Sam1: And most people who drive and never use trains tell their elected representatives they still want the passenger train that stops at the station nearest to them to continue to be subsidized, because that only that is the reason long distance trains continue to exist. I hope never to be in a hospital bed for a long time, but I still want hospitals to exist and believe they should be subsidized by the combination of the government and charities that subsidize them. Most people who only use automobiles and their legs for transportation recognized that elderly and disabled have a right to be able to travel around the USA. YOu apparently do not. Most Americans have, in my opinon, a better sense of justice and fairness than you do.
I also want our friendly guests from the UK, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere to be able to enjoy the beautiful sights of our country in comfort. And wish the USA to have the right backup transportaton in emergencies.
henry6 Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line. Amtrak, in effect, was not created to save the passenger train but to save big business railroads from having to endure the cost of operating them. It was actually hoped that by creating Amtrak, passenger trains would totally disappear, that passenger cars and jet airplanes where what the public would embrace 100%.
Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line. Amtrak, in effect, was not created to save the passenger train but to save big business railroads from having to endure the cost of operating them. It was actually hoped that by creating Amtrak, passenger trains would totally disappear, that passenger cars and jet airplanes where what the public would embrace 100%.
If you remember, Volpe was the guy who got the Amtrak legislation done despite the objections from most of Nixon's closer staff. In fact, he got himself in a bit of hot water for doing so.
You can count Volpe as a "true believer" in passenger trains as useful transportation.
You need to read the whole paper....and reread Rush Loving's book.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I did the analysis at the following Historical interest rates: Treasury + 1%, AAA Corp, and WACC. For cash flow I used the historical interstate VM, MPG, and fuel tax rate for the different vehicle classes. For expenses I used the historical FHWA interstate capital only. All combined the NPV gave the figures I supplied. I will post a link to the PDF shortly that explains everything better.
In the meantime lookup TxDOT Asset Value Index as well as Pass-through tolls.
I understand how difficult it is to discuss topics like AMTRAK or this issue without drifting into politics. As a European, I have to admit, that a number of the contributions I read in this forum are a little strange to me. OK, I live in a country, where train travel is much more a part of daily live than in the US and Canada. One reason may be the shorter distances of travel we have here, but another reason is that quite a lot of folks have learned that taking the train is the better alternative to going by car or even taking a plane. Trains are the safest and most ecological mode of mass transport available.
The 1960´s and 1970´s saw, just like in the US, a dramatic decline in ridership in most European countries. Switzerland may have been the only exception to that, as the Swiss just love their trains. The decline in ridership was followed by a massive closure of local or branch line that had served as feeders to the long distance routes. Add to that out-dated and run-down rolling stock, and you have a perfect scenario how to kill passenger service. Traffic mostly shifted to roads, causing massive collapses. It was as late as the mid 1990´s when people and politics changed their thinking and started to invest into trains again. Not only those prestigious HSR lines benefited from that, but also local and commuter lines were revamped, and some of the lines closed earlier were re-opened again. Now all of this does not happen in the timespan between two elections. You need people with a vision for future society´needs and the stamina to push it forward against all odds of short term politics and profitability. Unfortunately, those people a hard to find.
What works for Europe, need not to work for the US - I can literally hear those remarks. I am sorry, but what´s so special about the US in that sense? We talk about people´s needs and I doubt that they are very much different in Europe. Isn´t it the old "getting from A to B" game, in a most economical, ecological, safe and comfortable way, at times and in a time which is closest to my personal schedule?
This is a trains forum, but sometimes, reading the posts, I have the feeling to have entered the wrong platform, as the general tone is more against trains than in favor of them.
regarding those who trot out mathematics that "prove" that long distance passenger trains or intercity passenger trains in general should not be subidized:
Does the fact that I travel only ten miles per week and you travel 1000 miles per week mean that my mode of transportation should not be subsidized and yours should? Or that you are worthy of 100 times the subsidy that I receive even though we both pay the same taxes?
Again, the opportunity for a college or high-school graduate or a handicapped or senior person to see the vast sweep of North America is a part of North American civilization that is worth preserving. I just hope that Boardman can convince Romney of that fact should Romney be elected.
Regarding Megabus, after Lehigh Valley passenger service ended, I did use Greyhound to and from the Allentown-Bethleham area and found it better than driving. But on occasion a client would drive me south to Norristown and I could get back to NYC easily from there by rail. The excuse was that we could continue discussing the project in his car.
