# Big countries vs. small countries



## Bullgrit (Jun 30, 2010)

I just saw a news headline that says, "U.S. Braces for Hurricane". My first thought was, "Really? The whole U.S.?" (The hurricane in question might hit Texas. My state probably won't see a drop of rain from it.)

The U.S. is so big, it's a rare thing (natural disaster or man-made tragedy) that affects *all* of it. Earthquakes, hurricanes, plane crashes, mine collapses, etc. only affect a small percentage of the country. (Though the media will play it up as a national concern.)

I mean, even the Gulf oil thing is only a direct problem for 2 or 4 states (out of 50!). 

I'm not trying to make light of any issues, I'm just framing perspective.

This got me thinking about how such things affect smaller nations. For instance, there are some countries for whom a bad weather incident is, indeed, a national event. A plane crash at an airport might disrupt all air travel in that country.

I wonder if we correctly perceive/understand events in other countries that are of drastically different sizes. I mean, when say, Italians hear of a hurricane hitting Brazil, do they think *all* of Brazil is affected? When Chinese hear of an earthquake in Netherlands, do they not realize that *all* of Netherlands is shaken up?

Do you live in a particularly big or small country? Do you think you understand the relative effect that "national" problems cause a country on the opposite size scale from yours?

Bullgrit


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 30, 2010)

I live in the UK, but after driving from NYC to Tampa FL in 22 hours, I think I now have a good grasp of the scale of a country the size of the US!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2010)

There is a saying that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time.


----------



## Dioltach (Jun 30, 2010)

I just want to point out that even our most severe earthquake in the Netherlands (March 1992, I believe) really only affected an area with a radius of about 75 km. I was about 65 km from the epicentre, and the worst damage was some fallen rooftiles.

That said, I've travelled round the American Southwest and Australia, and the distances are hard to conceive for to someone living in a small country. The idea that you can drive for days and days and still have only crossed a tiny part of the country is very strange. In Europe, if you drive for even a day you're in a completely different country with a completely different culture.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 30, 2010)

Dioltach said:
			
		

> I just want to point out that even our most severe earthquake in the Netherlands (March 1992, I believe) really only affected an area with a radius of about 75 km. I was about 65 km from the epicentre, and the worst damage was some fallen rooftiles.



I don't know what kind of natural disasters Netherlands experiences. I just took a guess.

At least I didn't call it "Holland". 

Bullgrit


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 30, 2010)

_Logically_, I think I can grasp what a "national" problem means in a much smaller country.  _Emotionally_, probably not. 

Additionally, understanding of a disaster goes beyond just scale; I have to consider everything else I know about the country in general.  For example, Haiti and Belgium are both small countries with similar areas and populations.  But I know that a given event (say an earthquake) is almost certainly a nation-wrecking disaster in Haiti but not necessarily in Belgium, just by virtue of the fact that Belgium is so much better developed.

On top of that, my understanding is only as good as the information I have.  Whatever media I follow is bound to color my perceptions, despite the fact I have a fairly broad base of experiences and am reasonably good about digging for "real" info.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 30, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't know what kind of natural disasters Netherlands experiences. ...




...leaking dikes?


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 30, 2010)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> ...leaking dikes?



I literally LOLed! I must spread some xp...

Bullgrit


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 30, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Additionally, understanding of a disaster goes beyond just scale; I have to consider everything else I know about the country in general.




This is key, I think. Every decade or so we get an earthquake here that might level a 3rd world city, but we just shrug it off with minimal damage, some split roads, a bridge or two collapses and a few houses at the center of the quake get condemned. We build our houses with this in mind; we have strict building regulations and emergency plans that are meant to ensure minimal damage, and usually do.

The recent eruption in Eyjafjallajökull inconvenienced the rest of the world more than it did the majority of Icelanders*. We have the infrastructure to deal with it swiftly.** I imagine the Netherlands (because it has already been mentioned) have such infrastructure to deal with, say, flooding, or whatever their main natural foe is. 

A 3rd world country probably wouldn't have such infrastructure. Even though the problem might have plagued them for centuries. Iceland got decimated by a quake in the late 1800s which would merely inconvenience us today.


* The exception being the farming communities south of the eruption, who saw the deaths of crops and animals.
** But give us something we don't have any experience of—hurricane, a financial meltdown—and we're frelled!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 30, 2010)

Some of this goes on within the US as well.  I knew someone who lived in Utah.  She and her mother did a vacation to the Northeast.  They spent a couple of days in Vermont and then were going to drive to Maine.  They looked at a map and saw that they had to drive across the _entire state_ of New Hampshire to get there!  The left at the crack of dawn the next morning, and were in shock when they crossed the Maine border in just a couple of hours.  

For them, driving 6-8 hours to go someplace is fairly routine.  For me and many others here in the Northeast, the complaining about how far away something is starts if it is more than two hours.


----------



## Joker (Jun 30, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> crack




Hehe.  You said crack.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 1, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't know what kind of natural disasters Netherlands experiences. I just took a guess.



I recall the recent worst was a storm surge from a North Sea storm in 1953 that topped many of the dikes. It was rather extreme. 1,800+ deaths.

The experience of that event got the Dutch to bolster sea defense engineering even further.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2010)

"Whole nation prepares" means a different thing here in the USA than it does elsewhere when you're talking about emergency/natural disaster response.


