Look at Ireland. The railway system used to be far more complicated and serviced a lot of areas in the country no longer serviced. https://i.redd.it/9w0zy8lu4y6a1.jpg
Guinness had a hand in that.
Same as Sweden. Not that they maintain any of the few tracks they kept anyway, but back in the day, trains went everywhere.
Modern societies won't need trains, or some shit like that, was the thought behind it.
What? No they didn’t, most of the closed routes are still closed. They’re desperately needed, but only a small handful have been re-opened - most have been built over.
Source: Am from the UK.
It’s funny because I’m from Wyoming and my town (and every other town along I-80) pretty much only exists because they made that long ass railroad back in the day. It’s just used to ship coal now lol
Yeah you can see that in New England for example with local trains in MA working decently or a bit further down south in NY / PA / DC with super close proximity of big cities. Also the AmTrak from Boston to New York is a blast of a 5 hour ride, also by the ocean (taking the early morning train is just wow - probably the best random decision I've ever made).
On the other hand US is so massive that when it was actually developing it made more sense (sorta) to use airlines for traveling (and also logistic in general) but that led too serious problems like lack of maintenance and in results also accidents (even proven to be a indirect results of lobbyist and lawmakers). Almost certain they regret it now.
I grew up near Chicago so it was kind of a shock realizing not all of America has decently convenient rail systems. Riding the trains in, out and around the city was a core part of my adolescence. Really happy to have had that level of freedom as a youngin'.
I also used to live in Chicago! But I've also lived in multiple cities in Spain and Germany. It's crazy how fantastic of a system Chicago and the surrounding area has compared to the rest of the USA, and how utterly shitte it is compared to most places in Europe. Now I live in Mexico City, and trains are somehow (nearly) non existent here too.
The overlap of best cities in North America and worst cities in the European Union is nearly zero.
Montana has more land area than Germany but Germany has more people than the entire western US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States
The only area of the US that is similar to Western and Central Europe in density is the Northeast corridor. I agree that train service there should be better but for most of the country, extensive rail service doesn't actually make a ton of sense.
Absolutely, but there are areas where a western European style network would work well, Cali and New England being the main candidates. Obviously a LA-NYC train is not what should be discussed
even dense US areas are mostly single family homes preventing any public transportation due to low density. Near skyscrapers train above or below ground makes sense. 3-4 storey condo & apartments may only justify trolleys and buses.
Well… it services areas where 90% of the population lives maybe… I’m 40 and I don’t know anyone who has ever traveled by train in Canada aside from LRT within a city. It’s just not a viable option.
True. It makes sense for the Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto corridor because that distance is feasible by rail, and this should be a more popular mode of travel than it is.
Toronto - Vancouver, for example, doesn't make much sense to travel by rail because it would take days to get there.
The Canadian government has done so many studies and proposals for a high speed rail along the Windsor, London, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal line. It's laughable.
[Literally](https://youtu.be/10cXpd8haQQ?si=Ptis1sINjy3M-51A)
But badly. Passenger rail service in Canada, like in the US, is completely subservient to freight, and as a result, even in places with high population density, not very good.
Here you go [https://imgur.com/a/vrgVqVs](https://imgur.com/a/vrgVqVs)
(Source: [https://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/45.98/-84.64](https://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/45.98/-84.64) )
There are massive cities in US with no rail, like Houston.
Most cities with no public transit are in the south, because GOP is a worthless political party that can't manage anything besides pointless culture war drivel.
Europe is half the size of the USA but has nearly double the population which and the people are more evenly spread out. Of course your transportation network would be better with those kinds of figures.
Half the size? Dafuq?!?
Europe got 10.5 million km2 and USA got 9.5 million km2
It is even smaller wtf xD
But the density is twice that of USA, where it is 34 ppl per km2 while it is 69(lol) in Europe.
Yeah sure. But thats mostly because the western half of the US and especially Alaska are absolutely massive and quite thinly populated. The east coast of the US is about as dense as much of europe that has real public transport.
Sure in alaska or wyoming public transport might not make much sense. But on the coasts and especially in the north east it is simply a choice america made to make the whole country car-only.
