Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Passenger rail is a money pit whereas roads and airports eventually pay for themselves many times over.
That being said, I wish that weren’t the case.
I like trains.
After having a job that required a lot of interstate driving, I’m all for anything that gets people off the roads with their distracted driving, poorly maintained cars and roads, complete absence of basic driving knowledge and total disregard for the most basic rules of the road. It’s kind of insane out there, at least in most places.
In spite of the fact that cars are safer than ever, traffic deaths are on the increase because the laws of physics can’t be broken.
Another way to ask; why dont people support the privatization of all forms of transportation?
Short answer; they've been hoodwinked into believing if the govt doesnt support or directly provide _____, it wont exist.
Biggest problem in the US is a lack of understanding our own history.
We had complete privatization of rail in the US before, it didn't go well. Each rail company had their own rules, would have differing size tracks to ensure control of their lines, on and on and on. And those private rail lines required Federal grants, Federal funding to be built, and a lot of free land to be given to them via the Government. So even with privatized transport companies still require massive amounts of PUBLIC investment.
Same is true for roads, bridges, and other transport systems. Often the competition that Private industry brings leads to business practices that do not benefit the public at all. Usually it is a race to see which company can form monopolies in certain areas then function as a cartel with other big transport companies to ensure their dominance. This also happened with Fire stations and police stations. Privatizing does not ensure reduced cost to tax payers or convince in use to the public, it require balance which is something people now a days seem to run from. Everything is all or nothing in politics now.
Biggest problem in the US is a lack of understanding our own history.
We had complete privatization of rail in the US before, it didn't go well. Each rail company had their own rules, would have differing size tracks to ensure control of their lines, on and on and on. And those private rail lines required Federal grants, Federal funding to be built, and a lot of free land to be given to them via the Government. So even with privatized transport companies still require massive amounts of PUBLIC investment.
Before we moved to Arizona we made several cross country trips all by rail as I refuse to fly. New York to Chicago on Amtrak's "Lake Shore Limited" then Chicago to Flagstaff on the "Southwest Chief". We'd leave New York on a Friday afternoon and arrive in Flagstaff Sunday evening.
Indeed the problem is it's not competitive. Most people do not want to spend 3 or more days on a train. We considered it to be a mini vacation and got to see a lot of the country. We too loved the trips. But then again I've always been a rail fan. Sometimes we'll go to Seligman just to watch those big stack trains coming and going from the port at Long Beach CA.
Some people want trains to go everywhere a vehicle can go as they don't like to drive. That's just not practical and would cost a fortune. They'd have to put train stations in every town and city throughout the entire United States and the trains would have to stop at each and every one of them every hour on the hour in order to accommodate everyone's schedules. Public transportation has its place but not everywhere.
A few years ago, I decided to take the train from Charlotte NC to DC on a Saturday morning. The first of 2 trains was cancelled, meaning 2 trips-worth of folks got on the 2nd. By the time we got to Raleigh (2.5 hours) and picked up THEIR 2 trains-worth, the train was full to the gills. Yet the train still stopped at 8 different locations between Raleigh and DC, with no one getting off and no one getting on. The advertised 6 hour trip became 9 hours. At 6 hours vs 5 to drive a car (and then pay daily parking at a hotel), it was worth it. At 9 hours - and then the return train 6 days later got "stuck" 3 times and an 8 pm arrival became 11:30 - it was a lesson learned. Never again.
If "high speed rail" could be done without massive additional investment in new rail lines, that would be one thing. But aren't we at a point where we're closer to "flying cars" than ever seeing any type of "payoff" from HSR?
They should better watch where the money is going for their road projects also. I've noticed my state, South Dakota, tears up and repaves interstate far before it actually needs it, before the interstate is even noticeably deteriorating and is still smooth. It's happened many times since I've lived out here and is not just a one time fluke. It's nice having such smooth interstates but it's a huge waste in my opinion. Meanwhile in Minnesota the interstates end up being a bumpy mess before anything is done about them.
I personally have no interest in using trains. I want to have full autonomy and be on my own schedule, not be subjected to the mess that Teepee described and then having to rent a car when I get to my destination... no thanks. The self driving car technology which I was hoping would be further along by now still looks like it's 10-20 years away from anything close to mainstream adoption. That would help more than anything.
I simply would like our rail system to return for trips to see the country not for work or quick trips. It's great not having to drive across country just to see the sights. It's relaxing and the scenery is just beautiful without the stress of driving.
It sure is!!!
