5 ms·

Well, you're ignoring massive swathes of infrastructure types. Containerization has led to a complete revamping of US ports during that period. The electrical i

by stult 9y ago

Well, you're ignoring massive swathes of infrastructure types. Containerization has led to a complete revamping of US ports during that period. The electrical infrastructure has been massively upgraded, including a huge decrease in coal fired plants. While passenger trains haven't been improved at all, freight train usage has grown rapidly and the already very extensive rail lines have been maintained (conflicting demands between passenger and freight being one of the major limitations on high speed rail). The entire internet was built during the period you specify. As was a nationwide cell network with nearly universal coverage in populated areas, despite a much larger area and lower population density than comparably developed European countries. The GPS constellation was deployed and opened up to the public. Automated banking and payment systems. Etc etc. Not all infrastructure consists of roads, bridges, and tunnels.

exceptionalism 9y ago
None of that infrasture is unique, impressive or better done than in Europe. The point is that Europe did all that and more. By the looks of it Europe just does public infrastructure better.
- stult 9y ago
  Well, that wasn't the point I was responding to. I was replying to this claim, "When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s." But to your point, I would argue that US achievements on the internet and cell networks are more impressive than Europe's because unlike Europeans Americans invented those technologies from scratch. And other than Russia, the US is the only country with a GPS infrastructure at all. I don't dispute the claim that European nations and the EU have generally done a better job investing in public infrastructure, but I think the gap isn't as bad as some in this thread have made out, especially when you consider the vastly different conditions under which those policies were made. I've lived in a lot of countries, including the US and two European nations, and I've worked in project finance, so I have some direct experience with this. That said, the US desperately needs to invest in bridges and several other categories of infrastructure.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > And other than Russia, the US is the only country with a GPS infrastructure at all. Wrong; there are three operational global navigation satellite systems: GPS (US), GLONASS (Russia), and Galileo (EU). China has a regional (Asia-Pacific) system that they are in the process of upgrading to global coverage, as well.
flexie 9y ago
Containers, cell phone networks, the Internet, internet banking etc is infrastructure that has been built and implemented in the rest of the Western World as well, many places to a higher degree or more advanced than in the US, while still maintaining and expanding roads, rails, electrical grid, subways and airports. You are right that the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't and it doesn't have the same lack of infrastructure maintenance as the US.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  Canada's population is mainly concentrated on the US-Canada border.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't Population maps of the US [1] and Canada [2] highlight the problem with this argument, though. Canada has low total density, but it's overwhelmingly concentrated around the southern border of the country. The US concentrates population along three coastlines and the Great Lakes, and has more population to support in the low-concentration areas. (For example, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas exist.) So southern Canada has better-than-US infrastructure at higher-than-US population density, while much of northern Canada has exceedingly limited infrastructure. Outside of Alaska, there's no territory in the US comparably written-off to much of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. An example: US highways are nationwide [3], while Canadian highways simply stop [4]. And despite the look of that projection, that's more than a quarter of Canada which is further from a highway than any point in the continental US. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_population_map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_popul... [2] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-... [3] https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg [4] https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg
  - flexie 9y ago
Bartweiss 9y ago
This is an undervalued point, I'm glad it was added here. I agree with the parent poster that infrastructure like roads, drainage systems, and passenger trains are built with minimal planning for maintenance and support, but it is worth remembering that those systems aren't the end of the story. Train usage in particular is a misleading complaint. It's true that the US has worse passenger train support than many nations, but that largely comes down to a sensible cost-benefit choice. The US isn't especially well-suited to train travel - lots of obstacles, diffuse populations that require branching tracks or non-train final steps, long distance travel that requires sleeper cars. So instead, we have an exceptionally large amount of freightage on trains. It's a vastly more natural use - scheduled, hub-to-hub transit, bulky products, no need for food/sleep provisioning - but it's less visible so it disappears from the conversation.

by stult 9y ago

exceptionalism 9y ago

None of that infrasture is unique, impressive or better done than in Europe. The point is that Europe did all that and more. By the looks of it Europe just does public infrastructure better.

stult 9y ago
Well, that wasn't the point I was responding to. I was replying to this claim, "When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s." But to your point, I would argue that US achievements on the internet and cell networks are more impressive than Europe's because unlike Europeans Americans invented those technologies from scratch. And other than Russia, the US is the only country with a GPS infrastructure at all. I don't dispute the claim that European nations and the EU have generally done a better job investing in public infrastructure, but I think the gap isn't as bad as some in this thread have made out, especially when you consider the vastly different conditions under which those policies were made. I've lived in a lot of countries, including the US and two European nations, and I've worked in project finance, so I have some direct experience with this. That said, the US desperately needs to invest in bridges and several other categories of infrastructure.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > And other than Russia, the US is the only country with a GPS infrastructure at all. Wrong; there are three operational global navigation satellite systems: GPS (US), GLONASS (Russia), and Galileo (EU). China has a regional (Asia-Pacific) system that they are in the process of upgrading to global coverage, as well.

flexie 9y ago

Containers, cell phone networks, the Internet, internet banking etc is infrastructure that has been built and implemented in the rest of the Western World as well, many places to a higher degree or more advanced than in the US, while still maintaining and expanding roads, rails, electrical grid, subways and airports. You are right that the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't and it doesn't have the same lack of infrastructure maintenance as the US.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
Canada's population is mainly concentrated on the US-Canada border.
Bartweiss 9y ago
> the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't Population maps of the US [1] and Canada [2] highlight the problem with this argument, though. Canada has low total density, but it's overwhelmingly concentrated around the southern border of the country. The US concentrates population along three coastlines and the Great Lakes, and has more population to support in the low-concentration areas. (For example, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas exist.) So southern Canada has better-than-US infrastructure at higher-than-US population density, while much of northern Canada has exceedingly limited infrastructure. Outside of Alaska, there's no territory in the US comparably written-off to much of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. An example: US highways are nationwide [3], while Canadian highways simply stop [4]. And despite the look of that projection, that's more than a quarter of Canada which is further from a highway than any point in the continental US. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_population_map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_popul... [2] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-... [3] https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg [4] https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg
- flexie 9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

This is an undervalued point, I'm glad it was added here. I agree with the parent poster that infrastructure like roads, drainage systems, and passenger trains are built with minimal planning for maintenance and support, but it is worth remembering that those systems aren't the end of the story. Train usage in particular is a misleading complaint. It's true that the US has worse passenger train support than many nations, but that largely comes down to a sensible cost-benefit choice. The US isn't especially well-suited to train travel - lots of obstacles, diffuse populations that require branching tracks or non-train final steps, long distance travel that requires sleeper cars. So instead, we have an exceptionally large amount of freightage on trains. It's a vastly more natural use - scheduled, hub-to-hub transit, bulky products, no need for food/sleep provisioning - but it's less visible so it disappears from the conversation.