protist comments on Passenger trains in the United States vs Europe

[–] protist@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Also, population density in the US vs. Europe:

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

At the very least, there should be a rail link to the largest city in each state. Even in the areas in the US with comparable population density to Europe, the rail infrastructure is embarrassing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

Relevant, but not exculpatory

edit

We should at least have the rail density of Belarus

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] protist@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I largely agree, but population density alters the feasibility of cross-country routes for sure. And if we were to find a higher resolution map of US population density and zoom in on most of the densest areas, you'll find they often have local passenger rail networks.

Even Houston and Dallas have local rail systems serving some of their highest density areas. Obviously, yes, it could and should be a lot better

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That belies the fact that we already had cross-country routes before, but decided to ditch them for even-more-subsidized freeways.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

Sweden has high speed rail connecting all cities and large towns. That is a dark country country. The three Baltic states are currently working on a 200km/h line connecting their capitals with Poland. Not to mention Spain, which is more densly populated, but happens to have the second largest high speed rail network in the world.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent