Could N.American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail?

[Anonymous]

HEY Crazy D, Last I looked the subject is not about Europe but us folks here in the USA. We do have our own way of doing things.

[corwinda]

What if government had never gotten into the road building business? (ie all roads were private toll roads?)

[TH&B]

Sure, once this place gets over crowded, wich will happen one day even in the desert.

It doesn't have to be the whole country that is over crowded, just in the regions that are. What is going to stop the USA from becoming over crowded one day?

[vsmith]

Seriously, No I doubt it.

This is not Europe, most cities in Europe are ancient, often going back 1500 to 2000 years and are primarily designed around walking. narrow streets, steep streets, steppes streets right up hillsides are common. Distance between cities was often based on how far one could walk in a day and roads were laughable until the late 18th and even early 19th century, when road building became more a prioity. These cities were already established when better roads and later RRs linked them. The advent of the Auto was actually discouraged by the tight narrow streets in most cities, as a result people learned to rely on the railroads to get from A to B and back again. RRs quickly became the best system of mass transportation for the limited geography of the European continent where as America has a far vaster geography where travel was measured in days not hours.

In the US, almost all cities built after the revolution were built either along the few road highways that existed, or along the rivers where keelboat or raft could move goods or by the early 19th century increasingly along routes (or proposed routes) of the new fangled railroads. As a result US cities have almost from the start been design around a much longer definition of reasonable distance. Also where euro cities were based on walking, almost all US cities were designed around the horse and wagon, which by the late 18th century was the automobile of its time, and the distance it could travel. US citizens for the most part its early history were already using a transit system that relied on horse and buggy to get from home to station and then taking the train for what were much longer distance trips between major urban centers, all this due to the more advanced approach to mass transit in the US where the faster system that provides the greater freedom has always been the goal. Trains had from almost the start been set up to move bulk traffic from center to center, passenger service has always been a public service supplemented by frieght revinue. Passenger trains for almost 50 years (1870-1920) offered people the ability to go places they only read about, often very far away. But when the automobile came about, its no surprise that by the 1920's Americans had embraced the new technology so whole heartedly, Most cities were already designed around wagons and buggies so the transition to cars was almost seamless. American soon loved their cars, as it represents the greatest form of personal freedom ever invented, at least until the rocket belt gets perfected!

All this to me tells me that everything changes. As airport and highway capacity reaches saturation grid lock, well see a return of rail, like in Europe where now US cities are so crammed together that the previously open highways have now ground to a crawl cannot rely on. Rail in the US is far from dead, but how it evolves is yet to be determined.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

I noticed you went to length to define "successful" as well as "heavy use" but make no such effort to describe/define the concept of "evolved" as you have used it.

Yes I did....go read ALL of what I wrote.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

I take the very use of the expression "evolved" with a grain of salt when used as a metaphor in analyzing social policy, because of the connotations that anyone who subscribes to philosophy other than that offered, is somehow non-evolved, a knuckledragging neanderthal, etc. And I think we get enough if those histrionics every 4 years when the democrats lose another presidentual election.

Go back and read what I wrote again. Never mind here it is: "Could North American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail, instead of a society dependant on the automobile."

This suggests that the current path, the 'automobile era' is also a result of evolution over time, and is also successfull.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates


it's future is limited to hi density/ short-moderate distance niche applications

Then why is passenger rail immensly successful, in short, medium, and long haul routes in Europe, and many other parts of the world?

I also find it interesting, how all the responses so far failed to even mention all the problems caused by our heavy use of the automobile, and how heavy passenger rail use would alleviate some of these problem, and possibly could alleviate most or all of these problems. Yes maybe no?

[Anonymous]

The question of "Could North American society...(?)" is moot. The fact is we allowed our rail infrastructure for both passenger and freight to shrivel to a fraction of what it once was.

The more proper question today is "What SHOULD we do to revive and redevelop our rail infrastructure to enable better passenger rail and expanded capacity to move more freight.?" We have a bill now before Congress... Senate Bill 1516... that can get that process started. It would finally fund Amtrak on a proper multi-year basis. But more importantly, it would establish a first-ever federal funding program that states could draw from to re-build rail infrastructure for both passenger and freight rail.

Unfortunately, we (as railfans) have a tendency to dwell on the past instead of advocating for a better future. We need to be letting our members of Congress know that we need to correct this huge imbalance in our transportation system that has left us with congested highways and airways.

[Anonymous]

I noticed you went to length to define "successful" as well as "heavy use" but make no such effort to describe/define the concept of "evolved" as you have used it.

probably a good thing too, since the word doesn't even fit properly in this context, since we have, as a society/ "been there, done that"...and have since "evolved" even further, to airplanes and automobiles.

