3 ms·

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 app

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.

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.