Yeah but like 60% of the population is in large urban centers and theyre already connected in norway by huge road tunnels and bridges, they could have trains as well. As for sweden, the government just doesnt spend money on public transit and when it does they throw it away on random stuff. Many tracks are in disrepair, out of use and the main high speed lines are constructed in stupid places. There are like 2 population corridors that make up 50% of swedens total population, thats three good highspeed lines to connect them but even that isnt achieved in a reliable way. As for transport within cities, apart from gothenburg and stockholm its pretty bad as well.
Let’s not underestimate the costs of building rail. You’re always going to have roads first, because ambulances don’t go on rail. So that’s not optional. Rail is an addition, and you do have to factor in a lot to figure out if it’s really worth it (including environmentally). And if you need to literally make a tunnel or a bridge to add a train, like you do in most of Norway, it’s not really going to work.
Within urban centers however I do agree that rail is a good complement to good bicycle lanes, and it is a fact that deregulation and underinvestment in rail over the past 40 years really is hitting Sweden hard. Unfortunately the people who are in charge of public transit have never gone anywhere by bus, so they’re clueless of what to do.
It’s not better in Norway. There’s always something wrong with the trains. There’s been abysmal punctuality or cancellation numbers that would make even German train operators blush. They’re on partial strike at the moment and although there are many cancellations I hardly notice any difference between a planned disruption by strike and an unplanned disruption by mismanagement.
And biking in urban centers is near suicide. The Norwegian Cyclists’ Association recently published their biannual questionnaire results and only 18% think that cycling is “generally save across all age and experience groups”.
Yeah but like 60% of the population is in large urban centers and theyre already connected in norway by huge road tunnels and bridges, they could have trains as well. As for sweden, the government just doesnt spend money on public transit and when it does they throw it away on random stuff. Many tracks are in disrepair, out of use and the main high speed lines are constructed in stupid places. There are like 2 population corridors that make up 50% of swedens total population, thats three good highspeed lines to connect them but even that isnt achieved in a reliable way. As for transport within cities, apart from gothenburg and stockholm its pretty bad as well.
Let’s not underestimate the costs of building rail. You’re always going to have roads first, because ambulances don’t go on rail. So that’s not optional. Rail is an addition, and you do have to factor in a lot to figure out if it’s really worth it (including environmentally). And if you need to literally make a tunnel or a bridge to add a train, like you do in most of Norway, it’s not really going to work.
Within urban centers however I do agree that rail is a good complement to good bicycle lanes, and it is a fact that deregulation and underinvestment in rail over the past 40 years really is hitting Sweden hard. Unfortunately the people who are in charge of public transit have never gone anywhere by bus, so they’re clueless of what to do.
It’s not better in Norway. There’s always something wrong with the trains. There’s been abysmal punctuality or cancellation numbers that would make even German train operators blush. They’re on partial strike at the moment and although there are many cancellations I hardly notice any difference between a planned disruption by strike and an unplanned disruption by mismanagement.
And biking in urban centers is near suicide. The Norwegian Cyclists’ Association recently published their biannual questionnaire results and only 18% think that cycling is “generally save across all age and experience groups”.