Jordi Martí-Henneberg, a geographer from the University of Lleida in Spain, poured a ton of time into creating this big database that tracks Europe’s rail networks from 1840 up until 2010.

Mapping it all wasn’t straightforward at all, what with borders in Europe getting reshuffled so often—especially in that rough patch from 1914 to 1950. He broke down his approach in a 2013 paper from the Journal of Transport Geography.

A few years later, he followed up with a 2021 article in Social Science History, where he featured maps for specific years, including 1850, 1910, 1930, and 2000.

1850: The Early Phase

Britain and Belgium led. Their industrial centers already had well-developed railway systems connecting major cities. Many German states (Germany wasn’t unified yet) had also built substantial networks. France had started construction but the lines were disconnected from each other.

Beyond that, coverage was sparse. Spain and Portugal had only a few lines. The Balkans had almost nothing. Scandinavia was just getting started. Most of Eastern Europe was still using roads, rivers, and horses for transport.

Mountain ranges blocked connections. The Alps separated Italy from countries to the north. The Pyrenees isolated Spain and Portugal. Large areas had no rail access at all.

1910: The Peak

Sixty years later, railways covered nearly the entire continent. Scandinavia had extensive networks. Southern Europe was well-connected. Territories divided between the German, Russian, and Austrian empires (later to become Poland) all saw heavy railway construction, though each empire followed different plans.

Most countries connected their networks across borders. Geography blocked some connections (mountains), and politics blocked others. Bulgaria and Romania hardly connected their systems because they didn’t trust each other.

Governments built railways primarily to integrate their own territories. The combined result was a system spanning the continent. You could travel from Portugal to Poland or from Scotland to Sicily (though crossing the Alps took effort).

This was the high point. Europe never had denser railway coverage than in 1910.

The political map looked stable. It wasn’t. Within a decade the Austro-Hungarian Empire would collapse. So would the German Reich. Ottoman lands in the Balkans would be divided into new countries. World War I was coming.

1930: New Borders, Old Railways

By 1930, railway density remained similar but the political landscape had completely changed.

Poland became independent again after being partitioned for over a century. The problem was its railways. Three empires had built them with three separate strategies. Areas under former Russian control still have noticeably thinner coverage than sections built under German administration. Current railway maps still show this imbalance.

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia ended up with railways built for empires that had collapsed. Border stations that used to handle lots of international traffic became just another stop inside the country.

2000: Dismantling the Network

The 2000 map shows less railway infrastructure than 1910. Thousands of kilometers were removed.

Western Europe cut the most. Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany all closed massive amounts of track. After 1950, car ownership grew quickly. Roads improved. Branch lines serving smaller towns lost passengers. Governments examined the costs and began shutting lines down.

This happened across nearly all of Europe, but the biggest reductions came in countries where the original networks had been densest.

High-speed rail changed the picture starting in 1981. France built TGV lines. Spain developed AVE routes. Germany added ICE service. These were selective though, connecting major cities rather than providing the comprehensive local coverage that existed in 1910.

Today, Europe’s rail system is evolving again, with a push toward sustainability and high-speed connections to combat climate change.

The post How Europe’s Railway Network Rose and Fell appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Looking at that map, you can see China’s HSR lines move from isolated corridors into a dense mesh, especially across eastern provinces. Over these years, high-speed rail became a daily reality for millions.

China’s total railway network now covers around 162,000 km (100,662 miles), including freight and conventional lines.

By contrast, the U.S. has had only modest progress. Its eventful rail history started long ago, but modern high-speed rail remains limited mostly to the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak’s Acela Express runs at up to 125-160 mph (201-257 km/h).

You can see high-speed-capable tracks clustered in that corridor. Elsewhere, most routes operate at much lower speeds, often sharing track with freight.

This overlay map gives a sense of scale. China’s network, if transposed onto North America, would cover the eastern U.S. in a dense mesh and push well into Canada. The westernmost line – stretching toward Ürümqi in real life – reaches just shy of the Pacific coast of British Columbia.

To make all this easier to digest, here’s a comparison table:

Looking at the maps and table together makes it clear: China’s expansion was aggressive, systemic, and broad in scale. The U.S., in comparison, has taken a much slower path, with improvements limited to a few corridors and focused mainly on upgrading existing routes rather than building new networks.

The post From Coal Trains to Bullet Trains: How China Outbuilt the U.S. in High-Speed Rail appeared first on Vivid Maps.

He used fresh data from the 2025 National Bridge Inventory, which comes from the Federal Highway Administration and covers over 743,000 bridges. To build the map, u/TreeFruitSpecialist worked with R (he used dplyr, sf, and ggplot2).

