Dagny Taggert is saddened...
Posted on 05/09/2014 9:49:39 PM PDT by Cronos
AMERICA has by far the largest rail network in the world, with more than twice as much track as China. But it lags far behind other first-world countries in ridership. Instead of passengers, most of America's massive rail network is used to carry freight. Why don't Americans ride trains?
..the Japanese, the Swiss, the French, the Danes, the Russians, the Austrians, the Ukrainians, the Belarussians and the Belgians all accounted for more than 1,000 passenger-kilometres by rail in 2011; Americans accounted for 80. Amtrak carries 31m passengers per year. Mozambique's railways carried 108m passengers in 2011.
There are many reasons why Americans don't ride the rails as often as their European cousins. Most obviously, America is bigger than most European countries. Outside the northeast corridor, the central Texas megalopolis, California and the eastern Midwest, density is sometimes too low to support intercity train travel. Underinvestment, and a preference for shiny new visions over boring upgrades, has not helped. Most American passenger trains travel on tracks that are owned by freight companies. That means most trains have to defer to freight services, leading to lengthy delays that scare off passengers who want to arrive on time.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
It doesn’t even go home?
/s
Used to be the other way around. And both freight and passenger were faster. Then the federal government came along and got into the transportation business in earnest.
Because Americans don’t consider themselves freight?
The interstate highway system was used as a means to grow government. Not what I’d call freedom.
European cities are largely walkable. Your job, your stores, your restaurants, your bars, your nightclubs and your green spaces are all within walking distance of your apartment. Anything you want to travel further in the city to, you can bike, take the bus or take the metro.
Inter-city travel - there’s the train.
Almost no one owns a car, its expensive and there’s usually no place to park. Its not worth the convenience.
Union Station in LA is a hub for local transit options. Plus it is a beautiful building. People don’t take the train because they don’t consider it. They’d be surprised to discover the advantages of train travel in the U.S.
Not unless city space is reconfigured to allow mass transit to effectively replace the car.
In my neck of the woods, a cargo bike could effectively replace my car but its expensive.
Depends on where you ride it. In the Northeast, trains ride on Class 7 and 8 track and can get average speeds above 80 mph. Elsewhere, the trains ride on Class 4 track (so mandated by the almighty federal government, i.e. to be the least expensive/most affordable for freight operations under the current federal regulations) and average speeds slow down to 40 mph or slower. Back when interstate rail travel was more prevalent, intercity trains ran at average speeds of 60 mph at least, which was best practice for the level of technology at the time.
In the late 60s, the federal government was promising 160 mph top speed for trains between New York and Washington DC. And they didn’t deliver; the first Metroliner had a top speed of 110 mph. 45 years later, they are echoing the same promise; it’s like time stood still, but that’s what happens when government takes control.
Finding affordable parking in any big city makes transit look a lot more attractive.
There were trains coming in and out of Philly fifty miles north for people going to work 40 years ago, then slowly they stopped and the railroad stations were sold for restaurants etc.
There were 7 or 8 cities with electric trolleys, and in the 1940s. General Motors gave them good deals on diesel buses, and the infrastructure went to hell, no upkeep. The only one I know operating now is Dayton, Ohio, who maintained their infrastructure. To build that infrastructure now is not cost effective, nor could any of those places afford it.
That was clean, cheap, public transportation. The idiots from the other cities sold their trolleys to Canadian cities, and took the polluting bus deals.
America does have a lot of idiots....and I guess that stupidity was passed down. The real deal would have been finding a way to streamline trains....we see them now as trams in major cities, or Disney World. Just think what a great system could have been built in the prosperity age...not many long range planners back then. No infrastructure then, means now it’s unaffordable now.
we have cars and highways.
Sure they can "work" in densely populated cities like the Eastern corridor. And I wouldn't even think of owning a car in NYC. But America is a BIG country, with stretches in the West where towns can be 100 miles from another.
I think you could ask the same question of Australia.
Trains I'm sure go through the big cities, but I'd be surprised if there's a whole lot of routes going deep into the bush.
Want to see Ayer's Rock? I've heard it's a great motorcycle excursion. But is there a train that goes there?
I learned this back in the 1960’s when I inquired as to the price of a train ticket from New England to NYC. It was the same as a plane ticket! I took a plane once to Newark ( a turboprop ) but I ended up as a regular bus rider. I could get a commuter train to NJ from the NYC Port Authority bus terminal, but I sometimes got a car ride. “The tube” was right there to go to Hoboken, and then the Erie Lackawana stopped right near my house.
It costs more to drive and fly, but you can stay away from the smelly, noisy, rude underclass.
The other problem with trains in America is a lack of quick and economical transport once you reach the intercity.
When I lived in the UK about 30 miles West of London, I could get into London in about 30 minutes via train. Once in the central city from Paddington or Waterloo I could be anyplace in London in about 30 minutes via the underground, known in the United States as the subway.
I drove my car into London only once. It took me longer to find a parking place than the entire journey would have taken by train and subway.
I liked the trains and underground. However, this will only work if we have high speed trains into the central cities and good transport via subways to the various points in the city. The crux of the problem is how much will it cost and who should pay for it.
I really do not think the airlines are a political force in this. Even in England if the journey was more than 200 miles I would take a commercial airline and then a taxi to my destination. In the United States I use a figure of 350 miles. Our highway system is superior and fuel cheaper. Thus using my car is cheaper and takes about the same time from home to destination when one considers getting to the airport, clearing security, the flight, retrieving your luggage, and arranging transport to your destination in the central city or worse the suburbs.
New York is an exception to the rule in the United States. They have an excellent subway system and trains that bring the passengers into the central city.
ps
I am not bleeding heart liberal. I am a Libertarian and hard right economic conservative, strict constitutionalist. These are just my observations.
SEPTA was still running limited commuter train service to Bethlehem up until 1981. Then SEPTA’s big plan for a “center city commuter tunnel” came to pass, resulting in Reading Terminal being converted into Philly’s convention center (a money-loser), and all the diesel trains stopped—other places they served were Newtown and Reading. All SEPTA trains are electric-powered now, and yet that didn’t even stop the electrified network from shrinking—trains from West Chester were cut back to Elwyn.
The creeping government control seems to have been inspired by New York City, itself a basket case. They were loath to have their city-funded subway (infrastructure-wise) operated by private companies, so they imposed a fare cap—the companies could charge no more than 5¢ for decades no matter the length of travel (imagine riding as far as 30 miles for a nickel in the mid-twentieth century?), and by the time the city allowed them to raise fares, the damage was done and the companies were bankrupted.
If you are going across country and have the time, train is a great way to go. And it is surprisingly economical. I had to go to a convention in LA and also had to burn at least half my 4 weeks accrued vacation around the same time. I booked AMTRAK [with the double sleeper room] and got a rail pass. 1st Class meals were included. Got good rest, lots of time to see the country. Also, no jet lag either way ...
Went from DC-CHI - overnight, then CHI-SEA - 3 days, then SEA-LA - 1 1/2 days. Spent 5 days in LA for the convention, then went LA-NO [New Orleans] - 3 days. Spent 5 days in NO. Then, went NO-DC - 2 1/2 days.
Total cost [including stays in LA and NO] was about $2800. My firm picked up $1600 as a business expense. So, it cost me only $1200, or $60/day [20 days]. If I had had to pick up the total coat, it was only $140.00/day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.