• clif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    This is actually pretty similar to what some coworkers visiting from EU wanted to do.

    They were here on a two week work trip and I asked them what they were doing for their weekend. It was something like “We rented a car and are going to go to New Orleans, then to Nashville, up to New York City, over to the Grand canyon, and maybe San Francisco if we have time before we head back to the office”

    I had to explain that the state we were in was larger than their country and they couldn’t cover that much ground in two days even if they only drove and didn’t stop once.

    We had a good laugh and then just did a hike on Saturday :)

    Edit : “in Europe 100km is a long distance and in the US 100 years is a long time”. Forget where I heard that but it seems accurate

    • bier@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      I once saw a post from an American guy visiting family in Germany. They borrowed him a car so he could visit other family about 400KM away.

      The family that owned the car spend an entire day getting it checked out by a mechanic, making sure all the fluids where fine, getting the tire pressure just right, etc.

      He thought it was pretty funny because he drove double that distance every week just to go to work.

        • Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 days ago

          That’s gonna be a while. Current speed record from what I see for passenger trains is around 350 miles per hour. The quick math I did for getting from NYC to Miami in 45 minutes needed like 1,700mph. From what I’m seeing even the experimental stuff right now doesn’t get above 400mph.

            • GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              4 days ago

              There were a lot of things we couldn’t do in an SR-71, but we were the fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of this fact. People often asked us if, because of this fact, it was fun to fly the jet. Fun would not be the first word I would use to describe flying this plane. Intense, maybe. Even cerebral. But there was one day in our Sled experience when we would have to say that it was pure fun to be the fastest guys out there, at least for a moment. It occurred when Walt and I were flying our final training sortie. We needed 100 hours in the jet to complete our training and attain Mission Ready status. Somewhere over Colorado we had passed the century mark. We had made the turn in Arizona and the jet was performing flawlessly. My gauges were wired in the front seat and we were starting to feel pretty good about ourselves, not only because we would soon be flying real missions but because we had gained a great deal of confidence in the plane in the past ten months. Ripping across the barren deserts 80,000 feet below us, I could already see the coast of California from the Arizona border. I was, finally, after many humbling months of simulators and study, ahead of the jet. I was beginning to feel a bit sorry for Walter in the back seat. There he was, with no really good view of the incredible sights before us, tasked with monitoring four different radios. This was good practice for him for when we began flying real missions, when a priority transmission from headquarters could be vital. It had been difficult, too, for me to relinquish control of the radios, as during my entire flying career I had controlled my own transmissions. But it was part of the division of duties in this plane and I had adjusted to it. I still insisted on talking on the radio while we were on the ground, however. Walt was so good at many things, but he couldn’t match my expertise at sounding smooth on the radios, a skill that had been honed sharply with years in fighter squadrons where the slightest radio miscue was grounds for beheading. He understood that and allowed me that luxury. Just to get a sense of what Walt had to contend with, I pulled the radio toggle switches and monitored the frequencies along with him. The predominant radio chatter was from Los Angeles Center, far below us, controlling daily traffic in their sector. While they had us on their scope (albeit briefly), we were in uncontrolled airspace and normally would not talk to them unless we needed to descend into their airspace. We listened as the shaky voice of a lone Cessna pilot asked Center for a readout of his ground speed. Center replied: “November Charlie 175, I’m showing you at ninety knots on the ground.” Now the thing to understand about Center controllers, was that whether they were talking to a rookie pilot in a Cessna, or to Air Force One, they always spoke in the exact same, calm, deep, professional, tone that made one feel important. I referred to it as the ” Houston Center voice.” I have always felt that after years of seeing documentaries on this country’s space program and listening to the calm and distinct voice of the Houston controllers, that all other controllers since then wanted to sound like that, and that they basically did. And it