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.
Trains were displaced by automobiles for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was automobiles were cheaper pre trip and were far more convenient. They also used publicly supported roads. Automobile ownership, a major part of every household budget, was also heavily advertized as a sign of accomplishment and part of the American Way.
Truck transportation was subsidized in a more direct fashion. Could you imagine shipping a load of cloths from San Diego, California to Littleton, NH by truck on the Federal, non-interstate system? Without the interstate highway system, interstate truck transport would not exist.
The railroads were a fully developed and did not offer the opportunities for growth that is vital to financial investors. The rails were expensive and, instead of being publicly supported, were publically taxed. Rail travel was also very expensive and limited by scheduling. In NH there was a railroad track along just about every stream and connecting every village mill to their suppliers and customers. As the mill closed down, the small town populations followed the jobs to the cities and the demand for both freight and passengers dropped to an unsustainable level. As a consequence the railroad companies either were consolidated into bigger railroads or simply went out of business. Most of this happened between 1900 and 1940.
Now we are faced with increasing transport fuel costs that are, if continued, going to eliminate the private auto as a means of mass commuter transport. Owning and driving will just be too expensive in the face of declining real wages. I expect this will start a demographic shift to housing clustered around rail and bus transport facilities. Eventually the industry may return to small town locations to be nearer their workers and customers. I also foresee a major drop in the “See the USA in your Chevrolet” (great slogan from the 50’s) vacation and recreation travel. I suppose the northern New England ski resorts could arrange bus or rail transport form the cities to the slopes for the weekends but I don’t expect it real soon.
Perhaps one answer is to have the government (State, Local or Federal) take over ownership of the right of way and rails. This would reduce the cost by reducing the land acquisition by using eminent domain (incidentally in NH all the abandoned ROWs are owned by the state), reduced finance costs by using government loan rates, and reduced materials costs by mass purchasing. The actual trains and equipment (rolling stock) could be owned by privately held companies and pay usage fees (high enough to pay for maintenance) for the tracks. This combination of public ownership of the roads and waterways has been used for a century or more on this continent and longer in Europe.
I plan on posting this essay here and on the Political Forum. Thank you for your comments.
The problem with the maglev systems are the incredibly high first cost compared with a standard railroad and the fact that the rolling (sliding) resistance is not that much lower than steel wheels on a steel rail. For either system the dynamic aero resistance becomes the major energy concern.
I am more concerned with the establishment of a functioning alternative to the single person in a single automobile traveling 20+ miles to work and back five days per week. I think both sides of this have to be considered. The means of moving the people as well as maybe moving the work should be considered. Extensive rail or bus commuting is one alternative. Dispersed workplaces (do we really need office buildings holding 5,000 people to get the work done?) are another. Could the 5,000 people get the work done in 50 small town offices of 100 people each?
I have to issues with this.
1. eminent domain seems like abuse of power by the government.
2. We already have trains running all across the nation I see no reason to have the government take it over. Clearly even if we Invest in more trains I see no reason private rails can't do this if their is a NEED it would show good return. Cars and Airplanes took over primary means of travel for a reason... individual liberty and airplanes get you their faster. Thousands of people take the train into NYC, use the subways and travel up and down the east coast. Seems to be working ok. Maybe we need another NEW invention instead of reinventing the past. How about person flying machines that run on magnetic power.
Here in "flyover" land, we don't have a lot of abandoned rail lines. A good deal of it is still in use. I'm definitely hoping that rail transport in some modern form sees a resurgence. It will really help the economies here in the middle of the country.
I think the future transportation method will be vehicles, but run on other fuels and/or plug in technology.
I can see light rail having some utility in major cities, but even this is dicey. I think it only works where you have a major and central core with jobs and entertainment. It looks to me as if most large cities are getting more decentralized, and with the internet rapidly changing the nature of work I think that it might be tough to efficiently run light rail in many larger cities.
While I understand the concern, I think life is going to evolve very differently than assumed in the original posting.
"Perpetually abundant and cleaner burning sources of fuel."
Sounds like Nuclear Fission with complete fuel reprocessing and recycle to me. Plug-in hybrid electric cars and elecric railroads make a great combination.
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.