American society is a lot more mobile than in most other nations, so odds are higher here that you'll know someone in the affected region.
We have the luxury of distributing our aid depos everywhere, in little hubs.  The Red Cross had one for the Gulf states in 2005...located in New Orleans (oops!)...now they distribute things a bit more widespread.
Volunteers come from all over the country to help.  I have friends & family who are responders- Nat'l Guard, police, FEMA, charities, insurance investigators, etc.- and they'll be packing their bags the night before something hits so they can get to where they're needed ASAP.  I know Texans who went to Alaska to help with the Valdez cleanup.  I'm sure there are Alaskans returning the favor now.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There is a saying that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time.




I've never believed that saying.

There will always be anecdotal exceptions, but the average person drives a similar to work and other regular destinations wherever he/she lives.  Whatever the size of the country surrounding us, we tend to live in our own "bubble" of that country.  Both geographically _and_ temporally.

Around larger cities, the commuter belt will extend the distance people travel to work - craploads of people commute 80 miles to London from here in Southampton, and further afield, for example - but most people work, shop, and play in the town or city they live in.

Sure, people will be able to relate exceptions to that general rule, but my experience has been that people do things similarly most places in the Western world.  Maybe in a larger country they might have familiy who live halfway across the country, but they tend to see those people infrequently enough that it doesn't really reflect their daily lives.

(Cue_ "I drive 9000 miles to work every day!"_ anecdotes! )


----------



## Mark (Jul 1, 2010)

Poll: Traffic in the United States - ABC News

BBC NEWS | UK | UK commute 'longest in Europe'


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 1, 2010)

Morrus, just about all of my friends in the UK consider it a major undertaking to drive from southern England to Scotland. It's only 400 miles from London to Edinborough, though, which I don't consider bad at all. How long would the drive from London to Edinborough take? 

I think part of the problem is that American motorways are designed for lots of cars traveling quickly; there are far more secondary roads in the UK, and perhaps that makes the driving both more tiring and more time consuming. We see this in the US as well. It's a pain in the butt to drive up here in the northeast: aggressive drivers, congested roads. It's much faster and more relaxing to drive out in the American midwest and southwest.

Plus, of course, your gasoline is about double the cost of ours. 

Regarding history, I remember doing a seminar near Bath England and walking past a working pub which had been established _before Columbus set sail to America_. That made my brain hurt a little.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2010)

Morrus said:


> There will always be anecdotal exceptions, but the average person drives a similar to work and other regular destinations wherever he/she lives.




I'm not talking about daily commutes.  Folks are generally going to want to keep their daily commutes down to an hour or less.  But when considering other travel, I think it does come into play.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Morrus, just about all of my friends in the UK consider it a major undertaking to drive from southern England to Scotland. It's only 400 miles from London to Edinborough, though, which I don't consider bad at all. How long would the drive from London to Edinborough take?
> .




Sure. But you don't drive it as part of your daily routine (to get to work, to buy groceries, to drop the kids off at school - for those that have them). The daily "bubble" is probably similar in size, and the mind tends to think in terms of the daily bubble.

Occasional longer distance trips - you'd be more likely to _drive_ them than I would due to the lack of long straight roads here, but we're not less likely to _travel_ them. I don't consider it a major undertaking to catch a train or a plane.

Maybe it's better summarised as "we'd be willing to _drive_ less far"; but that's not a function of country size, it's a function of traffic density, winding roads, and fuel prices (as you mentioned). I think I'm just as willing to travel 500 miles as you are; I'd just choose not to drive it. But a country's borders doesn't affect that - it's just an arbitrary line. If where you want to go is on the other side of it, you travel over it; nobody's constrained by a wall (well, not anymore, anyway).

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; it's not like it matters.  Just saying I don't subscribe to that school of thought, and I'm not convinced that most people do.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jul 1, 2010)

Last year, I drove from my native Sacramento, California down to San Diego for a job interview. It took the better part of a day to drive down there. I have also had periods where I have driven from Sacramento to San Francisco as a daily commute, and that is a two hour drive, if traffic is good. I wouldn't do that for more than a few days at a time, but it is doable. Getting between any of the major urban centers in California takes time, but you eventually get used to it.

It is rather amazing how different the terrain and culture are across the length of a single state like California. I couldn't even imagine what it must be like driving across the length of the country.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 1, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> ...leaking dikes?



Runaway windmills?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Sure. But you don't drive it as part of your daily routine (to get to work, to buy groceries, to drop the kids off at school - for those that have them). The daily "bubble" is probably similar in size, and the mind tends to think in terms of the daily bubble.
> 
> Occasional longer distance trips - you'd be more likely to _drive_ them than I would due to the lack of long straight roads here, but we're not less likely to _travel_ them. I don't consider it a major undertaking to catch a train or a plane.
> 
> ...



More on the topic:
In Houston, 20-30 minutes is probably a pretty normal amount of time to get to where ever you're going--say, to visit a friend or go to a restaurant.
My Iowa friends consider 15 minutes to be painfully long.

Bubbles aren't nation-specific.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2010)

Anecdotes?  Sure...

I've encountered Europeans who wanted to see the Statue of Liberty, the Gateway Arch, The Grand Canyon, Yosemite and the Golden Gate Bridge in a 2 week road trip.

I know Americans who goggle at the thought that a town's _new_ city hall might be twice as old as the USA.

And as for the transportation thing?

When we lived in Stuttgart (in the 1970's), we used to go to Frankfurt or even France (Strassbourg, usually) to go to McDonalds.  Even today, I've been known to drive to Austin on day trips to from D/FW or San Antonio (80 miles)...or even drive the 35 mile distance between Dallas & Fort Worth to do lunch or go bowling.  I've had friends who did 2 hour commutes (one way!) from Allen to North Dallas.

People in Europe simply don't travel like that unless it actually IS their job to travel.  The Germans thought we were NUTS to travel that far just for some American-style cuisine.  (Well, we_ were_...)


