Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fixyfoxy3 t1_jdwyrx7 wrote

Reply to comment by moo314159 in Compare Public Transport Network Connectivity In 10 European Countries [OC] by TravelTime_LKB

Yeah, I agree. I think the quality (infrastructure, maintenance and rolling stock) and quantity of (unprofitable) transit services is a bigger sign of how rich a country is than the sheer amount of train tracks.

3

moo314159 t1_jdyxa4j wrote

>bigger sign of how rich a country is than the sheer amount of train tracks.

While I mostly agree these two might still be correlated. You see this on the map of italy. Italy is divided in a rich(er) industrialised north and a comparably poor rural south. Having railroads doesn't make you rich or vice versa But I think there is still a connection to be observed when you specifically look at the history of a country and the developement of a railroadsystem, don't you think?

2

Fixyfoxy3 t1_jdzjbnn wrote

I think I get what you mean. When the railways were built Switzerland (like northern Italy) were still somewhat rich (and more inland, less boats) in regards to southern Italy, so they built more railways. This goes the other way around: Railways tend(ed) to attract people and industries. Many cities in Europe but especially in the US were built because of the railway. There is probably a correlation between how rich a country is, how much tracks it has, when they were built and how the service is today. I find it pretty hard to see a direct connection, but imo it should work as a rule of thumb.

2