• thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 年前

    Exactly this. People too often compare price and time of “train ride” vs. “flight”, which the flight often wins. You need to compare the full travel, and train travel has a lot less overhead, which means a train travelling 100-200 km/h usually wins on stretches below 500 km.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 年前

      But 500 km (or rather 310 miles since I’m in the USA) is at the upper end of the distance I’d drive. There isn’t a distance for which a train is better than both flying and driving.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 年前

        With what I’ve heard about the train infrastructure in the US, that doesn’t surprise me. Personally, I only ever use a car if I’m travelling into the mountains or transporting a lot of luggage. I never drive if I’m travelling between cities with little luggage, if only because it’s much less of a hassle to just hop on a train and get where I’m going.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        So in most Western European countries I think that limit is actually more like 1000km, or if it includes crossing France even more than that, or if you’re not close to the airport too. Beyond about 7 hours of train, flying starts to be faster and more convenient, most people around here find, but you can get quite far with a train in that time. I appreciate the current situation in the US isn’t the same and it would cost money to upgrade the network, but I think the rest of the world does show that it’s actually worthwhile.