What prevents the government from installing more rail systems for commuters?

Question

What prevents the government from installing more rail systems for commuters?

Answer 1

Lack of land.

Where are you going to lay the tracks?  You want a train through your neighborhood?

Money doesn't solve everything.

BTW:  The $800 toilet seat was for one aircraft, and it wasn't massed produced, so it was a one time build.  The original dies had been destroyed and recycled.

Answer 2

meh, i live in minneapolis and we just recently got light rail. so it's possible i guess. i'm no economist or whatever though.

but our L is the ****

Answer 3

It would cost government multi-millions to install more rail systems for commuters. Then these same commuters would just want to pay a few dollars for the ride to and from work. That is why Amtrak is in such trouble. It costs a fortune to keep it rolling and the passengers would need to spend thousands of dollars on a trip if they were actually paying for the REAL cost of transportation. The government subsidizes Amtrak and probably any other rail system, too.  So, the answer is MONEY in one word.

Answer 4

Passenger rail in Europe has always been the way to travel. But, in North America people fell in love with the automobile. Its fine to take the train from point A if you live nearby and travel to point B if your destination is nearby. But the vast majority of North Americans would have to drive in excess of 1 hour just to get to the train station. Then when you get there, there is no place to park your car. It would be too costly to try and entice people to take the train. In Ontario there are hundreds of miles of abandoned RR lines that could be used for commuter travel but then again who in their right mind would take the train if they have a car and can leave home when they want and get to their destination when they want without worrying about timetables.

Answer 5

they lack common sense and they would say money,

Answer 6

Highways are massively subsidized by the government.  In this environment, rail must compete on a stacked playing field.  

A rail line benefits everybody traveling that way even if they don't use it because:

1) they enjoy the benefits of reduced congestion (do you want tens or hundreds of thousands of additional cars in front of you?)

2) rail lines are MUCH cheaper than the equivalent highway capacity, so they save all taxpayers money.  (likewise, the subsidy cost is lower than the cost of road maintenance, not even considering pollution, global warming, and additional deaths from traffic accidents that would be caused by more driving).

Answer 7

because the us goverment is in the back pocket of the oil companies why would they want to build something that took away from their profits..........

Answer 8

First, The cost.

Second, Governments are only elected for the short term, railroad expantionis along term project from conception to compleation.

Answer 9

It seems that all commuter systems are subsidised by taxpayers.....you can correct me if I am wrong...No Mo free rides

Joe Taxpayer

Answer 10

I think the words used in your question, "the government," pretty much sums it up.

You'd want to entrust the building, training and management necessary, including day to day operations to "the government?"  These are the same folks who pay $330 for a 'brad impacting device', that which we call a hammer, and a good one can be bought for less than $60 at Home Depot?  Then there are those $800 toilet seats.

And then there is that little thing called 'eminent domain'.  Right of way acquirement would displace an untold number of people, as the west bound main is going to lay right where your living room couch now sits.  These are the people who'll really be pony-ing up the bucks as their property is taken and remuneration made in dollars far below actual value.

My crystal ball says it ain't gonna happen............

Answer 11

Money.

Answer 12

The US in the early 1900's had the best transportation system in the world, from trains to trolleys, you could go anywhere, anytime. Now Europe is 20 years ahead of the US and the US still does not realize this. Passenger service has to make a comeback, because gas is only going to get more expensive.

Answer 13

FIRST, it's not profitable for a PRIVATE company to do passenger rail-transport: competing against the airlines and automobiles.  So in the USA, Amtrak does ALL passenger trains, and contracts most commuter lines.

Private companies (Union Pacific, BN&SF, etc)  though do a BOOMING business in frieght traffic... and OWN all the railroad right-of-ways !!

SO...Gromit hit it on the rail-spike !!

THE BIGGEST problem is LAND (which equates to money):

As an example, here in Northern California on the Penisula, there is ONE rail right-of-way owned by CALTRAIN which used to be owned by Southern Pacific.

Now to put down any MORE lines in the area, the government would have to purchase the LAND to create a right-of-way... the problem IS that the land you want for a right-of-way is the prime real estate you build roads an homes on !!

SO, you have to BUY that land... California has very restrictive rules on "eminent domain".  Sadly the taxpayers aren't happy to fund THAT when they want their freeways, highways, and roads kept up-to-date.

NOW, in California, we DID have an interesting thing happen a few years back:  the folks in the San Joaquin Valley were commuting over to the Silicon Valley (50-70 miles) and traffic was horrible !! A group was formed and developed the ACE trains that run from Stockton to San Jose each morning and evening... by leasing track-time from Union Pacific.  It is heavily used... but still subsidized

Answer 14

Basically the fact that they have never really made money if you're referring to trains and not just subways and trolleys.  Amtrak is already subsidized out the yahoo.

Answer 15

because people don't know all the opportunities they could have by riding commuter rail. please start the extention of commuter rails campain to make our land a better land.