Each color on the map shows the most common material used in bridges in that area – like cast-in-place concrete, precast, prestressed, different types of steel (with or without coating), masonry, or even timber in some rural spots. If a county has no bridges at all, it’s shown in gray.

Now here’s where it gets interesting: the patterns are way more local than you might expect. For example, steel is super common across the West and South – especially coated steel, which makes sense in dry or dusty areas. On the other hand, the Northeast and parts of the central U.S. tend to go with cast-in-place concrete. And in the Midwest? Prestressed concrete seems to be the go-to, probably because it can handle brutal winters and heavy traffic.

Some areas still have a surprising number of masonry bridges, especially in parts of Montana and Idaho. These are likely older structures that are still holding up in rural areas with fewer newer replacements. And in a few counties, timber still tops the list – which feels like a throwback, but hey, it still works in some places.

One thing you’ll notice is how material use can shift right at state borders. That could be about different DOT standards, local materials, or just regional preferences. Climate probably plays a big role too. What holds up in Florida might not make sense in North Dakota.

The post What America’s Bridges Are Really Made Of—By County appeared first on Vivid Maps.

A map by The World in Maps below clearly lays it out. New Jersey is shown in red, where self-service is banned statewide. Oregon is marked in yellow, where full-service still has to be available by law, even though self-service is now allowed in most areas.

This kind of rule might feel unusual today, but it made more sense in the past. When fuel stations first became widespread in the early to mid-20th century, gasoline pumps weren’t as safe or easy to use. Gasoline is flammable, and early pumping equipment required some skill and caution. Having attendants on-site was a way to reduce risks and make sure fueling was handled safely.

Over time, as pump technology improved and became more user-friendly, most states dropped the full-service requirement. But in New Jersey, the state passed a law in 1949—the Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act—that made self-service illegal. The argument was safety, but the law also became a way to protect jobs, limit liability for station owners, and offer a service that some people still value.

Oregon followed a similar path for many years, but has eased up more recently. In rural counties, self-service became legal in 2018. Then, in 2023, Oregon changed the law again, allowing self-service at all stations statewide—but with one condition: full-service must still be available for those who want or need it. So while you can pump your own gas in Oregon now, the full-service option isn’t going away.

Not everyone agrees on whether these rules should still exist. Supporters point to job preservation, convenience for elderly or disabled drivers, and a bit of local tradition. Others say it’s outdated, inefficient, and unnecessary in an era of automatic shut-off valves and modern safety systems.

Whatever your take, it’s something to keep in mind if you’re traveling. In most of the U.S., self-service is the norm. But in New Jersey, it’s still against the law to touch the pump yourself. In Oregon, you might find yourself at a station where an attendant is waiting for you, even if you’re happy to do it solo.

The post US states where you can’t pump your own gas appeared first on Vivid Maps.

This variation isn’t arbitrary. It reflects the early development of railway networks, shaped by the influence of foreign engineers, national borders, and the practical limits of changing complex infrastructure once it’s in place.

The Roots of the Divide: British vs. German Engineering

In the 19th century, Britain and Germany (then Prussia) were the leading powers in railway development across Europe. Both built extensive domestic rail networks and exported their engineering approaches abroad—each with its own set of standards.

Countries influenced by Britain adopted left-hand running, consistent with the UK’s road traffic rules. German and Prussian designs, by contrast, introduced right-hand running to match their own road systems.

These early choices shaped national railway habits that still persist today, creating a network across Europe where neighboring countries may operate with different default directions.

France: A Country with Two Rail Systems

France is a fascinating example of how historical influence can leave a long-lasting mark on infrastructure. Although the country drives on the right, most of its railways still operate on the left. That’s because many early French railway lines were built with British engineering and standards in mind.

But there’s an exception. In the northeastern regions of Alsace and Lorraine—territories annexed by Germany in the late 1800s and returned to France after World War I—rail traffic runs on the right. This practice, introduced under German control, remains in place today.

Why Do Countries Rarely Switch Sides?

Changing the direction of rail traffic is far more complex than changing road traffic. When Sweden shifted road driving from the left to the right in 1967, it was able to make the change overnight. But rail systems involve fixed infrastructure: tracks, signals, platforms, and even driver training are all built around one direction of movement.

That’s why most countries stick with the system they started with—even when it doesn’t match their road traffic:

• France and Belgium run trains on the left but drive cars on the right.
• Switzerland also drives on the right while its trains operate on the left.
• Sweden changed its road direction but kept left-hand running for trains, a legacy of early British involvement.