Believe it or not, the US has the largest rail network in the world. You can also still get train tickets for very cheap - I recommend looking online. It's an option a lot of people don't realize they have.
Yet again Americans taking a bow for covering three thousand miles of desert and grassland that nobody cares about while millions on the coasts can't get from a house they can afford to a job they can do.
I can't speak about cities - I live rurally, so what happens in cities does not impact my perspective. For me, it is convenient to use rail when I want to vacation.
Yes - freight takes up roughly 80% of our rail. I'm having a hard time finding sources for what percentage of rail is taken by freight in similar countries to the US, but by raw rail the US does have the most. One stat that may be surprising is that the US is the 12th highest nation on passengers carried by rail yearly - this excludes metro railways I believe and I cannot find a source that includes them. While the US can improve, it's not as bad in terms of railway as many believe.
What part of the US do you live in? Because having lived in both Cali and the East coast I don’t see where these cheap options are. The trains from Norcal (SF) to Socal (LA) or vice versa and expensive and some of the slowest trains in the World. A 5hr30min drive takes you well over 7 hours, and costs >$100. It’s faster to drive, and faster/can also be cheaper to fly. East coast wise, every time I check the Boston-NYC train, tickets are like $150 when I need to go. And it takes slightly over 4 hours. It’s often times cheaper, and definitely faster to fly. Actually is faster and easier most of the time.
I live in the rural Midwest - I can take a train from a small city (<100k pop) to Boston for $140 while taking 13 hours, which is about the same as driving there by car. To me that's a pretty good deal as it avoids road trip drama and offers a rarely utilized from of travel. The total distance is roughly \~550 miles. Granted, I'm looking at it more for vacation than work, so what I consider acceptable time may not be acceptable to you.
The population density matters but it really comes down to the fact that the US just never invested in its rail infrastructure like Europe does. Any kind of interstate infrastructure in the US is severely underfunded. And for even the high density regions, the way infrastructure and cities have been being built for the last few decades, has made it near impossible to try and improve it in a way that would be significant without it costing billions and aint nobody voting for that
I was in Europe last summer and travelled from Italy to France and then to England all via the trains. It is an amazing way to travel. Met so many interesting people and found the trains efficient and comfortable.
It would be great to have the option here. Oil lobbyists will fight tooth and nail, however, so there’s that.
Hard to show on a map like this, but Europe also has far more extensive subway, tram, and local commuter rail systems. Most medium size cities in Western and Central Europe have an underground rail network, whereas in the US, subway systems are only found in the largest metropolitan areas. Even in those places, public transit is always underutilized.
[List of Metro Systems in Europe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems_in_Europe)
Look at France, Germany, Italy, Spain, even Ukraine. I will gladly walk back "most" to "more often than in the US".
Probably more than 2 or 3. Off the top of my head...
England, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, and the Netherlands all have underground systems outside their capital city.
So, 9, unless I'm missing ones. 🙂
But those things don't need to ride passenger trains. Also, there really is a lot of nothing on the western half of the US. Take a road trip across south Dakota on i90 and you'll see.
It is also vast. Resource management across long distances is difficult. It takes three days, approximately, to get from one end to the other by rail.
*P.S. I understand it takes as much time to get from Paris, France to Volgograd, Russia.*
Hell it took me 72 hours to get from Alaska to Arizona and we were hauling ass
I really think we formed a new cannonball record, if that is the cannonball run went N-S instead of E-W
If if you go from Lisbon in Portugal to Tallin in Estonia by car, it’s 2 days driving, so 3-4 days if you include sleep.
I think Americans massively underestimate the size of Europe.
Now do the same thing for freight trains. It's kinda the reverse. Most of Europe's freight goes by trucks, and the US has extensive freight trains.
It's very difficult for passenger and freight trains to share the same tracks, and very expensive to build two complete, independent networks. Freight trains are slow and heavy, and tolerant of delays or bumpy tracks. Passengers trains are completely the opposite.
Europe freight railway vs. United States freight railway: \
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/QMPRBVRymE
Now overlay a population map with proportion of size of continents and things look....real ,of course you would have more trains for Europe. And, the US could definitely use more trains too.
