National Journal article: Why Can't America have great trains?

It is a very long term and frustrating issue, with a lot of complex politics.

I will still be a rider of Amtrak & Via Rail.

Just my opinion but, America already HAS "great trains", just not "great" long-distance passenger trains.

 Gentlemen,

    This is a very simple business issue, America has the train system it wants, people here are free, and make enough money to travel in the individual manner they like most.

The ultra rich have their own rail cars, medium income people like to own trucks & Automobiles and travel in them freely.   In Europe, Japan and China only the high income people can afford to have and use their own automobiles.  Never mistake a business issue with ability to have something, freedom is why our rail system is different, not the ability to engineer and build.

PCRR/Dave

And of course we have that other method of travel.Nearly 20,000 of them in the air at around 3:00Pm EST. 

Besides, with the monumental amount of freight we move by rail whats a few pesky passengers anyway.

It is complex, but a lot of it comes down to among other things, politics and government policy, as well as Geography. 

Geography, a lot of it has to do with the fact that countries in Europe are relatively small, and travelling by train makes sense given the distances. Politically, Europe took a different approach than the US, they deliberately made gas relatively expensive, and also did things like make the cost of owning larger cars more expensive (in many countries, you pay a yearly tax based on the displacement of the engine, it is why Ferrari, for example, had 12 cylinder engines with displacements around 2.5 liters, whereas a typical US muscle car was in the 6 liter range).

In contrast to that, they built and maintained rail networks that made travelling relatively cheap, and it made it attractive for going places in the US, for example, we might drive. 

The freedom another poster is talking about in some ways is an illusion, in that large parts of that freedom were manufactured in effect by government policy. For example, the interstate highway act (sold brilliantly by Eisenhower as 'needed for defense', which stopped politicians of all stripes from blocking it, hard to argue during the cold war something needed for defense) that built the huge network of highways, and funded it through gas taxes, made for the freedom we see. Likewise, gasoline compared to Europe was taxed pretty lightly and made gasoline cheap (and it still is, based in real dollars), and government tax policy in terms of oil production and exploration helped keep it cheap (and later on, not to mention the tremendous cost in defense spending and such that keeps sea lanes open and the oil flowing from the mideast and elsewhere). 

Likewise, the government helped establish the airplane trip as being a prime means of travelling without a car, both short haul and long haul. Airports are for the most part run by government or quasi government agencies (like the Port Authority here in NYC), and they de facto subsidize plane traffic, the gate charges and such the airlines pay to use airports are a fraction of the cost of their using the service. Likewise, before deregulation, the government regulators put a floor on prices on routes, and they also in return forced airlines to serve areas that otherwise would be unprofitable, which allowed people from rural areas and small cities and such to have air service, which got them into the habit of using it. This in part led to the decline of the railroad, if you can fly from Anytown, USA (or a nearby airport), why take the train?

Then, too, in europe passenger rail service for the most part post WWII was/is run by the government. In the US, passenger traffic was run by the railroads, and between the competition of cars and airplane dropped passenger traffic, and worse, because of the building of the interstate highway system and ICC rates that deliberately put trains at a disadvantage to long haul trucking (not to mention the subsidy trucks get in terms of what they pay in road use taxes and taxes on diesel fuel compared to the maintenance load they put on the roads), and the railroads basically were struggling to survive freight hauling and could not really afford to keep passenger service going. 

Amtrak took over passenger operations, but by the time they did the infrastructure was so poor that they to this day never really have caught up, most of what they have done is keeping the trains limping along as best they can, and there is little political motivation to make it better, and with the current economic climate not likely to get much better. And I suspect the airline industry does not want the competition, either, even though on some routes high speed trains make a lot of economic sense, the Northeast corridor, the San Diego-San Francisco corridor, potentially between cities in the Midwest and Chicago, would be ripe for high speed trains, if you had 200 MPH trains, or maybe even faster, given the density of the airspace in city areas, it would be competitive in terms of time (put it this way, add up all the time it takes to fly from NY to Boston, or DC to Boston, with getting to the airport 2 hours ahead, the hassle of getting from the airport to the city, it really adds up).