I take the very use of the expression "evolved" with a grain of salt when used as a metaphor in analyzing social policy, because of the connotations that anyone who subscribes to philosophy other than that offered, is somehow non-evolved, a knuckledragging neanderthal, etc. And I think we get enough if those histrionics every 4 years when the democrats lose another presidentual election.

Widespread passenger rail has alread had it's day in this country, and it's future is limited to hi density/ short-moderate distance niche applications

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

NO. Not without outrageous gasoline taxes, vehicle fees, and traffic headaches Europeans have to put up with.

Sir: You will never be shot for lack of candor. PL

[PBenham]

NO. Not without outrageous gasoline taxes, vehicle fees, and traffic headaches Europeans have to put up with.

[Anonymous]

Well said Tim, I doubt if there are many that would disagree with you on your entry. Truth be told the comming of the interstate highway system may have been just the ticket to free the rail companies from passenger service and permit them to make freight railroading a going enterprise. The strrange thing is that even one of the old so called robber barons James Hill had some less than nice things to say about passenger trains, Passenger trains are about as usefull as the male t__. The passenger trains were big, sleek, modern and fun to watch, and yes as boys growing up we loved them. But railroading is not a charity and passenger trains do not fit into the profit matrix of a modern business. As Mr. Bob used to say about the reality of his passenger trains going the way of the DoDo bird "it's a shame and a scandal, but the truth. "

[tpatrick]

In a word, no.

We actually were a rail-dependent society and we evolved into the auto-centric nation that we are today. Around 1917 passenger trains served every little burg, city and metropolis. And mostly they lost money. You could ride from Oil City to Corry, in northwest Pa., for example. But PRR could never generate the volume of ridership to make money on that service. At that time there were few cars and no decent roads to compete. The same was true on routes between bigger cities. I doubt that Buffalo - Philadelphia service ever paid for itself. Or Cleveland - Pittsburgh. The B. R. & P. took great pride in its Buffalo-Pittsburgh trains, but I'll bet it never took great profit. Not even in the old days when there was no alternative.

I remember the late 40's before we had a car, my family traveled by train. We got up at 0-Dark thirty, took a cab to the station in Erie, caught the Pennsy to Corry and then the Erie to Salamanca, where Grandma lived. Then we had to walk across town to Grandma's house. The return trip started after dark in Salamanca and we got home in three to four hours.

In 1949 my dad made the same choice made by millions of others. He bought a car, a '49 Ford. There were no expressways at that time - not one mile of interstate. But still we could go to Grandma's house in half the time. And we didn't have to get up before the sun to do it. We could also go anywhere else we pleased. By our own schedule. Needless to say, we never again took the train. Today there is an expressway, I-86, which I take when I go to Erie to visit my mother. It is only a 45 minute trip, door to door. No train service could ever match that. Because it is fast and easy I go there often. In the old days, trips to Salamanca were special occasions not often done because it took too much effort to do it often.

It was pretty much the same for every family. I can't imagine any way it could have been otherwise in a free society.

[oltmannd]

Sure, just distort the market enough in the pro-rail direction instead of the moderately pro-highway direction we had.

Don't allow much highway construction.
Tax the living daylights out of fuel and energy.

Development would have become more urban and rail oriented.

[CrazyDiamond]

Could North American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail, instead of a society dependant on the automobile.

When I say "successfull" I mean:

#1 People want to use the passenger/commuter RR service, versus using their car. (For a variety of reasons)

#2 The passenger RR is making a profit, and infrastructure is very well utilized.

#3 There is a good healthy amount of competition.

#4 The message in most cars commercials is "buy your first car", instead of "get the car that gives you a DVD player, and room for 8."

When I say "heavy use" I mean:
#1 The dependency on cars is greatly reduced. In my mind the average number of cars per household is considerably less than 1, versus the current 1.77.

#2 The number of multi-lanes on our expressways, tollways, etc, simply never grew to the numbers they are today. I.e. 3 instead of six, 2 instead of 4, etc.

#3 That brown thick sludge smog never forms in the sky over the cities, and that dense blue haze is much thinner.

#4 The streets are lined with trolley/rail that integrates with commuter/passenger rail.

So in other words, instead of the 20%RR / 80% automobile situation we are in today, with the right policy, and determination, could we have evolved North Amerca into a 80%RR / 20% automobile society. Imagine leaving your house in the suburbs, walking for a few minutes to a trolley stop, taking the trolley to a passenger RR station, catching a train that takes you almost all the way, and then catching another trolley that drop you off within a few minutes of walking to work. Instead of most houses having a paved driveway and space for 2 or 3 cars, we have a concrete path that leads to the sidewalk.

If society/govt preferred this over the automobile, could it have succeeded? Could it have been 'so good' that you would question your neighbor when he says he is going to buy a car...."why would you want to do that"?

This is a "what if", "might of" and a "could of" topic...so please dream a little before replying. [:)]