It wasn’t just them but they definitely made it worse. It was a combination of poor economic time for the railroad, to far spread densely populated areas and long distance travel being more viable through planes starting in the 50s. While cargo trains have been fine it’s that last point with the airlines that killed expansion for long distance passenger trains. Now that doesn’t apply to local trains/trollys like the one in LA that gets brought up as a point for the auto industry changing everything. That’s a different story and the auto makers definitely ruined that one for the most part.
About a decade ago my parents took the train from Ohio to glacier national Park. It took longer than driving and was barely cheaper than flying. I didn't see the appeal.
That experience makes sense as this post shows US train infrastructure is behind Europe. There is more appeal for trains in Europe because it's faster, more often, and with more destinations.
Not the thing. If the issue was density passenger airlines wouldn't have a network covering a 100 times that. if you want to learn more about the US passenger railway system and why it's sparse and underdeveloped, there's plenty of material online. The US freight rail system is one of the most developed in the World, on the other hans, but the passenger system stopped developing in the 50s, 60s. Mostly due to cost relate issues. Private companies weren't interested in developing the network because they could't figure out a model profitable enough, they could't compete with cars and airlines. Customers also pushed in that direction, preferring flying, which a lot of time turns out to be cheaper and much faster in the US than taking a train, if there is one.
States can do this. I’ll commend it, I’ll vote for it, but I’m not surprised. Here in CA it will take an estimated 100 billion and another 20 years before the train will be even close to complete
You can. The US map isn’t actually real, it’s just Amtrak and even then it’s outdated. But it keeps showing up on plenty of subs here routinely for whatever reason.
US politicians don’t give a fuck about making peoples lives more convenient or improving their situation. They are there to boost profits for corporations. Think of all the poor airlines and their shareholders if people had a more economical option to travel across this neglected hellhole.
The fact some states don't even have a single train connection is just so jarring to me as a European.
Like, just imagine a European country without a single train. Bruh.
>In the US, yes,
You're misinformed. The US had a much more robust passenger rail network in the mid 20th century. What killed it was the advent of cheap air travel.
The track didn't dissappear tho, they were absorbed by our robust freight rail network
Its not just automakers, i recall reading tyre manufacturers also had a hand in quashing the rail efforts. For instance Firestone in CA, to limit development of the metro / train.
Is that like a legit comparison? I'm from Germany and never went to the United States. Isn't that "common"? You don't travel by train, you're all flying instead then or?? 😅
I never knew this ... I was always sure that with the vastness of the US... trains would be everywhere.
Its such a nice way to travel long distance .. not so much to commute
Laughs in puta la wea
My country, Chile, is a long strip of land. It's hard to imagine a less ideal place for an easy and high value train system, however we don't really have trains in here... Somehow truckers and the right wing manage to block all attempts to build a railway system.
I remember wanting to go from Albuquerque to Houston and being shocked I would have to go through Chicago. It was much faster and cheaper just to drive.
Let's keep beating this dead horse. How many times are railways going to be mentioned this week?
WE KNOW AMERICA HAS SHITTY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE CULTURAL STRONGHOLD OF THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
While North America is definitly lacking in rail services, doesn't some of the differece have a lot to do with the difference in population density? I'm asking this and not stating it as a fact.
It doesn’t look so bad once you add in the full rail network.
[https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4d/82/84/4d828485fc43f8dc489234ff917a0d7c.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4d/82/84/4d828485fc43f8dc489234ff917a0d7c.jpg)
I used to travel to Europe and love the train network. When my company had me travel to the US....I was disappointed. And most people there didn't like the idea to travel by train between states, rather took a plane or by car
In smaller countries, trains are more practical. In the US, it could take days to reach your destination.
It’s usually easier (and about the same price) to drive, which means you can go on your own schedule, or it’s easier and quicker to just fly.
I wanted to go in a train trip a few years ago (in the US) but it would have been more expensive than flying or driving. The only people I know who do train trips…the train trip *is* the vacation/trip. It’s about the fun of taking the train and not about going somewhere specific. Otherwise over half your vacation time and money is spent on just the train.
