4 ms·
Australia as a whole is largely forced to hug the eastern coast of the country. 70% of the country is arid desert, so the population is scattered linearly, whic
by chrisco255 3y ago
Australia as a whole is largely forced to hug the eastern coast of the country. 70% of the country is arid desert, so the population is scattered linearly, which is actually quite perfect for rail based transport.
The population distribution of the U.S. is far more spread out, so to build enough rail or bus lines to make it so that you don't have to walk more than a quarter mile to a station is impractical for all but the densest cities or denses parts of urban corridors.
- defrost 3y agoSydney is a large dense city surrounded by suburbs, Melbourne the same, Brisbane kind of but different, ditto Perth. Thats most of the population of Australia right there, in cities, not desert. What works for cities in Australia could just as easily work in US cities - th topic is urban transport, not intercity transport.
- MalcolmDwyer 3y agoThis is a story about urban public transit, not inter-city rail. The size of the country or spread between cities is not really relevant. (And the low density of post-war American city sprawl is a consequence of our car-based urban planning, not the cause of it.)
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoAnd yet, the US had succeeded in building that dense, interconnected network of rail lines and stations by 1930.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoFollowup: Here is an animated map showing the process of un-building enough rail. It starts at 1962, which was itself already past the peak for passenger rail frequency. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/a9/f0/54a9f0a4593b55fee83853c56d662538.gif https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/a9/f0/54a9f0a4593b55fee838...