The usage by the public of rail in Western Europe, population 365.8 million, (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and the UK) in 2017 was 434.6 billion passenger kilometers. The US was 10.6 billion passenger kilometers for a population of 327 million.
In terms of total ridership, in those counties above plus Portugal and little Luxemburg, the number is 8305 million. The US was 527.78 million.
The modal share (excluding tram and metros) for railway transport of people ranges:
Swiss 17.2%
Austria 11.5%
Denmark 10.1 %
UK 9.6%
France 9.5%
Germany 9.0%
Netherlands 8.8%
Belgium 8.0%
Italy 6.1%
Spain 5.6%
Portugal 4.1%
Luxemburg 4.6%
US 0.3%
So in most of Western Europe, the share is higher than the 5% Paul stated.
One more stat, passenger kilometers per capita:
Swiss 2431
France 1298
Austria 1245
Belgium 1009
UK 981
Germany 959
Netherlands 940
Italy 780
Spain 460
US 80
So the question is this: would the share of people using passenger rail in the US be higher if the services were there? I would suggest they would. Yes, it would cost a lot of money and require major structural changes. But so do roads and airports. To do nothing will simply be another example of the failure here to keep infrastructure up to date. Failure to do this will not have a positive impact on our economic strength as a nation.
Convicted One diningcar with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's very current, complex and expensive situation We kinda did that already a few months ago over in the "Passenger" section. Nobody could come up with a reasonable answer to the question "if somebody wishes to earn $15/hr working at McDonalds in San Fran, while living on the cheap in a quonset hut out in the middle of the high desert, why do they deserve a subsidized commute to boot?"
diningcar with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's very current, complex and expensive situation
with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's very current, complex and expensive situation
We kinda did that already a few months ago over in the "Passenger" section.
Nobody could come up with a reasonable answer to the question "if somebody wishes to earn $15/hr working at McDonalds in San Fran, while living on the cheap in a quonset hut out in the middle of the high desert, why do they deserve a subsidized commute to boot?"
Actually that is an easy one to answer...because you can't live in San Francisco on $15/hr when your rent is easily $2000/month for a tiny studio apartment...if you can even find a place to rent. Let alone trying to find a place to buy to live in, and yes, even all those tech types like to eat McDonald's every once in a while...otherwise there wouldn't be any in The City.
As for someones earlier comment about $77 Billion for 200 miles, that $77 Billion would've covered the entire line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, not just the Central Valley portion, and at one time it did include the cost of train sets, but apparently they removed that from the estimates at some point in the past. So far the biggest cost besides all the studies and consultants has been land acquisition, and that's because this state refuses to have a law on the books allowing eminant domain for public work projects(that doesn't pay out at commercial rates, but the bare minimum required for purchase).
As for those that don't want to compare us to Japan or Europe and say they don't want to be like China...I have news for you, we are exactly like China, with a few exceptions(besides Govt.) and one of those is the willingness to spend money on public works projects...besides the fact that shortly they will have more influence around the world than that of the United States...think about that for a moment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.