Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paris metro is miles more comfortable and pleasant than prison-like NYC subways.
I'm not so sure that I would agree. The Metro in Rome isn't so hot, either.
Quote:
Smaller towns? You compare American cities with half a million people with small EU towns with 150? Check out Montpellier or Grenoble etc. they have less than 250k people yet an extensive tram system more advanced than San Francisco. Munich with 1.4m people has a larger system than Chicago or Los angles.
Croatia, you mean the country with a per capa GDP of 13k, less than half of Mississippi, vs 55k of the US?
My point is that it doesn't matter where you go in this world, not everywhere is served by mass transit. There are cities in the US with far better mass transit than equivalent cities in Europe. While you eschew the NYC subway, I'd point out that it has been a 24/7 operation for decades, and the Tube is JUST coming online with LIMITED 24/7 service and a union that is striking over it, causing problems for everyone.
Quote:
Plus that's not even the point. The point was many Americans believe the world is backwards, when a lot of it is much more advanced than the US itself. And that does stop with public transit. Most American airports look outright embarrassingly in bad shape for example. LaGuadia looks more like a bus terminal and LAX feels like an airport from a second tier Chinese city in 2000. There's so much pee on the streets of San Fran that the city has to install pee-repelling materials on the wall.
Actually T5 at LAX is Verrrrryyyy nice these days. LaGuardia is getting a 3.6 billion dollar upgrade. Have you ever been in FCO? Total hellhole. CDG is probably the most unnecessarily complicated cluster in the world. Unless you are fortunate enough to be flying first or business, LHR is a nightmare.
Venice stinks, Paris is as dirty as Philly, and the touts and beggars in Rome are far more aggressive than in any US city, and the pickpockets are far worse in Barcelona than just about anywhere on the planet.
I'm not so sure that I would agree. The Metro in Rome isn't so hot, either.
My point is that it doesn't matter where you go in this world, not everywhere is served by mass transit. There are cities in the US with far better mass transit than equivalent cities in Europe. While you eschew the NYC subway, I'd point out that it has been a 24/7 operation for decades, and the Tube is JUST coming online with LIMITED 24/7 service and a union that is striking over it, causing problems for everyone.
Actually T5 at LAX is Verrrrryyyy nice these days. LaGuardia is getting a 3.6 billion dollar upgrade. Have you ever been in FCO? Total hellhole. CDG is probably the most unnecessarily complicated cluster in the world. Unless you are fortunate enough to be flying first or business, LHR is a nightmare.
Venice stinks, Paris is as dirty as Philly, and the touts and beggars in Rome are far more aggressive than in any US city, and the pickpockets are far worse in Barcelona than just about anywhere on the planet.
There is no where in the world that is perfect.
You do seem to have it for Venice- based on how much experience?
My daughter has been living near to there and visited regularly, including recently during the recent heatwave and did not find where she was objectionable.
I don't deny that you did have an unpleasant experience, but you do seem to be making a rather sweeping statement.
You do seem to have it for Venice- based on how much experience?
My daughter has been living near to there and visited regularly, including recently during the recent heatwave and did not find where she was objectionable.
I don't deny that you did have an unpleasant experience, but you do seem to be making a rather sweeping statement.
Face it, regardless of the law, a good number of Venetians are still flushing their raw sewage directly into the canals. The "aroma" from that discharge wafts up and into the air. Perhaps she is immune to the smell of merda, but the entire city smells of it--worse in some areas than others, and that is a fact.
I wouldn't say Paris is as dirty as Philly. But I was there for a few days earlier this year and I couldn't help but notice how it smelled like urine. Not the entire city mind you, but certain parts of it. And the airport is decent, but when I think Paris, I think grandiose and that's true to a certain extent but the airport was not. Especially those tube escalator thingies. Awful.
Face it, regardless of the law, a good number of Venetians are still flushing their raw sewage directly into the canals. The "aroma" from that discharge wafts up and into the air. Perhaps she is immune to the smell of merda, but the entire city smells of it--worse in some areas than others, and that is a fact.
I checked out the situation, and yes, there are areas of the city where this occurs, but far from all.
I do not question your experience, but I will counter it with mine in that I have had pleasant and mainly odourless stays there.
It has nothing to do with money or cultural factors. People who say that Americans don't travel widely abroad because of a fear or mistrust of foreigners are halfwits, and snobs to boot.
The explanation is far, far simpler.
The large majority of Americans get two weeks of vacation a year. A vacation day here and there in order to attend family reunions and the whatnot, and suddenly you have one week of vacation at your disposal for the entire year. One cotton-picking week.
So, after you dash to the airport the nanosecond the vacation takes effect, spend 14 hours in airliners and airports, spend another day recovering from jet lag, you then get perhaps six days in a foreign country cramming in everything you can see. Then you have to repeat the entire process all over again to get home. You come home exhausted. Where's the relaxation in that? Meanwhile, you can fly cross-country in the United States in four hours.
Compare this to Europeans or Australians, who routinely get six weeks vacation in their first year on the job. Heck, even the Japanese get more vacation days than we do.
even 5 days with the two weekends give you 9 days. Include that during a long weekend you have 10 days, which is enough for a great European trip for example.
Actually I think 8-10 days is perfect for that. A 15-20 day trip is exhausting. Actually there is research showing the pleasure from vacation takes effect on day 2 and climaxed on day 8. After that, it dies down gradually.
