[deleted]
"We Took a 100+ Hour Greyhound From Boston to Seattle"
Submitted 1 year ago by lazycouchpotato@lemmy.world to videos@lemmy.world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTpt4tMnDT0
Comments
CubbyTustard@reddthat.com 1 year ago
SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 1 year ago
Judging by the stories I have heard about Greyhound, the Benadryl is a very nice gesture. That way, the people who steal your kidneys will have to spend less on drugs for you.
massive_bereavement@kbin.social 1 year ago
If someone steal my kidneys, then probably they need them more than I do.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I used pot butter cookies. The trick is to look like a sketchier creep than all the sketchy creeps coming on board. Look angry and smelly. Twitch if you can.
Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 1 year ago
If you ever have to do this buy yourself lots of benadryl and just sleep as much as possible.
Err, nah fuck that; en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#:~:….
WiildFiire@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah I would rather be so deeply asleep I wouldn’t suffer that much in my last moments
Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Im with you. I did this from TX to PA in the late 90s and would not recommend. I had it both ways though - a friend on the ride up who was moving there. The ride home alone was indeed that much more long and depressing. 1/2 star would not recommend
irationslippers@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Psssh amateurs, I did over 120 hours greyhound Victoria -> Toronto. Worst decision I ever made.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ve always wanted to take a train across the U.S. with a sleeper car, but I couldn’t handle sitting up for that long.
Jode@midwest.social 1 year ago
Also it’s insultingly expensive. I had an opportunity to do it for a work trip but couldn’t justify the thousands of dollars vs the way cheaper and quicker flight.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 year ago
Honestly, taking a transcontinental train is less a form of transit and more kind of land cruise.
mercano@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The slower speed is why it’s so expensive. Instead of employing a pilot, co-pilot, and flight attendants for a few hours, you have to employ engineers, conductors, and car attendants for days. Labor is one of any business’s highest expenses, and when you require 10x as much for the same result…
nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Who is miles ?
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 year ago
He’s in transit.
smallaubergine@kbin.social 1 year ago
Imagine if the US joined the rest of the civilized world and built high speed rail networks
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 year ago
There is only one country that built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs, and that is China. Even then, the country has a lot of underutilized high speed rail infrastructure and built a lot of the network for other than economic reasons.
Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies. The city pairs just aren’t there.
Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
So what? You gotta start somewhere
chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I’m curious, why wouldn’t Japan or France qualify as countries which have “built a high speed rail network of length and ubiquity that would meet their needs”? Yes, China has by far the most HSR infrastructure and world-leading HSR expertise, but surely at least a few other countries can satisfy such a mediocre standard as “meeting their needs”?
anonymoose@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
What are “city pairs”?
Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because it doesn’t make economic sense to do so. Outside of a few population centers the US does not have the same population density to pull it off. There may be a few routes on the East and West coast that are viable. But overall our cities are mostly suburban and too spread out to make it an effective alternative.
Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
The “it’s not economical” argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?
So in this particular situation, we’re comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.
We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn’t have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.
Anyway, it really sucks when people use the “iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL” argument because it’s probably not true when everything is taken into account.
bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Imagine if the US joined the rest of the civilized world and built cities that aren’t 99% unlivable suburban hellscape
Turun@feddit.de 1 year ago
I think only very few people would argue for a fully connected continental network. But as you said, up and down the coast is a very good usecase for high speed rail and it’s a shame you don’t have any yet.
For what it’s worth, in terms of urban development some of the big cities do move forward. I think that’s often overlooked when mocking the US for its car dependency.
thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It is possible to build trains/stations in lightly populated areas and have modern building codes in place to encourage modern, efficient towns be developed around them.
China took it to an extreme in one situation but it’s entirely possible on smaller scales.
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The East and (to a lesser extent) West Coast already do have quite solid coverage by train. High speed would be nice but the population density is also such that it probably isn’t worth it because of the frequent stops.
But yeah. People really forget the scale of the US. Our one country is roughly twice the size of the EU. And while we have the densely populated areas that are comparable to “France to Belgium”, we have a LOT of empty flyover states that are comparable to the ass end of Norway and so forth.
And in actual civilized countries? It is REALLY easy to take a train to a population center. Small town? You are probably catching a bus or renting a car.
Don’t get me wrong. The US needs a LOT of work and, from looking at the amtrak route, there are a few extra lines that would actually connect the midwest/southwest pretty well. You still wouldn’t take a train from NYC to California but you might from Kansas to Chicago or whatever.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 year ago
There are plenty of routes out there that are economical. I wouldn’t expect one national system, but I would expect a series of state and regional systems similar to California’s planned system or the Northeast Corridor.