Posted on 06/14/2015 1:36:36 PM PDT by QT3.14
The May Amtrak derailment outside of Philadelphia put the sorry state of passenger rail in the United States briefly back on the public agenda, leaving many people wondering not just about the specifics of the crash but about the more general issue — how is it that a rich and powerful country that was a pioneer in railroad adoption in the 19th century has such terrible trains?
The United States is a big country, with lots of trains in it. So you can really think of this big generic question as composed of three separate questions with separate answers. One question, of urgent interest to media and political elites in New York and Washington, is why Northeast Corridor passenger rail service is so much slower than the first-rate systems found in France, Spain, China, and Japan. The second question, which will have bedeviled anyone who's ever been a tourist in Europe, is why passenger rail outside of the Northeast Corridor is so unimaginably awful. Last but by no means least, there's the question of why the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever known can't build itself a first-rate national, truly high-speed rail network along Chinese lines.
These questions are often lumped together under the hazy notion that American trains are bad.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
It’s also a question of population density and relative closeness of major population centers. That’s why trains work in Europe, although it’s actually cheaper to fly in many cases, but then there’s the pain of going through security, and having airports located far away from the city center.
The only area of the US where trains would work like in Europe, is the Northeast Corridor from Washington DC to Boston.
Come on. I’m a right-winger and I ride the northeast corridor all the time. Try bringing a car into Manhattan.
That’s thanks to the government too. Before the “super-regulation” began in the 1950s, and the doubling down on same in the 1960s once the Federal Railroad Administration came to be, freight and passenger coexisted quite readily.
The government killed not only passenger rail, but also fast freight by rail. Nixon could have stopped it all by deregulating the railroads; instead, he created Amtrak.
I live on a three acre lot in Connecticut but I do appreciate not having to commute to my job in Manhattan by car. For me it’s the Metro North that gets me to Grand Central as I read the WSJ and get work done on my tablet. Then on way home, I get to sip a beer as the gritty Bronx slides by the windows on my way back to paradise.
I’m not a train nut but trains do have their place in the U.S.
No complaints about Metro North, it’s a nice way to get to the city.
I did take the bullet train from Tokyo a few times. Good thing it went to Kyushu were my college frat mate teaches. Can’t see a damn thing as it’s too fast. Same with the Chunnel. In Europe for example, it’s not financially feasible to rent a car if you’re Euro-tripping, especially with the many north Americans getting into trouble driving on the left which they’re not accustomed to.
This thread is a “Willie Green Special.”
The northeast corridor has the railway right into the airport for several years now. It’s a good way to travel if you don’t carry a lot of bags. You go from NYC to Newark Airport in about 20 minutes.
didnt read it but probably the same reason TSA sucks like all other EEOC placement positions
Yes, for we northeasterners who commute into NYC, the train is a boon. Metro North does seem to have a lot of trouble lately. But I speak as a Jersey transit commuter which is pretty much hell on earth, generally. But improved from the 70s.
Sweden operates electric high-speed tilting trains to areas of comparatively low population density. When it comes to high speed, covering distance in shorter average speeds is the concern; when it comes to commuter trains, then density is the concern.
The private railroads in the USA were attempting to make a go of high-speed passenger rail in the 50s and 60s, but the government kept “competing” against them with the double whammy of debt-funded road and airport infrastructure but also taxing and regulating the railroads into the poorhouse. Not a very free-market way of thanking the railroads for helping us win WWII.
Exactly! I don't know why the freight guys don't hook a couple of passenger cars on the back of each freight run and leave Amtrak to the north east coast.
In some western US cities density and space would make trains viable such as in the SF Bay and Seattle where the space is limited and traffic is ghastly.
Thank you for pointing out our superiority in freight.
When I was a commuter in the early 70s, passenger trains were always stopped to make room for freight. Of course, as a kid late for work, it infuriated me, lol!
There’s also a density issue. This is a graphic that was part of a package that helped kill a big transportation tax increase in the Atlanta area a few years ago. The package was way too heavy on heavy rail transit projects.
Mixed trains? Those were for local deliveries, not long container trains with slow average speeds. Also, no freight locomotives have head-end power, which powers the lights and HVAC on passenger cars.
I have a mixed feelings about it too. Try heading to Comic Con from LA to SD. Ga$ is outrageous so most people I know, take the train. Plus, I always have time to work on my stuff on my laptop. If I did take the underground train to downtown, it’s faster and parking is a total rip off. But night time, all bets are off.
That benefits Red China more than it does us.
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.