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 1, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I've never believed that saying.
> 
> There will always be anecdotal exceptions, but the average person drives a similar to work and other regular destinations wherever he/she lives. Whatever the size of the country surrounding us, we tend to live in our own "bubble" of that country. Both geographically _and_ temporally. ...




As someone who's lived on both continents (grew up in Michigan, USA...moved to Mildenhall, UK when I was 21 for 6 1/2 years). I'd say there's a definite difference. I'd agree that daily commutes are probably about the same anywhere, relative to where you live (big city, rural, etc.). But, long distance driving trips are considerably different. In most parts of the states, highways make long distance travel much easier. For example, I can drive from my home here in Florida to my parents house in Michigan (just a little over 900 miles, as the crow flies...) in about 20 hours driving time (1 1/2 days travel time). In Europe that would be the equivalent of driving from London to Venice. Can that be done in a day and a half?

My friends and I would never even mess with driving to Scotland. Too much of a hassle. We would rent a plane from the RAF Lakenheath Aero club (two of them had their pilots license) and fly up (Inverness). Took about two to three hours. I don't even want to imagine how long it would take to actually drive from Mildenhall to Inverness.  Definitely not worth it for a two, or even three day, weekend.

200 miles by highway takes less than 3 hours. For a daily commute, yeah that's a bit much. But for a day or weekend trip, most Americans won't even think twice about a 200 mile drive.



Morrus said:


> ...(Cue_ "I drive 9000 miles to work every day!"_ anecdotes! )




Up hill...both ways!


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Anecdotes? Sure...
> 
> I've encountered Europeans who wanted to see the Statue of Liberty, the Gateway Arch, The Grand Canyon, Yosemite and the Golden Gate Bridge in a 2 week road trip.




You've met some pretty _dumb_ Europeans, then! Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that realistic.  

I'm sure such people exist, but anecdotes of ridiculous people don't represent what "Europeans" think.



> When we lived in Stuttgart (in the 1970's), we used to go to Frankfurt or even France (Strassbourg, usually) to go to McDonalds. Even today, I've been known to drive to Austin on day trips to from D/FW or San Antonio (80 miles)...or even drive the 35 mile distance between Dallas & Fort Worth to do lunch or go bowling. I've had friends who did 2 hour commutes (one way!) from Allen to North Dallas.




But I happily do larger than 80-mile day trips to see my parents. I have friends now who do two-hour commutes. 



> People in Europe simply don't travel like that unless it actually IS their job to travel.




I disagree. Yes, we do.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> But, long distance driving trips are considerably different. In most parts of the states, highways make long distance travel much easier. For example, I can drive from my home here in Florida to my parents house in Michigan (just a little over 900 miles, as the crow flies...) in about 20 hours driving time (1 1/2 days travel time). In Europe that would be the equivalent of driving from London to Venice. Can that be done in a day and a half?




No, but why are we insisting that one has to _drive_ everywhere? We're discussing _travelling_ distances, not _driving_ distances. The choice of transportation is irrelevant.

No, I wouldn't drive 20 hours unless I had no choice. That's what trains and planes are for. But I certainly wouldn't balk at travelling that distance.

I'll concede that the US is more conducive to distance _driving_ than Europe is simply by the lack of "interstates" (is that what you call the big roads?) It doesn't therefore follow, though, that Europeans won't travel those distances or think they're anything special; we just choose different methods of transportation.

If I want to visit someone 900 miles away, I do so. I jump on a train or a plane.

We live in "the world" now. The English Channel is no more a barrier than the end of my street is. It can be crossed easily, quickly, and cheaply in a whole number of ways (trains, ships, hovercraft, planes) often for ludicrously low prices - like under £10. One is not walled in by the edges of one's country.

There is one notable difference, though - people in Europe don't move so far to live as people in the US. They'll happily wander out of their own countries, but they tend to _live_ in the same country all their life - for a variety of reasons, including cultural and legal. So relatives won't tend to be more than a few hundred miles away at least, whereas in the US they could easily be a couple of thousand miles away.  But that's _not_ because of the distances involved, it's because they don't want to live in another country.  They don't think "I don't want to live in Italy [or wherever] because it's too far away", they think "I don't want to live in Italy because I like my _own_ country".  But they'll happily visit.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

One thing that might be going on here is a generational thing.  I gather than people used to be a lot less socially mobile than they are now.  The abundance of cheap travel and loosening of border controls in Europe means my generation really doesn't see distance as an issue these days.  People will happily cross Europe for a weekend city break and such - Greece, for example, is about 1500 miles away for me.  It's not considered a challenging distance in the slightest.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> No, but why are we insisting that one has to _drive_ everywhere? We're discussing _travelling_ distances, not _driving_ distances. The choice of transportation is irrelevant.



Two reasons, I think. 
 - 1. Driving feels like you yourself are accomplishing something, in a way that taking a train or plane does not. It's linked to feelings of independence and self-reliance. See, letting someone else do the work is _cheating_.
 - 2. Train travel in the US sucks monkey butt, so it's hard for us to consider vehicles other than cars.



> One is not walled in by the edges of one's country.



I feel like we are, more than folks in the EU are. Trying to travel into Mexico or Canada, especially for work, can be a giant pain. Even driving over the border can result in some long waits at the checkpoint.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 2, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I feel like we are, more than folks in the EU are. Trying to travel into Mexico or Canada, especially for work, can be a giant pain. *Even driving over the border can result in some long waits at the checkpoint*.




The wonders of traveling through East Germany to reach West Berlin, during the Cold War.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> One is not walled in by the edges of one's country.




