Hacker News Reader

Comment by kartan | Hacker News Reader

> It is very, very rare to meet Europeans who drive across multiple countries for leisure.

I don't have statistical data, but I have that experience. I have never heard of anyone doing that in Europe. Long car travels are avoided as much as possible. I heard of a guy that did a really long trip by car because was relocating and didn't want - or was too expensive - to move his dogs in any other way. He was not happy about it. I always see going by car as painful, while using trains is a good experience (https://visitsweden.com/getting-around-sweden-train/) and by plane is just fast.

But when people wants to visit the USA, to travel long distances by car looks like something you want to do. I know Europeans that have done that, in the USA.

So maybe it is not just a matter of taste, but it is geography or you just want to do what you see in the movies.

View on HN

>But when people wants to visit the USA, to travel long distances by car looks like something you want to do.

Especially out West, for vast areas of the US, there really are no good alternatives to driving. For example, there's very limited ability to visit most National Parks without a car.

And most of the cities are too far apart to reasonably take trains between them.

So you're left with flying which gets expensive and a hassle, especially for a family.

If you want to visit cities in the Northeast you probably don't need (or want a car). But elsewhere it's between convenient and necessary.

I don't understand this comment:

>too far apart to reasonably take trains between them //

It's way nicer IMO doing inter city travel by train. One of my favourite journeys ever was from Wales, via England to South France.

Aren't railways one of the main ways to do long journeys between cities?

Too far apart does mean that A to B is so much further than A to B in Europe. It means that there's nothing in between them, so it would be insane to build a passenger rail line (i.e. high speeds, high priority on the queue, locomotives, ect). A 1000 km length of track in Europe serves 10, 15 cities. In the American west it serves the passengers of 2.

No. A handful of city pairs have reasonably popular rail service (Milwaukee-Chicago, Boston-New York) which you might use becasue the freeways tend to be congested. The duration is comparable to a drive in clear traffic.

For any other route, a family would fly and then rent a car if upper class or drive if middle/lower class.

Amtrak sometimes serves these routes, but costs more than flying and takes days instead of hours (3 days Chicago to SF, 24 hours Chicago to New York or New Orleans, and if Chicago isn't on the way, you'll need to detour through Union Station). The max flight time here would be ~6 hours.

> Especially out West, for vast areas of the US, there really are no good alternatives to driving ... > And most of the cities are too far apart to reasonably take trains between them.

Heh, that's a very USian response ;). That's largely because the US doesn't have proper long-distance trains. In a lot of other countries you'll be about as fast or faster with a train rather than a car, and can comfortably work for most of that time. Even if a 6h car-trip becomes a 7h train-trip, I'd almost always take the train.

Compare driving Cologne-Frankfurt Airport by car (2h, if the traffic gods smile), and train (45min). That's a faster track, so not quite representative, but even Berlin-Freiburg on mostly slower tracks - I've done that over a hundred times - is ~6.40h train vs. ~8h by car.

I don't see the US getting comparatively nice long-distance trains anytime soon.

> For example, there's very limited ability to visit most National Parks without a car.

Yea, that's true. I've so far done that with rental cars, works well enough unless you're going in winter... Hm, I should plan a trip soon.

You need a certain population density for high speed rail, or even decently fast rail, to be economically viable, don't you?

I've had brief experiences with high speed rail and I loved it. Much more comfortable than the whole taxi/airport/plane scenario. Though I do understand HSR doesn't scale for very long distances.

The US has a comparable train to your Berlin-Freiburg route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

Unsurprisingly, it goes through a high population density region.

Even a route like this one wouldn't service all that many people and isn't even halfway across the country:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&rout...

(It does a decent job of passing metro areas; Pittsburg, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Des Moines)

> The US has a comparable train to your Berlin-Freiburg route.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

Well, it lags by over 100km/h of allowed speed (and more in practice I tihnk), but then the fast trains in Germany can't use their top-speed in a lot of regions either. The network isn't even remotely as varied. But, as you say:

> Unsurprisingly, it goes through a high population density region.

Everything in Germany is extremely dense compared to large swathes of the US. It'd not be feasible to have every medium sized city on a high-speed train network in the US.

But the situation on the US west coast, where I now live, is really kinda bad. There not being reasonable "public"/rail transport between Seattle<->Portland<->SF/Bay Area<->LA is hard to understand from a European/German perspective, although I see the political perspective of it being hard to do.

You really get used to that tho. I recently went to a conference in Stockholm, and reflexively wanted to hail a cab from the airport to the hotel/venue. Just to remember to check public transport: 15min less than by car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com