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.
Funding for highway construction was too easy to obtain. By contrast, it wasn't until the 1970s that rail funding became available. And when it did get built the lines were often too short to be of much use. Many didn't extend past the city limits. This is unfortunate since those who commute by rail can significantly cut down their driving, not replacing their cars as often (or if they choose to anyway, getting a better trade in price). I know this firsthand since I lived in a rail served suburb.
Persons traveling through the United States today may find it difficult to imagine our country without the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways It was not until June 29, 1956, when President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, that interstate highways began to meet the challenge of the growing number of automobiles on the nation’s highways. While in Europe during World War II General Eisenhower viewed the ease of travel on the German autobahns. That, coupled with the experiences of a young Lt. Col. Eisenhower in the 1919 Transcontinental Convoy, convinced the President of the overwhelming need for safer and speedier highways. The President also felt that the newer, multi-lane highways were essential to a strong national defense. https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/re...highway-system
One big word NIMBYs, those lobbyists are also blocking any meaningful road projects to untangle the road traffic system as well. The goal may not be to add more roads/lanes but redistribute traffic and reduce bottlenecks. LA should had some ring roads, underground roads, as well as metro systems that run under/over Wilshire Blvd toward the ocean a long time ago but Beverly Hills blocked it and there was the excuse of methane pockets which can be built over if they desired just as many other cities had done.
Yet they keep building more projects that add more cars on the roadway with no extra capacity to accommodate them.
What I don’t understand why doesn’t NJ build a real HSR system to compete with Amtrak between Philadelphia and NYC. I believe that would be real popular and doable compared to the phantom proposed California High speed rail system. The pricing would be competitive to the Acela Express or even the regional rail system of Amtrak and would likely lead it to quick expansion across the north East corridor soon.
LA's at least finally building that Wilshire subway line though decades after when first intended.
NJ's issue is that to get a nice straight right-of-way for really fast HSR is hard because the existing right-of-ways are pretty tight and some of them winding. It'd cause quite a bit of demolition to not make it so, but potentially if you ran it in the median or above highways it could work. You'd skip a lot of smaller cities, but then again, HSR works better when you skip a bunch of smaller cities. They are doing upgrades as they can.
The real bottleneck for the Northeast Corridor rail is actually in Connecticut where the rail line hugs the winding shore and there are a lot of water crossings as well as the aforementioned issues with attaining right-of-ways. There have been numerous proposals to build HSR tracks that avoid the shoreline route and go through the interior like one that goes through either Danbury-Waterbury-Hartford-Providence or Springfield-Worcester to make their way to Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillie767
Persons traveling through the United States today may find it difficult to imagine our country without the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways It was not until June 29, 1956, when President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, that interstate highways began to meet the challenge of the growing number of automobiles on the nation’s highways. While in Europe during World War II General Eisenhower viewed the ease of travel on the German autobahns. That, coupled with the experiences of a young Lt. Col. Eisenhower in the 1919 Transcontinental Convoy, convinced the President of the overwhelming need for safer and speedier highways. The President also felt that the newer, multi-lane highways were essential to a strong national defense. https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/re...highway-system
The President referred to a previous conversation with General Bragdon. He went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way. He pointed out that when the Clay Committee Report was rendered, he had studied it carefully, and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who had steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.
Eisenhower also was neither hoping nor wishing for freeways to run through urban centers, and the initial destruction of city it caused was not what he intended. With that, he also certainly didn't intend for concentrated leaded gasoline exhaust to be emitted in large quantities in urban neighborhoods that were densely populated and the knock-on effects of such.
What I don’t understand why doesn’t NJ build a real HSR system to compete with Amtrak between Philadelphia and NYC. I believe that would be real popular and doable compared to the phantom proposed California High speed rail system. The pricing would be competitive to the Acela Express or even the regional rail system of Amtrak and would likely lead it to quick expansion across the north East corridor soon.
What don't you understand about no HSR in NJ? NJ does not have a money printing press like the Fed and is carrying $44.4 billion in debt and interest - more than almost every other state. What does NJ get out of additional HSR that the Acela does not already offer besides even more state debt? NJ already has huge problems funding existing NJ Transit. Add in the reduction in revenues from Covid and NJ has to cut even more from the NJ budget.
Besides funding, by the time NJ battled all the NIMBYs and got right of ways for HSR, there will be no need for HSR. People will be flying around like the Jetsons using aerocars that converted into briefcases.
[thirty two foot high letters mode on]-or-[ten meter high letters mode on] FOLLOW THE MONEY
. . .
In the USA, the dominant form of long distance land transportation before 1920s, was (Heavy) RAIL. Ditto, for urban and interurban, though by electrified rights of way.
These were privately owned operations, often in competition with each other, stimulating widespread growth and expansion of track mileage.
. . .
BUT
Railroads were not popular, and were often envied, attacked and smeared (and overtaxed where possible).
Ex: The Pennsylvania Railroad was once the biggest corporation in the world, and second only to the Federal government. By 1970s, it was a bankrupt cripple.
Cause? Regulation, taxation, ridiculous union rules, and taxpayer subsidies of its competition.
TURN ON THINKING CAPS
What is the second most expensive item on most American budgets?
After housing, it is the family automobile. Estimates vary, but on average, the 'freedom' to roam by automobile costs 25% of one's monthly budget... It may be more, if you factor in covert taxation and other costs (insurance, infrastructure, etc).
Whoever is benefiting from skimming 25% of the family budget will OPPOSE any attempt to restore rail transportation to dominance in the USA.
WHY?
Rail renaissance would cut costs by 80-90% or more.
HOW?
Rail has a 20:1 advantage (rolling resistance) that cuts down fuel consumption by up to 95%.
A single track has the carrying capacity of 9 lanes of superhighway.
Steel wheel on steel rail doesn't wear down as fast as pneumatic tires on pavement.
In short, migrating to electric traction rail would cut expenditures (and profits) from certain self-interest groups.
Just using fuel as our benchmark, migrating 80% to electric rail would drop domestic consumption BELOW domestic oil production - thus eliminating the need to import oil.
Reducing the volume of automobile traffic by 80% would clear up traffic jams and reduce the demand for roadway expansion... not to mention clearing up air pollution.
Wow, we've just honked off the pavement folks, the petroleum folks, and the vehicle manufacturers.
AND THEY'RE THE ONES BEHIND AMERICA'S CRIPPLED RAIL SYSTEM. "What's good for GM is good for America!"
If all government meddling, taxes and subsidies were eliminated, free enterprise would switch to electrified rail in a New York Minute.
LA's at least finally building that Wilshire subway line though decades after when first intended.
NJ's issue is that to get a nice straight right-of-way for really fast HSR is hard because the existing right-of-ways are pretty tight and some of them winding. It'd cause quite a bit of demolition to not make it so, but potentially if you ran it in the median or above highways it could work. You'd skip a lot of smaller cities, but then again, HSR works better when you skip a bunch of smaller cities. They are doing upgrades as they can.
The real bottleneck for the Northeast Corridor rail is actually in Connecticut where the rail line hugs the winding shore and there are a lot of water crossings as well as the aforementioned issues with attaining right-of-ways. There have been numerous proposals to build HSR tracks that avoid the shoreline route and go through the interior like one that goes through either Danbury-Waterbury-Hartford-Providence or Springfield-Worcester to make their way to Boston.
Eisenhower also was neither hoping nor wishing for freeways to run through urban centers, and the initial destruction of city it caused was not what he intended. With that, he also certainly didn't intend for concentrated leaded gasoline exhaust to be emitted in large quantities in urban neighborhoods that were densely populated and the knock-on effects of such.
Interestingly it appears in both NJ and CA we do have a good right of way available in the middle of the Interstate system. I be curious why that is not utilized.
Acela Express seems an overpriced system that is twice as expensive a ticket as the already overpriced Northeast Regional trains but based on the timetable I seen it appears Acela Express is only marginally faster than the Regional train not worth the price. if high speed rail costs $0.40 a passenger mile(as with most developed countries with HSR) a one way ticket would cost $36 I heard the ones in Japan costs about $0.35 or $31 for the 90 mile trip.
Apparently NIMBYism is one of the major reason why public transit is bad also why there are large gaps in the road system. I.e why Los Angeles has a large area in which freeways just disappear resulting in 12 lanes of many freeways dumping traffic into 4-6 lane city streets. The reason being many controlled access connectors from freeways to job centers in the west of downtown part of the city were blocked by NIMBYs. I be curious whether the Wilshire project would end up like CAHSR in which it would get stopped and become a train to nowhere do to NIMBYs blocking it.
CAHSR could had worked if they build a line between Tijuana border/airport with a dedicated border clearance facility to San Diego than to Los Angeles. Essentially allowing one to travel to LA in half an hour with 15 minute average border clearance time. Which is much better than the over hour or two long border waits these days.