Even more weird was navigating inside a walled-in city, such as West Berlin and living near the Berlin Wall.  (I use to visit relatives who lived in West Berlin during the Cold War era).  Going anywhere in town, was like a maze of trying to not run into the Wall.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 2, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Two reasons, I think.
> - 1. Driving feels like you yourself are accomplishing something, in a way that taking a train or plane does not. It's linked to feelings of independence and self-reliance. See, letting someone else do the work is _cheating_.
> - 2. Train travel in the US sucks monkey butt, so it's hard for us to consider vehicles other than cars.



While I don't really want to comment on the first point, the second point is very true. For example, look at the trips my brother SkyOdin was referring to in his earlier post. The trip from Sacramento to San Francisco by train is probably the single most plausible rail trip in California, but it is still going to be at least an hour longer than any comparable trip by car (if you dodge traffic), and has a lot of complications and limitations. And unless the proposed high-speed railway line connecting the bay area to LA actually gets built, it is literally impossible to make a trip to LA or San Diego via train.




> I feel like we are, more than folks in the EU are. Trying to travel into Mexico or Canada, especially for work, can be a giant pain. Even driving over the border can result in some long waits at the checkpoint.



Yeah, the US has a lot more border issues compared to Europe. Of course, the boundaries between states are a lot more malleable than European borders. To put some of the cultural differences between the US and Europe in perspective, some of you might be interested to know that either 2009 or 2010 happened to be the very first year in the history of California as a state where more than 50% of California's population was actually born in the state. To say that the US population is more mobile than the European population regarding where people choose to move and live is a gross understatement.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Two reasons, I think.
> - 1. Driving feels like you yourself are accomplishing something, in a way that taking a train or plane does not. It's linked to feelings of independence and self-reliance. See, letting someone else do the work is _cheating_.
> - 2. Train travel in the US sucks monkey butt, so it's hard for us to consider vehicles other than cars.




I'll not argue with that; but I'll maintain that "Americans value driving more than other forms of transport" does not equate to "Europeans think 200 miles is a long way".  Especially these days.



> I feel like we are, more than folks in the EU are. Trying to travel into Mexico or Canada, especially for work, can be a giant pain. Even driving over the border can result in some long waits at the checkpoint.




Sure, I agree that you are more so. I was speaking for Europeans who are able and willing to travel freely across the continent.

I was trying to point out that just because each country is smaller than the US doesn't mean that people aren't willing to travel the same distances. The fact that it crosses borders isn't a hindrance.



> To say that the US population is more mobile than the European population regarding where people choose to move and live is a gross understatement.




Absolutely. There's a world of difference between visiting other countries and emigrating to one. I'd never dream of _living_ in another country, but I'm very willing to spend time in them.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> You've met some pretty _dumb_ Europeans, then! Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would think that realistic.
> 
> I'm sure such people exist, but anecdotes of ridiculous people don't represent what "Europeans" think.



I disagree - I think if you asked a bunch of British strangers at random, you'd find that they didn't really grasp the enormity of the US.  I don't think that they would really have much idea about how different many of the States are from each other, either.  To most Brits, the US is New York shopping trips and Florida Disneyland/Universal Studios.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 2, 2010)

RE: Travelling by train -- Once you get to the destination, how do you get around there? That's what's always stumped me with the idea of travelling by train.

Taxi? I've only ever ridden in a taxi in NYC and Sweden.



> Of course, the boundaries between states are a lot more malleable than European borders.



I don't know about European borders, but here, the only way you know you're entering another state is because the sign on the side of the road says, "Welcome to South Carolina." 

Bullgrit


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 2, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> RE: Travelling by train -- Once you get to the destination, how do you get around there? That's what's always stumped me with the idea of travelling by train.
> 
> Taxi? I've only ever ridden in a taxi in NYC and Sweden.




Other public transport?  When my family went from RI to Washington, D.C. for a vacation, we took the train.  Then from there we used the subway system or whatever it is ("MARC," just like my name  ) and it worked out fairly well.  Even after mom injured her ankles with a mistep and I was pushing her around in a wheelchair (only mentioning because I was like ~14 or so at the time), it was never terribly hard to get around.

Granted, not many places in the U.S. have public transportation systems like that.  But I just think that goes to show how much of a "vicious cycle" it can be.  If where you're going has inadequate public transport, like you said, it's kind of silly to take a train there and then get stranded.  The less numerous and available the public transportation, the less appealing what options are available become, IMHO.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> RE: Travelling by train -- Once you get to the destination, how do you get around there? That's what's always stumped me with the idea of travelling by train.
> 
> Taxi? I've only ever ridden in a taxi in NYC and Sweden.




Yeah. Taxis, busses, coaches, subway systems, etc. Depending on how much luggage you have of course. We use public transport a _lot_.  Unless you're going to some remote rural place, there will be an abundance of options.


----------



## Rykion (Jul 2, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't know about European borders, but here, the only way you know you're entering another state is because the sign on the side of the road says, "Welcome to South Carolina."
> 
> Bullgrit



That's true of the vast majority of States, but entering California is an exception.  You can be expected to be stopped and asked about plants/animals you have when crossing into California.  Many fruits, houseplants, and pets like ferrets, hedgehogs, and rodents will be confiscated if you want to enter California.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yeah. Taxis, busses, coaches, subway systems, etc. Depending on how much luggage you have of course. We use public transport a _lot_.  Unless you're going to some remote rural place, there will be an abundance of options.



And, of course, you could hire a car 

I'm going to be travelling 300 miles to a friend's wedding in August, and it looks like we'll be flying then hiring a car for the weekend.  Much nicer than the 5.5 hours drive each way predicted by Google maps (and probably cheaper, too).