didn’t matter what sector of the country we would be flying in, it always seemed like the same guy was talking. Over the years that tone of voice had become somewhat of a comforting sound to pilots everywhere. Conversely, over the years, pilots always wanted to ensure that, when transmitting, they sounded like Chuck Yeager, or at least like John Wayne. Better to die than sound bad on the radios. Just moments after the Cessna’s inquiry, a Twin Beech piped up on frequency, in a rather superior tone, asking for his ground speed. “I have you at one hundred and twenty-five knots of ground speed.” Boy, I thought, the Beechcraft really must think he is dazzling his Cessna brethren. Then out of the blue, a navy F-18 pilot out of NAS Lemoore came up on frequency. You knew right away it was a Navy jock because he sounded very cool on the radios. “Center, Dusty 52 ground speed check”. Before Center could reply, I’m thinking to myself, hey, Dusty 52 has a ground speed indicator in that million-dollar cockpit, so why is he asking Center for a readout? Then I got it, ol’ Dusty here is making sure that every bug smasher from Mount Whitney to the Mojave knows what true speed is. He’s the fastest dude in the valley today, and he just wants everyone to know how much fun he is having in his new Hornet. And the reply, always with that same, calm, voice, with more distinct alliteration than emotion: “Dusty 52, Center, we have you at 620 on the ground.” And I thought to myself, is this a ripe situation, or what? As my hand instinctively reached for the mic button, I had to remind myself that Walt was in control of the radios. Still, I thought, it must be done – in mere seconds we’ll be out of the sector and the opportunity will be lost. That Hornet must die, and die now. I thought about all of our Sim training and how important it was that we developed well as a crew and knew that to jump in on the radios now would destroy the integrity of all that we had worked toward becoming. I was torn. Somewhere, 13 miles above Arizona, there was a pilot screaming inside his space helmet. Then, I heard it. The click of the mic button from the back seat. That was the very moment that I knew Walter and I had become a crew. Very professionally, and with no emotion, Walter spoke: “Los Angeles Center, Aspen 20, can you give us a ground speed check?” There was no hesitation, and the replay came as if was an everyday request. “Aspen 20, I show you at one thousand eight hundred and forty-two knots, across the ground.” I think it was the forty-two knots that I liked the best, so accurate and proud was Center to deliver that information without hesitation, and you just knew he was smiling. But the precise point at which I knew that Walt and I were going to be really good friends for a long time was when he keyed the mic once again to say, in his most fighter-pilot-like voice: “Ah, Center, much thanks, we’re showing closer to nineteen hundred on the money.” For a moment Walter was a god. And we finally heard a little crack in the armor of the Houston Center voice, when L.A.came back with, “Roger that Aspen, Your equipment is probably more accurate than ours. You boys have a good one.” It all had lasted for just moments, but in that short, memorable sprint across the southwest, the Navy had been flamed, all mortal airplanes on freq were forced to bow before the King of Speed, and more importantly, Walter and I had crossed the threshold of being a crew. A fine day’s work. We never heard another transmission on that frequency all the way to the coast. For just one day, it truly was fun being the fastest guys out there.

            • EldritchFemininity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Laughs in supercruise

              Concorde is a tailless aircraft design with a narrow fuselage permitting four-abreast seating for 92 to 128 passengers, an ogival delta wing, and a droop nose for landing visibility. It is powered by four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 turbojets with variable engine intake ramps, and reheat for take-off and acceleration to supersonic speed. Constructed from aluminium, it was the first airliner to have analogue fly-by-wire flight controls. The airliner had transatlantic range while supercruising at twice the speed of sound for 75% of the distance.[5]

              The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996, aided by a 175 mph (282 km/h) tailwind, by the British Airways G-BOAD, in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from take-off to touchdown.[227] On 13 February 1985, a Concorde charter flight flew from London Heathrow to Sydney in a time of 17 hours, 3 minutes and 45 seconds, including refuelling stops.[228][229]

              Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft without using afterburner. Many supersonic military aircraft are not capable of supercruise and can maintain Mach 1+ flight only in short bursts with afterburners. Aircraft such as the SR-71 Blackbird are designed to cruise at supersonic speed with afterburners enabled.

