Hacker News Reader

Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

Which 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.

View on HN

Not 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.

If 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?

Take a flight, much cheaper.

Trains 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.

That'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!

A large part of this is that ~no Americans would ever consider a 45-minute walk "natural".

I'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.

We 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?)

Is it rare because it’s painful, or painful because it’s rare?

A lot of the former, which then makes it habit and also the latter too.

Not at all rare. I used to make somewhat regular business trips by train from Prague to Berlin.

But that’s not very far - there are multiple services on this route and the trip takes just 4h

Yeah, I admit it’s not a great example.

You =/> major tourists [1].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/487572/leading-european-....

> Which is obvious because they are different countries?

1980 called and wants your attitude back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com