You don’t get to spout bullshit like “Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone” then try and defend yourself using area measurements that are completely irrelevant to the point I was refuting.
Besides, the map above doesn’t show a map of the EU’s rails. That’s a political grouping. Better try the geography of Europe (3.9m sq mi) if we’re going that route. Of course then you’d rightfully point out that’s a map of North America not the US.
In any case area is not very relevant. It’s very obvious that US rail is lacking far behind. That’s understandable in much less sparsely populated areas the US has. But look at the highly populous northeast corridor. Hardly compares to EU rails.
Western US has huge chunks of empty land. Drop those then. It’s only fair according to that logic.
Parts of Russia are shown ON THE POST. And maybe they are sparse - but they still have much better rail in those areas than most of the US! Furthering the point!
But even if we go with your completely flawed usage of land area and only the EU for some bizarre unexplained reason - The US is only twice as large. But our rail system is many many times worse. Even in areas with similar population density to Europe.
What the fuck are you on about
Just France covers most of Texas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_European_Union#:~:text=The geography of the European,French Guiana in South America.&text=Collectively%2C it represents the seventh,shares borders with 20 countries.
No, you don’t get to add russia into that. That area is 1.7m sq miles while the USA is 3.8m sq miles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_States
You don’t get to super impose the usa as a map image to this image and go “see told you”
You don’t get to spout bullshit like “Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone” then try and defend yourself using area measurements that are completely irrelevant to the point I was refuting.
Besides, the map above doesn’t show a map of the EU’s rails. That’s a political grouping. Better try the geography of Europe (3.9m sq mi) if we’re going that route. Of course then you’d rightfully point out that’s a map of North America not the US.
In any case area is not very relevant. It’s very obvious that US rail is lacking far behind. That’s understandable in much less sparsely populated areas the US has. But look at the highly populous northeast corridor. Hardly compares to EU rails.
I edited my post, but my point still stands. You %100 do use land mass for size, and you absolutely do not use russian land which is basically empty.
US rails are lacking, but it’s because the US is massive compared to the EU…again, stop adding russia which you keep doing.
Give me a reason to?
Western US has huge chunks of empty land. Drop those then. It’s only fair according to that logic.
Parts of Russia are shown ON THE POST. And maybe they are sparse - but they still have much better rail in those areas than most of the US! Furthering the point!
But even if we go with your completely flawed usage of land area and only the EU for some bizarre unexplained reason - The US is only twice as large. But our rail system is many many times worse. Even in areas with similar population density to Europe.
The size has nothing to do with it.