Often at an enjoyable but strenuous weekend at Branford (now the Shore Line Trolleyi Museum) I would spend the extra bucks to go back to NY on Amtrak and enjoy a reclining seat and a snack bar, rather than ride the more bus-like washboards or M2's on Metro North. And the difference in ticket price was considerable, especially since my Metro North White Plains - NYC monthly was good as far as Harrison on the New Haven line. Of course, once I lucked into a GG-1 cab ride.
Sir Madog..you are right we are bogged down in politics when it comes to passenger trains in particular and transportation in general. But beyond politics is the social attitude used in political rhetoric that we have our "freedom" to do as we please. This is extended to travel so that the automobile is the macho and material evidence and experience of it all expressing the freedom to both choose (which in the long run is not the case at all) and to onself at his own supposed expense and expanse. As we faught Great Britain over the issue of taxation without representation we have fallen into a slumber of taxation with misrepresentation at best, misunderstanding what a society is at worst. Give us a six gun and a stick shift and we're fine. Give us the idea that we are being controlled by government and society, and we rebel. Problem is that we treasure being individuals and having individual freedom but just don't understand how we are manipulated into believing we are free to practice that individualistm. So we get cars instead of trains.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sir Madog I understand how difficult it is to discuss topics like AMTRAK or this issue without drifting into politics. As a European, I have to admit, that a number of the contributions I read in this forum are a little strange to me. OK, I live in a country, where train travel is much more a part of daily live than in the US and Canada. One reason may be the shorter distances of travel we have here, but another reason is that quite a lot of folks have learned that taking the train is the better alternative to going by car or even taking a plane. Trains are the safest and most ecological mode of mass transport available. The 1960´s and 1970´s saw, just like in the US, a dramatic decline in ridership in most European countries. Switzerland may have been the only exception to that, as the Swiss just love their trains. The decline in ridership was followed by a massive closure of local or branch line that had served as feeders to the long distance routes. Add to that out-dated and run-down rolling stock, and you have a perfect scenario how to kill passenger service. Traffic mostly shifted to roads, causing massive collapses. It was as late as the mid 1990´s when people and politics changed their thinking and started to invest into trains again. Not only those prestigious HSR lines benefited from that, but also local and commuter lines were revamped, and some of the lines closed earlier were re-opened again. Now all of this does not happen in the timespan between two elections. You need people with a vision for future society´needs and the stamina to push it forward against all odds of short term politics and profitability. Unfortunately, those people a hard to find. What works for Europe, need not to work for the US - I can literally hear those remarks. I am sorry, but what´s so special about the US in that sense? We talk about people´s needs and I doubt that they are very much different in Europe. Isn´t it the old "getting from A to B" game, in a most economical, ecological, safe and comfortable way, at times and in a time which is closest to my personal schedule? This is a trains forum, but sometimes, reading the posts, I have the feeling to have entered the wrong platform, as the general tone is more against trains than in favor of them.
There are vast cultural, geographic, economic, and political differences between the United States and the EU countries, Pacific rim countries, or for that matter most countries. I have lived in seven states of the U.S., as well as DC, plus Canada, Australia, and Japan. There are significant differences between the states, between the U.S. and Canada, with which we share the longest unarmed border in the world, etc.
With respect to transport choices, it is values. People here prefer cars and airplanes in most environments. It is not a question of right or wrong. It is their choice, and choice is an underlying tenant in a free society.
I have been participating in these forums for nearly five years. I have been consistant. Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, i.e. Boston to Washington, LA to San Diego, where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. Long distance trains make no economic and transport sense. More importantly, however, I put my money where my mouth is; I ride trains five or six times per year, although 90 per cent of my trips are on corridor trains or where I hope a corridor will develop.
If I have to be all in or all out with respect to any group, discussion or otherwise, I would not be able to join any group. There is nothing political about this perspective.
Sir Madog What works for Europe, need not to work for the US - I can literally hear those remarks. I am sorry, but what´s so special about the US in that sense? We talk about people´s needs and I doubt that they are very much different in Europe. Isn´t it the old "getting from A to B" game, in a most economical, ecological, safe and comfortable way, at times and in a time which is closest to my personal schedule? This is a trains forum, but sometimes, reading the posts, I have the feeling to have entered the wrong platform, as the general tone is more against trains than in favor of them.
Having just returned from another visit to Germany, this time a month living in Munich, with some excursions to other cities (including your beloved, if rainy/cloudy Hamburg) and having read posts here for some time, I agree with you 100%. It is particularly dismaying to repeatedly observe that folks who purport to have an interest in passenger transportation quickly dismiss the lessons we could take from Europe out of hand, even though their knowledge and experience of the European system is negligible.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There are a few structural things going on that, I think, help explain things.
