Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone. The USA has shit rails but acting like Europe has even half the distance that’s needed to cover the usa like it looks in this map is dishonest.
I miss spoke, but the size of the EU vs the usa is no where near the same.
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.
you need to familiarize yourself with how Map projections distort the shape and size of land masses, because that’s the only way i can imagine you got this idea.
it’s not even close, Alaska is way smaller than Europe. go look to some actual statistics. with all of its landmass combined the United States is 0.98x the size of Europe. it’s smaller, but barely. they are nearly exactly the same size if you made them both into a circle.
Most of the euro side of that map, fits into texas alone. The USA has shit rails but acting like Europe has even half the distance that’s needed to cover the usa like it looks in this map is dishonest.
I miss spoke, but the size of the EU vs the usa is no where near the same.
https://www.newgeography.com/content/005313-which-countries-would-fit-inside-texas
EU 1.7m sq miles USA 3.8m sq miles
Not even in the same ballpark.
What the fuck are you on about
Just France covers most of Texas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_European_Union#%3A~%3Atext=The+geography+of+the+European%2CFrench+Guiana+in+South+America.&text=Collectively%2C+it+represents+the+seventh%2Cshares+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.
Texas is about the size of France, with The Netherlands tacked on. Europe would fit east of the Mississippi, not in the second largest state.
Alaska, however, is bigger than Europe
Alaska is 1 477 300 km2
Europe is 10 180 000 km²
Alaska is huge sure but definitely NOT larger than Europe
you need to familiarize yourself with how Map projections distort the shape and size of land masses, because that’s the only way i can imagine you got this idea.
it’s not even close, Alaska is way smaller than Europe. go look to some actual statistics. with all of its landmass combined the United States is 0.98x the size of Europe. it’s smaller, but barely. they are nearly exactly the same size if you made them both into a circle.
If you added in russia…russia doesn’t count because 95% of it is baren wasteland with no rails.
Alaska is smaller then Europe by quite a bit.