4 ms·

Without getting too much into it, it's always dangerous comparing different countries. I'm not trying to discredit you, but at times it can be apples and orange

Without getting too much into it, it's always dangerous comparing different countries. I'm not trying to discredit you, but at times it can be apples and oranges because the amount of variables is incredible. For example, consider when somebody asks, "Well, $country has light rail that's cheap, punctual, and goes everywhere. Why doesn't the U.S. have it?" They ignore that the U.S. is the fourth largest country in the world by land area. The state of Oregon has roughly the same land area as the United Kingdom. While light rail may be something that's very good to have, it can be otherwise impractical for a country as large as the U.S.

vidarh 12y ago
Light rail is typically used for compact urban areas. The US has lots of compact urban areas. And some of them do have light rail. The land area argument is often trotted out by Americans ignoring that there are many other countries with even lower population density, and ignoring that population density varies greatly by area and average population density for the US as a whole is only relevant if we're asking questions about the US as a whole. Your overall point that it's dangerous to compare is fair enough, though. (I'm just tired of the population density argument being trotted out, coming from Norway, with a population density well under half that of the US that's a poster child for why average population density is irrelevant - things like rail etc. works well in Norway only because the main population centres covers only a tiny portion of the land mass; and that's largely true for the US too)
- barsonme 12y ago
  I understand for urban areas. I was thinking about the country as a whole. Think of the middle of the U.S. -- huge dollar amounts spent on the infrastructure for not many people using it. But I understand your point. I'd be lying if I said I didn't support or never used light rail myself. edit:
mietek 12y ago
Is the number of hours in a day also larger in the U.S. than in most other countries in the world?

vidarh 12y ago

Light rail is typically used for compact urban areas. The US has lots of compact urban areas. And some of them do have light rail. The land area argument is often trotted out by Americans ignoring that there are many other countries with even lower population density, and ignoring that population density varies greatly by area and average population density for the US as a whole is only relevant if we're asking questions about the US as a whole. Your overall point that it's dangerous to compare is fair enough, though. (I'm just tired of the population density argument being trotted out, coming from Norway, with a population density well under half that of the US that's a poster child for why average population density is irrelevant - things like rail etc. works well in Norway only because the main population centres covers only a tiny portion of the land mass; and that's largely true for the US too)

barsonme 12y ago
I understand for urban areas. I was thinking about the country as a whole. Think of the middle of the U.S. -- huge dollar amounts spent on the infrastructure for not many people using it. But I understand your point. I'd be lying if I said I didn't support or never used light rail myself. edit:

mietek 12y ago

Is the number of hours in a day also larger in the U.S. than in most other countries in the world?