What are the United States' peers in rail and transit around the world?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Matthew H Fish

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
499
As I've discussed elsewhere, I currently live in Costa Rica, a country with a small rail system that I have used as much as possible. In my thread talking about Costa Rica, I talked about the difference in size between Costa Rica and the US---Costa Rica is roughly the size of West Virginia. I've noticed that people here, and in other countries, sometimes underestimate the size of the United States, even if they intellectually know the size of the country.
That got me thinking about what areas we would compare the United States to, in terms of trains and transportation. I have organized the countries of the world into about four categories based on how they use trains, (freight and passenger) based on their size, population and economy.

1. Western Europe and East Asian democracies: Much of the EU, plus Japan, South Korea and perhaps Taiwan. These countries are small, with high population densities, developed economies (that don't depend on raw materials), technical expertise and generally good governance that ensures (mostly) safety and efficiency of operations. For all these reasons, they have well developed passenger rail networks. Many of these countries also don't have extreme terrain barriers.
2. BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (and also countries with similar economic and governmental situations, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Argentina, Pakistan): these are Middle-Income countries whose economies have developed more recently, are still dependent on raw materials, and which often have high population densities, at least in places. They also have high populations overall. They might have good technical expertise. In some cases, autocratic governance might make infrastructure projects easier, but it might also scare off investment.
3. Small, lower or middle income countries: including countries in Latin America, SE Asia, and Eastern Europe. Usually have developing economies and high enough income to create demand, but don't have the capital and expertise to invest in larger projects. Often are using legacy systems from colonial or resource based economies. Have a variety of governments, and are diverse in terms of terrain.
4. Australia and Canada: These two are in a category by themselves. They are large, developed countries, but their populations are much smaller than the United States. Strongly developed economies that still depend on natural resources.

So those are how I separate the nations of the world depending on their rail/transportation infrastructure. Obviously that is a simplification.
But the important question is...who do we compare ourselves to? If we look at the US' train and other transportation infrastructure, do we compare ourselves to a small, developed country like The Netherlands? Or are we more of a Brazil? Or should we compare ourselves to Australia or Canada?
My own opinion is that the United States is in a category of its own, and so that it is hard to find good comparisons to how and why our rail infrastructure ended up the way it did.
 
I think that the US should not be taken as a whole for this question, as you can find there both densely populated areas and quite empty areas.

If you take the NEC for example, which has a population of 50M in a 56k sq mi area, you could compare it to some European countries like Italy (same longitudinal shape, same population, NEC is 2x as big), Austria (same shape, but NEC has x5 population, x2 area, so x10 density), and realize that these two European examples have a much better rail network in a similarly shaped area with a lower population density...

On the other hand, if you take Montana, which is roughly the size of Germany with ~1% of its population... you can't really hope for a strong rail network there, maybe apart from a Kalispell - Missoula - Bozeman - Billings corridor (the closest European country in terms of density/shape would be Finland, 5x more populated in half the area, so still 10x more dense than Montana, and the rail network only covers the southern half of the country, where most of the population lives).
 
Last edited:
I think that the US should not be taken as a whole for this question, as you can find there both densely populated areas and quite empty areas.

If you take the NEC for example, which has a population of 50M in a 56k sq mi area, you could compare it to some European countries like Italy (same longitudinal shape, same population, NEC is 2x as big), Austria (same shape, but NEC has x5 population, x2 area, so x10 density), and realize that these two European examples have a much better rail network in a similarly shaped area with a lower population density...

And this is where it is hard to make comparisons, I feel, because you have different types of rail. If I were to compare the Netherlands to something, for example, I would just compare it to the NYC metro area. If you look at the Netherlands on a map, the entire country is about as big as Hartford to Philadelphia. And if you combine all the different rail systems in that area---not just Amtrak, but SEPTA, NJ Transit, LIRR and MTA North, and even the subways/metros---I think that the rail system is comparable. Not the same, but comparable. But also, I don't specifically know.


On the other hand, if you take Montana, which is roughly the size of Germany with ~1% of its population... you can't really hope for a strong rail network there, maybe apart from a Kalispell - Missoula - Bozeman - Billings corridor (the closest European country in terms of density/shape would be Finland, 5x more populated in half the area, so still 10x more dense than Montana, and the rail network only covers the southern half of the country, where most of the population lives).

Montana is a great example. Montana is a little bit bigger than Germany, but with less than 2% of the population. And I think that is something that is hard for people to understand until they see it. (This came up in the thread I made about FAR areas). The idea of going 60 miles between towns large enough to have a gas station is something that is just outside of the experience of most people in Western Europe or the Eastern US.
In a way, even though the US is around 10 times as densely populated as Australia or Canada, we still have the fact that that we have a 1000 mile length of our country that is too thinly populated to support trail traffic by normal means.
 
If I were to compare the Netherlands to something, for example, I would just compare it to the NYC metro area. If you look at the Netherlands on a map, the entire country is about as big as Hartford to Philadelphia. And if you combine all the different rail systems in that area---not just Amtrak, but SEPTA, NJ Transit, LIRR and MTA North, and even the subways/metros---I think that the rail system is comparable. Not the same, but comparable. But also, I don't specifically know.
As long as Hartford to Philadelphia, but also as wide as New York City to Scranton.
So sure, the frequency of train services along the Hartford - Philadelphia line is quite comparable to what you can have in the Netherlands, but if you try going inlands away from that line... that's not the same story at all.

Map of train services in the Netherlands can be seen here, a solid line means a train every hour, a bold solid line means two trains every hour, all day from 7am to 8pm (dashed lines are rush hour only, evening services are on page 3, week-end services are on page 4).
 
As long as Hartford to Philadelphia, but also as wide as New York City to Scranton.
So sure, the frequency of train services along the Hartford - Philadelphia line is quite comparable to what you can have in the Netherlands, but if you try going inlands away from that line... that's not the same story at all.

Map of train services in the Netherlands can be seen here, a solid line means a train every hour, a bold solid line means two trains every hour, all day from 7am to 8pm (dashed lines are rush hour only, evening services are on page 3, week-end services are on page 4).
I am not saying that the NYC metro area is the exact shape and size of the Netherlands, just that if we were to compare the Netherlands (for rail purposes) to something, it would make more sense to compare it to a small East Coast state, or to an extended metro area, then to compare it to the entire United States.
 
Back
Top