The United States is dense enough to use rail

[wuushew]

No part of France is not served by rail.

Much of the eastern United States has a population density of 5-250 people per square kilometer.

What is the problem and why wont it work here?

[ogneopasno]

1. Might want to reword your subject line. The POPULATION DENSITY would support rail.

:hi:

[Bucky]

no appreciation for irony, you

[Regret My New Name]

115. hehe

[CTyankee]

2. I really don't know. I travelled in Italy, Spain and a bit of France this year and they

all have great rail service.

We don't have a national commitment to rail the way these folks do. It's that simple. When we do, we will.

[babylonsister]

3. Lucky you!

:hi: I'm waiting...waiting... Euros...dollars...not yet.

[CTyankee]

28. The dollar is getting better compared to the Euro.

When I was in Italy in May it was over $1.50. In Spain in October about $1.25.

However, given this economy, I am not planning another trip to Europe in the near future. My next trip will be to South America. Better deal there!

[babylonsister]

35. We need to talk! Have you been there? I'm all ears.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

48. Since I have already been to Peru and Brazil, I'd like to go to Chile and Argentina

and the Patagonia region in between. Just the name "patagonia" alone sounds very exciting to me. I'd also love to see and experience Buenos Aires and Santiago, the food, culture, arts. I'm worn out from my art/architecture tour of northern Spain just now and reeling from the constant barrage of bad news on the economy. So I can't really plan anything at the moment. OTOH, the Spain trip was the best thing that has happened to me in a long time so my exhaustion -- apart from the physical wear and tear on my older body -- is balanced against the art and culture treasure chest I have now. To think, in one trip I saw "Las Meninas", "Guernica", the Gaudi house in Barcelona, and the fabulous Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. I went over the Pyrenees which was blanketed in fog and snow, walked down Las Ramblas, ate tapas and pintxos (in the Basque country) and walked the bull-run street in Pamplona (not during the running of the bulls however!).

Are you planning a trip to S.A.?

[amdezurik]

21. Thalys has amazing service

and if you have a pass 1st class is the only way to go. :)

[Karenina]

50. Such an elegant train, inside and out!

I can watch it go by from my window!

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Hell, we've got the lines here in CT, and barely any service...

How stinkin' hard would it be to actually run a bunch of trains between N. Haven and Hartford, for instance? With satellites for park and ride to them? Could help with the fun traffic on 84 and 91...

Or for that matter up to Springfield.

[gristy]

4. You make a very good techical point

What is different in the US is our transportation history (car-dominated, with rail systems purposefully destroyed middle of last century), our interstate highway system, and finally, our lack of political will to do anything different.

[amdezurik]

24. don't forget the abundance

of oil/big 3 money into political coffers to buy that wholesale destruction of our infrastructure

[lib_wit_it]

84. Bingo! Fuck Robert Moses, too. nt

[SoCalDem]

127. Big Oil, the auto industry, government & the rubber lobby

Major conspiracy to dupe the public, and tie us to them forever..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. tracks?

I used to trsvel 2 hours to Spokane. WA and I wished they had a train! All that steeeeeeel!

[Hannah Bell]

11. Empire Builder: chicago to seattle, portland

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Station/Station_Page&code=SPK

1st train in 1892.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B04E4DC1238E233A25756C1A96E9C94639ED7CF

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. yes it only went one way

not from where we were

we need some sort of high speed network between msin towns in 'rural' states

[Hannah Bell]

36. it runs both ways, once a day. i understand it might not run though your town,

but it does run through spokane.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. yes, but not ours

[Canuckistanian]

6. You mean "dense enough to NOT use rail"

The demise of Rail Travel is one of the saddest parts of American history - brought to you by Republicans, of course.

[Gregorian]

7. An abandoned rail in the Napa area is going to be reopened. They voted.

This rail runs from Eureka to San Francisco. It was bisected by a massive landslide. But with the huge number of people who have recently moved up north, the traffic from Cloverdale to San Francisco is just not good. But regardless, this is one example of the voters wishes coming true. Hopefully.

[liberal N proud]

8. ROFLMAO

v:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

9. As with so many things that are successful in small european countries...

Their solutions are not trivial to scale up to US sizes.

Not saying it's impossible, just that it's not trivial.

[Recursion]

12. Ironically the problem here is the scale is too small

Mass transit is ultimately a regional problem. On the east coast, at least, all of the metropolitan regions span multiple states. Nobody wants to be the state that pays for it.

[JackRiddler]

14. This has nothing to do with the size of the countries...

US percapita income has always been higher than the non-Russian European average.

