• CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Track maintenance is expensive and even more so when in remote areas. Population density is much lower in USA than most of Europe so km rail per person is just much higher.

    Hasn’t stopped the interstate system from taking billions of dollars a year though.

    Building a strong high speed rail in dense areas like New England and Midwest probably would be a good starter because people can see how well it works. But there’s so much carbrain inertia.

    • SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Indeed, that’s really only true because the United States and Canada have vast areas in which nobody lives. About 1/3 of the U.S. is federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management; that really throws off the average. If I recall correctly, around 40% of the population of Canada lives along a line between Windsor and Montréal. Meanwhile, this is Spain compared to the Northeast:

      image

      Spain has a population just under 50 million. It also has a high-speed rail network. You’d think that in a region with a far, far higher population density, the U.S. and Canada could do better than the Acela.