----------



## drothgery (Jul 2, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Two reasons, I think.
> - 2. Train travel in the US sucks monkey butt, so it's hard for us to consider vehicles other than cars.




Even if Amtrak ran the best possible trains over dedicated passenger rail lines, train travel would be impractical for most routes within the US. The geography just doesn't work; there are very few cities that are both far enough apart that it makes more sense to take a train than drive, and close enough that it makes more sense to take a train than fly.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> No, but why are we insisting that one has to _drive_ everywhere? ...




These are all really good points. I guess you've hit on the biggest American conceit when it comes to this...we're an automobile culture. I didn't even realize it at the time, but as soon as I read Umbrans saying, that's exactly what I thought of: Driving.

This doesn't always hold true everywhere in the states, but for the most part, busses are seen as cheap/poor transportation. You only use them if you have to. Trains just aren't common enough anymore except in certain metro areas and maybe the east and north east (New York, Massachusetts, D.C., etc.). And air travel has gotten so expensive, and all the added fees they throw in now, that it's gotten too expensive to use unless you have to. It all just kind of reinforces the driving aspect. Our cars are still a symbol of having the freedom to just go wherever you want, whenever you want.

I once looked into taking a train to my parents house (from Florida to Michigan). Amtrack runs from where I live. But the trip would have cost about 5 times more than the gas and a hotel needed to drive, and would have taken about three days (vs. the 1 1/2 to drive). And flying...forget about it. Unless you've purchased the tickets 6 months in advance, driving is probably going to be cheaper...and that's not even adding in the cost of a rental car at the destination.

I guess it's just a default American assumption.




Morrus said:


> One thing that might be going on here is a generational thing. I gather than people used to be a lot less socially mobile than they are now. The abundance of cheap travel and loosening of border controls in Europe means my generation really doesn't see distance as an issue these days. People will happily cross Europe for a weekend city break and such - Greece, for example, is about 1500 miles away for me. It's not considered a challenging distance in the slightest.




Yeah, another good point. My experiences in Europe are from the early to mid nineties. Things have definitely changed a bit since then.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 2, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> And air travel has gotten so expensive, and all the added fees they throw in now, that it's gotten too expensive to use unless you have to.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I once looked into taking a train to my parents house (from Florida to Michigan). Amtrack runs from where I live. But the trip would have cost about 5 times more than the gas and a hotel needed to drive, and would have taken about three days (vs. the 1 1/2 to drive). And flying...forget about it. Unless you've purchased the tickets 6 months in advance, driving is probably going to be cheaper...and that's not even adding in the cost of a rental car at the destination.




The nickel and diming with silly fees that most airlines are doing now has driven costs up some, as did post-9/11 security fees, but this was decades of air travel getting tremendously cheaper (especially over the 1980s and 1990s).

I mean, I don't know where you live, but I just plugged in 'I want to take a weekend trip in August from Tampa to Detroit' into Orbitz, and that came back with $165 for any weekend trip there. That's not a lot; it's probably less than you'd spend on gas and a hotel driving (though add in a spouse and/or kids and it changes the equation). San Diego to Denver, which I fly a few times a year, is rarely over $250 for me (though it helps that Southwest flies that route, as well as two other airlines). And until you're less than 3 weeks out, airfares are as likely to go down as up in my experience.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 2, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> This doesn't always hold true everywhere in the states, but for the most part, busses are seen as cheap/poor transportation.




Some places & times, busses aren't terribly reliable or convenient, for in-town use. I used the bus to get to work in San Jose for a year or so, and I had to leave 30-45+ minutes earlier than I would have with a car, because the bus took longer (frequent stops), and the schedule was such that I had a choice: early to work or late. Then there were the times the bus just didn't show up. And I had a direct route, too -- no changing lines or anything. It was as simple as could be. 

For cross country trips, a bus is usually slower than driving yourself -- and if you drive, you control when and where you stop, don't have to hassle as much with luggage, etc.

With plane trips, you also get modern American airport security, which can be a drag.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Even if Amtrak ran the best possible trains over dedicated passenger rail lines, train travel would be impractical for most routes within the US. The geography just doesn't work; there are very few cities that are both far enough apart that it makes more sense to take a train than drive, and close enough that it makes more sense to take a train than fly.




And even where it is, we're seemingly politically incapable of letting go of our individuality to make rail more practical.

I'm here in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  If you look at the map of Texas, you'll see we have a triangle of three of the US's biggest cities- D/FW, San Antonio, and Houston- with the state's capitol on a dead straight highway (I-35) between D/FW and San Antonio as well...and following that straight-line highway, you get to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast.

This arrangement has been called _ideal _for high-speed rail...and we can't get it done, mostly due to politics.

And within D/FW itself, we're struggling to get our entire region covered by light rail and busses.  Some of the suburbs have actually voted against letting the railway come through.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There is a saying that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time.




A sentiment in the same vein was once famously expressed by a former Canadian Prime Minister. He said something along the lines of, " Europe has too much history, and Canada has too much geography. "

I think when it comes to the weather, when it says on the news that the Maritimes has been hit by such and such weather, I do sort of think of the whole Maritimes, though that is probably rarely the case.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> This doesn't always hold true everywhere in the states, but for the most part, busses are seen as cheap/poor transportation.




See, we're actively encouraged to use them.  To the extent that they have dedicated lanes everywhere - it actually annoys me when I'm driving and I see busses flying through.  Plus they're insanely cheap.



