The chicken VS the egg: what's wrong with American trains?
In many ways the United States is a land of contrasts, politically, culturally and even in terms of language. One of those contrasts is mass transit. Aside of from a few large, densely populated cities, public transportation is largely ignored in the US. As a result of low ridership, no one wants to invest in mass transit and the poor conditions drive away more potential riders. Of course it doesn't help that in much of the country, suburban sprawl makes anything but taking a car impractical.
Inter-urban travel is bad enough, but inter-city travel can often be even worse. Since 9/11, flying in the United States has gone from a merely unpleasant to an absolutely miserable experience. In an environment where train travel has a perfect opportunity pick up the ball where airlines have fumbled, nothing has happened. Meanwhile overseas train services excel with services, like the French TGV, German ICE and the grand-daddy of them all the Japanese Shinkansen (bullet train).
Crunchgear contributor Nicholas Deleon just returned from a trip to Japan where he got to ride the majic bullet and loved it. If only we had some decent train service for something besides cargo, trips like Detroit to Chicago on the rail could be a real alternative to the plane.
[Source: Crunchgear]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
detroit9000 10:52AM (8/28/2007)
Why don't you add links to all the studies on the topic, so we don't reinvent the wheel for clicks?
Reply
Tushar Dayal 11:07AM (8/28/2007)
I live in Iowa and it would be wonderful to have a good (fast) train system, especially in the midwest.
Instead of having to drive 3-6 hours to major cities like Minneapolis, Kansas City, Chicago... people could just ride a train. It would save so much energy.
You know who doesn't like that idea? Car companies. Anyone remember what happened to California?
http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html
Reply
jg3 1:00PM (8/28/2007)
The problem is closer to the root than what's wrong with our trains, it's what is wrong with our priorities and ideas of status. Most USAmericans tend to see transporation as a hierarchy:
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Public transport users
Car owners
Limo/Town Car users
Helicopter users
Private jet users
Trains and busses (like Greyhound) fall to the ped/cyc/public levels. Until we get this transportation-caste system out of our heads, our train service will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
Reply
brandon 3:27PM (8/28/2007)
If we could get trains that didn't suck as well as train services that didn't suck in the US then people would ride them.
Unfortunately, we seem incapable of doing that. Its a shame really, because in much of the country the train tracks pass through some of the most beautiful and scenic areas.
Reply
brandon 3:27PM (8/28/2007)
I forgot to mention the prices... It shouldn't be cheaper to drive than it is to take the train. It especially shouldn't be cheaper by a lot. It especially shouldn't be cheaper by a lot in times of incredibly high gas prices!
Reply
Owen 4:15PM (8/28/2007)
I can get a round trip non-stop flight from DC to Boston for $188. I can take the Acela for $162, so the train is a little less expensive, but it takes 8 hours to get there vs. 2. However, the train is a much nicer experience that does not involve airports and allows me to move around at will and to work comfortably while using my cell phone, laptop and other mobile office tools. If you can still use those 8 hours to work that is a bonus and it becomes an advantage to take the train. But if my goal is to get there in the morning, do what I gotta do and get back in the same day, then the train is out of the question.
The biggest disadvantage is that coverage stinks. on the east coast we have the Acela, and it hits, DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. What about all of the other major east coast / midwest cities? You can't take a bus, it'll be days before you get there. Driving isn't even in the cards, planes become the answer sadly. Maybe if the trains were faster and they hit more cities they would be competitive. But no-one is willing to fund it.
Reply
Domenick 6:02PM (8/28/2007)
I got to ride on the bullet train in Japan last Spring from Nagoya to Kyoto and back. It was absolutely amazing. Super quiet, a nice smooth ride, and very very fast. It had vending machines at the ends of cars and a stewardess also makes a pass down the aisles with newspapers, food and refreshments.
A plane (or car for that matter) doesn't even come close to being this nice and easy. And cheap!