I have 4 weeks of vacation but I almost never take a very long one (except when I fly back to Asia to visit my family). Normally I take off 5-6 days to make a 9-10 long trip, which is sufficient to visit a few places in Europe (easy jetlag) or South America (little jetlag).
plus, he was asking "what's relaxing about that", but traveling is not about relaxing. What's most relaxing? staying at home in your own backyard drinking beer. Even a trip to the nearby beach involves certain stress (preparing stuff, taking the kids and manage them, drive, traffic). One doesn't fly to Paris or Rio to "relax", but to experience something new, which usually involves a LOT of walking.
I've been fortunate enough to have had work opportunities that had me living outside the US for extended periods - long enough to get somewhat acclimated to the culture (Mexico, Bulgaria). Also have relatives who work in Rome so when we go there we stay in an apartment for free (we pick up dinner tabs). And I was in the travel industry where I got a lot of bargains, in addition to being on top FF tiers of two major airlines.
Not everyone gets to do that, so I consider myself blessed in that regard. And I've totally enjoyed getting to several continents, experiencing great ancient cities, hiking alone in mountains, trying bizarre foods and partying with people whom I have little in common with outside being human.
But I will say this. The longer I'm gone, the more I appreciate the US. There's a reason millions of folks over there want to come over here.
However, it works the other way, too. Right now I'm on my longest stretch of time as an adult w/o going overseas - going on eight years (if I don't count the Calgary Stampede/Canadian Rockies, which y'all should get to at least once). The sheer ridiculousness of crap going on over here - both real news and B.S. "news" manufactured for ratings - has me climbing the walls wanting to get out for awhile.
And I'm sure once I get out, after a week or so I'll feel better, want to come back home and will once again appreciate what I have here.
There are numerous reasons why I do not travel the world:
1. There are vast tracts of the United States that I have not seen, but would like to visit.
2. Time. I just can't take a month long vacation.
3. Money. I don't even have enough to visit the parts of the U.S. I would like to visit.
4. I quite simply do not want to get on an airplane ever again. I do not even want to go anywhere near an airport! I just don't like the "We KNOW you are a terrorist, and we are going to do our level best to prove it!" mentality of the "security" (what a joke) officers!
5. I would like to go to England, Ireland, and Germany for ancestry reasons, but for the above reasons it won't happen. I would like to go back to Vietnam, to see what is is like now compared to what it was in 1966 when I was there. That won't happen, either!
I have absolutely no desire to go to Canada or Mexico. Once upon a time, I wanted to go to the Calgary Stampede, but that never happened due to lack of money and time. Now, I am not interested due to the crowds.
Yes, fear is also a reason, for some areas. I would never visit the Mid-East or any other theocracy where a religious group is considered fair game. I don't care if it is rare, the fact that it does happen is enough to keep me away. But, again, time and money play an even bigger role than the fear.
1) that applies to every single country. By your logic, nobody needs to travel (maybe except city states like Singapore).
2) not many people take month long vacation. A 8-10 day trip is ideal. It feels much longer than a typical work week, and by planning well, you can see a LOT.
3) Plenty of deals out there, Also try to take advantage of frequent flyer miles. Some credit cards give you 75000 miles for the new card, which means you can fly to Japan RT for almost free.
4) which means you can only go to a very limited number of places. So you hate a 10 hour flight but don't mind a 10 hour driving? makes no sense. Your terrorist scenario is pretty laughable. Millions of millions of people do it just fine, plus it is much less an issue in other countries. Every time I enter France/Italy/Spain, the custom officer hardly spoke a word and let me in. It is the American officers who enjoy badgering people (less to American citizens I am sure, unless you were born in certain countries.)
Crowds? I fail to see why Canada and Mexico can be more crowded than the US, unless you don't enjoy travelling at all.
Middle class is a very small part of the world. In most places, it is not that much a big deal, probably less so than in the US where people talk about their imaginary Jesus all the time, including the US presidents.
even 5 days with the two weekends give you 9 days. Include that during a long weekend you have 10 days, which is enough for a great European trip for example.
Actually I think 8-10 days is perfect for that. A 15-20 day trip is exhausting. Actually there is research showing the pleasure from vacation takes effect on day 2 and climaxed on day 8. After that, it dies down gradually.
I have 4 weeks of vacation but I almost never take a very long one (except when I fly back to Asia to visit my family). Normally I take off 5-6 days to make a 9-10 long trip, which is sufficient to visit a few places in Europe (easy jetlag) or South America (little jetlag).
plus, he was asking "what's relaxing about that", but traveling is not about relaxing. What's most relaxing? staying at home in your own backyard drinking beer. Even a trip to the nearby beach involves certain stress (preparing stuff, taking the kids and manage them, drive, traffic). One doesn't fly to Paris or Rio to "relax", but to experience something new, which usually involves a LOT of walking.
The perfect length for us seems to depend on the type of trip. If it is go-go-go with multiple countries and a jam packed schedule, three weeks is exhausting and two seems a little more reasonable. But if the schedule is more relaxed--we choose a single city with maybe a couple of day trips to someplace within 1-3 hours away, rent a flat, don't over schedule our time and leave plenty for just hanging out and checking out the cafes/pubs and such--two weeks doesn't ever seem to be enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
