« first day (1355 days earlier)      last day (3572 days later) » 

9:00 PM
Good.
 
still nothing compared to most large western European cities, but very good nonetheless.
the problem is, this is only the bigger, better cities. most places have nothing.
 
There is a village near our country house where there is literally no public transportation at all. If you try to plan a route through the public-transport website, it just says "impossible".
 
even bigger problem is intercity rail. some big cities (though surprisingly not some, like SF doesn't have an Amtrak station) have an Amtrak station, which is the rail service company here.
Amtrak doesn't have its own train tracks. except for some few places in the northeast.
 
So who owns the tracks, then?
 
so if you want to take a train from, say, SF, to Chicago... on top of the fact that it'll take several days since there's no high speed network, the trains work on cargo company-owned tracks, like BNSF and Union Pacific
 
9:01 PM
The state?
 
nope. private cargo lines.
CSX too is a big one
 
Ah OK.
 
and Norfolk Southern
 
Well, those can work.
 
barely.
they have agreements, but cargo trains have priority. so passenger trains have to pull on sidings all the time to let the cargo train by.
 
9:02 PM
Of course it is more difficult to build a train network that covers all in a less densely populated area.
 
the passenger trains are also very old, they haven't been replaced since the 60s. they have no money, and nobody uses them.
 
Ahh I see.
 
also, for example, chicago -> new york has only one or two trains a day.
and it takes over 24 hours. the drive with a car is just under 12
isn't this absurd?
this is why nobody uses them, so they are a money drain. people usually take a plane, which gives money to the airlines, which lobby to further stop public transport.
 
Obviously time is money
 
Hmm so why does it take so long? Non-high-speed trains should be able to go about as fast as cars, long distance?
 
9:04 PM
right, but if you look at something other than the immediate today, putting more money into public transport will eventually make our system better. so maybe one day there could be a high speed train from chicago to new york, so people wouldn't have to fly.
they can't. like I said, they have to pull over to let a cargo train by all the time.
 
And I thought we had it bad in the UK.
 
and they are usually limited to around 50mph. with a car it's about 70
or even 80 if you're a bad ass like me and don't care about anyone's rules.
 
I see. That makes it considerably more difficult, yes.
 
(at least we don't have speed cameras @AndrewLeach)
heehee
 
Speed cameras are fine. I haven't any points on my licence.
Now, anyway.
 
9:07 PM
They're whole country is under surveillance
 
I have it on good authority that they aren't whole country is under surveillance.
 
So it is about 790 miles from NY to Chicago. That should take about 12 hours by train if you go 100 km/h on average.
 
I think we should be able to develop a train that can go at least 200-300km/h though.
 
By high-speed train, it should be 4 hours, maybe 4.5.
 
exactly!
this would be excellent.
 
9:08 PM
Yes, they go 300 in France.
 
And Japan. Buy Japanese.
 
That should be faster than flying, depending on boarding times and such (flying is cumbersome here).
 
even more so here.
we have the TSA.
 
Yes, Japan has the best trains! So they say.
Except that they are overstuffed.
 
basically, we're in a public transport hell.
well, in my experience Swiss trains are marginally better than Japanese.
less stuffed, more luxurious.
and just as on-time and prevalent.
 
9:10 PM
So how long does it take to go from NYC to Chicago by plane, including all the required rituals?
Yes, Swiss trains are good.
 
around 4 hours.
3.5 if your plane isn't late, you cut it close at the airport, and have a ride.
 
Right! And a train is much more convenient.
 
taking the words out of my hands(?)
 
No hassle, no check-in, and you can get some work done.
 
yeah. and you can walk around, get a sandwich.
 
9:11 PM
@GeorgeCapote Right, you should probably include the time it takes to get from the airport to the city, let's say by taxi.
 
and it's just more... modern. I feel like everything here is so old.
 
Aeroplanes are modern!
 
exactly. my house in Chicago is an hour from the airport.
I see shinkansen and TGV as much more modern.
 
Then again, you might not live next to the train station either.
It kind of depends on where you live.
 
it's definitely closer to most people. airports have to be away from an urban center.
whereas train stations are generally right in the middle.
 