Cross-Border Rail: How Differences Are Managed

When trains cross borders between countries with different traffic directions, engineers have developed creative solutions. These include crossover tracks, flyovers, and carefully designed transition zones where the train switches sides without stopping.

One example is the border between France and Spain. Spain generally uses right-hand running, but at key border stations—like Portbou and Latour-de-Carol—left-hand tracks are retained to coordinate more easily with French systems.

High-speed international lines, such as those between France and Belgium or France and the UK, often include custom infrastructure to manage these transitions smoothly.

Still Running on the Tracks of the Past

The way trains operate in Europe is not random; it stems from historical alliances, colonial influences, and the inherent difficulties in altering established infrastructure. Even today, many countries stick with systems set over a century ago.

So the next time you’re waiting for a train in Europe, watch which side the doors open. That small detail carries with it a story of geopolitics, engineering traditions, and historical momentum—still visible from the platform edge.

The post Why Some Trains in Europe Run on the Left and Others on the Right appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The map paints a telling picture – in an overwhelming number of counties, the dominant form of transportation is driving alone. This trend is particularly pronounced in the central and southern regions of the United States, where the reliance on personal vehicles is undeniable.

However, the map also reveals some notable exceptions. In most boroughs across the state of Alaska, the primary mode of transportation is walking. This is likely due to the compact nature of many Alaskan communities.

Interestingly, the map also highlights the stark contrast between urban and rural areas when it comes to public transportation usage. Only in the densely populated boroughs of New York City and San Francisco do residents predominantly utilize public transit to commute to work. This underscores the importance of robust public transportation systems in dense metropolitan areas, where traffic congestion and parking can be significant challenges.

One curious outlier is the borough of Kuslvak, Alaska, where the primary mode of transportation is classified as “taxi/motorcycle/others.” This suggests that the residents of Kuslvak have found unique solutions to their commuting needs, perhaps due to the geographical or climatic conditions of the region.

The post Mapped: Most Common Means of Transportation to work in the United States appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Let’s take a closer look at how these two systems stack up:

The stark contrast in these numbers highlights the different trajectories of these two systems.

Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province, only opened its first metro line in 2010. Fast forward to 2024, and the city boasts an extensive network that dwarfs Toronto’s system, which has been operating since 1954. This rapid expansion isn’t just impressive—it’s a testament to China’s urbanization strategy and economic priorities.

Why the Dramatic Difference?

Several factors contribute to Chengdu’s meteoric rise in subway infrastructure:

• Government Investment: China has made massive investments in urban infrastructure as part of its economic growth strategy. This includes ambitious plans for public transportation in cities like Chengdu.
• Population Growth: Chengdu’s metro area population of over 16 million is more than double that of Toronto, creating a greater demand for public transit.
• Urban Planning: Chinese cities often implement comprehensive, long-term urban plans that integrate transportation development with city expansion.
• Construction Speed: China’s ability to complete large-scale projects quickly is well-documented, with fewer regulatory hurdles and a different approach to labor and resource allocation.
• Economic Priority: Developing robust public transportation is seen as crucial for economic growth and urban competitiveness in China.

In contrast, Toronto’s subway growth has been more measured, constrained by factors such as:

• Limited public funding and political debates over transit expansion
• A stronger focus on other forms of public transportation, like streetcars and buses
• More extensive public consultation processes and environmental assessments
• Higher construction costs and longer project timelines

Notable Stations

Both subway systems have their share of remarkable stations. Here are a few standouts:

Chengdu Metro

• Tianfu Square Station: The heart of Chengdu’s metro system, this bustling interchange connects four lines and is located beneath the city’s central square.
• South Railway Station: A major transportation hub integrating metro, high-speed rail, and long-distance buses.
• Chunxi Road Station: Serves Chengdu’s famous shopping district and showcases modern station design.

Toronto Subway

• Union Station: The busiest transportation hub in Canada, connecting subway, regional rail, and intercity services.
• Museum Station: Known for its unique architecture inspired by the Royal Ontario Museum’s collections.
• Bloor-Yonge Station: The busiest station in the system, serving as a crucial transfer point between two main lines.

While Toronto’s stations often reflect the city’s history and cultural institutions, Chengdu’s newer stations tend to emphasize efficiency and modern design, catering to its rapidly growing ridership.

The tale of Chengdu and Toronto’s subway systems is more than just a comparison of numbers—it’s a reflection of two different approaches to urban development and transportation planning. As cities worldwide grapple with the challenges of urbanization and sustainability, the contrasting experiences of these two metros offer valuable insights into the complex interplay of politics, economics, and urban planning in shaping our cities’ futures.