What really liked about it was not having to deal with crowded airports. The train just pulled into to the station the attendant came out to greet us and off we went. It was a fun adventure that's for sure. We rented a box truck and drove across country when we moved. I don't know if it was because I was driving and paying attention to the road? But it seemed like you see more of the country while on the train. Not only that but the train goes through a lot of places that are off the beaten path.
i love light rail, the idea of it. It can work great in a highly and densely populated environment. Well that type of environment really doesn't exist in the u.s. outside of a few cities. We are not Europe or Asia where people are shoved all together. Its not an efficient or economically feasible system in a Nation spread out of a very large geographical area with most places having a relatively low population density. As for the major cities they already often have subways and rail lines. And although an argument can be made of connecting some of these cities together with rail we only have to look at those cities themselves to see how horrible they have been in managing and running the rail they already have. They are generally dirty, dangerous and incredibly badly run compared to almost any of the rail systems people are always praising in other countries. Start running those right and cleaning them up and make them safe. Prove our governments can do it before we shove more money into that cesspool.
Most of the time (at least 99%) I spend on European trains is going through countryside between big and small cities. Most major cities here do not have transportation between medium cities except for maybe Megabus!
They should better watch where the money is going for their road projects also. I've noticed my state, South Dakota, tears up and repaves interstate far before it actually needs it, before the interstate is even noticeably deteriorating and is still smooth. It's happened many times since I've lived out here and is not just a one time fluke. It's nice having such smooth interstates but it's a huge waste in my opinion. Meanwhile in Minnesota the interstates end up being a bumpy mess before anything is done about them.
I personally have no interest in using trains. I want to have full autonomy and be on my own schedule, not be subjected to the mess that Teepee described and then having to rent a car when I get to my destination... no thanks. The self driving car technology which I was hoping would be further along by now still looks like it's 10-20 years away from anything close to mainstream adoption. That would help more than anything.
I don't either the only time we used the train was for going cross country and on an occasional trip to New York City. But as a rail fan I have nothing against trains. In some places trains are more practical for commuting to a major city like New York City from where we used to live in the Hudson Valley. I certainly would not like to use my car if I had to commute to Manhattan if I worked there or have to drive into Manhattan and leave my car parked somewhere if I was there for a visit.
When we lived in the Hudson Valley it would be highly impractical to take a train to where we worked as you'd have to have a train station in every town throughout that area and then have to take a cab to work. You can't use a train to go grocery shopping and using a train to run errands wouldn't be too practical either. Unless of course you lived or worked in Manhattan where mass transit is about the only practical way to get around.
We rarely went to New York City for anything. If we were going into Manhattan we'd take the train. If we went to the outer boroughs we'd drive there. But then again it all depends on what you're going there for where you are going and what your schedule is. If I was going to visit a relative who lived in Brooklyn I'd take my vehicle. If my job was in Brooklyn I'd take the train to Grand Central Station then take the subway to Brooklyn.
As much as I can't stand New York City they have a pretty good public transportation system where you really don't need a personal vehicle to get around if you're staying within the confines of the five boroughs.
Obviously having a public transportation system in every town and city from the smallest to the biggest throughout the entire United States like New York City's would be prohibitively expensive and highly impractical. There's no way that any rational person could even think of justifying that. Those that do are not rational.
When you're traveling long distance either by flying or by train depending on where you are going and what you plan on doing renting a car may be your only option. Like places such as Flagstaff where we arrived. As we planned on looking at different places to move to throughout Arizona. It would be impossible to take a bus or cab to all of those places. If you're going from LA to New York City and plan on staying within the confines of New York City public transportation may be a better option. Again it all depends on what your plans are.
Quote:
NYC Subway & New York City Public Transportation Guides https://www.nycgo.com/articles/nyc-t...getting-around
May 07, 2010 · If you can't walk to your destination, mass transit is the next-best way to get around. The City's rail and bus system is run by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and known as MTA New York City Transit. It's inexpensive, environmentally friendly and a great way to see sights throughout the five boroughs—and it operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Cities With the Best Public Transportation, Ranked | Far & Wide https://www.farandwide.com/s/public-...d839d8a48d4da3
Oct 01, 2020 · But it’s hard to deny that New York remains an extremely easy city to get around in via public transit — so much so that more than half of the city’s households don’t own a car. The metropolis boasts the world’s largest metro network, 472 stations strong, combined with a sprawling bus system that ensures you’re pretty much always within striking distance of a way to get where you want to go.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 06-13-2021 at 12:40 PM..
Most Americans live in fairly low density suburbs, exurbs, and smaller cities.
Rail REQUIRES high densities. Rail in low density living areas loses huge sums of money and requires high government subsidies to run.
This is why light rail works in high density urban cores. It then becomes ecomomically viable to support some extension into immediate suburbs.
Because Americans generally live spread out, highways are far more economic and market based than passenger rail.
Airports should be self-explanatory, unless you are comparing them to high-speed rail, in which case rail is even worse. That is, it requires even more massive government subsidies to run, vs commercial aircraft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