              Some fighter jets are capable of supercruise but only at high altitudes and in a clean configuration, so the term may imply “a significant increase in effective combat speed with a full weapons load over existing types”.[1] One of the pre-eminent military examples of supercruise is the F-22 Raptor, for which supercruise was defined as “the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration.”[2]

              One of the best-known examples of an aircraft capable of supercruise, and the only notable non-military example, was the Concorde. Due to its long service as a commercial airliner, the Concorde holds the record for the most time spent supersonic; more than all other western aircraft combined.[3]

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Speed doesn’t hurt. Acceleration does. As long as it’s made to accelerate reasonably slowly to reach that speed, you’ll be fine.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      Their low-soeed can’t even stay on the rails. I think it may be some time before the once masters of rail enter the current century.

    • nocturne@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      I looked at taking a train from Albuquerque to Denver for a concert, the trip takes 2-3 days and goes from Albuquerque toto Chicago to Denver and one way cost more than a round trip flight. For reference, it is a 7ish hour drive.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey - and if you’re not into that then I get how you feel. Amtrak has been doing a great job at refocusing on corridors. The east coast obviously, then they’re working hard on a few key ones like:

        • Minneapolis to Chicago
        • Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
        • California corridor
        • Eventually, here’s hoping, the Frontrange: Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Fort Collins-Cheyenne.

        Those are all shorter trips that don’t make much sense to fly with how short it is, and with a few daily trips makes traveling between those cities much easier. Personally those are much better usages of Amtrak’s time. I’ve taken the Portland-Seattle-Vancouver one multiple times and it’s so much nicer than driving - but it’s max 4 hours.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          I wish they’d upgrade their long haul routes to go faster. There’s one from SLC to SF I’m interested in, but it takes 18 hours, vs 11 by car or 2 by plane. If it was faster than driving, I’d consider it to avoid the airport.

          I don’t blame them for focusing on the easier trips though.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Same, but with the limited funding I get why. Shorter trips like that make money, long hauls don’t - and since they don’t own the tracks they can’t even upgrade them or begin to do anything. I will say 18 is a lot (especially in a coach seat), but there is a positive of not having to drive. I usually take my steam deck and just zone out. Overnights though are tough in coach, for that you really have to want to be there.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah, if I want to go anywhere interesting, it would be an overnight trip, with kids. A sleeping room is way too expensive, so it’s a nonstarter. If it was 3x the speed, it would probably be fine, especially if they left in the morning instead of the evening.

              So yeah, the only train I take is the commuter, and only to go to the airport because there’s no connection from the train to my work (there’s a way to get there, but the trip would take 2 hours each way). The commuter can’t go very fast because it has to stop every 5-10 miles, but it’s fine since it goes about as fast as a car.

              So yeah, here’s hoping Amtrak can make enough on the east coast to be able to upgrade the west coast.

        • nocturne@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey

          I get that, but I was looking for an alternative to driving 14 hours round trip. Even if the trip took 7 hours each way, I am not driving it. But to go from 7 hours to 45 hours is insane. For a show on the 5th of November in Denver I have to leave Albuquerque on the 3rd, then leave Denver on the 6th to get back home on the 8th. $171 for the cheap seats each way.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        I live near SLC and go get to San Francisco is about 18 hours, and that’s a straight shot. Coach costs about $120, each way, which is about the same price as a non-budget airline. There’s only one train each day and it runs from midnight to about 6PM the next day.

        By car it’s about 11 hours and about 2 hours by airplane.

        So it’s:

        • slower
        • not cheaper, perhaps more expensive if you don’t mind budget flights
        • less flexible - one train/day in most cases

        There are tons of places I just can’t get to, like Las Vegas.

        If I was retired or something when spending more time was totally fine, I’d consider taking the train. But as it stands, it’s just not a practical option unless the train is the destination.

  • QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I sadly see this all the time unironically. Met a German family who arrived in North Carolina with plans to go to Disney Land. Not World. Land

    “Isn’t California just on the other side of the country?”

    Yeah it is

      • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        4 days ago

        America is pretty unique in size. If you’re used to shorter trips even overestimating wouldn’t be half the drive through america. Especially Europeans as a long drive is anything over 20m when its measured in hours they’re considering booking accommodations for sleep and such. The perception of time is incredibly different.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s the second biggest “Western” country. It’s about twice as big as the EU, about as big as the whole of Europe with about the same population, so it’s mostly empty in the middle.

            The obverse would be an American who wants to go to Europe, start out in Madrid, lunch in Copenhagen and fly back from Istambul.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              But the US isn’t unique in size. It’s right next to two big countries, with Canada being even bigger, Europeand are familiar with Russia that’s the biggest country in the world, it’s not like people don’t know about China, Brazil and how they’re yuge…

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 days ago

                Technically the US is unique in size. Name another nation that is 9.8 million km2. Canada is 10 million km2,Russia is 17.1 million km2, China is is 9.6 million…

                So to say it is ‘unique in size’ is technically correct, the best kind of correct!

        • copd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          European here, although our countries are smaller. 20 mins is quite obviously a short drive.

          UK is pretty small but it still takes 7 Hours to get from Glasgow to london and I can’t imagine anyone booking overnight accommodation for that drive. That’s two major cities with 100% motorway/freeway driving, I haven’t even brought up Cornwall.

          I drive 5h for family within England on a monthly basis.

          Your comment is naive.

          • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Eh id still be inclined to stay over in Manchester or something to break that up, especially on holiday.

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            My family that still lives there stay overnight for trips like that. Me on the other hand: drove across Canada and would drive 4 hours, nap for 20 minutes, repeat…because hotels were expensive and my plan of campsite tenting overnight was just too much setup and take down after the first day.

  • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    4 days ago

    Conversely, I, as an American who had the opportunity to spend a few months in Germany, was surprised at how close all the countries were.

    Great culture in all the places I went (Brussels and Prague were my two standout favorites!) Traveling was hella cheap. The food was fire everywhere I went. The architecture was INCREDIBLE. And the knowledge that you could go to the hospital for less than $100 was nuts. Don’t even get me started on how legitimately cool it is to sit in a 1000 year old pub.

    I didn’t want to come back. I nearly cried when I got the return flight info.

    It still shocks me to tell people “Yeah, I lived in Germany for a bit and some weekends we would fuck off to France.”

    • BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I submitted a job application once to Freiburg. One of the main reasons was that if I’m unhappy with the food selection, both France and Switzerland is something like 20kms away

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 days ago

      The borders of European countries are great because there’s all this security infrastructure that they’ve built but then they don’t use any of it. There’s always just a bunch of ballads and you have to drive around little security checkpoints but there’s never anyone around.

      My personal favourite is Geneva which is kind of just an extended bit of Switzerland because the city was already there, but really by any logical sense it should be in France. So they deal with that by basically just ignoring it, and people just pop to and fro all the time.

      • untorquer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 days ago

        There are often crossings where the infrastructure is a road-side sign. Interstate crossings at state borders are often more significant.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I loved Prague too. Had a local guide that took me to cool places, I drank a lot. 👍

        • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Sorry, I should have tagged it properly.

          Warning! Sarcasm ahead.

          <sarcasm>Ahem, it’s the Gulf of America. Please get your facts right</sarcasm>

          Edit: Jerboa eating me tags. Let us try it this way:

          <sarcasm>Ahem, it’s the Gulf of America. Please get your facts right</sarcasm>

          Edit2: <p contenteditable=“true”>while we’re at it, why not try <mark>further</mark></p>

          Edit3: Thanks for the gold, kind <del>strangler</del> <ins>stranger</ins>

        • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s a lazy joke that the other person already made better.