Area of non-Russian Europe = 1/2 of US (take that as the Eastern half where 2/3 or more of the people live).

We could have the same coverage here. What's missing is not small size (?!) but will.

[BlooInBloo]

17. It's a lot easier for smaller countries to have the "will" than it is for larger...

You think you were disagreeing with me, but you really weren't.

[BadgerKid]

10. For perspective, here's the entire USA

hxxp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg
(replace hxxp with http)

size = 439 kB


And from the Census Bureau (by county):



http://www.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/County-Density-07.html

[elleng]

25. And here are U.S. rail lines:

[kiva]

40. And part of the problem is that the railway network shown

doen't reflect passenger lines. Many of the rail lines shown, at least in the West, are only for shipping freight. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand not all of these lines would currently meet the standards necessary for passenger service.

[elleng]

43. That's true.

Here's another:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.usamapxl.com/rail-map.html&usg=__B-ZIitG4Mfg_jwbUCYqPdCgLEAg=&h=294&w=437&sz=60&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=SUZkkgJfe2lV4M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Du.s.a.%2Brail%2Blines%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8

[kick-ass-bob]

52. Another problem is that outside of the NE,

the rail lines are controlled by the freight companies. That means that they have right of way. So if a passenger train comes up where a freight line needs to go, guess who waits?

[JVS]

54. Bingo!

[Two Americas]

96. it need not have been that way

Corporate dollars. Passenger trains once had priority. The corporations saw to it that was ended. Profits over people. We are about to see that repeated with the auto industry. "Bail out the greedy railroads? Hell no! Let them fail!" the right wingers all said. The railroads claimed that it was those greedy workers who were to blame. Sound familiar? Their terms for accepting bail out money were the discontinuing of most service to the people, and the destruction of the Unions. Congress caved. Sound familiar?

[Two Americas]

93. true

It is true that many freight only lines have fallen below the standards required for passenger service, but they all did once support passenger service and could be brought back to standards.

[amandabeech]

42. That map is not complete. It shows many busy lines,

but I look at places where I've lived fairly recently, and there are many lines that do not show up on that map.

[tabbycat31]

44. that map is wrong

because it does not show the rails around me. I've always lived in a community that has a train that usually runs every hour on the hour, and I'm very thankful for that. I wish others would too.

[elleng]

47. Where are you located?

.

[tabbycat31]

56. eastern NJ

but it also dosent show my hometown either.

Maybe the map only covers amtrak or something because there's huge commuter rail systems (Metro North, LIRR, NJ transit) coming in and out of NYC and the map did not show it.

[dsc]

78. that can't be a complete map

My hometown had, and still has, a huge trainyard and this map shows no rail network there at all.

[FarCenter]

27. It would be good to extend the Northeast corridor to Atlanta

Make it an eastern seaboard corridor by extending from Washington through Richmond, St Petersburg, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Spartanburg, Greenville, to Atlanta.

[elleng]

15. And DOES use rail,

for freight traffic.

Rail PASSENGER service is very labor-intensive, so more expensive than other modes; hence governments, local, state and national, subsidize rail passenger service. Thats the case in Europe and elsewhere. Priorities.

[OHDEM]

16. I would love to see it happen!

I know that the new energy bill which is sitting in congress somewhere, has subsidies for green, mass transit. Europe is way ahead of us on this (and other things). You really can go almost anywhere by train. We traveled in Italy in 2000 and the trains were clean and safe. We couldn't get EVERYWHERE, but there are buses for most places the trains don't go. A regular schedule from here in Ohio to Florida would be a HUGE success! All the retirees would love it. And as a mom with little kids, I'd prefer a train ride to flying or driving. Someone will make their fortune off this!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Not only Europe is ahead of us, so are Japan, Korea, Taiwan...

just about every other industrialized country.

[karynnj]

39. From Beachmom's JK group post, there is a new bill you might like

Senators John F. Kerry and Arlen Specter introduced a bill today to fund high-speed rail lines along the East Coast and in several other key areas of the country.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the legislation would help repair the nation's crumbling infrastructure, and at the same time create jobs when the country appears headed for a deep economic recession.

...

The bill would provide money for tax-exempt bonds to finance rail projects which reach a speed of at least 110 miles per hour. It would include $10 billion over 10 years to fund improvements in the Northeast and California, and $5.4 billion over a six-year period for 10 rail corridors, including connecting the cities of the Midwest through Chicago, connecting the cities of the Northwest, connecting the major cities within Texas and Florida, and connecting all the cities along the East Coast.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_pushes_hi.html

Here's an LRA Times article from the same thread:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/kerry-and-spect.html

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

126. Finally! It's about time

This is something I've been thinking about for YEARS. It's good to see Kerry and Specter taking the initiative.