> Trains just aren't common enough anymore except in certain metro areas and maybe the east and north east (New York, Massachusetts, D.C., etc.).




Yeah, we're lucky with our train system.  We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!)  The network is pretty much all-encompassing.  Even the smallest towns have a train station.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 2, 2010)

drothgery said:


> ...




Yeah, but that's major city to major city. Try checking out Palm Beach to Grand Rapids. Almost any flight will require a plane change and layover in Atlanta or Cincinnati. Say I suddenly wanted to fly this weekend, cheapest I found was $428. Plus I'd either need a taxi to the airport, or parking fee for my car, and then a rental in GR. That's easily over $500 total and probably closing in on $600. I could drive it for about $200 in gas, and two nights in a hotel.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 2, 2010)

Morrus said:


> ...Yeah, we're lucky with our train system. We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!) The network is pretty much all-encompassing. Even the smallest towns have a train station.




Yeah, I envied that when I lived in England.  I wish we had an affordable train system in the US.  I think one of the problems though is the distances can be cost prohibitive.

I've always wanted to get a Europass and tour Europe though.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And even where it is, we're seemingly politically incapable of letting go of our individuality to make rail more practical.
> 
> I'm here in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  If you look at the map of Texas, you'll see we have a triangle of three of the US's biggest cities- D/FW, San Antonio, and Houston- with the state's capitol on a dead straight highway (I-35) between D/FW and San Antonio as well...and following that straight-line highway, you get to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast.
> 
> This arrangement has been called _ideal _for high-speed rail...and we can't get it done, mostly due to politics.




Dude, it's Texas. If it's getting done, it's because no one can show the project will make money (which would not be surprising; almost no rail systems on earth make money). If high speed rail can make money at all, it can make money on LA to Las Vegas. I can imagine politics getting in the way of that, because of certain factors in CA politics. But Texas is another matter entirely.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And within D/FW itself, we're struggling to get our entire region covered by light rail and busses.  Some of the suburbs have actually voted against letting the railway come through.




Light rail is not cost effective without Manhattan-esque population densities. It's just not. As many cities with nice, new light rail systems that nobody uses can tell you.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I disagree. Yes, we do.




You seem to be speaking for all Europe, but in my experience (which is reasonably large, knowing hundreds of people) the _majority _of the sample which I know in the UK typically travel less far on a regular basis just to see friends than people I know and know of in the US.

There may be some outliers, but in general I think the archetype/stereotype holds up pretty well.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, we're lucky with our train system.  We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!)  The network is pretty much all-encompassing.  Even the smallest towns have a train station.




True before Beeching, but not so much now. Routes into and out of London are well served, and if you are on one of those major routes (or in one of the other large cities - including Southampton, evidently!), but cross country routes are a nightmare, mostly just not existing anymore; even when there is a usable route trains are so expensive that for more than single people they are rarely a cost effective option.

Bottom line - trains are OK (but expensive) for getting into and out of London or other cities. But for most other town to town travel are either out of the question or involve routes going into a city and then out again. And if you are trying to take a family of 3 or more, forget it! If I wanted to go to Leeds tomorrow to visit friends, we could take the train into London (45 mins), get across to Kings Cross (15 mins), wait for the train to Leeds (~30mins), take the train up to leeds (120 mins) - best case 3.5 hours. Cost about £400 for the family. Or we can drive up there in 3hrs for 17lt fuel, about £20.

There's a good reason why cars are more frequently used than trains by people all over the country outside the cities!

Cheers


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Dude, it's Texas. If it's getting done, it's because no one can show the project will make money (which would not be surprising; almost no rail systems on earth make money). If high speed rail can make money at all, it can make money on LA to Las Vegas. I can imagine politics getting in the way of that, because of certain factors in CA politics. But Texas is another matter entirely.




People HAVE proven it would be profitable.  Studies have shown that high speed rail in this triangle would cut transportation times for most business or political travel between those 3 cities by an hour or so- probably more, post 9/11.  And it would dramatically lessen the traffic load on one of our major interstates (1-35).

The problem is that there are multiple opponents to it- airlines like Southwest, Delta and American; certain gov't agencies that would lose funding; private citizens & corporations who would likely face eminent domain proceedings, etc.- have all raised opposition to the plan.



> Light rail is not cost effective without Manhattan-esque population densities. It's just not. As many cities with nice, new light rail systems that nobody uses can tell you.




Actually, DART has fairly high ridership, and its been relatively profitable with $1 tickets for several years, and only recently upped its rates in order to pay for certain extensions...like those that would go directly to the terminals of our airports.

Again, the main problem has been some of the cities in the Metroplex not wanting to contribute $$$ or to pass bills that would permit the lines to be built.  Some of it is based in legitimate financial concerns, but some of it is purely obstructionist.

The political lobbying to change all of this has, of course, delayed several projects and driven up costs (hence the price increase).


----------



## Orius (Jul 3, 2010)

You got to remember that most of us travel by car unless we fly because going by train means Amtrak.  And Amtrak sucks.  At least that's the prevaling reputation it has.

That and American culture has glamorized the road trip to some extent.  People like to get in the car and drive across the country and see the sights at their own pace.



Bullgrit said:


> RE: Travelling by train -- Once you get to the destination, how do you get around there? That's what's always stumped me with the idea of travelling by train.
> 
> Taxi? I've only ever ridden in a taxi in NYC and Sweden.