9:12 PM
I live next to the central station, but the airport is about 20 minutes by train from there, so it matters little.
@GeorgeCapote True.
 
what I notice too is the thought that goes into it.
here, say I'm at home in Chicago. and I want to go visit my cousin in New York.
 
I love going to Paris by train, even though it takes slightly longer than by plane.
 
I have to start planning a week ahead.
two weeks, hell even a month.
to get a good deal on a plane ticket.
 
Hmm, well, the same can happen with high-speed train tickets.
 
if I'm at my house in Zürich, I just go to Hauptbahnhof by streetcar, and ask for a ticket to London.
 
9:14 PM
Where you get a bad deal, or the train is just full.
 
I'm exaggerating.
but it's certainly easier to get around.
and certainly cheaper than airplanes, I believe.
 
The train to Paris.
 
from?
 
It's very expensive if I want to book a ticket now. From Amsterdam.
Normally it's €40 or so.
If you book early.
 
that's very good. compare it to flying the equivalent distance in the US, and I bet it's cheaper in either case.
but, look. part of the mentality is also this:
here, you ask someone what comes to mind as options if you want to travel Chicago -> New York?
they'll answer you either fly, or you drive.
or if you're dirt poor, you take a bus.
there, I'll bet the first thing to come to mind is the train, with maybe flying as second
it would be to me, at least.
 
9:20 PM
Okay, it's € 200 by plane on July 30, and it takes 5 hours, including one transfer. So the train is definitely better, even at the last moment.
 
@GeorgeCapote Yes, well, kind of. It depends. People will often think of both plane and train at the same time.
 
that's still better than plane and car, to me.
 
Probably.
 
everything I say is obviously super biased from the standpoint of someone who really likes trains and public transport.
 
9:22 PM
A direct flight to Paris would take 1.15 hours, but it's €500...
 
also, here's another thing
can you think of a place in NL to which you could not get by public transport?
 
Here, people who have to commute to a different city will usually think of both car and train. It depends on their exact location. Besides that, each has its advantages and disadvantages.
 
is there anywhere you'd need to go to which you'd have to drive?
 
@GeorgeCapote Yes, the village of Haarle, which is where our country house is.
I could probably take a "public-transport taxi", which is a cheap kind of taxi that you have to book in advance.
 
I also just found a bus stop there on google maps.
 
9:24 PM
Really?
 
> Haarle gem Hellendoorn, t Kruuspunt
Netherlands
 
Whenever I fill in the destination on the public-transport website, it has "no rout found"..
Hmm let me try that...
 
So much for impossible :D
 
in any case it's possible. on the other hand, this summer, my girlfriend went home to her place in southern Virginia. and I'm here in upstate New York. I drove there to visit her, it took 12 hours. she took the bus to come visit me, it took (I'm not kidding) 26 hours.
 
I'm possible
 
9:27 PM
Wow, you are right! That bus line is new.
It used to be impossible.
 
the plane would take 5 hours, have one connection, and cost $600 round trip.
 
Ouch, 26 hours.
 
and we're lucky that the place where she lives is accessible by bus. airport is about an hour away.
there are many places here to which you flat out cannot get without a car.
 
But it makes sense that public transport is worse in places where people live farther apart: there is less of a tax base for the network.
 
and I mean common places, not some guy's farm in the desert.
 
9:28 PM
I guess it kind of makes sense if a town is very far away from the nearest other town?
 
that's not necessarily true. there are plans, funding, technology to solve the problem, but big corporations stop it. they wouldn't sell as much gas to airlines and people.
 
Do you really think lobbying is the real cause behind it?
 
I mean, it also costs the government money, which they really hate spending.
 
like the Texas thing I mentioned earlier. the people of Texas supported a high speed rail network connecting the three biggest cities in Texas.
 
9:29 PM
That's pretty awful...
 
they wanted it because it would be more convenient, cheaper, and just better in every way.
 
But how much did it cost, and was the government prepared to bear the costs?
 
I don't know how much it cost, and yes.
it was in its final planning stages.
 
New train lines are cancelled here when they turn out to be too expensive for the results.
 
it would've made a profit too
since everyone wanted it.
 
9:30 PM
That doesn't have to be true?
 
the three biggest cities in Texas have a huge market for travel between them.
a market that Southwest Airlines serves.
 