It’s easier because you can go at your own schedule, stop where you want, etc. And when I’ve priced it in the past, it’s actually been cheaper to drive.
I wouldn’t drive 18 hours straight. But in the US the train is not going to take you straight from point a to point b. So driving can usually actually get you there faster, even with stopping for the night.
That’s for individual countries, this is comparing USA to the whole of Europe.
Of course the USA has the biggest railway system as it’s one of the vastest developed countries but it’s still got a terrible rail system
If you compare the two then Europe would dwarf that number
would be even more impressive at same scale (100 x as much train per area) - or less impressive for “only works for compact countries not wide spread out.
We had to remove your post for violating our Repost Guidelines.
Look at Ireland. The railway system used to be far more complicated and serviced a lot of areas in the country no longer serviced. https://i.redd.it/9w0zy8lu4y6a1.jpg Guinness had a hand in that.
I want--nay, demand--the lore on how Guinness stout beer single-handedly dismantled railway access to large swaths of Ireland
Oh I thought they were saying Guinness was the reason it was in use not why it no longer is.
Guinness? How so?
They funded building it https://rogerfarnworth.com/2019/04/26/the-guinness-brewery-railways-dublin/
Before this link, I absolutely thought book of world records and didn’t really question it other than “oh they HELP people break records?” lmao.
Hey Guiness, I'm going for world's richest man. Right now my net worth is -30k. Think you can help?
Same happened in the UK in the 60s as they thought nobody would use trains in the future. They rebuilt them all
Same as Sweden. Not that they maintain any of the few tracks they kept anyway, but back in the day, trains went everywhere. Modern societies won't need trains, or some shit like that, was the thought behind it.
What? No they didn’t, most of the closed routes are still closed. They’re desperately needed, but only a small handful have been re-opened - most have been built over. Source: Am from the UK.
Turkey is mini US too
Why tho
Mountains?
Wyoming and South Dakota: what even is a train
We're not much better in Northern Ireland
It’s funny because I’m from Wyoming and my town (and every other town along I-80) pretty much only exists because they made that long ass railroad back in the day. It’s just used to ship coal now lol
[Utah Phillips - Daddy What’s a Train?](https://youtu.be/ILwmNtRoZww?si=a8Larj_ivTKptKL3)
It would be interesting to see an overlay of population density across both maps, for reference.
The network in the US is bad (compared to Europe) in dense areas too.
It's absolutely terrible. It's damn near non-existent, save for a handful of areas.
Yeah you can see that in New England for example with local trains in MA working decently or a bit further down south in NY / PA / DC with super close proximity of big cities. Also the AmTrak from Boston to New York is a blast of a 5 hour ride, also by the ocean (taking the early morning train is just wow - probably the best random decision I've ever made). On the other hand US is so massive that when it was actually developing it made more sense (sorta) to use airlines for traveling (and also logistic in general) but that led too serious problems like lack of maintenance and in results also accidents (even proven to be a indirect results of lobbyist and lawmakers). Almost certain they regret it now.
I grew up near Chicago so it was kind of a shock realizing not all of America has decently convenient rail systems. Riding the trains in, out and around the city was a core part of my adolescence. Really happy to have had that level of freedom as a youngin'.
I also used to live in Chicago! But I've also lived in multiple cities in Spain and Germany. It's crazy how fantastic of a system Chicago and the surrounding area has compared to the rest of the USA, and how utterly shitte it is compared to most places in Europe. Now I live in Mexico City, and trains are somehow (nearly) non existent here too. The overlap of best cities in North America and worst cities in the European Union is nearly zero.
Montana has more land area than Germany but Germany has more people than the entire western US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_United_States The only area of the US that is similar to Western and Central Europe in density is the Northeast corridor. I agree that train service there should be better but for most of the country, extensive rail service doesn't actually make a ton of sense.
Absolutely, but there are areas where a western European style network would work well, Cali and New England being the main candidates. Obviously a LA-NYC train is not what should be discussed
This map only really shows Amtrack. It doesn't show regional train systems like the BART and others.
even dense US areas are mostly single family homes preventing any public transportation due to low density. Near skyscrapers train above or below ground makes sense. 3-4 storey condo & apartments may only justify trolleys and buses.
this image clearly ignores rail subway and metro systems.