Aid to car companies should be contingent on them not lobbying against mass transit.

[RB TexLa]

18. It's got to have more riders and to do that it is going to have to have investment from the

government. Grants for research and development, money for operating costs. Treat it more like urban mass transit in the taxation that funds it. Here in DFW cities with low ridership pay heavily into DART but they get much back in sales tax and property tax from business near the light rail.

Ticket cost is the problem right now, in July with gas prices still high Dallas to Galveston was still cheaper for us to drive.

[gravity]

19. Because we have cheap gas still

and a good national highway system.

In theory it will work, but convincing the majority of Americans to give up their cars is the problem.

Also a lot of our infrastructure is built around cars, which will make it more difficult. We have too many strip malls and suburbs, which don't really integrate with rail. If we had used widespread rail in the beginning like in Europe, then things could be different.

[drm604]

20. I'm in the Philly suburbs

and I used to work in center city Philly. I commuted by the Septa R6 train everyday. That is the only way I would ever commute into center city. No way would I drive in every day. Plus the commute gave me reading time every day that I wouldn't have had if I had been commuting by car. And they have a program where you can have money removed from your paycheck pretax to buy monthly transit passes. I did need a car to get to the station in the morning and home from the station at night, but some improvements to the bus routes here would have eliminated that necessity.

So it does work in some areas of the U.S. and I'm sure that there are areas that don't currently have it that could benefit from it. On the other hand, there are areas where population density is to low for it to be practical.

[Berry Cool]

38. Your commuter situation is like mine, only mine's in Cleveland

and I don't need a car to do it.

[Regret My New Name]

118. Trains was the only way I'd go into the city when I was on Long Island...

Same thing when I lived in Portland, Oregon... Some places in the US are a lot better than others.

[Spectral Music]

22. I'm in earthquake territory, and there is always a risk with rail here

We're building it, but it's a risk.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Japan is even more earthquakey than the West Coast, and they

have what appears to be the most extensive high-speed rail system (and conventional rail system) in the world--and they're building more.

[NeedleCast]

60. They also have an enormously higher population density

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. But the remark I was responding to was about earthquake danger

Besides, parts of California have a lot of population density.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. That's why it's built with earthquakes in mind.

BART for example has seismic sensors and when a quake of a certain magnitude is detected, the system shuts down automatically so that tracks can be inspected if needed.

[jwirr]

23. Northern Minnesota still has much of its rail in tact. This is a good idea.

[ogneopasno]

30. Yeah, but where are we going to go on those lines? Hoyt Lakes? Brimson?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Duluth, across North Dakota, a spur line to Winnepeg, and on to Seattle

Why not?

[jwirr]

66. What is wrong with Brimson? I used to live there. Seriously the tracks

could get from Duluth to the Cities. Also to spur areas off that track. I do not think this will come now but it is not a good idea to pull those rails up and destroy what might someday be needed again.

[dysfunctional press]

26. we have the interstate highway system and personal vehicles.

as a society, we've decided that is what we prefer.

[Two Americas]

57. not true

I watched the right wingers dismantle and destroy our extensive public transportation system. The people did not support that - far from it.

All through the 50's and 60's the people fought to save their public transportation system.

The people did not "choose" this automobile nightmare, they were forced into it.

[dysfunctional press]

58. not true yourself...

while there may have been some conservative types that wanted to keep the tradition of the old streetcars alive, the vast majority of progressive americans welcomed the car culture with open arms and tremendous enthusiasm.

most large cities do already/still have extensive public mass transit systems- in the places where there's enough popular support and ridership to make them feasible.

[Two Americas]

59. free market, then?

Are you saying that the destruction of our public transportation system was an example of the "free market" at work?

Are you aware of the massive public subsidies for highway infrastructure? The tax incentives?

Are you aware of the consortium of corporations that bought up public transit systems in the 50's and intentionally destroyed them?

Are you aware of the union-busting motives the Republicans had for using Amtrak to eliminate 90% of our passenger rail system?

[dysfunctional press]

73. are you aware that the vast majority of people prefer automobiles?

because you just don't seem to understand that simple fact.

[wuushew]

75. You advocate different energy sources for cars of the future....

but it is very probable that the future configuration of our civilization may not be one where energy is affordable enough to allow such luxuries. If so, inevitability prolonging the transition into the future state just makes the systemic adjustment more painful.

It is the role of government to get out ahead of market forces which are always after the fact and reactionary in nature.