Even if the tickets are expensive?
 
well, now they buy plane tickets.
which, yes, are expensive.
 
Of course I have no idea, but it is theoretically possible that very long tracks through the desert would make the train tickets so expensive that they couldn't compete with planes?
 
I doubt it.
besides, the big Texas cities aren't too far apart.
and it's not desert
 
9:34 PM
Have you been there?
 
it's no conspiracy theory that the interest of big oil companies comes before convenient public transport here.
there are many situations where it's difficult, I'll admit.
for example, a Chicago -> west coast high speed line would be nearly impossible
but I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for baby steps.
 
Right, I know there is a lobbying problem.
 
some development. but it's the opposite. they've been tearing it down since the 60s
Chicago used to have all electric tramways. until they were bought by a gas company and they tore down the electric cables and put in diesel buses.
that's going backwards in my opinion.
 
But it's funny that companies actually lobby against public infrastructures, I don't think we have that here. Shell lobbying against a new train line?
A gas company, being an oil company?
 
yeah.
gas = petrol in American english.
 
9:36 PM
@GeorgeCapote Think of it as a leisure trip.
 
That's pretty evil...
What do you call a gas company, then?
 
I think it was like Exxon or something similar.
 
I mean, a company that produces/distributes actual gas?
 
they drill for it, refine it, and sell it.
BP, Shell, Exxon, etc. I call them gas companies. is this unusual?
maybe.
I suppose I should say oil companies.
 
Oil=gas
 
9:38 PM
N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie (short form: Gasunie) is a Dutch natural gas infrastructure and transportation company operating in the Netherlands and Germany. Gasunie owns the Netherlands gas transmission network with a total length of over 12,000 kilometres (7,500 mi) and 3,100 kilometres (1,900 mi) long network in Germany. == History == Gasunie was founded in 1963 as a public-private partnership of Royal Dutch Shell (25%), ExxonMobil (25%) and the state of the Netherlands (50%) to sell and distribute natural gas from the then recently discovered gasfield in the province of Groningen. In 2005...
What would you call this?
Apparently, Exxon participates in it...
So they sell actual gas.
 
an oil company or gas company.
 
@Cerberus Ugh, why go by plane? That's two extra modes of transport to deal with, getting to and from the airport. On the train you're there.
 
I think you're right that oil company is a more common term.
 
But the Gasunie has nothing to do with oil.
So what would you call it?
 
now that I'm thinking about it I don't know what I would say in normal conversation.
 
9:39 PM
Gas comes from oil
 
@Mitch Yes, well, it depends on where you live and where your destination is. The airport is only 20 minutes by train from here. But I guess the airport is farther away in Paris, so, yes, it might take somewhat longer.
@skullpatrol I am talking about actual gas here, not the stuff used in cars.
 
I wouldn't need to use it in normal conversation.
 
How do you mean?
@GeorgeCapote Hmm...maybe "natural-gas company"?
 
Like natural gas?
 
to me, the bottom line is, I was much happier living in Zürich than anywhere in the US. so I'm going to try my best to move back there after I graduate!
 
9:41 PM
"Hey honey, can you pass the ketchup and by the way what do you think about them gas/oil companies?"
 
or somewhere in Germany. NL and DK work too. hell, even Norway.
but I can't really speak any of their languages.
 
Then you're stuck.
 
If you managed to get around in Zúrich, you will be able to do the same in other German areas.
 
I meant the other languages. my German is decent
 
9:44 PM
And you can get around in Holland and Scandinavia with just English.
Ah OK.
 
or should I say, my schwitzerdütsch
and my French and Italian even better.
 
It will be relatively easy for you to learn a Scandinavian language, and Dutch even more so, which is in between English and German.
Yay!
 
I spoke French before English, actually.
 
Oh!
 
because my parents are cultural lunatics.
 
9:45 PM
Where were you born?
Great!
I wish my French were better.
 
Chicago. I learnt Romanian first and went to an all French school.
 
Cool.
And you parents spoke French with you?
 
my father did.
I heard Dutch is similar to German.
it sounds nice to me. I've liked German more than any other language I've experienced. I'm even minoring in German language in school.
Schwiizertüütsch
Schwyzerdütsch
hilarious.
 