          The sarcasm/joke is obvious, it just wasn’t funny.

        • ⛓️‍💥@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          There is absolutely no way to determine if somebody is being facetious or serious over the Internet without further context. (Use a damn /s ffs)

            • optional@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              77 million people voted for trump in 2024. Even if you subtract the 50% that can’t write, that leaves more than 38 million people who could seriously say this on Lemmy. Don’t pretend that the orange clown ruined the country all by himself.

        • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Nope, it’s the Gulf of America. He said so. Now quit your anti-US retorics lest you be deported.

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Is this one of those weird maps with the equator going through Florida?

          Gondor is going to need a lot more aid to move that gulf to the middle…

        • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          <blockquote>🎵 Nobody call it Gulf of America, but rules don’t matter, no 🎵</blockquote> <p>Bakon</p>

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days ago

        Miles originated in Britain, so talk to them about their made-up nonsense.

        At least they were eventually willing to give up the imperial system. I still don’t understand why Americans never got on board with metric; it’s so much easier.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Just watched a video which explains a few things.

          Time zones start in UK because of some decent reasoning. France was also a contender for where timezones start for the same kinds of reasoning but conceded it in agreement that UK adopts the new metric system they created

        • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah, 'Muricans be like “B-but… the Brits…”

          Like, yeah. They moved on. They evolved, changed their ways. USians hanging on to legacy units

      • adhocfungus@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        If I remember my conversions right then a mile is 5280 kilometers. I hope that helps explain why Europeans would fear such a distance!

        • lemmyknow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          Tf. Why would anyone have a unit for that

          “A benpu is 327 meters!”

          …wait a minute… am I being made a fool of? Can’t tell, cuz I don’t comprehend dumb units. I’d legit buy that as a real thing, given how stupid those tend to be

          • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            A US customary mile is 5280 US customary feet. 1 US customary foot is 12 US customary inches. 1 US customary inch is 25.4mm. So a US customary mile is 1609344mm, exactly. It derives from the roman “mille passus”, literally 1000 paces, where a pace is the distance between two impacts of the left (or right) foot of a Roman soldier on the march. Quite a few other cultures used a “mile” of some sort even after the fall of Rome, for example the old British imperial mile was 1760 British imperial yards, one British imperial yard predated the definition of the meter but was most precisely measured to be 0.914398415m, so the British imperial mile was 1609341.21mm. Other culture’s miles varied even more than this.

  • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Had a friend from SE Asia that wanted to visit me in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She found a flight to Canada alright. To VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA. She asked if I could come pick her up if I wasn’t too busy.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        4 days ago

        3? I had a few crewmates cross the country in about 5 and they said that was a gruelling task that they should have slowed down for.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          If you go through the US, Google Maps tells me about 56 hours, or 18-19 hours/day if you’re doing it in 3. If you go through Canada only, add about 3 hours. I think Google Maps estimates are a bit generous on time esp. if you’re comfortable exceeding the speed limit a bit, so maybe you could do it in 50 hours.

          It’s doable in 3, but it wouldn’t be fun at all. I’ve done 14+ hours driving in a day (so 4 days?), and it sucks, so yeah, 5 might be a bit too much as well.

          • rumba@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 days ago

            The most I’ve done continuously is 12. No stops but for gas, visiting my GF at college decades ago.

            I’ve done 18 with the kids in the car. We made it to Disney at sun up and I lost the first day being to tired to go to the damn park. The kids slept overnight, but my wife and I were cooked.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 days ago

              I’ve done 14 fairly often but doing that every day would suck. I’m usually fine the next day (I do all the driving because I’d otherwise get carsick), but I don’t think I’d be fine for 3 days.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            A family member went ottawa-vancouver in 54 hours of driving - and this was using i-90 in America. The time estimates can be a bit off.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          According to Google Maps, it’s about 56 hours. Can’t quite squeeze it into two days, but you could get close. If you’re able to sustain 50% over the speed limit, you could maybe do it in 48 hours, with fuel refills.