We consume approximately 800 billion kWh of electricity in the United States annually in addition to 10 million barrels of oil(70% which is used in the transportation sector) a day.

Where are you going get 10 million barrels of bio-diesel a day? That is a tall order.


We could power vehicles with electricity. One barrel of oil is equal to 1700 kWh of electricity. If you indulge the caveat that all this oil is directly replaced by electricity you are talking about increasing generating capacity by almost 80%. Even with obvious efficiency advantages of electrics, population creep will catch up with demand sooner rather than later.

At present most of our electricity is generated by non-renewable fossil fuels. Doubling the consumption rate just brings peak natural gas and peak coal closer to our present time horizon.

Natural gas is widely used in industry, agriculture and heating so that even in the "green" future, the cost of living will have increased owing to the linkages with these indirectly related sectors. Coal has other uses as well, such as making coke for the steel industry. The freedom of the automobile may also raise the cost of this structural lynch pin material.


We technically should be able to generate this electricity in renewable manner, but the economic equilibrium point of doing so may greatly above that off today's rates. Where are we going to tighten our belts? We need food, medicine and housing all before the luxury of the personal car.

[dysfunctional press]

76. coal.

btw- unless there's a major die-off of the population, we'll crash and burn at some point in the future, in regard to many many aspects of world society and culture. food, energy, water, medicine, land, etc...

people like personal vehicles, and they will most likely be available to them, at least until something absolutely cataclysmic occurs- and even after that, as long as there are people- they will find a way to have personal transport.

that's just the way it is, and pretty much ALWAYS has been, since the first time someone hopped on a horse, or tied an ox to a cart, and the way it will continue to be, as long as there are human beings who need to transport themselves.

get used to it, already...:eyes:

[lib_wit_it]

86. Do you consider the fact that people feel that way because that "feeling" was expertly sold to them

by the "Madmen" representing the Oil industry? And that it has become a habit, if not an addiction?

[Two Americas]

92. yes

And in recent times, people have had no choice.

[dysfunctional press]

105. not at all...

there are plenty of places where the choice between rail and auto exist- and the fact is- people with the means to do so prefer cars.

[Two Americas]

90. I know this...

They have no choice. When they did, far more used public transit. I saw it.

[dysfunctional press]

104. the choice is still there in many places- and where it is, most people still prefer cars.

what you saw were the people who could not yet afford a new-fangled horseless carriage.

[RetroLounge]

134. Are you aware the vast majority of people only know automobiles?

The US passenger train system has been slowly dismantled since the 50's.

Most people today NEVER SAW the passengrer service as it was, so how can they prefer autos to it?

:eyes:

RL

[A HERETIC I AM]

88. Amtrak was formed because pasenger rail service was a money loser for the railroads by the time...

Amtrak came along. If they had not formed Amtrak, passenger rail travel outside of the Northeast corridor and Chicagoland would not exist.

All of the railroads that offered passenger service were losing money on that service by the 1960's.

[Two Americas]

91. the competition was subsidized

The reason that rail passenger service lost money was because their competition was subsidized. The reason the competition was subsidized was to cripple the Unions, force people into automobiles, and encourage sprawl and development.

[Two Americas]

61. How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit

How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit

The electric streetcar, contrary to Van Wilkin's incredible naive whitewash, did not die a natural death: General Motors killed it. GM killed it by employing a host of anti-competitive devices which, like National City Lines, debased rail transit and promoted auto sales.

This is not about a "plot" hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses.

...

General Motors sought to reduce competition from electric railways through a variety of measures, including the use of freight leverage. GM, for decades, was the nation's largest shipper of freight over railroads, which controlled some of America's most extensive railways. By wielding freight traffic as a club, GM persuaded railroads to abandon their electric rail subsidiaries.

...

The streetcar did not die, as Wilkins contended, because of demographics or economics or disinvestments or evolution; it died because GM in 1922 made a conscious decision to kill it and, for the next several decades, pursued a strategy designed to accomplish this objective. Yet, by reason of timidity or negligence or ignorance or cowardice, Wilkins simply cannot bring himself to admit that a powerful corporation would seek to maximize profits by eliminating its competition.

...

Bradford Snell is a former U.S. Senate Counsel. His 1974 report gave national prominence to the General Motors/National City Lines conspiracy case. His history of GM will be published in 2002 by Alfred A. Knopf.

Editor's Note: The following article was originally published in The New Electric Railway Journal in Autumn 1995. In it, Mr. Snell responded to an earlier article by Van Wilkins, who claimed commuter rail lines vanished due to causes other than the conspiracy by GM and other companies to put them out of business.