Hehe.
Küchenkästlein is what we learned as a Schwyzerdütsch word that shows the weird pronunciation.
 
the trouble learning German in Switzerland was that whenever I'd try to compose some sentence for some guy they'd be like 'oh no no, it's okay; I speak English!'
 
9:51 PM
Heh yes.
It is the same here.
 
and they'd look so excited and proud... I couldn't snap back that I don't want to speak English.
 
But even Parisians do that when I start in French, so...
 
haha! so the French aren't as France-oriented as they used to be I suppose.
 
Yeah, you're more likely to learn German in a private setting with a group of friend, something like that.
 
in university here it's hard, since they teach you too much literature/culture/grammar/etc and not enough just plain and simple conversation.
 
9:52 PM
In my experience, they have become fairly liberal and welcoming, at least in Paris. But other people experience different things...
 
What, this crap is still here?!
 
Yeah, we never got enough practice actually conversing in French/German in high school, it's mainly about reading. Which makes sense, but still.
@tchrist Hello. What crap?
 
it does make sense. I'm not saying we should learn it in a busted way.
 
@GeorgeCapote You are being as foolish as a spoiled little rich kid. The simple reason that trains won't work in America is basic arithmetic and simple economics. Europe is a tiny place; America is not. Read this article, do the numbers, and cease and desist with your whining based on ignorance not reality.
 
we're over trains already.
 
9:53 PM
I have to take a one-day trip this week and it would be sheer madness to turn that into a five-day nightmare. I simply would not put up with that nonsense. Pay me $4,000 and I'll consider it; otherwise, it's pure crap and everybody over the age of 2 knows this.
Please, by all means, move back to Europe -- and put us out of your misery. And yes, I have lived there before on multiple occasions and travelled and worked in nearly every country south of Hadrian's Wall. I do know what I'm talking about. You don't. Please educate yourself.
 
now we're talking about languages.
relax.
 
Bah.
Children.
 
@tchrist Umm where did that come from? Manners!
 
Right.
 
also, back me up here @Cerberus. I wasn't whining or bitching.
he was asking me questions
and I was answering them.
 
9:54 PM
Yes, you were.
 
@tchrist Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you have to be like that.
 
I would be glad to quote your whining.
And prove you are wrong.
 
and giving my opinion on what I think would work. sure, I'm wrong if you say so.
 
When you say you were not whining.
Because you were absolutely complaining.
 
@GeorgeCapote You were fine. But apparently it is a sensitive topic to some people.
 
9:55 PM
I was for a bit, but it was mainly part of a conversation
 
I challenge you to deny this.
 
There is nothing wrong with complaining.
 
I'm not denying. it was conversational. I was giving my opinion.
 
I told him to move long time ago
 
We all do it.
 
9:55 PM
Go read the article.
I will be damned if I am going to give up a week of my life for a four-hour meeting.
 
sure, but I'm not arguing or complaining anymore.
 
Even a six-hour one.
And I am certainly not going to pay 5x what it should cost for the privilege, either.
 
@GeorgeCapote Ignore it. It has to do with people's moods rather than anything else.
 
It’s economics, kid.
It has to do with money.
Who pays for what, and how.
 
If you don't like the topic, why do you bring it up again?
 
9:57 PM
I prefer socialism.
 
That’s nice.
 
We already switched to a different topic.
 
Go read the article.
 
anyway, sorry tchrist, I'm not trying to piss you off.
I really am not.
we were talking about trains for a bit, then about languages. fairly reasonable.
 
9:58 PM
Then please read the article so you get some actual numbers behind you before you spout off again.
 
@tchrist If you are willing to be nice and friendly, I will read your article.
 
Distance distance distance
 
It is embarrassing to watch.
 
How's that for a deal?
 
@tchrist I completely agree with the guy in the article.
 
9:59 PM
Then you see that you are not being reasonable.
 
my argument/whining was more of a wishing for a fantasy-land, where we had already developed a good infrastructure and it was cheaper to go by train.
of course I'm not being reasonable. I have no expectation of the US to become the way I want it.
 
Trains have a sweet spot.
And you refuse to recognize that.
 

« first day (1355 days earlier)      last day (3572 days later) »