Reply
Derek 6:49PM (8/28/2007)
I'd say that our trains here in the US are "good enough". Obviously our network isn't as pervasive or fast as Japan or Europe, but I've been very happy with Amtrak - I just wish service was more frequent.
I lived in DC for 4 years and on a few occasions took the train from Fredericksburg, VA to DC (about 50 miles). It was a very nice commuter train and definitely better than fighting DC traffic. It takes you from downtown Fredericksburg to downtown DC. The train from DC to NY, as an earlier poster pointed out, is much better than flying, and the amount of time it takes is competitive with air travel, especially when you take airport waiting times and commute times into account.
I just moved to Lansing, Michigan and a month ago took the train to Chicago. While the schedule isn't the greatest (one trip per day at 7:45am) it was still much more enjoyable than driving to Chicago and fighting traffic. A 4 hour train versus 3.5 hours of driving, assuming no traffic!
I admit that the longer-haul trains are horrible - when I was young my family took a train from Iowa to Colorado and it was consistently late and riddled with mechanical problems.
I've also ridden regional and IC trains in Germany and Austria. The only real difference I noticed was faster speeds (on IC) and more frequent service. The amenities weren't any better. What I thought was really interesting was a regional train that was basically a bus on tracks - a diesel engine was mounted on top of a single car which was controlled by a driver in a front compartment. I don't see why they couldn't have a similar service in the US.
I think people just need to consider train travel more, especially where it is already established between closely-located large cities. Amtrak's ridership is increasing, so hopefully that means more revenue and more frequent and fast service!
Reply
Vin Caruso 9:20PM (8/29/2007)
Ann Arbor is adding commuter trains, contrary to what 'Detroit' might want, in the next few months. Long time coming. It is just A start with another line added in the next year or so. This is way overdue for the Detroit metro area, the lack of Commuter trains in the area is clearly holding back economic development.
Reply
Mike 7:38PM (8/28/2007)
Anyone who has ridden on the wonderful trains of Europe must surely be reduced to tears when contemplating the third world passenger rail system in the US.
Reply
Mike 7:44PM (8/28/2007)
Coincidentally, the train on the left is a great example of what an American hi-speed train could look like while the train on the right looks like a Duck-billed Platypus.
Reply
Paul 8:27PM (8/28/2007)
Look, we just don't have the population density to support trains. Without a MAJOR (read essentially impossible) change to the spatial-geographic realities of this country it is not going to ever be a reality.
vs. Planes - perhaps SLIGHTLY cheaper, but slower and, at current ridership levels, probably LESS fuel efficient. Sure we made the trains more faster we might increase ridership and decrease the advantages that planes have (especially for shortish hauls), but that requires a huge infrastructure investment with NO guaranteed ROI (not a recipe for investment).
vs. Cars - faster (maybe), nicer, etc., but generally more expensive AND at your destination you don't have a car. Okay, you could rent one, but add those $$$ to the already more expensive trip. And forget about public transportaion at your destination unless it happens to be a MAJOR metro area on the east coast.
I'd love for trains to be a reality just as I'd love to see public transportation improved dramatically. In Europe trains are simply wonderful and the public transportation most places is such that you truly can survive without a car. However, it just isn't gonna happen here. Trains MAY one day compete with regional airlines, but that is the best we could hope for. Best we forget about it and focus on greener autos.
Reply
charles 8:43PM (8/28/2007)
There are a lot of reasons why we arent a train country...
First of all, all you guys who are idolizing the european rail systems probably haven't spent much time with them. I was just in Europe for a month, and while there I had these inter-state trips to make: london to amsterdam round trip, london to paris, and paris to rome. In each case, we decided to fly over take the train, usually because of price. London to Amsterdam round trip was a $180 flight, compared to about $120 to taking ground transportation, but ground involved train-boat-train and at least 12 hours in each direction compared to a 1 hour flight, so that was worthless. London to paris was only $100 to fly compared to $120 to take the chunnel one way. Paris to Rome was only $90 to fly, compared to hundreds of dollars and way too much time to take the train. Just in terms money and the money value of time, planes beat out trains every single time.
And the urban public transportation systems in those countries didnt impress either. The London Underground was overcrowded, hot, miserable, and not a great deal at $3 to $8 each way, even with the oyster card which decreases the fares. Amsterdam had kind of a cumbersome light rail system, I guess it got you around, but no better than the buses and light rail in most major american cities. Same goes for Rome. Paris subway was actually pretty nice. I'll give them some cred.
Anyway, yeah, I agree with the author, we would use a lot less energy if we centralized into more urban areas where more people are within public transportation or even a walk of where they work, go to school, eat, shop, hang out, etc. The problem is that people like suburbs. Its a way for them to get away from people they dont want to be around. Japan especially, but also most European countries and all european countries moreso than america have a single dominant ethnicity. America really doesnt. And we seperate ourselves by moving into communities, and moving into suburban communities without any "affordable housing" like rental apartments is a way to keep out "undesirables". American laws also allow these communities to have great public schools.
Reply
Mike 8:44PM (8/28/2007)
I don't care if we have enough population density to support a fart. If we have billions to spend in other countries we surely have enough to build a first class rail system. We went to the moon in a space capsule, we can go to Peoria in a hi-speed train. We can have greener autos and hi-speed rail too. Priorities baby, priorities.
Reply
Mike Z 8:45PM (8/28/2007)
In Europe 8% of fright is moved via rail. In the US its 38%. So from an environmental perspective we traded trains for trucks, while Europe traded cars for trains.
Also, even if he had high speed rail, I can't really think of that many flights I've taken where the distance was under 750 miles, so even 150 mph would take a long time.
Reply
murc 10:48PM (8/28/2007)
I have no beef with trains.
I live in Sioux Falls (SD), and would love it if a high speed train went from here to the twin cities. I would deffiniatly go there more often....Go Vikings!
Reply
Mike 8:51PM (8/28/2007)
"First of all, all you guys who are idolizing the european rail systems probably haven't spent much time with them."
Assumptions are usually an unreliable position. You are right about the Paris Metro though, simply excellent.
Reply
Grant 10:10PM (8/28/2007)
There are plans for the Maglev in America. From California to Vegas I believe and it should be as fast as taking a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Maglev
Reply
Tim Russell 10:35PM (8/28/2007)
Derek the "rail bus" you spoke of is called a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) which is one or more self propelled rail cars making up a train rather than a locomotive hauled train. These are more efficent in many cases such as when only one or 2 cars are needed. The BUDD company built what were called RDC's (Rail Diesel Cars) in NA from 1949 to 1962 and some are still in service today. http://www.budd-rdc.org/introduction.htm
Good news is DMU's are being built in North America again. Colorado Railcar is building them
http://www.coloradorailcar.com/ when you look at their site it says that the DMU can pull another unpowered coach with it.
My father used to drive RDC's for Via Rail in Canada and they handle snow just fine. In the case of the RDC and the Colorado Railcar DMU the engines are under the carbody.
Reply
frank78 1:25AM (8/29/2007)
I do believe that taking the train will become a little more popular in the US even with the exact status quo infrastructure. Gas prices will keep going up much faster than our incomes.
But more so from air travel's disarray. Over 1/3 of domestic flights were more than 1 hour delayed in June. That's not going to get any better in the foreseeable future. It will probably get worse.
When accounting for time, people forget about all the time involved with flying. Get to airport at least 1 hour early. There's an excellent chance of delays. Upon arrival, there's getting through the airport and baggage claim. You may be only flying say 1.5 hours, but your total time for traveling is more like 4 hours, if there's no delay AND you get your luggage right away- assuming it hasn't been lost. Oh, and of course, let's not forget you are crammed like a sardine and are probably cranky throughout the entire air travel process.
I'm telling people about trains for short trips (a few hundred miles). Most people simply forget all the factors. Plus, here in NC, the trains tend to be brand new and have electric outlets in every aisle.
Reply