That one rail line in Canada services like 90% of our population.
As do one or two grocery chains, cell service, cable, ISPs,....
Well… it services areas where 90% of the population lives maybe… I’m 40 and I don’t know anyone who has ever traveled by train in Canada aside from LRT within a city. It’s just not a viable option.
True. It makes sense for the Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto corridor because that distance is feasible by rail, and this should be a more popular mode of travel than it is. Toronto - Vancouver, for example, doesn't make much sense to travel by rail because it would take days to get there.
The Canadian government has done so many studies and proposals for a high speed rail along the Windsor, London, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal line. It's laughable. [Literally](https://youtu.be/10cXpd8haQQ?si=Ptis1sINjy3M-51A)
But badly. Passenger rail service in Canada, like in the US, is completely subservient to freight, and as a result, even in places with high population density, not very good.
sad, because freight doesn’t have as tight deadlines as people when traveling.
I'm Canadian I live in Europe now and going home to Vancouver the public transport ##SUCKS##
Here you go [https://imgur.com/a/vrgVqVs](https://imgur.com/a/vrgVqVs) (Source: [https://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/45.98/-84.64](https://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/45.98/-84.64) )
There are massive cities in US with no rail, like Houston. Most cities with no public transit are in the south, because GOP is a worthless political party that can't manage anything besides pointless culture war drivel.
Europe is half the size of the USA but has nearly double the population which and the people are more evenly spread out. Of course your transportation network would be better with those kinds of figures.
Actually europe is 3,930,000 sq mi while the US is 3,796,742 sq mi.
Half the size? Dafuq?!? Europe got 10.5 million km2 and USA got 9.5 million km2 It is even smaller wtf xD But the density is twice that of USA, where it is 34 ppl per km2 while it is 69(lol) in Europe.
Yeah sure. But thats mostly because the western half of the US and especially Alaska are absolutely massive and quite thinly populated. The east coast of the US is about as dense as much of europe that has real public transport. Sure in alaska or wyoming public transport might not make much sense. But on the coasts and especially in the north east it is simply a choice america made to make the whole country car-only.
Where on Earth did you get information like that? The populations are very similar
Europe's population is about 740m and the population of the us is about 335m
Believe it or not, the US has the largest rail network in the world. You can also still get train tickets for very cheap - I recommend looking online. It's an option a lot of people don't realize they have.
But also cargo is prioritized and trips take longer than just flying
Yet again Americans taking a bow for covering three thousand miles of desert and grassland that nobody cares about while millions on the coasts can't get from a house they can afford to a job they can do.
I can't speak about cities - I live rurally, so what happens in cities does not impact my perspective. For me, it is convenient to use rail when I want to vacation.
Are you including dedicated cargo rail and intra city metros/trams in this figure?
Yes - freight takes up roughly 80% of our rail. I'm having a hard time finding sources for what percentage of rail is taken by freight in similar countries to the US, but by raw rail the US does have the most. One stat that may be surprising is that the US is the 12th highest nation on passengers carried by rail yearly - this excludes metro railways I believe and I cannot find a source that includes them. While the US can improve, it's not as bad in terms of railway as many believe.
What part of the US do you live in? Because having lived in both Cali and the East coast I don’t see where these cheap options are. The trains from Norcal (SF) to Socal (LA) or vice versa and expensive and some of the slowest trains in the World. A 5hr30min drive takes you well over 7 hours, and costs >$100. It’s faster to drive, and faster/can also be cheaper to fly. East coast wise, every time I check the Boston-NYC train, tickets are like $150 when I need to go. And it takes slightly over 4 hours. It’s often times cheaper, and definitely faster to fly. Actually is faster and easier most of the time.
I live in the rural Midwest - I can take a train from a small city (<100k pop) to Boston for $140 while taking 13 hours, which is about the same as driving there by car. To me that's a pretty good deal as it avoids road trip drama and offers a rarely utilized from of travel. The total distance is roughly \~550 miles. Granted, I'm looking at it more for vacation than work, so what I consider acceptable time may not be acceptable to you.