The post The Tale of Two Subways: Chengdu’s Rapid Rise vs Toronto’s Steady Growth appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The road network is a crucial component, serving as the primary mode of transportation for people and goods across many African countries. Railways play a significant role in certain regions, facilitating the movement of resources and promoting economic development.

Railways in Africa

Railways in Africa form a critical component of the continent’s transportation infrastructure, playing a key role in the movement of goods and passengers. The history of railways in Africa dates back to the colonial era when European powers constructed rail networks to facilitate the extraction of natural resources. Today, African railways vary widely in terms of development, with some countries boasting modern and efficient rail systems, while others face challenges related to outdated infrastructure and limited connectivity.

In regions with well-established rail networks, such as South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria, railways contribute significantly to economic activities by transporting minerals, agricultural products, and manufactured goods. They also play a crucial role in passenger transportation, providing a relatively efficient and cost-effective means of travel.

Below is the map of current railways in Africa.

However, many African countries grapple with issues like underinvestment, maintenance backlogs, and insufficient technological upgrades, leading to suboptimal rail services. Additionally, the lack of connectivity between national rail networks hinders the realization of a comprehensive and integrated continental rail system.

Trans African Highways

The Trans-African Highways initiative is a continental infrastructure project aimed at enhancing road connectivity across Africa. Developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the African Union, these highways are designed to facilitate regional integration, trade, and economic development by linking various African nations. The network consists of nine highways, each designated with a specific route number, covering vast distances and connecting major cities and economic hubs.

Here is the map of trans African highways.

While the project holds the potential to boost cross-border trade and improve transportation efficiency, challenges such as inadequate funding, political instability, and varying levels of infrastructure development among participating countries persist.

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on improving air transportation, with the development of modern airports and the expansion of airline services. However, various factors, including underinvestment, political instability, and geographic obstacles, continue to pose challenges to achieving a fully integrated and efficient transport system continent-wide.

Do you have plans to journey through Africa? The following books and maps may be of some help:

• Travels in Africa: A Year by Land Rover Through the Great Continent
• Fodor’s The Complete Guide to African Safaris: with South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, and Victoria Falls (Full-color Travel Guide)
• National Geographic Africa Wall Map

The post Mapped: Africa’s Transport System appeared first on Vivid Maps.

They’re the guilty pleasures — luxuries, in some cases — that we indulge in to make life more comfortable. “Transport Network Companies” make it easier and more certain to hail a ride by removing any awkwardness and uncertainty involved. When using a rideshare app, you can quickly view the estimated wait time, the fare cost, and even track your driver’s location.

When you’re in an unfamiliar location, ride-sharing services like Uber or Lyft are the go-to option for transportation. They’re like the McDonald’s of getting around, with the app serving as the iconic golden arches. You’re familiar with the ordering process and can expect a consistent experience no matter where you are in the country.

However, there are occasions where certain inconveniences may arise. The waiting time is quite lengthy. The price exceeds your expectations by a significant amount. Although you can switch between the Uber and Lyft apps, doing so can be time-consuming and a distraction from the task at hand.

CashNetUSA‘s personal finance experts have conducted tests on services in 150 major cities across the United States to assist you in determining which app to begin with. They have discovered which service is usually more cost-effective in these cities as well as in each state.

Key Findings

• Uber is the more affordable option in the majority (33) of U.S. states.
• Wisconsin is the state with the significant gap between companies: a six-mile ride costs $4.71 less with an Uber.
• Uber is $12.20 cheaper than Lyft in New Orleans, LA, the most substantial disparity at the city level.
• Uber and Lyft fares are highest in New York state, where they’re on average $39.19 and $35.86, resulting in Lyft being the more affordable option by $3.33.
• Utah has some of the most affordable Uber prices, where trips cost $14.42 on average, and average Lyft prices are lowest in Oklahoma, with trips costing about $14.51.

Uber vs. Lyft: Which is Cheaper (and by how much) in Every State?

Uber is cheaper than Lyft in the majority of American states. Wisconsin sees the biggest difference.

Ranking States by the Biggest Difference Between Uber and Lyft

Uber is the cheaper ride-sharing option in 33 states, and the most significant price difference can be found in Wisconsin, where the average Uber trip is $4.71 cheaper than a Lyft. Elsewhere, in 17 states, Lyft is the cheaper option. Depending on where you are, local laws can add fees to the fare you might not see elsewhere, like California’s 10-cent ‘Access For AH’ Uber fee that funds accessible vehicles.

Uber vs. Lyft: Which is Cheaper (and by how much) in Major Cities?

If you’ve got somewhere to be in New Orleans, book an Uber: for the average six-mile journey, an Uber trip costs $12.20 less than a Lyft — the biggest price difference of any city in the United States.

