Isn’t the USA about the same size as Europe? I think Europe might actually be bigger. We also have a bunch of mountain range dividing up our continent too.
(Not denying the rest of your comment, just pointing out)
this (mind you, single country made of disparate states) was only contentiously “settled” about 300 years ago—Europe has had a pretty consistent and coherent cultural thrust for thousands of years, regardless of various clan-based spats, and a consistent build up of infrastructure to match. The US is the product of stolen land, a whole lot of racism and slavery and then being thrust into the center of the world stage right at the point when means of conveyance drastically shifted from ships and trains to planes and cars. the end result is the completely horrific infrastructure of the modern US landscape.
if you include eastern, and western europe, they’re comparable. The problem here is that most of the US population is centered on the coasts, and in the midwest, and a bit of the south, so most rail infrastructure would be useful there, everything between about illinois, and nevada is a wasteland of like, 12 people living there.
The problem here is that most of the US population is centered on the coasts, and in the midwest, and a bit of the south, so most rail infrastructure would be useful there
So that’s why there are those four hyper-dense rail networks on the coasts, the midwest and the south and the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
Oh no, that’s only the start of our rail problem. It’s not just the sparseness of active lines and the lack of places to go, but slow, unreliable, expensive
I frequently use Acela, which some claim is our only high speed rail. It is a great choice ahead of either car or flying, Boston to nyc or nyc to dc. The thing is, while it meets the definition of high speed rail, that’s only about 50 miles of the line. Average speed Boston to nyc is like 70 mph.
Conditions go wwwaaaayyyyyyy downhill from there. When we were first dating, my ex tried to take a train out. However there was one a day and it took 7 hours, vs 3.5 hours to drive. That’s more typical service for way too much of the track, assuming you’re in one of the few places with rail service
So that’s why there are those four hyper-dense rail networks on the coasts
yeah pretty much.
the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
i mean, if you wanted to take a multi day train ride, i guess so? But going from coast to coast is never really going to be a popular route, although likely to be available on some time frames. You’re a lot more likely to see 1-4 hour routes popping up in between cities and population centers, rather than across all of the US, granted im sure longer routes will inevitably follow shorter routes given time.
It’s probably going to be more annoying, but if you want to do long distance travel, i.e. coast to coast, it’s going to be a better experience flying. More cramped, but much, much faster.
There are also issues with freight priority rail, and just freight rail in general. It’s a mess right now.
Isn’t the USA about the same size as Europe? I think Europe might actually be bigger. We also have a bunch of mountain range dividing up our continent too.
(Not denying the rest of your comment, just pointing out)
this (mind you, single country made of disparate states) was only contentiously “settled” about 300 years ago—Europe has had a pretty consistent and coherent cultural thrust for thousands of years, regardless of various clan-based spats, and a consistent build up of infrastructure to match. The US is the product of stolen land, a whole lot of racism and slavery and then being thrust into the center of the world stage right at the point when means of conveyance drastically shifted from ships and trains to planes and cars. the end result is the completely horrific infrastructure of the modern US landscape.
if you include eastern, and western europe, they’re comparable. The problem here is that most of the US population is centered on the coasts, and in the midwest, and a bit of the south, so most rail infrastructure would be useful there, everything between about illinois, and nevada is a wasteland of like, 12 people living there.
So that’s why there are those four hyper-dense rail networks on the coasts, the midwest and the south and the US’s only problem is that these aren’t properly interconnected?
Oh no, that’s only the start of our rail problem. It’s not just the sparseness of active lines and the lack of places to go, but slow, unreliable, expensive
I frequently use Acela, which some claim is our only high speed rail. It is a great choice ahead of either car or flying, Boston to nyc or nyc to dc. The thing is, while it meets the definition of high speed rail, that’s only about 50 miles of the line. Average speed Boston to nyc is like 70 mph.
Conditions go wwwaaaayyyyyyy downhill from there. When we were first dating, my ex tried to take a train out. However there was one a day and it took 7 hours, vs 3.5 hours to drive. That’s more typical service for way too much of the track, assuming you’re in one of the few places with rail service
yeah pretty much.
i mean, if you wanted to take a multi day train ride, i guess so? But going from coast to coast is never really going to be a popular route, although likely to be available on some time frames. You’re a lot more likely to see 1-4 hour routes popping up in between cities and population centers, rather than across all of the US, granted im sure longer routes will inevitably follow shorter routes given time.
It’s probably going to be more annoying, but if you want to do long distance travel, i.e. coast to coast, it’s going to be a better experience flying. More cramped, but much, much faster.
There are also issues with freight priority rail, and just freight rail in general. It’s a mess right now.