this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
820 points (98.2% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
5224 readers
8 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US absolutely needs more and better trains. But also, the US has large areas with no population. That's why when you look at electoral maps you need to control population density.
Even with a high quality rail system with support for populated areas of the US the map would still have large gaps and wouldn't be nearly as full as the EU map.
Simply putting two maps side by side and saying "this one bad" isn't great. Yes, it's absolutely bad, but for the exact reasons this map shows.
US also has the advantage of being one big federation with established standards bodies and a federal budget. A train that goes Between Belgium, Netherlands, Germany has to pass through 3 different electrical standards (yes, they are very different), 2 traffic regulations (left or right side), and 3 signalization standards. And they make it work.
Yeah, but excluding entire states is ridiculous.
Exactly. Every state has a major population hub. Excluding major cities is pretty bad. Except Wyoming. No one fucking lives in Wyoming. Why are they even a state...
In the vague defense of Wyoming and the other great planes states, quite a lot of their population growth was hindered or outright shrank due to the dust bowl which they haven't recovered from. It's kinda like how Russia goes through a population dip every 20 years or so due to the sheer number of people who died during WW2.
South Dakota only has two cities with populations over 50,000.
Another state that shouldn't exist
Is it? There are entire states with populations less than that of major cities.
Are you willing to pay the profit loss of keeping a station running? I’d wager trains aren’t cheap.
Cars and asphalt roads are even more expensive.
LOL!
Rail is FAR more expensive to maintain in the long run. And cars are cheaper than trains.
We're already paying to connect rural villages to infrastructure. Do you think connecting a rural village in the middle of nowhere to the street network is profitable? Of course it isn't. Same for water, wastewater, electricity, and internet.
Besides, a train station doesn't have to be fancy. If you make it so that people can pay for their ticket on board of the train, all you need is a concrete platform. Relatively cheap, and last approximately forever.
And electricity, and employees, and maintenance, and amenities, and land ownership or leasing cost, and utility taxes, and environmental impact costs, and….
Tbh do you really need all of that at any train station? Now you could sell the tickets on a website or with a machine. Land yes, that's true. Don't actually need really any amenities although would be good of course. Even electricity barely needed if it's day only. Seriously at the end of the day you dont even need a roof.
Have you ever been on a train?
I have a few times but not recently. Why?
Yes, it was pretty nice.
Yeah where's my train to Hawaii?!
You got me there.