Why doesn't our (America) government get the rail system updated. I would happily take a train instead of my

Question

car if we had bullet trains like Japan or Europe.

Answer 1

Unfortunately and sadly this question is becoming all too common across the country particularly as gas prices skyrocket and the current highway system becomes more and more overcrowded.  The short answer is to contact your local senator(s) and congressmen/women about funding such a system as ours is somewhat laughable compared to others worldwide (but to Amtrak's credit the carrier does the best that it can with the meager subsidies it receives).  

And, contrary to popular belief, while such a system must be subsidized, as passenger rail in general is never profitable (it's the reason the private freight railroads ditched it in the early 1970s, it was simply losing too much money), it is very much wanted and needed (perhaps not transcontinental but certainly in selected corridors such as the Northeast and West Coast).  

Case in point is (currently) two excellent articles by renowned columnist Don Phillips who points out with striking clarity how badly out-of-date our transportation infrastructure is at the present time (you can read these articles in the August and September issues of Trains magazine), it severely needs updated.  

And, actually, laying more rail lines is very feasible and needed for both freight and passenger service, which Phillips points out.  The freight railroads are essentially at capacity as we speak (something that is unprecedented and hasn't happened since WWII) and are trying desperately to keep up with demand as again, the Interstates and highways can simply no longer support the demand.

Answer 2

the short answer is $$$$$

A big part of the equation is population density, more people = more potential riders.

First class passenger rail service cannot be profitable, it has to be partially subsidized by the government.

Unfortualtely our elected officials cant see beyond the next election and dont want to stick their necks out.

Top notch rail service requires a long term commitment and people of vision, does this sound like our congress?

We as a voting public have to make our wishes known and then perhpas the tide will turn and congress will start to fund passenger rail travel as it needs to be.

You as a rail passenger know that the benefits are tremendous but most people dont see that because in this country we have only just scratched the surface. There is so much more that needs to be done and can be done.

Answer 3

You have a good question here, and Firebird is right. This is not a socialist system (unless Hillary gets in). Our system is free enterprise. And when the demand for passenger trains re-emerges, if it does, the market will take care of the demand. The Government currently finances Am-Trak, and it's done inefficiently and with cost over-runs. Don't misunderstand me here. I'm glad Am-Trak is still out there, but it could be run much better with less waste if it was a private enterprise. The passenger trains would work here if there was a demand for them. But Americans are still 1, 2, and 3, cars owned per individual. We still think in terms of cars, and not public transportation.

Answer 4

Back in the post WW2 years, a lot of policy decisions were made favoring a suburbanization, highway construction, privatization, and support of air rather than rail travel. The result has been urban sprawl, highway deaths, a higher proportion of family income spent on basic transportation, difficulty getting from place to place excluding large cities. However undesirable the results, there are a lot of vested interests who'd like to maintain something like the status quo: materials industries like gas, glass, steel, rubber; risk industries like insurance, paint & body, repair, orthopedaic surgeons; service industries like fast food, convenience stores, motels; law industries like lawyers, traffic schools, traffic cops; not to mention highway construction.

Answer 5

Because our government doesn't own the rail system.  We aren't socialists, remember?

When you compare the U.S. to other countries, you have to remember that some industries we think are just ordinary have been nationalized in most other countries.  

For instance, our government doesn't own the oil companies either.

Answer 6

The systems have been upgraded and modernized--as much as allowed without interuppting services we have. Bullet trains were put where they could operate safely in the world--we have current systems that will not support high speed trains in all parts of the US. There is more emphasis put on freight operations where frieght is the largest support of the business--passenger service is so tight that the stops are too close for 100 mile an hour trians to start and stop a thousand times a day. It just won't work. There is the Acela on the NortheastCorridor---a few do exist--I don't know where you are. Why not relax and allow enough time for a pleasant train trip?? What is the rush?? Oops--I forgot to mention the costs of new stations and yards and service facilities and signal systems and tunnel revisions and new track beds to support all high speed operations--how much would you spend on a ticket after all that renovation??

Answer 7

Update it to what.  If you're talking about laying more rail lines it just isn't economically feasible to add capacity to the system.  

And the markets that do have access to rail line (mostly in the northeast) the need for higher speeds doesn't justify the costs.