US cities urban development design for the most part in much of the 20th century followed in the lines and ideals of Frank Lloyd Wright's concept of the Broadacre City. The Broadacre City was to be low population density and services grouped by type. The motor vehicle was to the main source of transportation because that and roads represented freedom to Frank Lloyd Wright. This was a reaction and response to the rapid industrialization of that time period in which the working class were crowded into cities containing polluted foul air from factories and heavy industry. The Broadacre City concept was intended by Frank Lloyd Wright to be the solution to this crisis. People could get fresh air and natural light as opposed to toxic polluted air and smog. There was to be no slums and traffic jams.
The only problem with this concept is that it can only work if the majority of the population worked from home by the means of telecommunication. Cities exist for a purpose, that purpose is efficiency in its ability to be close at hand to places of employment, social opportunities, places of amusement, etc, etc, etc. The Broadacre City concept becomes very inefficient in those regards due to motor vehicle traffic jams because of its design and low density population layout is predicated on the dominance of the motor vehicle. The comeback of the popularity and demand for the Tradition City happened because most heavy industry has relocated from dense urban cores in combination with EPA regulations mostly eliminated the toxic polluted foul air that plagued cities in the past, the efficiency of it in being close at hand to places of employment, and the high density population concentration & layout of it leads it more conducive & efficient in its access to social opportunities, places of amusement, etc, etc, etc.
To continue on my last post Amtrak charges generally $40 and up based on demand for that route for its standard Northeast Regional Trains. Acela Express normally goes double the regional train rate but not really faster maybe only a few minutes faster. It appears the railroad lobby may be a strong factor blocking HSR in US as most passenger rail companies or railroad company's passenger division i.e Union Pacific had been mostly bailed out by the government and formed Amtrak. The current strategy of the railroad companies is to run passenger service around fright train schedules allows, fright still rules the railroads. Amtrak's strategy to stay afloat as long distance train routes carry few passengers, is to charge passengers in popular routes as much as they can get away with to turn as big profit as possible to subsidize the less traveled routes of the system and to keep long distance rail fares down to earth to promote ridership. Which explains the lucrative $0.50-$0.90 a mile fares on shorter popular commuter routes on Amtrak such as the Northeast corridor. Which costs considerably more than HSR fares in many developed countries. If HSR competes with those routes(given they charge same fares per km/mile as systems in Europe/Japan), Amtrak/passenger rail companies would likely collapse as no one would pay their ridiculous fares for slow delay ridden service, remember the fright trains they must account for. Thus I believe the railroads lobby may be one of the major factors blocking HSR in the US. I be curious whether people in the US including visitors would be ok seeing long distance trains serving rural scenic areas with sleeping cars, sightseer dome cars, and dining cars go extinct in exchange for HSR in the Megalopolis and other major urban rail served parts of the US i.e Illinois, Pacific Northwest between PDX, Seattle, and Vancouver, and within the state of California.
I heard in Los Angeles General motors replaced streetcars with buses. Nowadays they are trying to reinvent the streetcar in form of LRT in LA nothing like the state of the art systems in other parts of the world.
The short answer is the American public views public transportation as being for poor people, especially buses. Although I do think train/subway transport is viewed slightly higher in the public's view than buses.
Anecdotally, at least, some people did stop using public transit when interurbans and streetcars were discontinued. I recently read a story about someone who had been taking the Long Beach Red Car line to work every morning until it was discontinued in 1961. On the following Monday morning, the man picked up his keys and climbed into his car. When his wife asked him why he wasn't going to take the bus, he said "Buses are for poor people!".
And I'm sure he wasn't the only one who felt that way.
This rather classist attitude notwithstanding, it's not surprising that this happened. Buses provide passengers with a far less smooth and comfortable ride, whatever one may think of their fellow passengers, not least because of poor acceleration from stops. And they're noisy. I'm hopeful that we may see some improvement there as electric buses become more mainstream.
The short answer is the American public views public transportation as being for poor people, especially buses. Although I do think train/subway transport is viewed slightly higher in the public's view than buses.
Low gas prices play a role in the USA too.
A late rebuttal...
False egalitarianism imposed on "public" transportation isn't universal.
Mass transit in other parts of the world have different "classes" - including segregated areas for women with (noisy) children. If mass transit offered three classes, expensive 1st, general 2nd, and cattle car 3rd class, it would not be shunted to the role of "poor transit".
If people didn't want to flaunt their wealth or status, no one would rent (or own) a limousine.
BUT the major reason for poor mass transit is the confiscation of private enterprise by the socialist collective / State. When the aggregate tax load is 40% (local, state, & federal), there's not much margin left for profit. And the "public operated" mass transit is a dismal mess, warped by politics, cronyism, graft, corruption, and partisan back stabbing.
EGALITARIAN - Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
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.