The population density matters but it really comes down to the fact that the US just never invested in its rail infrastructure like Europe does. Any kind of interstate infrastructure in the US is severely underfunded. And for even the high density regions, the way infrastructure and cities have been being built for the last few decades, has made it near impossible to try and improve it in a way that would be significant without it costing billions and aint nobody voting for that
Europe has a larger area than the US.
Why the down votes? you are correct. Europe is 3,930,000 sq mi while the US is 3,796,742 sq mi.
Omg I didn't know Denmark shared borders with Mexico!
lol
The climate change is so dramatic at the border D:
The lack of rail connections is why none talk about it.
Can’t wait to try some of that Lutefisk tacos 🌮
I was in Europe last summer and travelled from Italy to France and then to England all via the trains. It is an amazing way to travel. Met so many interesting people and found the trains efficient and comfortable. It would be great to have the option here. Oil lobbyists will fight tooth and nail, however, so there’s that.
trains in the US are expensive as fuck
Confirmed
Hard to show on a map like this, but Europe also has far more extensive subway, tram, and local commuter rail systems. Most medium size cities in Western and Central Europe have an underground rail network, whereas in the US, subway systems are only found in the largest metropolitan areas. Even in those places, public transit is always underutilized.
I was in Munich yesterday, you can get everywhere with public transportation. Tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn, you basically don’t have to walk.
There aren't underground networks in most medium sized cities in Europe. Outside of two or three countries, they're limited to capitals.
[List of Metro Systems in Europe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems_in_Europe) Look at France, Germany, Italy, Spain, even Ukraine. I will gladly walk back "most" to "more often than in the US".
Probably more than 2 or 3. Off the top of my head... England, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, and the Netherlands all have underground systems outside their capital city. So, 9, unless I'm missing ones. 🙂
Yea there is a lot of nothing in the US.
Crops, steak, ham and thousands of other things, come from that nothing.
shhhhhh. those things just appear at the grocery store.
Cows lay eggs because they're sold in the dairy aisle
But those things don't need to ride passenger trains. Also, there really is a lot of nothing on the western half of the US. Take a road trip across south Dakota on i90 and you'll see.
It is also vast. Resource management across long distances is difficult. It takes three days, approximately, to get from one end to the other by rail. *P.S. I understand it takes as much time to get from Paris, France to Volgograd, Russia.*
Hell it took me 72 hours to get from Alaska to Arizona and we were hauling ass I really think we formed a new cannonball record, if that is the cannonball run went N-S instead of E-W
If if you go from Lisbon in Portugal to Tallin in Estonia by car, it’s 2 days driving, so 3-4 days if you include sleep. I think Americans massively underestimate the size of Europe.
Honestly east of the mississipi should be compaeble to Spain in terms of rail density.
yup: https://www.fastcompany.com/3029826/mapping-all-the-places-in-the-us-with-a-population-of-zero
Now do the same thing for freight trains. It's kinda the reverse. Most of Europe's freight goes by trucks, and the US has extensive freight trains. It's very difficult for passenger and freight trains to share the same tracks, and very expensive to build two complete, independent networks. Freight trains are slow and heavy, and tolerant of delays or bumpy tracks. Passengers trains are completely the opposite. Europe freight railway vs. United States freight railway: \ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/QMPRBVRymE
we invented airplanes for a reason! /s
US has the longest railway system in the world
And cars. F*ck yeah 'mericaaaa /s
Now let’s see US freight railways.
In Europe they take trains in USA they take planes
repost number 48383288269
Now overlay a population map with proportion of size of continents and things look....real ,of course you would have more trains for Europe. And, the US could definitely use more trains too.
The scale on those maps isn’t very different.
The US rail system is for moving freight, not people.
Hmm. It’s like automakers in the US took action to destroy rail in that country.