Meanwhile, in New York City, catching a Lyft is actually cheaper (by $9.33, to be exact). According to the New York Times, rules introduced in 2022 will see ride-hailing prices increase in the Big Apple.

Ranking Cities by the Biggest Difference Between Uber and Lyft

One Pew Research Center poll found that 68% of ride-hailing users believe that services like Uber and Lyft are cheaper than taking a traditional taxi. But which is the most wallet-friendly option?

We compared Uber and Lyft prices in the 50 most populated cities in the U.S. and found that Uber was the cheaper option in the majority (34). And it is New Orleans that sees the biggest price difference: an Uber is $12.20 cheaper than a Lyft.

The Methodology Behind This Study

Analysts at CashNetUSA first curated a seed list of the three most populated cities in each U.S. state and Washington, D.C.

To determine the average fare for a six-mile ride in each city, the CashNetUSA team utilized the official fare estimators provided by Uber and Lyft. The starting point for each journey was the geographical center of the city, with travel in each of the four directions (north, south, east, and west) being considered. To calculate the endpoint of each journey, the team used NOAA’s Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator. This tool estimates the distance “as the crow flies” between two points on a sphere based on the Great Circle Distance. For each travel in each city, the fare estimates were collected at three different times of day to account for fare differences that arise due to congestion and traffic.

For both Uber and Lyft, the basic ride types were utilized, which are respectively UberX and Lyft. For Lyft fares, which are commonly returned as ranges (e.g., $20-$25), the midpoint of each calculation was taken.

For U.S. cities where the Uber fare estimator didn’t return estimates (San Jose, CA; Los Angeles, CA; San Diego, CA; Las Vegas, NV; and Henderson, NV), fares were measured manually using official Uber and Lyft fare parameters (booking fee, base fare, minimum fare, per minute and mile) for those cities.

In estimating these calculations, the time it would take to complete a six-mile trip was estimated using typical traffic speeds on secondary roads without congestion, with mild congestion, and with intense congestion, based on this analysis to replicate the process of fare estimation at three different times of the day.

State-level assessments were calculated as averages of city-level estimates of the three cities in each U.S. state.

The data is correct as of May 2023.

The post Uber vs. Lyft: Which is cheaper in every U.S. State and City appeared first on Vivid Maps.

One of the cornerstones of the European high-speed rail network is the Eurostar, linking major cities such as London, Paris, and Brussels through the Channel Tunnel. This groundbreaking project not only facilitates swift international travel but also exemplifies the collaborative spirit that defines the European approach to cross-border rail connectivity. The extensive network extends beyond Western Europe, encompassing countries like Germany, Spain, Italy, and France, with dedicated high-speed lines crisscrossing the landscape.

These high-speed rail lines are characterized by cutting-edge train technology, including sleek and aerodynamic trains capable of reaching speeds that significantly outpace traditional rail services. The commitment to speed and efficiency is not only a matter of convenience for passengers but also a strategic effort to compete with air travel for short to medium-haul journeys. The environmental benefits of high-speed rail, such as reduced carbon emissions compared to air travel, align with Europe’s broader goals of sustainable and eco-friendly transportation solutions.

Moreover, the European high-speed rail network has played a pivotal role in fostering economic integration and cultural exchange across borders. By connecting major urban centers and facilitating rapid movement between them, the network has spurred economic development in peripheral regions, creating more opportunities for trade, tourism, and collaboration. The standardized and interoperable nature of the European high-speed rail system ensures that passengers can seamlessly traverse national boundaries without the need for cumbersome transfers or complex logistics.

On the map of Europe below, high-speed lines are shown based on their maximum speed:

• Purple: Speeds between 300 and 320 km/h
• Red: Speeds between 270 and 300 km/h
• Orange: Speeds between 240 and 270 km/h
• Yellow: Speeds between 200 and 240 km/h
• Grey: Speeds below 200 km/h
• Dotted green: roads under construction.

Among European countries, Spain, France and Germany are in the top five countries in the world for the length of high-speed railroads.

Spain claims the second position with an impressive 4,327 kilometers, followed closely by France in the third spot with 3,977 kilometers, and Germany securing the fourth position with a substantial 3,516 kilometers. Notably, China leads the world in high-speed rail coverage, boasting an extensive network of 42,000 kilometers, while Japan holds the fifth position with 2,727 kilometers.

If you are planning to travel in Europe by rail, we suggest checking out the following books:

• Europe by Train: Train travel in Europe through an adventure guide for beginners
• Italy The Best Places to See by Rail: An alternative to the escorted tour
• Tourist Trains Guidebook

The post High-speed rail network in Europe appeared first on Vivid Maps.