3 ms·

Nope. City distance in the continental US excluding the Northeast is similar to China. Distance is just the excuse.

Manuel_D 3y ago
This is not even remotely true. China has 4x the population in roughly the same landmass. And most of that is concentrated in the eastern part of the country (Tibet and inner Mongolia are sparsely populated, but very large). I'd be very, very interested in where you found this claim that China's cities have the same average distance between them as US cities. Wouldn't be surprised if they used totally different criteria for a Chinese city and a US city. I would be astounded if the median distance between cities of >500k people is the same in China as in the USA.
- vidarh 3y ago
  I have no idea about how reasonable or not their claim is, but I'd note that most of the US population is, while not concentrated only in the East, concentrated heavily. Even in most the lower population density states, most of the population is within tiny part of the area of those states, often in corridors where most of the larger towns are still relatively close to at least a few other large towns. So whether or not they're right, distance largely is an excuse. Trains will not work between every pair of cities in the US, but it doesn't need to - very few US cities are so isolated that train will not work to several nearby cities. The average distance isn't very important, as long as the cities are clustered enough to create viable lines.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Measuring average distance between cities is incredibly naive, that's my whole point. If countries A and B both have 100 cities in the sam land area, except country A has 50 cities over 1 million people and country B only has 10 cities over 1 million then one of these is still much more viable even if average distance between cities is the same. You're right that if all 10 of those larg cities in country A are really close then it may be viable. But that's not the case in America, save for the Northeast corridor which is already served by passenger rail.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      The average doesn't really matter, though (and yes, I get that's a different argument than the other person made). The threshold where you exceed what is viable does. And hardly anyone in the US live in areas that have so low density that there aren't viable routes, on the basis of comparing with the density of routes that are served in other countries. Even, say, Wyoming, with an average population density 1/5th of Norway, has half its population in its top 10 towns, most of which, unsurprisingly, has rail going between them because a sufficient number of them are close enough to each other to form viable clusters. Or, as I mentioned elsewhere, we have Montana, with a similar population density and a size ~50% larger than the United Kingdom, but a population 1/70th, where the lines that used to be used by the North Coast Hiawatha goes through a range of towns and surrounding area that easily covers ~40% of the state population at a density easily comparable to e.g. continental Europe and well above areas of rural Europe that are well covered by train. There are many pairs of cities in the US between which rail travel is not viable. But there are very few cities that are not within a viable distance of a set of other cities with higher density corridors (than their state averages) in between that combined makes travel viable between them. "Nobody" will travel the full North Coast Hiawatha route between Chicago and Seattle, as it'll take ~48 hours. Plenty of people will travel parts of it (and do travel parts of it, as many parts of that route are still covered by trains). Including through some of the lowest density parts of the route if it is reopened. To again bring up Norway, because I know the rail network there having grown up there, consider the line from Hamar to Åndalsnes - a line where the two most significant towns on that stretch have populations of around 3k (Åndalsnes) and <30k (Hamar). Compare to e.g. Butte, MT (~34k) to Billings, MT (184k). Both again are within similar distances to several more cities that form similar viable pairs and that that similarly enhances the overall viability of the connecting segments. And that's part of why Hamar to Åndalsnes is viable too - it connects to a couple of other lines at Hamar and at Dombås. Just like Butte is a viable distance from Spokane via Missoula, and Billings is a viable distance from Gilette, WY, or Buffalo, WY (still larger than Åndalsnes, and has rail) and onwards to Cheyenne, WY. I'd actually love a map that visualizes which parts of the US are sufficient "islands" that there are towns of any reasonable size that are not within those kinds of travel distances along a reasonable rail corridor to make up a total population size along the route that is large enough to be considered viable plenty of other places. I can't think of any. The US as a whole is huge and dispersed and low-density, but almost nobody lives in the low-density places, almost by definition - even as large as they are, they're not large enough for the low-density population that lives in those places to add up to significant numbers. And the upside of a train over planes is that it's not the end-to-end distance that matters, but the population near enough to the stations along any given subset of the route.

