all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 17 points 1 year ago

The European map just shows railway lines, which are partly not used for passenger trains. I believe this one is better, although from 2017 so things might have changed for some lines:

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    The US map is also incomplete iirc from the last time I saw this image.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Also, population density in the US vs. Europe:

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Relevant, but not exculpatory

    editWe should at least have the rail density of Belarus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Please use a blur attribute as this is too sexy especially the bottom half.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    United States are decades behind.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment