UK Compared to the Size of the US

[telophase]

I found this site comparing the UK to the US just now, and the map was quite interesting. (I have no idea if the statistics are true or not) I grabbed a screenshot of the UK centered on Texas, to give you a idea of how big it is.





So. You see Fort Worth there? That's where I live. See Bryan, down south and a little east? That's where my mom lives, a 3 to 3.5 hour drive (depending on traffic). See Houston, even father southeast? That's where myrialux's job is - although he telecommutes, he still has to go down there periodically. About 4 hours-ish.

San Antonio is where I was to university, about 3.5 hours from Bryan. Victoria, where my grandparents live, is about 3 hours southwest of Bryan.

Nuevo Laredo, on the border, is where my group of friends used to go once a year, rent a hotel room on the US side, and go across the border to a bar a block or two away from the border, then stagger back late at night. :) We do it no more because of the drug-gang violence and a possible serial killer in the area (reputed to be working there before the drug violence started, but it might just be more drug-gang violence). And yes, we'd drive there from Dallas/Fort Worth.

And people wonder why I'm willing to spend all sorts of time on trains traveling around the UK. Where I'm from, it's a minimum of 3 hours to go anywhere and you have to drive yourself! It's sheer luxury to sit in a seat and let someone else do the driving while you get to watch unfamiliar scenery go by. So it's not on time? Who cares! It's a vacation!

:)

Comments

[wyrdness.livejournal.com]

Hehe. This reminds me of a casual conversation with my housemate and I was on about how I didn't get why trains didn't seem to be a huge and convenient thing over there and everyone always complains about having to drive everywhere, since over here in the UK they pretty much get us anywhere "long distance" (or short for that matter) and I don't feel the need to ever learn to drive or own a car. My housemate gave me a strange look and then I realised that my scale of long distance was seemingly insignificant with American long distances and trains aren't that big of a deal because to get anywhere else in a timely fashion you really need to fly.

Sometimes I r dumb XD

[telophase.livejournal.com]

Yup! There's trains all over the place, but they're all cargo trains, not passenger trains. And it costs about the same to take a train as to fly, and takes much longer. Example: friend of ours in Dallas are going to celebrate their anniversary in Las Vegas and are contemplating taking the train (Amtrak. The only passenger train out here). Problem is, there is no direct train from Dallas to Vegas. You have to take the train to Los Angeles, someplace in Illinois, or someplace in Missouri, and transfer to the Vegas train. And it takes 48 hours. Whereas if you fly, it's the same cost or a little less and you're there in less than four hours.

That being said there's some train routes, mostly in the Southwest or in the Northeast of the country, that you can actually use to get places or that are scenic journeys in and of themselves, but overall, train travel pretty much sucks ass here.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

Last time I checked a few train trips in the US that did have direct routes, they a) cost the same as flying and b) took the same time as driving (possibly because so many routes involve A FRIGGING BUS). It's like a lose-lose, unless you're phobic! I do want to take the Coast Starlight for kicks up to Seattle someday, but ... eugh.

And yeah, those darned freight trains get priority on the tracks, so even a route that doesn't involve buses will run late and slow ...