Don't you guys have rentals in the south?  If you're planning a trip and taking the train, then rent a car for your stay for local travel.   There should be some rental place around unless you're heading out to some tiny podunk town in the middle of nowhere, and Amtrak don't serve those.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2010)

Don't know what its like in other states, but in Texas, the minimum age to rent a car is 25, so that will hinder some people.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 3, 2010)

Rent a car? That's like renting a woman. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jul 3, 2010)

Orius said:


> That and American culture has glamorized the road trip to some extent.  People like to get in the car and drive across the country and see the sights at their own pace.




And Europe has glorified travelling by train. Coast-to-coast road trip of the USA (preferably in somekinda old american convertible) and travelling randomly through Europe by Interrail are both on my bucket list. I don't really want to drive around Europe and travelling around the USA in a bus has never entered the picture.

I blame media.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 3, 2010)

One day somebody will invent and mass produce a worldwide teleportation system, which would make older bus, rail, air, etc ... travel superfluous or obsolete.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 3, 2010)

My Heisenberg Compensator is in development as we speak.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 3, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> You seem to be speaking for all Europe, but in my experience (which is reasonably large, knowing hundreds of people) the _majority _of the sample which I know in the UK typically travel less far on a regular basis just to see friends than people I know and know of in the US.




True; admittedly I am only speaking for myself and people I know.  But I know quite a lot of people too! 

They travel less far to see friends because their friends tend to live closer (due to the lower rate of actual migration - people don't move so far to live).  However, if friends do live more distant, in my experience it's not a particular obstacle.  I have friends in Spain and the Netherlands who visit me quite casually and frequently; and I know a crapload of people who think nothing of a weekend in various European countries.  Some destinations are more popular, of course (Amsterdam and various Spanish locations), but it's really not uncommon.

A lot of my family lives in Liverpool; my brother in Nottingham.  Admittedly that's only a couple of hundred miles, but it's exactly the distance - "_200 miles is a long way_" - we're talking about here, and not thought of as an issue.  We see each other all the time.  Hell, I used to hop on a train by myself when I was 13 or so to visit my grandma for the night and thought nothing of it.

Certainly in my experience, this is not unusual.  

Perhaps Londoners - like New Yorkers - tend to travel less due to their view that London is all one needs and anything beyond the M25 is a foreig country.


----------



## nerfherder (Jul 4, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Perhaps Londoners - like New Yorkers - tend to travel less due to their view that London is all one needs and anything beyond the M25 is a foreig country.



Heh!  That was certainly my experience when I lived there for 5 years.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 4, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Rent a car? That's like renting a woman.
> 
> Bullgrit




Unless it's a rent-to-own deal...you know...like marriage


----------



## drothgery (Jul 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Don't know what its like in other states, but in Texas, the minimum age to rent a car is 25, so that will hinder some people.




Minimum ages for car rental are set by the car rental companies, not by law (says someone who rented a car @ age 24 in Atlanta for a friend's wedding, though he did get charged extra for it). And generally they just charge you extra, they don't keep you from renting a car (because, for one, people under 25 do occasionally go on business trips).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2010)

drothgery said:


> Minimum ages for car rental are set by the car rental companies, not by law (says someone who rented a car @ age 24 in Atlanta for a friend's wedding, though he did get charged extra for it). And generally they just charge you extra, they don't keep you from renting a car (because, for one, people under 25 do occasionally go on business trips).




While you may have done so, generally speaking, its _illegal_...as in, against the law in most states.  There are exceptions.  Avis has an agreement with the military, for instance, that lets servicemembers 18+ to rent with them.



> Under the age of 25 and want to Rent a Car
> Policies vary from state-to-state, as some states don't allow you to rent cars at all while other invoke additional fees or limitations. It is suggested that you read every state owned policy to make sure it is fully understood what fees and liabilities will be applied.




Texas is one that has an age prohibition.

The thing is, there are enough states with this prohibition that it is economically feasible for the rental companies to just have a general minimum age rental policy.  Again, though, some states have differing laws- NY and Michigan _require_ car rental companies to allow rentals to drivers as young as 18.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...NY and Michigan _require_ car rental companies to allow rentals to drivers as young as 18.




WooHoo, Michigan!

(now if I could only be 18 again...)


----------



## drothgery (Jul 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Texas is one that has an age prohibition.
> 
> The thing is, there are enough states with this prohibition that it is economically feasible for the rental companies to just have a general minimum age rental policy.  Again, though, some states have differing laws- NY and Michigan _require_ car rental companies to allow rentals to drivers as young as 18.




I'm really surprised by that, because I can't think such a law would survive a serious legal challenge (of course, I'm not sure how the drinking age of 21 has held up, either; it seems to me that either 18-year-olds are legal adults or they're not).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2010)

I agree that our country is a bit muddled on what it means to be an adult.

18 = You can vote...and serve in the military and get shot!

21 = You can drink beer legally!

25 = Finally!  You can rent a car!

Seems out of order, doesn't it?

Sure, there are valid statistical reasons for those ages being thresholds for this or that...but dang it, if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be able to drink and drive!

(Just not at the same time, of course.)


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 18 = You can vote...and serve in the military and get shot!




You forgot sex and porn.  The two best adult priveledges/responsibilities on that list by a LONG shot.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure, there are valid statistical reasons for those ages being thresholds for this or that...but dang it, if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be able to drink and drive.




This gets mentioned often, and I'd argue that the problem isn't the drinking age being too high, but the age for joining the military and voting being too low.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 7, 2010)

Welverin said:


> This gets mentioned often, and I'd argue that the problem isn't the drinking age being too high, but the age for joining the military and voting being too low.




I disagree on both.  I voted before I was 21 and did so responsibly, not just picking a bunch of people I knew nothing of, and knew plenty of my peers that did so as well.  And 18 is a reasonable age for the military, when you consider historically that people were fighting at younger ages than that.