  • nocturne@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    When I was in college at Eastern New Mexico, which is about 45 minutes west of Amarillo Texas, a couple friends, both from New England, had the bright idea of driving down to the gulf over a 4 day weekend.

    I cautioned them against the idea, trying to explain Texas was bigger than they could imagine. Three hours into the trip we got a motel room in some hole in the wall town and went back to school the next morning.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 days ago

      What? It takes 24 hours to drive from the Canadian border to Mexico border. Texas is about 770 miles at its widest, that’s a breezy 10-12 hour drive doing the speed limit or just over.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah so nearly half their weekend driving…through Texas. One of the most boring places to drive through.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 days ago

            The only place I’ve driven for multiple hours that was worse than Texas was Nevada. Even rural Indiana is a huge upgrade and that place stinks from soy bean processing (I think?)

            Michigan and California are incredible.

            Looking at Saskatchewan…I dunno man, looks really pretty to me!

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Compared to the other provinces, it’s just flat farm fields. When the rapeseed (canola) is blooming it can look pretty, but it’s just yellow flowers for HOURS, no variety.

              Edit, oh and for six months it’s white with snow, and the highway is dead straight, it’s hard to stay awake for the six hours.

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 days ago

                Sounds like huge swaths of the Midwest US. My friend got into a wreck for the same reason you described (thankfully no one was hurt)

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Northern Nevada sucks, but southern Nevada near Vegas is fine since it has cool rock structures and whatnot, provided you avoid rush hour.

              I hate most of California because traffic is so awful, but north of SF is pretty.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Coming from a place with no desert or “beaches”, the sand is a cool difference from the rest of the drive down from Canada.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Wait, you’re driving south through Nevada? Do yourself a favor and go east to I-15 or west to I-5, both are orders of magnitude better than going north/south through Nevada…

                  The only time I drive through Nevada is either from SLC to Lake Tahoe (northern Nevada) or SLC to Vegas/LA (southern tip of Nevada) because the alternative takes way longer.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        You’re assuming no traffic in major cities. I’ve gone from close to the Louisiana border to new Mexico and it took about 16 hours.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Do most cities not have bypasses? In Canada even most small towns have a bypass so you avoid the traffic lights.

          It’s mostly for the semi traffic, the stopping and stopping ruins the roads, so they have a highway going around town to avoid that.

          • village604@adultswim.fan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Those highways are often very congested too. It can take like 2 hours just to drive through Houston, even using the loops/beltways

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I guess, but arguably you would only hit one in the day, and the chances of it being during rush hour is slim, can always plan better around that stuff too. Or take secondary highways. There’s not only a single highway going places.

          • Best_Jeanist@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Nope, in America through-traffic goes right through the city center. Fortunately, many cities have innovated to solve this problem by bulldozing their city centers to build more stroads

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              That’s not true in many parts of the country. It’s very much a mixed bag. Look at San Antonio, 410 goes around the city and connects the various highways so you don’t need to go through the city center to drive past the city. In Seattle, 405 was intended to do that for Seattle to avoid 15, but then Bellevue got huge. In SLC, we have 215.

              Beltroutes are common across the country and are designed to solve exactly this problem.

              Stroads are a different problem unconnected to highways going through cities. In fact, they’re often the old highways that went through town and became a stroad when the highway was built. We then built more of them because people liked driving cars to their destination instead of walking or taking transit.

              The best possible bypass won’t solve the stroad problem or congestion in the city center. What we need is a complete redesign of what a city center means, which I think should be:

              • exits for a city only at the edges, and no reasonable way to cut through the city
              • tons of free parking at the edge of cities and cheap or free transit from the edge to the city center
              • fantastic mass transit inside of cities
              • car free zone in downtown, so the only way to get there is transit or walking/cycling

              If we can do that, we can rip out stroads to make room for more density in attractions. Keep some roads for trucks to make deliveries and whatnot, and convert the rest to walkable streets.

