Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big difference is that most developed countries have either emerged recently, or had to rebuild after destructive wars. So other countries have a planned infrastructure for modern times, while the USA is still duct-taping the old one together and bending it to make it fit.
Very true. People mock the condition of airports like JFK, but one must realize that JFK was the prototype for major international airports. Other countries have the benefit of improving on its design with newer more modern construction techniques, and the latest airports are iterations on iterations, while JFK is now kind of a museum of mid-20th century airport infrastructure.
The same can be said for the New York City subway. It can't hold a candle to more modern (and honestly often smaller, more managable/flexible systems) underground transit systems, but if you consider the fact that it is basically 100 years old, it is impressive (when it is working properly :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Can someone overlay those maps with a population density map?
Yes. These maps are basically uniformative without population information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer
Well, the U.S. COULD build them. It's expensive, but the U.S. is more about building military bases abroad, and infrastructure in countries that it bombs.
Wow. Political hyperbole in a discussion about trains and 4G coverage. Stereotypical self-loathing expat much?
Very true. People mock the condition of airports like JFK, but one must realize that JFK was the prototype for major international airports. Other countries have the benefit of improving on its design with newer more modern construction techniques, and the latest airports are iterations on iterations, while JFK is now kind of a museum of mid-20th century airport infrastructure.
The same can be said for the New York City subway. It can't hold a candle to more modern (and honestly often smaller, more managable/flexible systems) underground transit systems, but if you consider the fact that it is basically 100 years old, it is impressive (when it is working properly :-)
Yes. These maps are basically uniformative without population information.
Wow. Political hyperbole in a discussion about trains and 4G coverage. Stereotypical self-loathing expat much?
The saddest thing is new metro projects are no better than the projects built half a century to a century ago in in Boston, NYC or Europe. LA’s “new” metro system is just as modern as the BOSTON T even though it’s pretty much built in the 21st century.
NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco are the "Big 6" U.S. cities where you don't need a car to get around in most places you would want to go within city limits (and to some extent, in the nearby suburbs). These are the cities with the best public transportation and greatest walkability. If you're just visiting any one of these cities individually, then you can absolutely do without a car.
Seattle and New Orleans get honorable mentions.
LA, on the other hand, is totally the opposite. You must have a car there because everything you want to see is spread out many, many miles apart. It is not designed like these other cities.
Well, the U.S. COULD build them. It's expensive, but the U.S. is more about building military bases abroad, and infrastructure in countries that it bombs.
It just isn't interested in domestic issues. It would just have to divert it's money away from its primary goals to do that. But, this generation of Americans is fairly strongly against any kind of investment that goes into America - whether it's public education, or anything else...Americans are just against it. They do seem to be for wars though.
Military expenditure still only amounts to about 4% of the GDP. The US has all the necessary means to fund a HSR project. The question is whether there is demand. Greysholic is right in stating that density plays a critical role. There's a reason why neither Canada nor Australia have any HSR service running as of right now despite both of them being developed nations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
