4 ms·
> Of course that's no LA or NY, which I'm sure have better public transport. Yeah, if you intended on talking about large cities, New Mexico would not be inclu
by starttoaster 3y ago
> Of course that's no LA or NY, which I'm sure have better public transport.
Yeah, if you intended on talking about large cities, New Mexico would not be included in that list. New York, Los Angelos, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Austin, Boston, Washington DC would be a few real metros that you could refer to as a "large city" around here with decent public transit systems. And that public transit usually extends out to their suburbs fairly well. Trick comes with crossing from one large city to another, or through wide open rural ways. Efficient transport just doesn't spiderweb out across all that open prairie in the US.
Touching on your point too, I believe trains in the US are typically of the slower variety when compared to trains from other developed countries. They also often make stops every few miles to pick up and drop off passengers that slow them down quite a lot. When you consider how far some of these train tracks go, a stop every 3-8 miles or so adds up to a lot of time.
- mcv 3y agoThat's why there's usually a distinction between local and express trains. In NL we've got local trains that stop everywhere, intercity trains that only stop in the larger cities (and maybe two or three times in the largest cities like Amsterdam), and then there are high-speed trains that only stop in 3 places in the country before heading towards France or Germany. That way long distance travelers don't have to wait for all the small stops. > if you intended on talking about large cities, New Mexico would not be included in that list. According to Wikipedia, Albuquerque has a population of 562,599, which would make it the third largest city in Netherland. That's not a megapolis, but it's not small either. Dutch cities that are a fifth of that size still get regular trains and buses until late in the evening.