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.
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.
