Were the Railroads a good thing in the 19th century and in the Western United States?

Question

When the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific met at Promontory, Utah it was a real innovation in transportation, to the west, no longer would people have to travel by horse, covered wagon, foot, or handcart. remember what happened to the Donner Party and the Willy and Martin handcart companies. The railroads fixed that. When I was in junior high kids mocked me for being a rail buff. I tried to tell them that the trains are good. So are they more economical than cars?

Answer 1

The railroads opened the west to amazing amounts of people that would never have probably made the trip otherwise.It wasn't too good for the Native Americans and the Buffalo though.But there is no denying it helped make America what it is today.As far as being better than cars i don't think so given the long distances to cover in the USA.If we had a bunch more high speed rail lines it make a difference,especially when gas gets to be 6 or 7 dollars a gallon.But they should be building it right now instead of squandering billions in Iraq.For moving freight though there is no more economical way to move goods.438 miles per ton per gallon versus 59 miles per ton per gallon for a truck.

Answer 2

You might be interested in how smaller countries like the UK (where I live) rely on railways as one of the main ways of travelling. We can get across in the country to the other end in less than a day (less if you're not counting Scotland etc). The difference is Japan has a great rail network and the UK's is pitiful but it's still interesting.

Having these rail networks means that we do not have as many cars and use public transport more. This affects our major cities and how people live.

The USA is a very large spread out country so many people look down on it. But in the UK you'd never be considered an "undesirable" for using it. Even rich people use it because they don't want to drive.

Answer 3

it is not just that trains are good - it is MOBILITY that is good.  thus, trains are very useful and economical for some trips, just as cars, planes, and ships are too.

when making your points, you should clarify "better" as in what sense?  then, you can win points with your debaters.  remember, blanket statements and generalisations are just like stereotypes, they dont apply to many situations and create unfair judgements.

so as far as promontory/transcontinental railway - yes it was a huge innovation for its day, providing better efficiency, faster journeys, more safety and comfort, and so on.  but again, just as in the arguements that support cars, there is less flexibility of destinations.  the rail was great if you were going to cheyenne or reno, not so good if you were really trying to get to butte montana.  thus, the multimodal trip, ride the train to ogend, then catch your stagecoach or horse there to finish the trip off.

ok, for all you car supporters, here is a devil's advocate position, since i am an urban planner.  the car is useful for variety of destinations, etc BCS all the stores are built in a dispersed, suburban sprawl pattern due to Euclidian zoning (since 1920's - look it up on wikipedia if you dont know the term) and the extreme subsidies that they got for all the road paving that was done by the governments and not by you.

IF multiple businesses cluster around a train station, then you could walk from business to business without ever needing a car at all, right?  if residences were built on upper floors above these businesses, then you just go downstairs to do all your errands, and you wont even need the train nor bus either, let alone an auto.  hence, the reason that downtowns work, such as chicago loop, new york's manhattan, etc.

as far as frequencies go, yes, a car offers the ultimate "frequency", bcs it can have any possible of 60 departures an hour (ie 1 per minute) for the whole 24 hours/day period, whereas trains or buses tend to have 1-10 possible departures an hour in commuter territory, or maybe only 1-3 times a day for intercity.  some routes run 24hrs a day too, but many dont.

so, think of this.  if your transit company offered a bus or train every 60 minutes, that is less flexible than offering a bus/train every 20 minutes (3 times/hr), or every 10 mins (6 times/hr), or even crush the headways down to every 3 minutes such as new york or chicago subways during rush hour!!.  

so, how much more frequency flexibility do you need than every 3 - 5 minutes.  even my city's bus system is offering certain routes at 4 min rush/7 min non-rush freqencies, and 1 of our routes is every 10 minutes for 24 hrs a day, so even at 3am, or 6pm, or whenever, there is a bus every 10 minutes to take me to/from the bars, to/from other dorms, to/from the libraries, the convenience store, etc.    so even tho' most of my transit's services is half-hour service and runs only til 7pm (ie the community routes), mine also offers several evening routes, three 22-hr/day routes, and some intensive-headway services around campus.

so, see, there is much much more to the MOBILITY arguments.  each mode does have some uses and its place.  but other things such as transportation funding, subsidies, land use and zoning, etc, also have big impacts on what is the best MOBILITY.

so, it is mostly about the CHOICES that people and governments make.  where do you choose to live? and is it anywhere near your job?  how much taxes are you willing to pay and for what services?  what is the budget that your government provides for the transit, for trains, and for toll-free streets/roads/highways (and why are these all "free" anyway, when toll roads can and do exist in a minority of places)?

so hey, this is a fun topic, so ill watch for more of your commentaries!

Answer 4

Any advancement in transportation or communication is a good thing.

Being a rail buff is cool, without trains civilization wouldn't have advanced as quickly as it did.  And your point about rail being more practical and economical cannot be refuted, it's just plain and simple fact.

The automobile, however, affords a greater degree of independence to the prospect of travel.  Can you imagine running your daily errands by rail?  

Solar panels and compressed-air cars, I believe, are the wave of the future.  

Electric cars are impractical for any number of reasons . . . they take too long to charge, they're heavy and the batteries are expensive to replace and dispose of (or recycle).  

Compressed air cars are cheaper to build using fewer materials and toxic chemicals, can be filled in 1/10 the time it takes to fill a gasoline tank and even though range is still an issue, every technology advances with time, so putting up with the inconvenience of a 100 mile range for a few years until the second or third generation air cars come out is better than paying $4.50 a gallon for gasoline.

Solar panels are about ready to come down dramatically in price due to a new technology ALREADY FULLY WORKED OUT AND BEING PRODUCED!!!  (see link)

Answer 5

Yes i do think that they were. Also today they are. I live in Northern Utah and i am able now to go Salt lake City on a train or around salt lake we have light rail and i get to some places that i need to or want to go with out driving.

Answer 6

economical not now - practical not at all

obviously it take massive amounts of energy to run one (electric motors powered by diesel generators), and the technology hasn't improved in many years; not that it couldn't.  Also if you price a train ticket it is about the same as a plane ticket and could take days to get to a destination obtainable by plane in 3-4 hours.  Commuter rails are becoming popular in more and more cities, but still they aren't used much since you lack transpertation on the opposite end.  

Have you ever had to wait for a train to pass.  Even commuter rails that move fast still cork up traffic for a good 5 min at every intersection.

I hate sitting next to dirty people an like city busses the rail system generally attracts less affluent people, and pickpockets.

Answer 7

Oh...... I agree.  I still think trains are a great idea..... they are more efficient and environmentally friendly.  I am always taking about  how there should be a law that makes certain things HAVE to be shipped by railroad.  Look at all the trucks on the road..... its ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

Rail will never be as versitile as motor vehicles are. but in heavily congested areas they not only make sense as a time saver, but also as an ecological boon. Hundreds, or even thousands of people taking a single vehicle, sometimes even powered by electricity rather than diesel, makes a lot more sense than those thousands each driving their own car and adding to the gridlock. Trains fill their own niche in the bulk transportation market, but again only when the traffic makes it economical, the addition of piggyback service (taking trailers by rail) and long range container service makes even more ecological sense. taking scores of long range trucks and making them into a single train. besides which, trains will always be an awesome sight, and always very cool.