• Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    On the one hand, I hear the arguments that Europe has a higher population density, more hubs and smaller cities that make trains effective, but the same efficiencies and cost cuts can’t be achieved in the US.

    On the other hand, I played railroad tycoon and saw how trains and trams were extremely successful to quickly connect and develop a sparse US through efficient public intercity and in-city transport and feel disappointed with the lack of imagination 🥲

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Europe as a whole is not a lot smaller than the US, so I think many of the same efficiencies can be achieved. China has also been able to do it very efficiently and is basically the same size as the US. Granted, they have a much larger population and more potential customers, but it can definitely be done.

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        As I said, lack of imagination. There is this bump in effort that has to be transposed to reach actual returns on investment because energy is too cheap and secure atm. But once that bump is transposed, there is a large landscape of gains, but they can’t see past the bump.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      more hubs

      USA has zero hubs because the transportation system is not developed even by the standards of the 1800s.

      smaller cities

      Yes, smaller cities can survive with decent transit. Sadly that’s not going to happen in USA. It’s a sad concrete wasteland.