Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t...
by masklinn on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @05:07AM
(#19552275)
> Although according to Google Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000. Probably a more realistic comparison would be Bristol and Southampton/Portsmouth where there is realistically 1 train an hour (technically 2, but the second one has a change and runs 8 minutes after the first one).
OTOH between Macon (pop 34000) and Lyon (pop 500000) there is up to 4 trains / hour at commute times (1 an hour otherwise), over a slightly longer distance.
Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t...
by ovi256 on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:34AM
(#19552122)
>Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000
You really have to look at the metro population.
Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t...
by mikekchar on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @04:48AM
(#19552180)
London has a population of over 8 million and 14 million for the metro population. I was trying to pick something that had even close to a similar population density of of Washington Baltimore in the UK. Comparing to London is like comparing to NYC.
Re:Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other t...
by richardhod on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @09:43AM
(#19563218)
that's a story and a half you could tell. No buses? And I wonder why blablacar hasn't taken off in the UK
Comparing trains from London is not really fair because virtually every train in the south ends up in London eventually. Somewhat tragically, I once tried to take a train from Watford to visit Hatfield House, some 14 miles away. I think it took me 3 hours getting in and out of London :-)