The other problem, of course, is that while politicians don't really give a darn about rail travel, when they try and rationalize passenger travel, basically concentrating on where it makes economic sense, like the highly travelled corridors, the same politicians yell and scream when they want to drop low volume, costly long distance routes that serve more rural areas and such. 

The other irony of course is that many of those who talk about the freedom of the car, how people have chosen the airplane and the car (which as noted above, was not necessarily a matter of the free market per se), also complain about how inhuman airplane travel is, how much of a pain in the tush it is to fly, how crowded the highways are, how bad the highways are, how crazy the other drivers are, how expensive it is to have car insurance,etc, etc, when a rational rail policy might make a lot of that better and give some freedom. I think the biggest problem is like a lot of infrastructure, the benefits are not always so obvious. I remember reading accounts of when Eisenhower proposed the Interstate system, and many of the same type of politicians that today will extol the benefits of the automobile and truck and the highways that made that possible, were outspoken that building the interstate highway system was a boondoggle, that there was no reason for it, it would cost tons to maintain and would never make back its cost, etc......

Actually, not true.  Per capita car ownership is higher in Western Europe than it is in the United States.

What is your primary source for the above statement?  Perhaps my wife and I should sell our three automobiles and use pedal power.

So, are you part of the "majority"?

We are not some of the alleged high income earners that are the only ones that can afford automobiles, just normal income folks

There is no money in moving passengers long distance using hundreds of tons of metal and the fuel necessary to get said metal moving. That said, are we talking about airlines or railroads? When the railroads lost the mail, passenger service was doomed, and now plays second fiddle by waiting for the freights.

The "great" trains are gone forever, like TransAtlantic ocean liners; all this compounded by those pesky planes and automobiles.

Europe's state-owned railways had the higher population densities and shorter distances, which made passenger traffic worthwhile in a sort of win-win through both fares and government subsidy, and no doubt strategic reasons of state. Maybe Amtrak's NE Corridor is the closest to that scenario; I don't know.

"Downtown to downtown" is still a close race between plane and train in Europe, not so much in North America where the distances don't work.

What a looooong winded article. Whew!  However what the author stated is true.  Congress and the those who appose funding Amtrak are the real reasons why rail traffic in this country is in the shape that it is in.  I believe with the proper funding and equipment, people will flock to rail travel.   Many are tired of the hassle at the airport and are getting tired of driving long distances.  Hopefully one day Congress will fund Amtrak as it should be funded, and then you'll see what happens next.   

Interesting topic, especially since I bought my tickets Sunday for my trip over there starting on the 20th of next month. I think a lot of people have a misconception of the high speed rails in Europe. While there is a continuing effort to upgrade and expand the system, you just don't go out and jump on a train and get whisked from any point A to any point B at 250 miles per hour. Most of the trains, while faster than Amtrak, are not of the high speed variety and there is still the problem of making connections.

For example, I will be going from Frankfurt to Strasbourg, a distance of about 130 miles or so. The only direct way that I know of is on the Lufthansa bus (many of the airlines and railroads in Europe offer a bus service) but their schedule is way off of what I need. So I had the option of bus/train, train/bus or entirely by train with a change of trains at Mannheim, which is what I chose. Eventually I will be going from Strasbourg to Reims, from Reims to Paris and from Paris to various outlying places and back by train - none of them high speed.

For the record, I have ridden several of the high speed trains over the years - Eurostar, Ice, TGV and others and I really do like the things. But Europe does have its less-than-stellar trains, also. Not bad trains, mind you, but you're certainly not riding in the lap of luxury. The train from Edinburgh to Loch Lomond was nothing more than a subway running on the surface. The train from Prague to Kutna Hora was straight out of an old WWII movie - I wouldn't have been too surprised to see some Nazi soldiers chasing Frank Sinatra down the aisle. In fact, I think the cars to the train were of that era, complete with individual compartments with curtains on the windows and bench seats that would fold down for overnight travel. Really liked Kutna Hora, by the way, and would suggest to anyone travelling to the Czech Republic to take it in.