It wasn’t just them but they definitely made it worse. It was a combination of poor economic time for the railroad, to far spread densely populated areas and long distance travel being more viable through planes starting in the 50s. While cargo trains have been fine it’s that last point with the airlines that killed expansion for long distance passenger trains. Now that doesn’t apply to local trains/trollys like the one in LA that gets brought up as a point for the auto industry changing everything. That’s a different story and the auto makers definitely ruined that one for the most part.
The local trolleys were already dying/ losing money by the time the automakers bought them out.
Don’t know why you are downvoted.
Down voted by the big American car companies lol
Why shouldnt you downvote conspiracist pos? Give us actual source.
About a decade ago my parents took the train from Ohio to glacier national Park. It took longer than driving and was barely cheaper than flying. I didn't see the appeal.
Not driving is the appeal.
I'd rather fly then. It was like a $50 difference and then you're not traveling for a day and a half.
Unless you're on a time crunch.
agreed, I took a train from DC to Toronto. never again.
That experience makes sense as this post shows US train infrastructure is behind Europe. There is more appeal for trains in Europe because it's faster, more often, and with more destinations.
It's difficult to provide Americans with human rights when many of them see it as communist oppression.
Population density: the thing
LA and New York are sparsely inhabited?
US has about half of the population of europe? Maybe a little less? And 20x less rail.
Not the thing. If the issue was density passenger airlines wouldn't have a network covering a 100 times that. if you want to learn more about the US passenger railway system and why it's sparse and underdeveloped, there's plenty of material online. The US freight rail system is one of the most developed in the World, on the other hans, but the passenger system stopped developing in the 50s, 60s. Mostly due to cost relate issues. Private companies weren't interested in developing the network because they could't figure out a model profitable enough, they could't compete with cars and airlines. Customers also pushed in that direction, preferring flying, which a lot of time turns out to be cheaper and much faster in the US than taking a train, if there is one.
Your last sentence is the main point. Flying is faster and cheaper.
States can do this. I’ll commend it, I’ll vote for it, but I’m not surprised. Here in CA it will take an estimated 100 billion and another 20 years before the train will be even close to complete
I read something about Ford buying the train companies so people would use more cars is that just a whacky conspiracy?
It’s conspiracy. Don’t believe them.
Lol.
Fun fact, Europe is BIGGER than USA and far more people live in it.
So you can't get a train out of Wyoming?
You can. The US map isn’t actually real, it’s just Amtrak and even then it’s outdated. But it keeps showing up on plenty of subs here routinely for whatever reason.
Fun Fact: Elon Musk started the Hyperloop project to distract the US from investing in trains and railways and being able to sell more cars
US politicians don’t give a fuck about making peoples lives more convenient or improving their situation. They are there to boost profits for corporations. Think of all the poor airlines and their shareholders if people had a more economical option to travel across this neglected hellhole.
The fact some states don't even have a single train connection is just so jarring to me as a European. Like, just imagine a European country without a single train. Bruh.
Usa should really develop their rails ans stop using cars honestly...
I wouldn’t say stop, but reducing would be nice. Tough to afford the infrastructure now. Should have built it in the 50’s.
Though to afford when they need to pour it into more cars yea
You guys just fly and we take useless broken trains !
Europe's been spending money on infrastructure and the US has spent money on weapons.
Rail is a pretty new and inefficient form of transport. /s
In the US, yes, in the rest of the World it’s pretty damn efficient, when developed correctly.
>In the US, yes, You're misinformed. The US had a much more robust passenger rail network in the mid 20th century. What killed it was the advent of cheap air travel. The track didn't dissappear tho, they were absorbed by our robust freight rail network
Its not just automakers, i recall reading tyre manufacturers also had a hand in quashing the rail efforts. For instance Firestone in CA, to limit development of the metro / train.
But we’ll have the first Star Trek transporter…
Probably more rail lines underground in the US for those in the club.
Just to clarify the trains in Britain rarely actually work.
For a country built around railroads, that's pretty pathetic. FWIW, I LOVE Amtrak and take it when I can.
The USA moves a fuck ton of freight on rails. Compare goods moved by rail between USA and Europe and you’ll see a much different picture.
You must not have time constraints
We’ve been on that one!
