Why is rail travel so unpopular in the US, even in high-density regions?

Question

The usual answer given to the question "why is rail travel unpopular in America" is obviously:

"It's a big, rich country. Travelling by plane makes a lot more sense."

Point taken. Only idiots would invest in a high-speed passenger railway between, say, San Francisco and New York.

So, let's focus on journeys of 100-300 miles within high-density "corridors" such as the Northeast. Here, it's usually a choice between trains and cars, not trains and planes.

Take the Northeast for example: its population, area and population density are all comparable to France's. Logically, the Northeast has the nation's highest rate of rail travel (I read somewhere that it accounts for over 90% of rail journeys in the US!). It also boasts the nation's only high-speed line: the Acela Express. So perhaps the Northeast alone has a rate of rail travel comparable to that in Europe?

Wrong. The ENTIRE Amtrak network, including lines in the Northeast, served only 26 million passengers in 2007. By contrast, Britain's long-distance rail companies (National Express, Virgin, Cross Country) carried around 60 million passengers in total. Passenger figures are higher still in France, Germany and Japan.

... Which means that Northeasterners are choosing to drive long distances rather than take the train.

Some might say: "Driving is part of American culture. We're used to it."

But it didn't always use to be this way, did it? Weren't America's railways once the envy of the world? Why did the development of rail travel in the US stop sometime around the 1950s? Why did the US government allow the nation's railways to become a relic from bygone days?

I eagerly await your answers.

Answer 1

Actually, rail-travel has been experienced a major growth in ridership AND additional lines over the last 15 years.

Well, MY experience is on the commuter lines here on the West Coast... specifically the San Francisco Bay Area.  Ridership on CalTrain has doubled in the last 8 years... Ridership on ACE has doubled in the last 4 years !!

The State of California is voting on November to build the FIRST high-speed rail corridor in the nation.

YES, we're competing with the "convenience" and flexibility of cars, and the speed of the airplane... AND of course, the lobbying power of the Auto, Aircraft, and Oil industries.  Looks like the Airlines are tanking though, and with rising gas costs and a "greener" populace, the AMERICAN auto-industry is almost bankrupt (again).

YES, AMTRAK needs more funding... the Inter STATE rail system bites.... but it will improve as fuel costs rise.

Answer 2

Well, where I stay for college (Roanoke, VA) there is no passenger rail service.  Where I live (Fredericksburg, VA) the only rail service is Amtrak or VRE (North to Washington, DC in the morning and back in the evening) and that takes longer than driving with the extra stops.  Then there isn't enough city parking and the county I technically live in refuses to join even though we all vote to so there's no station/parking for our county.

I know every time I've ridden on a train to DC, there are many delays due to CSX problems (heat restrictions, computer failure, signal problems, etc) so more often than not the trains are late.

Combine that with the fact people don't want to be confined to a sechedule and cars are just more convienient.

Answer 3

In any country with first class public transportation systems, they are publicly funded, they cannot pay for themselves through ridership fees. Many European countries are much closer to socialist economies so it is easier to build and maintain public transport.

If you talk to any old time railroad clerk, they had special mail cars on most passenger trains, they would be sorting mail continuously as the train was in route delievering and picking up mail. That was how a large part of the expense was underwritten, when the US postal service moved out of passenger trains, it was one more nail so to speak in American passenger train's coffin.

We are truly addicted to our personal automobiles.

Population density is part of the equation, the only areas with population densities close to that of Europe are in the Northeast Corridor which you already mentioned.

It was much easier to build good high speed interstate highways in the US, less problems with relocating towns and villages.

Cheap gas, big fast comfortable cars, an independent spirit . . . . . all factors.

However ridership is up in every sector of Amtrak and there are more communities and cities either looking into or already building commuter lines than at any time in recent history.

Answer 4

You are saying why even if US has a lot of money ... right ?

I will take the example of the Roman Empire.

You do nothing when you have a lot of money.

Europeans and Asians are hardworking people whereas most Americans are lazy and practically dumb and social criminals. ( No offence )

Now can you tell me why did  the Roman Empire broke down ?

Answer 5

I think America's freight railways were once the envy of the world.  Not sure about passenger.

But as for the rise of cars and the suckiness of public transportation there's this:  From about the 30s to the 50s GM, Firestone, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum bought and purposely shut down hundreds of public transportation railway systems in cities across the country.  

On top of this the US government, starting in the 50s, started building the Interstate Highways.

Oh, and the Acela really isn't that much faster than the regional trains.  I go from DC to NY and back all the time and the Acela is about 20 minutes faster and costs about $50-$75 more.  Not worth it at all considering it's about a three hour trip.

Wait I forgot, disregard everything above.  Kingshuk S is absolutely right, I am lazy and decadent.  I take my Humvee to the end of the driveway just to pick up the newspaper which, when I'm done reading, instead of recycling I burn.

Answer 6

Terroristá¹£. thats trhe reason.

do you wanna be on a train that a bomb is gonna blow on?

Answer 7

For the time being, travel by car is still comparable to rail; with the added flexibility and independence (which Americans cherish) the additional cost is usually considered worth it.

There are significant factors of convenience and efficiency as well.  Most rail stations, where they still exist, are in out of the way places which are difficult to get to.  Schedules tend to be sketchy and less than convenient, especially for after-work hours.

In addition, many previously existing rail corridors are no longer available.  With the rise of the automobile, many local and regional rail lines went out of business.  Rather than allow the market to correct the problem by consolidation and competition (as happens in every other changing industry), the US government basically took over - effectively driving the remaining companies out of business.  Since then, many of the properties which would be needed to maintain or revive a working rail system have passed into private hands or been seized by various levels of government (a process known, appropriately enough, as escheat).

Add to all this the fact that Amtrak, living in the cushy luxury of taxpayer subsidies and never needing to actually compete, has service which sucks giant pustulent moose dong.  Despite which, the government has basically done all it can to ensure that no private firms are able, let alone encouraged, to enter into the market with competition and innovation.

It would be nice if there were more convenient and cost effective rail service available.  Unfortunately, the government insists that private companies put in all the money and take all the risk; but without giving up its stranglehold on control of the industry.  Unless or until that changes, the motivation to change the situation will not exist.

Answer 8

Not enough trains.  Too few choices.  When we want to go some place we want to go Now.

Once we get there we don't want to tranfer to some other mode. It's just too restrictive compared to car travel.