As an example of travel times, let's say you are going from Prague to Madrid. There are several options, of course, but these two will give you an idea of what it really takes when different areas are involved:

Option one:

Leave Prague at 11:35; arrive Mannheim at 18:30

Leave Mannheim at 1941; arrive Paris at 23;00

Spend the night in Paris

Leave Paris at 7:15; arrive Barcelona at 13:40

Leave Barcelona at 1350; arrive Madrid at 17;10

Option 2 (taking the overnight train):

Leave Prague at 18:29; arrive Cologne at 6:14

Leave Cologne at 6:44; arrive Paris at 9;58

Leave Paris at 14:07; arrive Barcelona at 20:40

Leave Barcelona at 2100; arrive Madrid at 0020

This option uses the overnight to Cologne a(usually more expensive) and the last three parts are high speed trains. As you can see, not always ideal connections.

Just my opinion, but if the US wants to develop a viable passenger system then they will have to follow the European model - Regional development (such as the northeast corridor), west coast, gulf coast, rockies eastern slope, Mississippi corridor, etc. When, or if, these regions develop then start working on getting them connected, which the Europeans are in the process of doing. But it takes money, time and patience. I have my doubts that the US is willing to do that on a nationwide basis, but I think there is a glimmer of light in some areas of the country.

To be truly successful rail travel will have to be privately funded and driven by market demand. As soon as the government gets involved rail travel over the privately owned corridors that exist will fail. This is especially true given American geography and the autocentric design our cities have (a government product).  

trains are fun, but not very convenient.   I traveled in Europe too and used them to go to big cities.   But if you want to visit small towns and villages or wander in the  Alps and Bavaria, you need a car there too.    There is no train to FAlkenstein in Taunus, I know I lived there.    I don't think there is a train to Bergesgaden either.   How about Michealstadt in the Black Forest.    Great little town to visit.  

If you like crowded cities and doing everything shoulder to shoulder it works.  You still have to do it on someone else's schedule however.

The reason that passenger trains faded away is because they are not nearly as convenient as personal transportation.   

I am always skeptical when I read posts like this, while I don't exactly hold the government out as the paradigm of efficiency, or that it necessarily makes good choices, I also am more than aware that the so called free market often doesn't operate very efficiently all the time and claims that rail travel would need to be private to be successful is simplistic. First of all, the private model isn't all that private, government regulation and incentives have shaped a lot of private industry or transformative things, the internet was not developed by private business interests, the actual development and much of the reason it exists is because of actions of government, today internationally so. Both the private automobile and the airlines, competitors to passenger railroads, have been encouraged and supported by the government, by building roads, by subsidizing everything from fuel to airports, and so forth. The trucking industry is heavily subsidized in many ways, and so forth. 

With trains, it could ultimately be some sort of private/public setup might work better, where like my local bus line, which is privately held, they are paid by NJ transit to run the route. The government could help in securing private right of way for high speed rail and help build it, and it could be run by a private concern.

There are also things where the private sector won't act and government ends up doing things that need to be done. The whole TVA region is now a hub of economic activity, with the auto transplants and the like, thanks to infrastructure mostly paid for by Uncle Sam including cheap power generated at cost, or the road system that allows for the plants to be located there, the southern pine lumber industry is a direct beneficiary of the CCC and other government programs that turned washed out farmland into something better.

The freedom of the car also has its downsides, in places where the car rules you see all kinds of problems with traffic, continuous building of new roads only to see them get gridlocked within a short time, people spending hours commuting in traffic because they live one place and work another, and while the NYC area is not known for great traffic, compared to places like Atlanta and Phoenix and the like because there is mass transit, in a region with a population 10 times that of those cities, it works. People choose the 'personal freedom' but then spend a lot of time complaining and moaning about all the lost time and the difficulties, why don't they build more roads, it is so expensive between insurance and gas, etc...

