4 ms·

Several comments on this thread tend to slip into the trap of comparing countries. It's important to remember that population density plays a crucial role in fi

Several comments on this thread tend to slip into the trap of comparing countries. It's important to remember that population density plays a crucial role in financing public infrastructure. Consider Argentina's case, for instance. Its size is comparable to India, yet it has a population smaller than Spain, making it a daunting task to fund extensive rail networks. The same rationale can be applied to the US in comparison to smaller European nations. Ultimately, promoting driving by making cars more affordable and investing in the highway system may indeed be the most adaptable and practical strategy for larger countries. Just something to ponder over.

rainsford 3y ago
It's a valid point to consider, although I'm not sure that looking at average density across the entire country makes a lot of sense since you don't have to apply the same solution nation-wide. When considering transportation options for a denser part of a country, like the US east coast Boston-Washington DC corridor, it's irrelevant how much empty space there is in Wyoming. The same is true on a smaller scale as well. Sure, the fact that Denver is so far away from any other large population centers means building a bunch of high-speed rail lines there might not make sense, but there's no reason Denver itself can't have better non-car transit options to get around the city and metro area. Edit: The US east coast is always a particularly interesting use-case since it's more comparable to the density found in a lot of countries with far better transit while also being significantly richer. The Bos-Wash corridor has about the same population as Spain but it is significantly more dense and with 3x the GDP. Yet Spain has far better inter-city high-speed rail and other transit options.
- gfiorav 3y ago
  I’d argue those cities in the east coast you mention are closer together and more densely populated. If you were to look at the northeast region by itself (Boston, New York, Washington), I bet its rail is comparable to similar European countries.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    Each city has a decent metro rail system but definitely not up to western European standards. Boston's in particular is woefully in need of maintenance despite its importance in the city. The rail connecting tbe cities is not very good. It costs upwards of $100 for a BOS->DC ticket and takes a day of travel.
  - rainsford 3y ago
    I believe you're right that the US northeast is denser than many European countries, but the rail definitely isn't as good. The only "high-speed" rail line is the Acela, which is slow and expensive. Other rail options are even slower, not all that cheap either, and not very reliable. Compared to the rest of the US, northeast transit is better, but that's a pretty low bar.
arlort 3y ago
> to fund extensive rail networks You don't really need to fund extensive rail networks, just rail networks that get to a large enough share of the population to make it worthwhile The vast majority of people don't need to go from anywhere to anywhere else in their countries every day, if you live in or around Philadelphia (first name that came to mind, no clue how good their transit system is) it doesn't really matter that there's people in Montana (again, I think they're fairly sparsely populated but not the point) who need to drive two hours to meet their neighbors Looking at a population density map of argentina I don't see why it'd make more sense for them to invest in highways to nowhere rather than railways between the population centers. (Within reason of course, I'm not advocating for not maintaining infrastructure to less dense areas at all) https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 When you look at where people actually live the US is not that different from France or Poland and might even be in a better place for rail interconnections than Spain or Sweden

rainsford 3y ago

It's a valid point to consider, although I'm not sure that looking at average density across the entire country makes a lot of sense since you don't have to apply the same solution nation-wide. When considering transportation options for a denser part of a country, like the US east coast Boston-Washington DC corridor, it's irrelevant how much empty space there is in Wyoming. The same is true on a smaller scale as well. Sure, the fact that Denver is so far away from any other large population centers means building a bunch of high-speed rail lines there might not make sense, but there's no reason Denver itself can't have better non-car transit options to get around the city and metro area. Edit: The US east coast is always a particularly interesting use-case since it's more comparable to the density found in a lot of countries with far better transit while also being significantly richer. The Bos-Wash corridor has about the same population as Spain but it is significantly more dense and with 3x the GDP. Yet Spain has far better inter-city high-speed rail and other transit options.

gfiorav 3y ago
I’d argue those cities in the east coast you mention are closer together and more densely populated. If you were to look at the northeast region by itself (Boston, New York, Washington), I bet its rail is comparable to similar European countries.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Each city has a decent metro rail system but definitely not up to western European standards. Boston's in particular is woefully in need of maintenance despite its importance in the city. The rail connecting tbe cities is not very good. It costs upwards of $100 for a BOS->DC ticket and takes a day of travel.
- rainsford 3y ago
  I believe you're right that the US northeast is denser than many European countries, but the rail definitely isn't as good. The only "high-speed" rail line is the Acela, which is slow and expensive. Other rail options are even slower, not all that cheap either, and not very reliable. Compared to the rest of the US, northeast transit is better, but that's a pretty low bar.

arlort 3y ago

> to fund extensive rail networks You don't really need to fund extensive rail networks, just rail networks that get to a large enough share of the population to make it worthwhile The vast majority of people don't need to go from anywhere to anywhere else in their countries every day, if you live in or around Philadelphia (first name that came to mind, no clue how good their transit system is) it doesn't really matter that there's people in Montana (again, I think they're fairly sparsely populated but not the point) who need to drive two hours to meet their neighbors Looking at a population density map of argentina I don't see why it'd make more sense for them to invest in highways to nowhere rather than railways between the population centers. (Within reason of course, I'm not advocating for not maintaining infrastructure to less dense areas at all) https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#5/-37.736/-70.972 When you look at where people actually live the US is not that different from France or Poland and might even be in a better place for rail interconnections than Spain or Sweden