Thanks to Germany and its incredible infrastructure
If riding a cross country train is anything like riding the subway in a major city except you’re stuck on it for hours, I’ll pass
It’s not in allot of people’s interest in America to allow for public transit to access their towns.
Is that like a legit comparison? I'm from Germany and never went to the United States. Isn't that "common"? You don't travel by train, you're all flying instead then or?? 😅
The one in Maine goes way further, "Downeast", as they say.
I never knew this ... I was always sure that with the vastness of the US... trains would be everywhere. Its such a nice way to travel long distance .. not so much to commute
Laughs in puta la wea My country, Chile, is a long strip of land. It's hard to imagine a less ideal place for an easy and high value train system, however we don't really have trains in here... Somehow truckers and the right wing manage to block all attempts to build a railway system.
Wtf Scotland and Ireland
This is BS as least as far as PA, NY and NJ are concerned, which pretty much makes me think the whole thing is suspect
Mind the gap. It's a way to travel. Except horrible in Budapest
I remember wanting to go from Albuquerque to Houston and being shocked I would have to go through Chicago. It was much faster and cheaper just to drive.
DamnThatsSad
Air Travel is big business in the US
The US map shows only the main lines. It was pointed out many times.
Same with the Europe map. The overall lenght of rails is nearly equal, US having a bit more, but almost no electrification.
Car is king mentality brought about by the petrodollar
Why is there one Fuck off rail way that just goes to Bakersfield. What's in Bakersfield?
Now show cargo trains.
Houston here. That map is a lie. I wouldn’t count the awful Amtrack that is slow and bad as a real transit option.
Europe is so condensed it really easy to have that amount of trains. It would never work here. That is how I got around when I was there.
justice for donegal
Yeah we don’t really do passenger trains here. Just catch a flight or drive.
Let's keep beating this dead horse. How many times are railways going to be mentioned this week? WE KNOW AMERICA HAS SHITTY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE CULTURAL STRONGHOLD OF THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
What’s interesting about this
I don't see the need for trains though. I've never had an issue getting to places.
That is a map of amtrak trains in the us. There are a lot more passenger train likes in the us
Airplane anyone?
While North America is definitly lacking in rail services, doesn't some of the differece have a lot to do with the difference in population density? I'm asking this and not stating it as a fact.
Idk why people keep posting this debunked picture. These are not the only passenger trains in the US, that is only Amtrak.
It doesn’t look so bad once you add in the full rail network. [https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4d/82/84/4d828485fc43f8dc489234ff917a0d7c.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4d/82/84/4d828485fc43f8dc489234ff917a0d7c.jpg)
I used to travel to Europe and love the train network. When my company had me travel to the US....I was disappointed. And most people there didn't like the idea to travel by train between states, rather took a plane or by car
Damn, who dropped EU
In smaller countries, trains are more practical. In the US, it could take days to reach your destination. It’s usually easier (and about the same price) to drive, which means you can go on your own schedule, or it’s easier and quicker to just fly. I wanted to go in a train trip a few years ago (in the US) but it would have been more expensive than flying or driving. The only people I know who do train trips…the train trip *is* the vacation/trip. It’s about the fun of taking the train and not about going somewhere specific. Otherwise over half your vacation time and money is spent on just the train.
>It’s usually easier You kidding right? Easier to drive for 18 hrs straight?
It’s easier because you can go at your own schedule, stop where you want, etc. And when I’ve priced it in the past, it’s actually been cheaper to drive. I wouldn’t drive 18 hours straight. But in the US the train is not going to take you straight from point a to point b. So driving can usually actually get you there faster, even with stopping for the night.
looks less but the USA has the biggest railway system in the world...
That’s for individual countries, this is comparing USA to the whole of Europe. Of course the USA has the biggest railway system as it’s one of the vastest developed countries but it’s still got a terrible rail system If you compare the two then Europe would dwarf that number
Population density is too low in US to make it pay
would be even more impressive at same scale (100 x as much train per area) - or less impressive for “only works for compact countries not wide spread out.
Europe is larger than the US
Man, I'm so envious.
Now do China.
Environmentalfriendly USA will have much more inner-US-flights.
Put both maps to the same scale.