but the current service is really bad and that's what I was addressing. A train service should be faster than a bus on the same distance if for no other reason than the bus is going to have more frequent stops. Amtrak saying they can't do coast any faster than Greyhound should be embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crandall@lemmy.today 7 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Europeans in America are always like "The Grand Canyon is beautiful! Now let's drive over to see the Statue of Liberty!" Just teasing, I love you Europeans permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago It is cause there is nothing to do in-between. It is all empty. Our brain can't wrap around that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago It is cause there is nothing to do in-between. It is all empty. Our brain can't wrap around that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CobraCommander@quokk.au 6 points 23 hours ago You’d be surprised. So many Europeans (and Americans) think they can do little day trips in Australia to places multiple days of non-stop driving away. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chisel@piefed.social 1 point 23 hours ago (3 children) Sure, but so often it's "Americans are complicit idiots since half the country doesn't simply protest in the same city" and "dumb car-brained Americans won't even build highspeed rail between LA and NYC" 🙄 Even smaller-scale things like the definition of rural are so drastically different from places like the UK that they just don't translate. The distances and population density differences are huge but simultaneously subtle enough that reasonable-ish sounding yet wildly impractical takes are a common occurrence online. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children) "dumb car-brained Americans won't even build highspeed rail between LA and NYC" I mean the rail system in the US could definitely be better. Like NYC to LA on Amtrak is scheduled for nearly 3 days of travel and since it's Amtrak you're probably going to be 4 hours late in Chicago and LA so closer to 4 days. For reference NYC to LA on Greyhound is scheduled at the same amount of time but you'd have to be an idiot to think Greyhound is getting you anywhere close to on time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chisel@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (1 child) Even if you could solve the impossible land acquisition problem and build non-stop highspeed rail in a straight line between LA and NYC, it'd still be much faster to fly the ~2500 miles than to take a train. It's 6 hour flight vs a well over 12 hour train ride. Passenger rail doesn't exist on that scale in the US because it's prohibitively expensive and, even if it were free, obsolete at that distance. It could be better for intrastate or travel on along the coast, but then you run into the land and cost issues. See: California working on this for nearly a decade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 1 point 15 hours ago Yeah high speed rail across the country is pretty infeasible but the current service is really bad and that's what I was addressing. A train service should be faster than a bus on the same distance if for no other reason than the bus is going to have more frequent stops. Amtrak saying they can't do coast any faster than Greyhound should be embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] evidences@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children) "dumb car-brained Americans won't even build highspeed rail between LA and NYC" I mean the rail system in the US could definitely be better. Like NYC to LA on Amtrak is scheduled for nearly 3 days of travel and since it's Amtrak you're probably going to be 4 hours late in Chicago and LA so closer to 4 days. For reference NYC to LA on Greyhound is scheduled at the same amount of time but you'd have to be an idiot to think Greyhound is getting you anywhere close to on time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chisel@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (1 child) Even if you could solve the impossible land acquisition problem and build non-stop highspeed rail in a straight line between LA and NYC, it'd still be much faster to fly the ~2500 miles than to take a train. It's 6 hour flight vs a well over 12 hour train ride. Passenger rail doesn't exist on that scale in the US because it's prohibitively expensive and, even if it were free, obsolete at that distance. It could be better for intrastate or travel on along the coast, but then you run into the land and cost issues. See: California working on this for nearly a decade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 1 point 15 hours ago Yeah high speed rail across the country is pretty infeasible but the current service is really bad and that's what I was addressing. A train service should be faster than a bus on the same distance if for no other reason than the bus is going to have more frequent stops. Amtrak saying they can't do coast any faster than Greyhound should be embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chisel@piefed.social 2 points 16 hours ago* (1 child) Even if you could solve the impossible land acquisition problem and build non-stop highspeed rail in a straight line between LA and NYC, it'd still be much faster to fly the ~2500 miles than to take a train. It's 6 hour flight vs a well over 12 hour train ride. Passenger rail doesn't exist on that scale in the US because it's prohibitively expensive and, even if it were free, obsolete at that distance. It could be better for intrastate or travel on along the coast, but then you run into the land and cost issues. See: California working on this for nearly a decade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] evidences@lemmy.world 1 point 15 hours ago Yeah high speed rail across the country is pretty infeasible but the current service is really bad and that's what I was addressing. A train service should be faster than a bus on the same distance if for no other reason than the bus is going to have more frequent stops. Amtrak saying they can't do coast any faster than Greyhound should be embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] evidences@lemmy.world 1 point 15 hours ago Yeah high speed rail across the country is pretty infeasible but the current service is really bad and that's what I was addressing. A train service should be faster than a bus on the same distance if for no other reason than the bus is going to have more frequent stops. Amtrak saying they can't do coast any faster than Greyhound should be embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent