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. It happened in Minneapolis, with a wonderful regionwide streetcar system destroyed

In order to make sure that the streetcar system would never be rebuilt, the new owners sold the streetcars to Mexico City, burned the ones that Mexico City didn't want, and had the city pave over the tracks.

[Two Americas]

69. yes

I was just reading about that today.

Detroit's street cars were sold to Mexico, as well.

[donco6]

133. Same thing happened in Denver. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

72. if there had been enough popular support for them, they'd have remained.

but too many people preferred the automobile.

sorry. :shrug:

[Two Americas]

74. not sure what you base this on

You are still arguing a "free market" position here, justifying the actions of powerful corporations by saying that they are only giving people what they want.

[dysfunctional press]

83. history.

where were the massive riots and violent protests when they dismantled the streetcar systems?

how many people refused to buy/build houses in the suburbs, away from passenger rail lines, with driveways and garages?

i will say this tho- the revisionist romantics who yearn for the nickel-a-ride streetcar days of yore are actually kind of cute, in a quaint, backward sort of way.

[Two Americas]

94. there was much activism

There was much effort to save public transportation. I was involved in demonstrations.

Many people were reluctant to move to the suburbs.

I am surprised that the history of this, which I witnessed in my lifetime, is so poorly known today.

As the tax base left the cities, services collapsed and people fled. White flight was a bog factor. As public transportation was dismantled, and plants were moved farther away from population centers because of cheaper land and tax breaks, people were forced to use automobiles.

No need to use insults.

[dysfunctional press]

98. ahhh...the truth comes out...

because YOU were involved in the pointless demonstrations, your perspective is that they were a big deal.

they weren't.

"Many people were reluctant to move to the suburbs."
you say that like someone was forcing them too- if people didn't want to move- they could stay where they were in the city, with access to public transportation. if they decided to move to the burbs- they generally got a car.

"I am surprised that the history of this, which I witnessed in my lifetime, is so poorly known today."

nobody's interested- cars won out because cars are what people wanted and still do and will in the future.

[Two Americas]

101. excuse me

Yes I cared, I was passionate, I was involved.

And this is to be ridiculed?

[dysfunctional press]

103. when it's pointless head-in-the-sand thinking that goes against progress for the masses- yes.

i'm sure that there were plenty of people just as passionate about keeping horse-drawn carriages around- and they'd have been just as worthy of ridicule.

[Two Americas]

109. again...

Why then would the modern countries I cited invest in rail if it were in fact obsolete, of no social value, and comparable to horse and buggy? Are those people worthy of ridicule? Clearly, in any case, the automobile is much closer to the horse and buggy than rail transportation is. The automobile is more backward.

Question - is everything new therefore better and representative of progress?

By what stretch of the imagination could advocacy for public transportation be described as "pointless head-in-the-sand thinking that goes against progress for the masses?"

What other public things do you see as limiting choice, and as therefore better being privatized?

[dysfunctional press]

122. different countries/societies have differnt needs, wants, capabilities...

what works for them doesn't necessarily work for us, and what they want doesn't necessarily match what our society wants.

and no, not everything that is new is either better or representative of progress- those things that aren't, generally fall by the wayside fairly quickly and are forgotten. that is definitely NOT the case with the automobile- it opened up the country and allowed pretty much anyone to travel pretty much anywhere, anytime they want, and at their own pace.
and trucks allowed business to get their products to more people more quickly, and receive their own shipments that much easier as well.

the head-in-the-sand scenario is for those that would rather see cars phased out, in favor of bringing back the streetcar days, as well of those who refuse to accept that not all forms of public transportation are worthwhile endeavors or investments.

[Two Americas]

97. quaint and cute and backward?

I guess that is why quaint and backward countries in Europe, and Japan, have invested so much in high speed rail.

The lone macho guy tooling around "free" in his pos, inefficient, wasteful, high maintenance automobile is what seems cute and quaint and backward to me. I thought we would have grown out of the James Dean adolescent automobile fantasy phase by now.

[dysfunctional press]

100. the rail lines that were torn up weren't high-speed rail...

nor capable of being used for that purpose.

parts of the reason why japan and europe have invested in it- they have a high population density in relatively small amounts of space, and higher fuel prices for a longer time.

the fact of the matter is that americans by and very large PREFER private vehicles.

[Two Americas]

106. repeating a claim doesn't make it true

Modern people have no choice but to drive.

Europe needed to upgrade rail lines, with public money, so your argument that "the rail lines that were torn up weren't high-speed rail nor capable of being used for that purpose" is false. The NYC line across New York was used for 110 mile an hour trains in 1900. The Union Pacific and Burlington, to name but two examples, were easily accommodating 100 mph speeds when Amtrak started.

The population density argument is false, as well, since we at one time had service here to every small town.

Would you claim that society has not been affected at all by rampant capitalism and that everything we have is the result of personal consumer choice on a free and open market? If not, which things are and which are not, and by what methodology are you using to make a determination between the two?

Blaming the people for social problems because of their "choices" and touting the free market model to explain social phenomena is a highly reactionary argument.

[dysfunctional press]

123. you should heed that advice yourself.

and you should learn at least a little bit more about rail travel- because the rail lines that had been discussed in your earlier posts- the ones that big bad gm had ripped out of people's lives were DEFINITELY NOT capale of accomodating high-speed rail- so your claim that my statement saying so was false is in itself false. and 100mph isn't really considered "high-speed rail" by you vaunted european standards.

"The population density argument is false, as well, since we at one time had service here to every small town"

the reason that MOST(not ALL) towns at one time had rail service was because most new towns were built along existing rail lines that tied together larger cities. autombiles allowed towns to free themselves from rail lines.

if you honestly think that the population density in places like north and south dakota is heavy enough to support tying every town together by high-speed passenger rail lines- then you're already too far gone.

[AngryAmish]

85. GM put crazy people smelling like pee on my bus?

Most people in the US like their own cars for several reasons. First is the internal locus of control there is when driving -which is nontrivial. Also, when I use public transportation (weekly at least) there tends to be vagrants on there that smell like pee. That is not nice.

I have ridden local commuter rail (nice, more expensive) light rail (cheaper, the "smells like pee" problem), the bus (see light rail) and driven. Drving is much more expensive but when I have the means, driving is the way to go.

[Two Americas]

95. the freedom of the automobile is an illusion

Some of the private public transportation companies intentionally let the equipment and service deteriorate. That is because in those days the ICC regulated public transportation, and companies were not allowed to discontinue service if people were still using it. So the companies tried to drive customers away so they could win their petitions for abandonment of service.

It is interesting to me to now hear expressed as common wisdom the slick and phony sales and marketing campaigns from 50 years ago that tried to lure people into automobiles. Interesting also to have lived long enough to be called cute and quaint when I try to share observations from the past, when many of the problems we have today were something that some of us were warning about, and were being called conspiracy theorists for doing that. But not only has the frantic suburban automobile ridden, ugly, sprawling, wasteful and alienating nightmare we feared come true, but people are defending it and seeing their enslavement as comfortable, and as inevitable and preferable to what we once had.

Do younger people rally thing that we are enjoying "progress" today and the best of all worlds, and that nothing from the past is of any value? Have they no sense of things having gone terribly wrong?

I suppose tomorrow's young people will be eating nothing but GMO food, and mocking and ridiculing anyone who remembers real food and dismissing them as "quaint" and "cute" and hopelessly impracticality and old-fashioned.

That is a whole other subject - most of you have never really tasted fruit. You don't have to trust my word, I could take you to where the old varieties are still grown and prove it to you. Or you can celebrate your "progress" and dismiss the old timers.

The marketers have convinced people that they have "chosen" to be virtual slaves to the consumerist "free market." Amazing.

[dysfunctional press]

102. not when you compare it to train travel.

the automobile provides MUCH more freedom and mobility than rail...that's one of the reasons that the VAST MAJORITY of americans prefer them to trains.

[Two Americas]

108. not so

I would much rather use public transportation in Europe than an automobile. Much more freedom, much less hassle and expense. It was once that way here.

Some are in love with the illusion of freedom that an automobile represents. Certainly the marketers in the automobile industry have spent billions on a sophisticated campaign to sell us on this idea of freedom. You have more fun and get laid more often, too, with the right car, right?

Sure you have complete freedom to tool from place to place - the mall, the parking garage, the suburbs, the fast food joints, the parking garage. Wheee. Ever feel like a rat in a maze? They are "free" I suppose. That is what we are now.

[dysfunctional press]

124. "I would much rather use public transportation in Europe than an automobile..."

then move to europe and enjoy- this thread is about the transportation system in the u.s....
just because something works for europe, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right answer for us.

[AngryAmish]

113. OK, fine. We'll stay off your lawn.

[wuushew]

125. Amerika's urine problem is not caused by mass transit

but rather an inadequate commitment to social and mental health services.

Ronald Raygun has much to answer for.

[dysfunctional press]

132. perhaps it's people that don't own cars that don't understand how attached Americans are to them...?

:shrug:

if given the choice, the vast majority of people would choose to drive their own vehicle, or even carpool with someone else who's driving.

[baldguy]

34. Because the auto industry has a powerful lobby, and the railroads don't

A least for passenger rail.

[Mari333]

37. There USED to be passenger trains connecting small towns

in the US. one even went thru my little town.
It was torn up in the 80s and removed.
Big mistake.

[JCMach1]

111. Ditto my small town in Florida... there used to be daily commuter trains

even there...

[Doc_Technical]

41. Many of the trains in France are electric powered.

They made a huge commitment to nuclear power.
Are we willing to make the same commitment?

[Kaleva]

46. treat the rails like airports and the interstate

Make the federal govt. responsible for the construction, maintenance, and modernization of the rail lines. Would be interesting to find out how much the gas and fuel tax would have to be raised to fully fund such a scheme.

[StreetKnowledge]

89. Taking into account rail freight income?

It would be a profit earner. All of the Class 1 railways make lotsa money. Since the early 90s, rail freight traffic has rising at awesome rates. There is lots of good reason for this - manpower and fuel efficiencies among them.

[Two Americas]

99. the best possible investment

This has been throughly studied. Rail transit would be a much better investment of public funds than highways or airports are now.

Safer, more efficient, less pollution, more cost-effective and a lower environmental impact. More freedom, too.

[mnhtnbb]

49. We had a fabulous rail system at the turn of the 19th to 20th century.

St. Joseph, MO (just north of Kansas City) used to have 100 trains a day coming through there.

The problem is the railroads were privately owned. The oil and auto industries got together
to create incentives for people to buy their own cars and travel separately.

Railroads lost out. The system wasn't nationalized.

Tax money was used to build roads. Rail infrastructure was not supported.

Follow the money and you'll see what happened.

[KoKo]

81. Henry Ford Revolutionized everything...Everyone wanted a CAR...

so they could indulge the American "Spirit of Independence" and...it was really great for Henry Ford's "Bidness"....if you get where I'm coming from....

[A HERETIC I AM]

87. If by "fabulous" you mean one that suffered regular derailments, poor maintenance,

passenger cars heated by wood stoves that set the cars ablaze when accidents occurred and inadequate signaling systems that made head-on collisions a regular thing then yeah, the rail system in the late 1800's through early 1900's was "fabulous".

[mnhtnbb]

114. Of course the other option was stagecoach. So much better!

:sarcasm:

[A HERETIC I AM]

116. Sarcasm aside, the heyday of the American passenger rail system did not

occur until the 1930's through the mid 50's. The poster I responded to above seemed to suggest that things were just rosy with passenger rail service in the 1890's and 1900's. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Prior to the modernization of signaling systems and improvements in rail car safety and construction, passenger rail travel was extremely dangerous.

[lib2DaBone]

51. This makes far too much sense. The Republicans will never allow it.

... The French bullet train, also known as TGV (for Train à Grande Vitesse) will try to break a new world record today (Tuesday). Officially Alstom - the company that makes it - announced that they will try to reach 540 Km/h (336 mph) but in everybody's mind the real goal is to reach 600 Km/h (373 mph) which is faster than many small planes.

[JVS]

53. Rail is only good for little countries, like Russia.

[Two Americas]

55. it can work

It once did work. As late as the 60's there was rail service to virtually every town in the country.

Rail transport is more fuel efficient, safer, has less environmental impact, is more affordable to build and maintain than highways, and supports rather than destroys communities, as the automobile culture does.

The right wingers destroyed public transit because it was unionized, regulated, and it made it more difficult to isolate and exploit the citizens.

[MiniMe]

62. Remember, the repukes just got finished trying to kill rail

[Profprileasn]

67. Would be nice...

That would really be nice. Many of the larger cities are building separate light rail lines which help a great deal with traffic in rush hour. 'Course this doesn't affect travel from one large city to another but I do feel it is a very importart start. Possibly could move to in state travel and then move to between states.

[gollygee]

68. First, the population density looks pretty different to me between those two maps

Second, you didn't include the places with really sparse populations.

PARTS of the US could be served by rail - certainly much more than currently - but it isn't practical for the whole US.

[Taverner]

70. Hey Bullet Train in CA!!!!

Hopefully, my kids will see it...

[defendandprotect]

71. We had pretty good rail service ...they destroyed it ...as they did trolley & subway ...

and bus, pretty much --

Our problem isn't lack of intelligence -- it's corruption --

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. !

