[yongjik]

Switzerland has a population density of 206 per km^2. NJ, RI, MA, CT, and MD have higher density. After all, nobody's expecting an express rail across Montana anytime soon: we're talking about the more populous part of the US.

It's hard to use "they are different" argument when your country is objectively worse than Switzerland and China.

[alexhutcheson]

Effective density in Switzerland is much higher, because that headline number aggregates a bunch of dense towns and cities (mostly located in valleys) with a whole lot of steep mountainsides with an approximate density of ~0.

It also helps that the topography forces development into mostly linear shapes (following the valleys), rather than radiating in all directions as normally happens in flatter terrain. Linear corridors are much easier to serve via public transit, because everything is "on the way".

Check out Switzerland on Google Earth and these features will jump out at you: https://earth.google.com/web/@46.8131873,8.22421005,1311.812...

[yongjik]

Well, I'm sure having a linear string of cities helps, but effective density is higher everywhere: Switzerland is the norm instead of the outlier.

E.g., San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, at the center of Silicon Valley, have population density of 663 and 580 per km^2. And of course San Francisco has a whopping 7249 per km^2. They also have a string of connected cities, thanks to being constrained by the pacific and the SF bay from either side.

I don't think I have to repeat on HN what the infrastructure looks like in the Silicon Valley.

* Besides, your argument can be paraphrased as "Of course it's easier in Switzerland, because it's filled with mountains!" Think about it.