Why can't the u.s go back to trains as transportation.sure would save on gas and the demaned would be lower

Question

Why can't the u.s go back to trains as transportation.sure would save on gas and the demaned would be lower

Answer 1

Because that would kill the auto industry and the Lobbyists in Washington wouldn't allow that.

Answer 2

The short answer is that the U.S. can provide better rail options, we as a people have chosen not to.

A lot of interesting answers above.

.

Population density is a lot of it, we don't have nearly as many people per square mile as a lot of places that have first class rail service.

But as the price of gas goes up and highways are more crowded, rail travel is more attractive to many people.

Ridership is up on almost every route Amtrak operates on, some places it is up phenomenally.

This proves that many people will ride trains if given the option, of course rail travel will never replace the personal auto but it can and will take thousands of vehicles off the road each year.

If our elected representatives could see beyond the next election and truly do what is best for the country instead of what is best for their personal interests they would realize that rail travel should be funded at a level that is not an embarrassment in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world.

Answer 3

The problem lies with "us," not the US.

Until the love affair between America's citizens and their automobiles ends, nothing will change.

"Build it, and they ain't gonna come anyway."

Answer 4

1) Rail systems are generally not suited for ease of passenger use and scheduling. It would also cost you more in taxi fees than to just simply drive there and park, plus the waits, the aggravation, etc. Time and convenience are huge factors.

2) Even in the heyday of passenger trains, they were only modest moneymakers at best. Passenger service was rarely a good investment of railroad money. And railroads only gave grudging service. Another  reason was that when the automobile and truck came along, then convenient highways, railroads lost most of their passenger riders permanently. Convenience and quickness always trumps long-term value.

3) If it "saves money" , then why does the auto train cost $900 now to ride from DC to Florida? You can DRIVE there cheaper , for a few hundred and 14 hours worth of time. Not many people will chose to spend the extra $700 to ride in comfort just to carry their car along as well. The cost difference is just too great. I can do alot with $700...I don't mind losing some sleep for a 14-hour drive. And think of the taxi fares I'll save on the other end, too! Nope, not worth the train ticket...

Answer 5

The government will never allow it.  They are on the auto manufacturer's side.

Answer 6

I have thought about your question a lot.

There are many reasons why the U.S. doesn't have a world-class rail network.

1.  Population density.  Where population density is high, trains make a lot of sense.  Think of Europe, where most of the continent is all in one time zone.  All the countries, all the cities, lots of people to move.  Trains make sense.  Just like they make sense in our own Northeast Corridor, where one line connects Wash D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, New York, New Haven and Boston.  But not in the rest of the country, like where you are connecting Texarkana, Crosset and Yazoo City.

2.  The ponderous size of the U.S.  Because our country has so many acres, our Government has to decide how best to use Transportation $ to service them.  To our gov't, it makes far more sense to build airports in major cities, than to create passenger rail (at $8 Million per mile) across states that comparatively, nobody lives in.

3.  Automobiles.  Like it or not, we are tied to our automobiles.  To respond to our desire, our Gov't built us a monsterous Interstate Hwy system.  Now that it is here, we MUST keep it maintained.

4.  Limited $.  [edit: We must first realize that no passenger carrier anywhere in the world actually makes money]  If you were the government, and had to manage a fixed revenue stream and had to choose which 2 of 3 transportation modes you had to support, you would probably pick planes and cars, too.

Answer 7

True the auto industry has a lot of power.

We also don't have things very well set up for a large scale mass transit system.  It has to do with the layout of some cities, they never accounted for mass transit other that buses.  Also sometimes geography can make it non cost effective.  

I think it would be great to be able to get on a train and go somewhere, but taking the train now is not worth the effort.

Answer 8

Because in their infinite wisdom the rail systems have cut so far back on passenger service it would take 5 years to get it back up to speed. Most of the old terminals fell into disrepair in the middle 60's becoming too expensive to repair. Another factor is, we Americans like to come and go as we please, not having to worry about schedules and connections. Funny how the airlines now suggest that you arrive 2 hours early just to clear TSA inspections. The third point to be made is the US is just too big to have Rail transit be any faster. Billions of dollars would have to be spent to bring the  physical quality of the railroads up. Had the systems been updated as we became more affluent, things would be a lot better. Playing catch up is a losing game. Trains receive better quality maintenance that airplanes. How many airlines in the past 2 weeks have canceled flights to inspect their planes? How many were stranded at Major airports because of this? Thousands!

Answer 9

Hoghead is right. This has nothing to do with the government. It's our population. When automobiles began becoming more affordable and reliable, that's when the numbers of passengers on trains began declining. We could build the best and most modern passenger train service in the world. We know that. America can easily build the best of anything it wants. But since the 1950s, we've proven that very few people will ride a train.

Answer 10

When the cities were built trains weren't taken into consideration as a transit option, even if it was possible I'll stick with my car and pay for gas, its easier then waiting, say the train breaks down your out of a way to work.

Answer 11

You've already had a number of good answers.  I'll provide my own:

We do have a strong rail infrastructure, but it's almost entirely used to move freight, rather than people.  Shippers are increasingly seeing the benefits of moving items across country by rail, rather than by truck.  The larger railroads are making money once again, and the industry has largely recovered its strength.

If you're talking about passenger rail, we will if and when there's a political will to do so.  The railroads won't invest the money to do so.  They will insist upon public financing.  There's no widespread interest in putting up that sort of money for what is considered a niche transportation mode.  Economic conservatives consider that the relatively small amount we currently spent on Amtrak and on public support for commuter and city rail systems is already way too much.

It was interesting that in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks, with all commercial airlines grounded, that folks were scrambling to get onto Amtrak, only to find that it had only a limited route structure, with a very limited capacity to carry large numbers of unanticipated passengers.