8 ms·

The scale of the country is an excuse in many cases. There are densely populated areas in many parts of the USA, but nearly all of Europe is densely populated.

The scale of the country is an excuse in many cases. There are densely populated areas in many parts of the USA, but nearly all of Europe is densely populated. The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA. The USA still can and should do better, but there are important geographical differences to the EU. And as an aside, I don't think many Europeans are taking the train from Madrid to Berlin ;-) most people still prefer to fly rather than take a multi-day journey on the train. Maybe that will change if more sleeper carriages are introduced.

scott_w 3y ago
> The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA. Isn't that a misleading statistic, though? It's not like the USA is an evenly spread wasteland in comparison to Continental Europe. It's more like pockets of high population density throughout, which trains can handle perfectly well. Russia and Ukraine are similar in that they're pockets of cities separated by miles of steppe. Both are known for heavily using rail travel. Hell, wasn't the USA built on the back of continental rail travel during its industrial revolution?
- ericmay 3y ago
  Yep, it's misleading. The America is big argument fails to hold water once you actually take a look at a map. Take Columbus for example where we're within just a couple hours by train (could be less if we had any sort of seriousness about our country) away from: Chicago Detroit Cleveland Cincinnati Indianapolis Pittsburgh and maybe just a few hours away from other cities like Toronto, Buffalo, Louisville, and more.
  - deburo 3y ago
    There are other factors to trains not being viable in the states: cost to build. Every project they try, it’s almost always a financial disaster.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      Sure but I was commenting on the "too big" argument which I think we can say is just factually incorrect at this point. To address your points I think it's a much more nuanced conversation. I'd argue that car-only infrastructure is actually a gigantic financial disaster as well but it requires additional examination.
    - conceptme 3y ago
      I think trains amd especially the rails mostly are funded through other ways (government/ taxes) something which americans are not too fond of.
  - muspimerol 3y ago
    It's only misleading if you disregard the rest of my comment :-) You have identified a part of the USA with a decent density of cities - nice! That is exactly what I think. There are pockets where rail makes sense, and should be built up. But even this area is not nearly as dense as Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, etc, so I fail to see why it makes sense to compare this to the EU.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      Right, but that's where the vast majority of the population is too. It's not that there are pockets where rail makes sense, rail just makes sense and should be built up. > But even this area is not nearly as dense as Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, etc, so I fail to see why it makes sense to compare this to the EU. Why would you compare America to the EU anyway then? -edit- Sorry I also wasn't trying to disregard your comment, I just thought it wasn't a great argument (you're a great person though I'm sure! :) )
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      There are lots of pockets in Europe that aren't that dense, they still have good public transport, as least compared to the US. It always really funny when American point at some place, and say 'look how not dense' and then there is like a city of 200+ people there. Sure maybe not close to other cities. But any city that size should have its own S-Bahn system at least.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    The US has the largest rail network in the world (for now). It’s hugely dominated by freight. It’s not for lack of rail lines we don’t have good passenger service it’s a priority and preference issue. If you got a fast train between Indianapolis and Cleveland what would you do with it? Neither has reasonable public transit and aren’t dense cities that are good for walking. They also are only 4.5 hours away from each other by car, something residents of both largely own.