You can really see the Paris-centric approach in France: From Paris you can reach almost any other major city in 4h, but on the other hand, all the other metropolis can barely reach 1/4th of the other major population center in 4h.
Compare this to Germany where almost any major metropolis can reach 80% of the country in 4h ...
Infamously similar in the UK, even despite being smaller. Particularly East-West travel anywhere much North of London. Many inter-city routes are via London.
You don't need to go that much North - I used to live in Oxfordshire, trying to get to Cambridge for work was a joke (I don't drive). It would take 3.5h+ for a 140km journey from Oxford to Cambridge because train journeys were only through London (+ a railway station change), and there was only one coach that stopped in every town along the way (and which has been axed into two separate legs since the pandemic, making it 4h+ now).
In the end I moved to London, so that's manageable now...
I didn't mean much North! Heh, another of those BrE words like 'quite'.
Oxford/Cambridge is a classic example, yes. (For those unfamiliar, they're like two spokes right next to each other on quite a small rim where London is the hub. But large enough (or close enough spokes) that 'in and back out' seems silly.)
At an average speed that makes a horse blush, and a capacity that is barely more than a Vauxhall corsa.
Cross country routes are local trains masquerading as long distance, thus with ridiculous prices and the requirement to do split tickets. There’s nowhere near enough capacity on the line.
Penzance to Exeter takes 3 hours - half the speed of a drive. From Exeter to Birmingham it’s another 2h30 at just 60mph average.
You’d be hard pushed to drive Penzance to Exeter in 1hr30, more like 2 hours really. And whilst the train is slow the journey is lovely along the Exe estuary and then along the coast. Having said that it is a bit silly that when going from London to Penzance most of the time is spent on the final third of the journey past Exeter.
The South West is er not at all 'North of London' though, last I was there (where I was 'born and raised').
We also don't really have any of the major cities I meant in that context, Bristol I suppose. How do you get from Bournemouth to Bristol for example - via Dorchester with a station change? How about Southampton to Exeter - via Bristol? It's by no means the worst region, and I claimed the opposite, but it still suffers in the same way (albeit on a smaller scale) really, NW-SE rather than W-E in the North, in both cases its opposing the 'spokes' into London.
Because Metropolitan France (note the capitalization) is how the European portion of France is referred to: compare with Overseas France, which includes territories in South America and Oceania, to be non-exhaustive.
This is a difference in attitude between Americans and French when describing their countries: the French tend to regard overseas territories as more vitally part of their country than Americans do. Not sure why, possibly it was a deliberately-cultivated attitude by the government at some point, or maybe the difference arose organically. Meanwhile I think a lot of Americans kinda-unconsiously barely even consider Hawaii and Alaska really parts of America, let alone the numerous non-state territories.
Actually, now that I think about it, the sense of "Metropolitan France" is very similar to the term "the continental United States"
American here, I’d disagree about Hawaii and Alaska but agree about the non-state territories. The non-state territories being unable to vote and not having representation in the legislature means that they don’t get as much attention in national politics, so they’re less top of mind. (Yes, both of those situations suck and I wish we would change them.)
The restrictions are tied to geography not persons.
A Puerto Rican in California is entitled to all the benefits of US Citizenship whereas a Californian in Puerto Rico is not. Mostly these are related to welfare and elections. This would be the case for the Californian or Puerto Rican living anywhere in the world outside the US.
You retain voting rights of the last jurisdiction you lived in within the US (states or territories) after moving abroad.
So a Californian that moves to, say, Germany can still vote by mail as though they were in California.
---
You're mostly correct about the loss of welfare benefits, though. The only exception being that you do remain eligible for Social Security retirement, although some people may not consider that "welfare".
It's remarkable that you said all of this, I'll be generous and say that someone else completely made up the part about the Jones Act and you just heard them and repeated it.
So a regular (ie mainland) US citizen has to file taxes (& pay if earnings 108k+) of living anywhere in world. Does this stay true if same citizen lives in these territories you refered?
> This is a difference in attitude between Americans and French when describing their countries
I'm not sure that's true - it appears to involve a legal distinction. I see many references to Algeria having been an "integral part of France" where other French territory wasn't. But I don't actually know what the terminology means. Anyway, I'd begin by looking to the legal status France tended to give to overseas territories, rather than the attitudes of the French, to explain this.
> Meanwhile I think a lot of Americans kinda-unconsiously barely even consider Hawaii and Alaska really parts of America, let alone the numerous non-state territories.
And this is a perfect case in point; Americans do consider Hawaii and Alaska to be really parts of America, because they have the legal status.
What there is, is a blindspot about territories. Just look at the flag: that there are parts of the United States which aren't States kinda doesn't compute.
The asymmetry from my home town of Bordeaux in the South West is striking, towards the North I can reach Brussels, 763 Km away, but going South I can barely enter Spain which is only about 200 Km away!
> Since the beginning of the 1990s new high-speed passenger lines in Spain have been built to the international standard gauge of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in), to allow these lines to link to the European high-speed network.
(...)
> In general the interface between the two gauges in Spain is dealt with by means of gauge-changing installations, which can adjust the gauge of appropriately designed wheelsets on the move.
I believe I’ve read this was also due to Iberian gauge high speed rail technology not really being existent at the time Spain started building HSR in a hurry for Expo ‘92? in Sevilla, and they’ve continued using standard gauge for it (to the benefit of the link with France).
However the huge investment in HSR (longest network after China, but low utilization), has also come at the cost of the local and regional train network (which still use broad gauge, yes there are gauge changing trains, but the broad gauge network is languishing).
The Talgo train with adjustable track gauges has been connecting france/spain for quite a while, but it is by no means designed for long-distance, high-speed travel so Spain kind of had to resort to switching to standard gauge which is also what other important neighbouring countries and possible destinations use (France, Germany, parts of Switzerland , Benelux, Italy).
I doubt it has to do with the EU institutions but rather the convenient location at the rhine valley. The section of the rhine valley between Mannheim (Germany) and Basel (Switzerland) is one of the busiest train routes in Europe for freight and passengers.
Compare this to Germany where almost any major metropolis can reach 80% of the country in 4h ...