Our problem isn't lack of intelligence -- it's corruption -- :thumbsup:

[blue_onyx]

77. I like the idea of using trains more

It would be nice if we could construct a national high-speed train service (not just the old Amtrak type railroad). Flying is so expensive and getting more inconvenient. It would be nice to have another option. If we had high-speed trains that would cut down on the time it takes to travel by train, I think it could be quite successful.

[paulk]

79. the problem is cost

the current rail infrastructure isn't set up for passenger trains - the cost of building a new rail infrastructure is prohibitive. No private company could afford it and the federal government doesn't have the money, either.

[lib2DaBone]

80. $700 Billion could have re-built the rail system 3 times over....

.. instead, the DEMS in CONgress, gave the $700 Billion to Wall Street Bonuses.

[jpak]

82. Railroads iz liberal - and liberal iz bad for 'Merica

I want my Hummer

[1]

107. because you can't build the infrastructure in the u.s. anymore...

that ship sailed 100 years ago.

too expensive to work now. and...

nobody wants a rail line anywhere near where they live now. nobody.

so if you can't install the rail lines in america, how could this possibly be the answer?



what a stupid proposition...

[Two Americas]

110. is that so?

Then how can we afford to build and maintain highways? That is much more expensive, even if we ignore the costs in environmental destruction and pollution and wasted fuel, than maintaining a rail network would be.

If rail transit and public transportation is so backward and obsolete, why are other modern and progressive countries investing in it?

This is American exceptionalism and rugged individualism taken to an extreme and anti-social degree.

Lots of money for ball parks, highways, airports, box stores and suburban development, but nothing for public transportation? Are we to imagine that these anti-public transportation arguments just coincidentally dovetail with the general assault on all public infrastructure and resources in the crazed privatization, de-regulated libertarian "free market" political and social environment in which we are all being forced to live? Does anyone still think that represents "progress?"

[JCMach1]

112. Anyone who has every played Railroad Tycoon knows to be VERY successful

you have to have a mix of passengers and freight...

America doesn't make anything anymore... :(

[Regret My New Name]

119. heh... wasn't railroad tycoon made by an American (company)? :P

heh, now I want to play that...

[wuushew]

130. RRT2 rulez!

Eastern United States, 1995 start date, three opponents, insanely difficult.

I still prevail.

[JCMach1]

136. One of my favorite games of all time!

There is even the new "Railroads"... I hate the interface on that one though as it is too wonky in VISTA.

The graphics are pretty though!

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

128. Nobody wants rail lines in their communities? Um, excuse me....

...but that just isn't true. Most of the big cities have burgeoning light rail or subway systems now or are at least beginning to build them. And the rail lines are increasingly extending into the burbs as well. However for suburban mass transit to really work, you might need some bus lines to get from neighborhoods to the train depot. So that's another obstacle, but not a very big one.

[Regret My New Name]

117. The people and their views on transportation?

Which sucks, because I would love it if we had cheap rail system in the US... I'd go everywhere... I'd even use it now, but I looked into going train one time and it would have cost me more to do that than if I flew.

[Two Americas]

121. not all would

But the poor people, the working people would.

As in so many areas of public policy, the tail wags the dog. That which the few desire, the many are forced into.

[4lbs]

129. Well, here in San Diego, CA we have the trolley system that can get us really close to most popular

places, especially downtown San Diego (the Gaslamp Quarter), Qualcomm stadium (for Chargers football), Petco Park (for Padres baseball), 4 large shopping centers/malls, and the San Ysidro Mexico border crossing for those that want a jaunt into Tijuana.

I guess that could count as rail. The cost is about $2.50 if you want to go anywhere the trolley can go. Less if you only plan on going a shorter distance. Or if one is going to travel regularly on it, $80 a month for an unlimited use trolley pass that also works on all the mass-transit busses in San Diego.

Thus, $80 a month to use all the mass-transit busses and trolley you desire. The mass transit busses here in San Diego are being converted to natural gas consumption. Most of the ones I've seen the past few years already have been converted to natural gas.

There are planned extensions to the North County and East County areas of San Diego County.

[Odin2005]

131. I can't drive, so I would love GOOD passenger rail service between Fargo and Minneapolis.

Car culture discriminates against people with issues that makes it impossible to us to drive (in my case, I am a high-functioning Autistic who has motor-sensory issues that keep me from driving). We are efectively 2nd class citizens that are stuck relying on disgusting Greyhound buses or on the good will of friends or relatives to travel.

Rail was destroyed by Big Auto, and us that can't drive are the victims.

[RetroLounge]

135. We want light rail here in Milwaukee

The Repugs oppose it at every step. Their corporate and GOP masters make sure they do.

RL