This is not even remotely true. China has 4x the population in roughly the same landmass. And most of that is concentrated in the eastern part of the country (Tibet and inner Mongolia are sparsely populated, but very large). I'd be very, very interested in where you found this claim that China's cities have the same average distance between them as US cities. Wouldn't be surprised if they used totally different criteria for a Chinese city and a US city. I would be astounded if the median distance between cities of >500k people is the same in China as in the USA.

vidarh 3y ago
I have no idea about how reasonable or not their claim is, but I'd note that most of the US population is, while not concentrated only in the East, concentrated heavily. Even in most the lower population density states, most of the population is within tiny part of the area of those states, often in corridors where most of the larger towns are still relatively close to at least a few other large towns. So whether or not they're right, distance largely is an excuse. Trains will not work between every pair of cities in the US, but it doesn't need to - very few US cities are so isolated that train will not work to several nearby cities. The average distance isn't very important, as long as the cities are clustered enough to create viable lines.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Measuring average distance between cities is incredibly naive, that's my whole point. If countries A and B both have 100 cities in the sam land area, except country A has 50 cities over 1 million people and country B only has 10 cities over 1 million then one of these is still much more viable even if average distance between cities is the same. You're right that if all 10 of those larg cities in country A are really close then it may be viable. But that's not the case in America, save for the Northeast corridor which is already served by passenger rail.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    The average doesn't really matter, though (and yes, I get that's a different argument than the other person made). The threshold where you exceed what is viable does. And hardly anyone in the US live in areas that have so low density that there aren't viable routes, on the basis of comparing with the density of routes that are served in other countries. Even, say, Wyoming, with an average population density 1/5th of Norway, has half its population in its top 10 towns, most of which, unsurprisingly, has rail going between them because a sufficient number of them are close enough to each other to form viable clusters. Or, as I mentioned elsewhere, we have Montana, with a similar population density and a size ~50% larger than the United Kingdom, but a population 1/70th, where the lines that used to be used by the North Coast Hiawatha goes through a range of towns and surrounding area that easily covers ~40% of the state population at a density easily comparable to e.g. continental Europe and well above areas of rural Europe that are well covered by train. There are many pairs of cities in the US between which rail travel is not viable. But there are very few cities that are not within a viable distance of a set of other cities with higher density corridors (than their state averages) in between that combined makes travel viable between them. "Nobody" will travel the full North Coast Hiawatha route between Chicago and Seattle, as it'll take ~48 hours. Plenty of people will travel parts of it (and do travel parts of it, as many parts of that route are still covered by trains). Including through some of the lowest density parts of the route if it is reopened. To again bring up Norway, because I know the rail network there having grown up there, consider the line from Hamar to Åndalsnes - a line where the two most significant towns on that stretch have populations of around 3k (Åndalsnes) and <30k (Hamar). Compare to e.g. Butte, MT (~34k) to Billings, MT (184k). Both again are within similar distances to several more cities that form similar viable pairs and that that similarly enhances the overall viability of the connecting segments. And that's part of why Hamar to Åndalsnes is viable too - it connects to a couple of other lines at Hamar and at Dombås. Just like Butte is a viable distance from Spokane via Missoula, and Billings is a viable distance from Gilette, WY, or Buffalo, WY (still larger than Åndalsnes, and has rail) and onwards to Cheyenne, WY. I'd actually love a map that visualizes which parts of the US are sufficient "islands" that there are towns of any reasonable size that are not within those kinds of travel distances along a reasonable rail corridor to make up a total population size along the route that is large enough to be considered viable plenty of other places. I can't think of any. The US as a whole is huge and dispersed and low-density, but almost nobody lives in the low-density places, almost by definition - even as large as they are, they're not large enough for the low-density population that lives in those places to add up to significant numbers. And the upside of a train over planes is that it's not the end-to-end distance that matters, but the population near enough to the stations along any given subset of the route.