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      Chicken-egg problem with the density. But we know that things can change and it's always surprising when we're always very open to changing things when it comes to technology, but other areas we're not so open to it. Amsterdam is a canonical example [1] or how you can fix infrastructure. Example: I am not the biggest soccer fan in the world, but I might take a train down to Cincinnati and get dinner, stay the night, and watch Columbus play Cincinnati. I'm not doing that with a car because of parking and it being a big hassle. If I can take a train down there, I'm way more likely to go. Once I get there the very first time I'll just arrive in the downtown area, plenty to walk around to see and do. The same is true for the reverse trip. Someone coming from Cincinnati can arrive in the Short North in Columbus and walk anywhere they want from German Village to Downtown to Ohio State's campus. I'm not entirely sure about Cleveland (haven't been in a while) or Indianapolis (haven't been maybe ever?) w.r.t to walking around, but in the example I gave you can see there is plenty to do with a train that gets you from one of the example cities to another and it only improves as more and more people use the service. Funny actually. What you were saying kind of applies to cars too. You'd just drive through or around Indianapolis. After all once you park there's nothing to do and nowhere to go. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      I'm shocked to learn that only a 1%, yes, ONE percent of American rail network is electrified. At least according to wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ajuc 3y ago
  Yes, it's not population density that's important but the distribution of said population, and USA is more urbanized and clumped up than many European countries with much better train system than USA. The problem in USA is that the people making the decisions don't live in the cities.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  It's an average, so of course it says nothing about the distribution. I don't find that to be misleading, or at least I did not intend to insinuate that the USA is a perfectly distributed wasteland! It shows that while the EU and US kind of look similar in size, actually their population density on average is wildly different. Just look at a population density map of both continents side by side. It's fine to talk about certain parts of the USA being dense and able to support passenger rail. But when we talk about country-scale rail systems, that's where I have a bone to pick. As I said, there are areas of the USA that are perfectly suitable to rail, and there should be more. My criticism is the notion of "you can technically take a train from Madrid to Berlin, so you should also be able to take a train from Boston to Minneapolis". Trains in Europe go long distances, but most importantly they connect a lot of medium-sized cities along the way.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    Boston to minneapolis could pass through: MA: Springfield NY: Albany, Buffalo,Rochester Oh: Sandusky, Cleavland, Toledo, IN: Fort wayne IL: Chicago, Rockford, WI: Madison, LaCrosse, Eu Claire, Milwaukee With some fairly minor deviations on the path. (Assuming a fairly straight path that stays in the US, going south of the lakes). Depending on your tolerance for minor deviations from the straightest possible path it could be all or a subset, but not none of those. They are all medium sized or larger cities. There are ton of small cities too, but the train doesnt have to stop in each one - there's lots of through trains in Europe to that skip towns/cities they pass.
    - muspimerol 3y ago
      I don't know why we're still stuck on the Berlin <-> Madrid topic, but I'll bite :-) I added up the population of all those cities: 6.13 million. The population of Berlin and Madrid alone is 6.86 million, and our theoretical journey would take us through several cities of 1m+ along the way: Cologne, Brussels, Paris... The dense parts of Europe have 500k+ cities basically overlapping. As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I would absolutely love this theoretical train, but I'm not surprised it doesn't exist (yet)!
LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
As a child, at about 11 to 12, so about 1981/82 I took the train from Bonn am Rhein to Madrid, and back to Bonn from Aguilas or Alicante. Alone!