In a perfect world they would figure out where trains make sense, like the corridors, where it could take the strain off the roads and airports and airspace, deliver people into the cities, same with regional areas, and where not practical cars and planes and buses would be there for that. 

One of the interesting things as someone pointed out is that per capita, people in western europe own more cars than americans do, but what the same article points out that Americans use a huge amount more of fuel than Europeans do. Part of that is cars in Europe are still a lot smaller and fuel efficient, but part of it is that in Europe people don't drive as much per capita as Americans do, in many places in Europe the stores are close by, walkable, people take trains to go other places, whereas in America in many places, especially the burbs and the rural areas, people drive everywhere, so even though Europeans have more cars per capita, they tend to use them a lot less.

Were'nt we supposed to be traveling via pneumatic tubes and jet packs by now?

France is about the size of Texas.  Texas (US) (696200 km² is 1.1 times as big as France (632760 km²). I thought the moto of Texas was "Everything is big in Texas". I guess Texas is just a small state now.

Montana (381156 km²) and Germany (357114 km²) are roughly the same size. Montana is the third largest state in the lower 48.

Spain is larger than California, 505992 km² vs 423970 km².  California is the second largest state in the lower 48.

Italy 301,336 km² and Arizona 294,254 km² are about the same size.

I did not realize the United States was so small.

Yes, I realize that there are countries such as Luxemburg, Belgium, and how about San Marino that are quite tiny. Europe is actually quite large taken that the geographic boundary between Europe and Asia are the Ural Mountains.

Couldn't agree with you more. I'll be heading for the Selestat/Colmar area south of Strasbourg which can be reached by train. Problem is, once you're there - then what. A person still has to get around and there aren't any trams, subways or the like in that area at all. Looks like good automobile territory to me.

Indeed.  My wife is a self-appointed activist for this cause.  She's written (snail-mail) every senator and congressman and most of the east coast governors and metro-area mayors as wel, as urging them to work to modernize American commuter and inter-city passenger service.  Most sent a form letter back.  

She also wrote like Gates and Bloomberg and Buffet suggesting they apply their vast fortunes to helping make it happen.  (It says several things about these three gentlemen that they, or their staffs, took the time to personally answer her letters, wishing her well, but saying either/or "their are more important charitable things I want to work on" or "there is no business case for it.").

We take Amtrak several times a year - the Silver Star as in the article.  I, too, sometimes cry in the dining car, not because the food is that bad (actually breakfast is okay, lunch tolerable, and dinner, well . . . ugh, and the last few years the service is better and friendlier).  instead, its just that when you are in the dining car, rather than coach or a compartment,  you see so clearly the difference between then (1950s) and now  . . . 

Several years ago I went from a meeting at a hotel in downtown Zurich to my hotel in Paris by rail.  It was fast and efficient.  In fact, train is the fastest way to get from one to the other.  Check this . . .

http://www.rome2rio.com/s/Zurich/Paris

Makes you wonder why we really need airplanes . . . 

The answer is easy, the U.S. is too spread out for a profitable passenger rail system.   Plus we are unwilling to pay the high taxes required to support a government run system.  When I was teaching a class in Denmark I rode their excellent system but also learned that their auto sales tax is 180%!  That is why their transportation infrastructure is so good.  That will never happen here.  Only the Northeast Corridor is dense enough to support quality rail travel.

This Faux News private sector can always do better than the public sector stuff is a load of horse****.  The private sector may always be able to do it cheaper but cheaper is not always better.  Public sector involvement is the only thing that maintains some minimum level of safety and availability, where the dollar race to the bottom does not.  Whether or not it is the DoT ensuring minimum standards for transportation or the USDA for food safety, or whatever, I can imagine how bad it would be for both were it not for government involvement because I see how bad it is in countries where the government does not.

My experience with Amtrak over the years has been very good overall. I may not call it 'GREAT' but I didn't pay a premium price either.  I'd like more frequent trains and more choice in destinations (I can't take a train to see my brother in Columbus Ohio???) but until the average person WANTS it.....it will never happen no matter who funds it.