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 ...
In 2007, I took my daughter and her 2 adult kids on a train trip through the NW National Parks. We had a ball but the freight trains rules the rails. We had to pull off the main rails several times to let the freight trains through. We were blessed that we went because GrandLuxe went out of business the next year. We are now planning a trip in the Canadian Rockies. Don’t get me wrong. I think some freight trains need to go through on time but they despise passenger trains. My grandson and I think Christmas in the Rockies would be a great trip. We want my 2 great granddaughters to get a few years older so they can remember the memories we make. They are 5/6 now.
Cross country I've fared no better. A four hour layover in Chicago is usually more like five or six hours, and once, during an Amtrak labor stoppage I was in Union Station a whopping TWENTY HOURS.
In 1994 I was taking the California Zephyr through the Rockies. The train was scheduled for a 1 hour refueling in Denver. Because of the length of the stop, passengers were encouraged to go into the station for lunch or to stretch their legs. The train left without making any announcement after a mere twenty minutes, stranding over a hundred passengers on the platform who were ferried by SCHOOL BUS into Southern Wyoming, where they hooked up a drinking car and a passenger car onto a Conrail train to take us into Salt Lake City. So much for the scenic view of the Rockies.
Amtrak sucks, period. The reason no one rides the line is because they have very, very few scheduled runs, they can't stay on time, their cars are filthy and their service is terrible. The porter won't touch your luggage until you've actually walked up three steps and handed it to him, at which point he takes two steps, turns around, and places it in an insecure open access area, and you'd better have a fiver for him if you ever want to see your luggage again.
Amtrak has got one good commuter. But it isn't a serious alternative to air travel over any significant distance anywhere in this country.
Why not? Because they’re unreliable, for one.
Conrail owns the track; not passenger trains. They get the right-of-way.
I didn’t say it was.
I said the automobile dominated development of infrastructure and subsequent building construction. Adding rail thereto is infeasible.
Older countries developed more around rail. Adding automobiles has been similarly infeasible.
At the expense of railroad stockholders.
and autos and planes and airports are not highly regulated???; how come you are the only one who got that memo??
Not to the degree of railroads. When was the last time you drove a car or truck that displayed the next traffic light on your dashboard? or had an automatic vehicle stop device installed? or drove on a road where your movements had to be dictated by a remote dispatcher?
Most of what I’m referring to has to do with passenger train movements at 80 mph or faster.
With all due respect, I think you’re understating the effect of the automobile outside North America, never mind the motor truck or “lorry”.
One thing that has been noted is the far lower percentage of freight over land that is moved by rail in European countries versus the USA too. And those are over state-owned railroads over there; there are very few independently-owned railroads, especially with respect to infrastructure.
If that was Manhattan, he deserved it. Stupidity ought to hurt, and I’m just a very occasional visitor from afar.
Even the other boroughs, it’s none too swift a move.
unintended consequences! : )
I don’t think material possessions are critical, but air conditioning, a comfortable car, affordable gasoline, a comfortable home, etc. all make life easier and more enjoyable. The Europeans take vacations because the price of work is so high. They live in a socialist environment, not one of their own choosing. That’s my point.
No, they cut off other peoples noses and still get reelected. Go figure.
I know some otherwise well educated and apparently intelligent people who, when seem incapable of comprehending that low population density makes serious passenger rail ridiculously expensive.
Why are there so many dummies? I’m even talking about math majors and self-styled “scientists.” If you diagram the problem on the back of a napkin, it’s like they can’t see the napkin. Perhaps they still have the model train fixation of most (male) kids’ youth. They WANT TO BELIEVE, and it overpowers all rationality.
sounds like the regs you are talking about are REQUIRED for train safety reasons; the poor things!!!
No; they got piled on in reaction to certain accidents. No doubt there’s some technocrat floating around DC who might have the bright idea of applying them to road traffic to enhance “safety”.
true, but some areas — specifically in the north-east and california it would make sense. As one of the commenters pointed out: the California High-speed is badly designed (of course it is — govt did it) with the first line between two places that won’t see any real business. Better to target two close cities first rather than build castles in the air.
In GErmany it makes a lot of sense and the same in Japan
Between NY and LA it doesn't make any sense, but between Philly and NY it should make sense (but doesn't -- getting to the train station in Philly is a pain and the trains are expensive and crowded)
So trains in specific parts of the US would make sense as high-speed entities -- and they would compete very well with cars and aircraft
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.