I do like keeping the drinking age up, and wish it'd be more vigorously enforced.  My freshman dorm took that law, chugged a few rounds of it, then vomitted all over it.  And then went out to throw a wheelchair around in the hallway, cause apparently that's what drunken idiots do for fun.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 18 = You can vote...and serve in the military and get shot!
> 
> 21 = You can drink beer legally!
> 
> 25 = Finally! You can rent a car!




Admittedly my knowledge only comes from US TV shows, but you let children* drive don't you?

*As in teenagers under the age of 16.


----------



## drothgery (Jul 7, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Admittedly my knowledge only comes from US TV shows, but you let children* drive don't you?
> 
> *As in teenagers under the age of 16.




Driving ages vary by state, but usually you can get a license at 16. Historically, rural states tended to have lower driving ages, but I don't know if that's still the case. In many states, there are restrictions on your license until you're 18, and your driver's license will clearly indicate that you're under 21 (since at least in the US, driver's licenses are what most people use for a photo ID).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2010)

In most states, a kid 16 or older can get a driver's license.  However, it may have restrictions- only with a licensed driver over 18; only between 7AM and 10PM; only within certain physical boundaries.

Rural areas commonly have relaxed rules on this, especially for driving farm equipment, and those drivers can be as young as 14.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 8, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I disagree on both.  I voted before I was 21 and did so responsibly, not just picking a bunch of people I knew nothing of, and knew plenty of my peers that did so as well.  And 18 is a reasonable age for the military, when you consider historically that people were fighting at younger ages than that.




Historically people did everything at younger ages, doesn't make it reasonable now.



> I do like keeping the drinking age up, and wish it'd be more vigorously enforced.  My freshman dorm took that law, chugged a few rounds of it, then vomitted all over it.  And then went out to throw a wheelchair around in the hallway, cause apparently that's what drunken idiots do for fun.




Doesn't speak well for the responsibleness of eighteen yearolds.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 8, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Admittedly my knowledge only comes from US TV shows, but you let children* drive don't you?
> 
> *As in teenagers under the age of 16.



As with every question regarding laws in the US, the answer is "depends on the state". I can give you the answers for California, but I don't have a clue how it works in other states.

In California, you can get a learner's permit at the age of 15 1/2, and get a full license at the age of 16. However, both of these are under pretty strict regulation, requiring the teenager to have gone through a driver's education and training courses, and severely limiting when and how that teenager can drive. At 18, you can get past the limits of a provisional license and get a real driver's license. The children of professional farmers can operate farming vehicles, but there are a number of restrictions on that which I am not 100% certain of (and I'd rather not visit my local branch of the DMV to check). Of course, all of this applies only to public roads, so you can do basically whatever you like on private land and private roads...

On a side note, this brings up another pretty big point of difference between Americans and Europeans. Europeans tend to think of laws (and many other things) as being a country-based affair, so they always talk about "American laws" and such, even though the vast majority of laws that govern day-to-day life in the US are at the state level. There is no federal law against murder in the US, instead each individual state has made murder illegal using their own laws, and some of these are actually quite different in their specifics. Even things like driver's licenses don't cross over very well. A driver's license from Nevada has about the same weight in California as a driver's license from France would (it gives you the legal right to drive, but only for a grace period after your arrival during which you need to get a California license).


----------



## Orius (Jul 8, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I do like keeping the drinking age up, and wish it'd be more vigorously enforced.  My freshman dorm took that law, chugged a few rounds of it, then vomitted all over it.  And then went out to throw a wheelchair around in the hallway, cause apparently that's what drunken idiots do for fun.




I think what's really needed isn't so much an arbitrary age, but rather an expectation of responsibilities.  So it doesn't bother me if the drinking age is at 18, as long as drinkers that age are held to the same standards as adults.  Naturally there's going to be a problem if legal drinking at 18 leads to (well more) college binge drinking.  Even now with the age at 21, a lot of people seem to think you spend your 21st birthday going to the bar and getting smashed without having to use a fake ID.  It's not just booze either, but things like tobacco, sex, etc.  You're considered an adult now, so try to act like one, and it's not a suggestion.  



TwinBahamut said:


> On a side note, this brings up another pretty big point of difference between Americans and Europeans. Europeans tend to think of laws (and many other things) as being a country-based affair, so they always talk about "American laws" and such, even though the vast majority of laws that govern day-to-day life in the US are at the state level. There is no federal law against murder in the US, instead each individual state has made murder illegal using their own laws, and some of these are actually quite different in their specifics. Even things like driver's licenses don't cross over very well. A driver's license from Nevada has about the same weight in California as a driver's license from France would (it gives you the legal right to drive, but only for a grace period after your arrival during which you need to get a California license).




Yeah, a lot of everyday matters are delegated to the states rather than the federal government.  Many time the states do the same things, particularly with criminal law enforcement, but in other areas like say driver's licenses, education, guns, and so on, they sometime differ.  It frees up the federal government from having micromanage a lot of stuff by delegating responsibilities, which would be more difficult in a country as large as the US. At least, I consider that an advantage with my political views, that and state governments are a bit more repsonsive to the public than the federal government.  Though sometimes the feds use spending to force the states to do what they want anyway (that's how we got the drinking age at 21 for all states, Washington threatened to withhold funding for highways if the states didn't comply).  This page explains it fairly well: 

American Federalism - Television Tropes & Idioms

Anyway, it's probably similar to the breakdowns between the EU and its member states, except that the American states aren't sovereign nations.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 8, 2010)

When a fire breaks out in the Principality of Sealand , the whole "country" is affected.


----------