              • Horsecook@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                Beltroutes are common across the country and are designed to solve exactly this problem.

                Not true. Beltroutes and bypasses are built with exits every mile. The land along them is immediately rezoned for development. They’re always intended as (sub)urban expansion. It’s a scam to get Federal funding for local transportation infrastructure.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Having exits isn’t the same as “driving through downtown.”

                  I do agree that we should redo how highways work, and part of that is having fewer exits, but what causes slowdowns isn’t the quantity of exits, but the ability to get almost everywhere in a car. In other words, the number of exits are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The highway infrastructure is in the right place much of the time, the issue is the rest of the infrastructure.

                  We don’t need more bypasses or lanes, we need driving to be less convenient than transit and walking for short trips. I think one simple change would improve things greatly: cut major arteries in the middle to prevent getting from one edge of the city to the other quickly by car. Basically, restrict those areas to delivery trucks, buses, and emergency services, and force the rest of the traffic to filter through side streets. Just that amount of inconvenience would push a bunch of people to use transit instead, and the areas cut off could be converted to a street.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        I went on a cross Canada car drive in the early 2000s. We left from Sudbury Ontario to make it to the west coast in BC. We took our time, sight seeing and making many stops along the way. Ten days later we made it to Vancouver.

        The best part was that on our sixth day, we ran into a friend in Medicine Hat, Alberta. He had left Kapuskasing, Ontario the day before and was expecting to make it to Vancouver in about 60 hours with non stop driving. His eyes were so blood shot and he was literally shaking from all the caffeine drinks, pills and coffee he had been taking. He had some strangers with him that he had picked up as hitch hikers and he said they were keeping him awake.

        We worried about him the whole time but he called us two days later to say he made it. We caught up with him three days later.

    • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      West Texas alone is an 8 hours between Las Cruces and San Antonio, and it’s the same damn rock and shrub for the entire 8 hours.

      • nocturne@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        We were headed Portales to Corpus Christi, which according to Apple Maps is about 9 1/2 hours. We did not have Apple Maps then, we had Rand McNally. So at best it would have taken us 11 hours. And yes everything looked the same.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Remember that mapping programs only give “travel time”, not “total trip time.” that 19 hour drive from NY to FL is 19 hours in the car, on the highway. Realistically, that’s a 2-3 day trip.

      FL to NV is, likewise, 37 hours on the highway. So, same as your office job for a week, but instead of working you’re just driving in a car.

      • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        With a little elbow grease and knowing where cops might be, you could work those numbers down. ;)

        I have to have the road trip conversation with friends before we do anything. It’s like, do we want to make this leisurely and the drive is fun, because that’s going to need an itinerary and planned stops, or is the destination all that matters? Because I can make that 37 hour drive in about 38, give or take. Most of the time, I’d prefer it that way. Roadside destinations and ‘gotta stop here’ restaurants are always pretty lame, in my experience.

        • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Ah, to be young and childless and have sufficient privilege where staying awake for a day and a half doesn’t mess you up for the whole week

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I had relatives over from wales visiting my grandmother in canberra. "Come, drive up for the day! "

    Bitch i live in melbourne. The drive alone is longer than your entire “kingdom”

    • Geobloke@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Ha, I had to drive 8 hours to get to the nearest airport when some one on site had a personal emergency

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Nope.

        Victoria (Australia): About 228,000 km².
        United Kingdom: About 243,610 km².
        England: About 130,281 km².

        Wales is a part of the UK, the “kingdom” of which i speak. Or did you think i was talking of the lands of Llywelyn the last?

        (Btw: the uk is about 600km long. Melbs to canberra is 665km)

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        It’s a constituent country of UK. Principality ended in the mid 1500s, and became an official country in 2011.