scott_w 3y ago

> The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA. Isn't that a misleading statistic, though? It's not like the USA is an evenly spread wasteland in comparison to Continental Europe. It's more like pockets of high population density throughout, which trains can handle perfectly well. Russia and Ukraine are similar in that they're pockets of cities separated by miles of steppe. Both are known for heavily using rail travel. Hell, wasn't the USA built on the back of continental rail travel during its industrial revolution?

ericmay 3y ago
Yep, it's misleading. The America is big argument fails to hold water once you actually take a look at a map. Take Columbus for example where we're within just a couple hours by train (could be less if we had any sort of seriousness about our country) away from: Chicago Detroit Cleveland Cincinnati Indianapolis Pittsburgh and maybe just a few hours away from other cities like Toronto, Buffalo, Louisville, and more.
- deburo 3y ago
  There are other factors to trains not being viable in the states: cost to build. Every project they try, it’s almost always a financial disaster.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    Sure but I was commenting on the "too big" argument which I think we can say is just factually incorrect at this point. To address your points I think it's a much more nuanced conversation. I'd argue that car-only infrastructure is actually a gigantic financial disaster as well but it requires additional examination.
  - conceptme 3y ago
    I think trains amd especially the rails mostly are funded through other ways (government/ taxes) something which americans are not too fond of.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  It's only misleading if you disregard the rest of my comment :-) You have identified a part of the USA with a decent density of cities - nice! That is exactly what I think. There are pockets where rail makes sense, and should be built up. But even this area is not nearly as dense as Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, etc, so I fail to see why it makes sense to compare this to the EU.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    Right, but that's where the vast majority of the population is too. It's not that there are pockets where rail makes sense, rail just makes sense and should be built up. > But even this area is not nearly as dense as Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, etc, so I fail to see why it makes sense to compare this to the EU. Why would you compare America to the EU anyway then? -edit- Sorry I also wasn't trying to disregard your comment, I just thought it wasn't a great argument (you're a great person though I'm sure! :) )
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    There are lots of pockets in Europe that aren't that dense, they still have good public transport, as least compared to the US. It always really funny when American point at some place, and say 'look how not dense' and then there is like a city of 200+ people there. Sure maybe not close to other cities. But any city that size should have its own S-Bahn system at least.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  The US has the largest rail network in the world (for now). It’s hugely dominated by freight. It’s not for lack of rail lines we don’t have good passenger service it’s a priority and preference issue. If you got a fast train between Indianapolis and Cleveland what would you do with it? Neither has reasonable public transit and aren’t dense cities that are good for walking. They also are only 4.5 hours away from each other by car, something residents of both largely own.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    Chicken-egg problem with the density. But we know that things can change and it's always surprising when we're always very open to changing things when it comes to technology, but other areas we're not so open to it. Amsterdam is a canonical example [1] or how you can fix infrastructure. Example: I am not the biggest soccer fan in the world, but I might take a train down to Cincinnati and get dinner, stay the night, and watch Columbus play Cincinnati. I'm not doing that with a car because of parking and it being a big hassle. If I can take a train down there, I'm way more likely to go. Once I get there the very first time I'll just arrive in the downtown area, plenty to walk around to see and do. The same is true for the reverse trip. Someone coming from Cincinnati can arrive in the Short North in Columbus and walk anywhere they want from German Village to Downtown to Ohio State's campus. I'm not entirely sure about Cleveland (haven't been in a while) or Indianapolis (haven't been maybe ever?) w.r.t to walking around, but in the example I gave you can see there is plenty to do with a train that gets you from one of the example cities to another and it only improves as more and more people use the service. Funny actually. What you were saying kind of applies to cars too. You'd just drive through or around Indianapolis. After all once you park there's nothing to do and nowhere to go. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    I'm shocked to learn that only a 1%, yes, ONE percent of American rail network is electrified. At least according to wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ajuc 3y ago
Yes, it's not population density that's important but the distribution of said population, and USA is more urbanized and clumped up than many European countries with much better train system than USA. The problem in USA is that the people making the decisions don't live in the cities.
muspimerol 3y ago
It's an average, so of course it says nothing about the distribution. I don't find that to be misleading, or at least I did not intend to insinuate that the USA is a perfectly distributed wasteland! It shows that while the EU and US kind of look similar in size, actually their population density on average is wildly different. Just look at a population density map of both continents side by side. It's fine to talk about certain parts of the USA being dense and able to support passenger rail. But when we talk about country-scale rail systems, that's where I have a bone to pick. As I said, there are areas of the USA that are perfectly suitable to rail, and there should be more. My criticism is the notion of "you can technically take a train from Madrid to Berlin, so you should also be able to take a train from Boston to Minneapolis". Trains in Europe go long distances, but most importantly they connect a lot of medium-sized cities along the way.
- sophacles 3y ago
  Boston to minneapolis could pass through: MA: Springfield NY: Albany, Buffalo,Rochester Oh: Sandusky, Cleavland, Toledo, IN: Fort wayne IL: Chicago, Rockford, WI: Madison, LaCrosse, Eu Claire, Milwaukee With some fairly minor deviations on the path. (Assuming a fairly straight path that stays in the US, going south of the lakes). Depending on your tolerance for minor deviations from the straightest possible path it could be all or a subset, but not none of those. They are all medium sized or larger cities. There are ton of small cities too, but the train doesnt have to stop in each one - there's lots of through trains in Europe to that skip towns/cities they pass.
  - muspimerol 3y ago
    I don't know why we're still stuck on the Berlin <-> Madrid topic, but I'll bite :-) I added up the population of all those cities: 6.13 million. The population of Berlin and Madrid alone is 6.86 million, and our theoretical journey would take us through several cities of 1m+ along the way: Cologne, Brussels, Paris... The dense parts of Europe have 500k+ cities basically overlapping. As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I would absolutely love this theoretical train, but I'm not surprised it doesn't exist (yet)!

LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago

As a child, at about 11 to 12, so about 1981/82 I took the train from Bonn am Rhein to Madrid, and back to Bonn from Aguilas or Alicante. Alone!