1. Post WWII construction: While Europe was rebuilding it's cities, the US was building out suburbs. People had the money, the economy was growing and the state and federal government were building roads into and between the cities at a great rate. The result? The US society organized itself around the automobile. People were glad to get out of the cities and live in the "country", for the most part. It was easy to go door to door in you car, from home to work. This was embraced as "progress" in an era when progress was always considered good. You can see the difference today in that US cities, without exception, have multiple freeways running though them whereas there are few freeways inside city limits in Europe. But, life in much of the US became auto dependent. What do you call a pedestrian in the US? Someone who just got out of their car!
2. Population density: The US, even east of the Mississippi River, has always been less densely populated that most of Western Europe and, with suburban and exurban sprawl, that works against passenger train. In some regard, this is changing, though. The US is growing and becoming more urban oriented of late (people are getting a bit tired of the hassle of driving, perhaps). So, the trend is working in FAVOR of passenger trains.
3. Amtrak is broken. If the DB required the per passenger-mile subsidy of Amtrak, the Germans would revolt! Amtrak could be fixed but they'd need a solid leader and political will to change things. The US doesn't need a profitable Amtrak - I don't think that's reasonable or possible - just a better Amtrak.
4. Cheap gas. There was (is?) a lot of oil in the US and no reason to have a gas tax any higher than needed to build out a rural highway network. Since so much of the population is auto dependent, there is great pressure to keep gas prices down, even now when the gas tax doesn't even cover highway repair.
So, what might the future look like in the US? I think you'll corridors emerge as extensions of the NEC - NY state, the Carolinas, Virginia, perhaps even Pennsylvania. You'll see similar out of Chicago, in the Pacific NW, Florida and in California. Most of this will not be what the world calls HSR. It'll be more conventional 90-110 mph service. It won't cost and arm and a leg to implement and it can grow organically. Between these corridor networks, we'll likely always have some sort of national network of LD trains bridging the gaps. Probably fewer than we have now, though.
This will happen as push comes to shove for highway and airport capacity. The rail option will start to look like a good option....as long as we can keep Amtrak from spending all it's new car money on baggage cars!
"This will happen as push comes to shove for highway and airport capacity. The rail option will start to look like a good option....as long as we can keep Amtrak from spending all it's new car money on baggage cars!"
This is the key, Oltmannd, to the lack of thinking by the majority of Americans. They are happy with the status quo and don't believe anything is going to change, they are complacent and don't want to change. They even go so far as to dismiss any thought of the future with plans or preperations to meet the needs of the future. "I got my car, I got my feedom, leave me alone." "What capacity? I got a seat this morning. I don't ride trains, planes or buses, so what do I care." Thus we are always in the expensive position of trying to catch up. Look at the turmoil there was converting to digital TV! Right now, especially with commuter rail, capacity is being pushed to the brink which will mean negative thought brought by over crowding and antiquated equipment and tracks leading to trashing the idea of trains.
Vast cultural differences between the EU countries and the US? That´s what I´d call a killer phrase - no offense meant, though. World-wide communication has nearly annihilated any difference which may have been there in the past, when people could not travel to the extent they do now. The only key difference I see between Germany and the US, just as an example, is the language, but with the rate English or pseudo-English words enter the German language, that difference will be gone in a couple of generation´s time.
Germans just love their cars and they spend by far more on them than on child care. They love to take a ride on the Autobahn, where, in theory, no speed limit hinders you on your path forward. The reality is different. Our highways are so congested, that the average travel time by car is nearly double that of trains. Still the majority travels by car, but ridership figures are constantly growing, as railroads invest into speed and comfort.
Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s, as Mr. Ike and his successors decided to re-directed government money into building a highway network similar to what Eisenhower had seen in occupied Germany. Amtrak took over the shabby remains of what once was the best system in the world and has not been able to catch up on developments due to bad funding. Traveling by train in the US is, as the "network" stands now, no alternative to taking the car or the plane. No wonder people prefer those modes of transportation, when there is no option available.
Unlike in China, politicians in our western democracies have to justify their decisions on spendings before the people - latest, when the people are called to the ballots again. Many a vote, however, is a pocket book decision, not a decision based on necessity or vision. In the US the car lobby proved to be strong enough to prevent long overdue investments into trains - a situation that will still prevail in some years time, or at least as long as gas is as cheap as it is now - when compared to Europe, where we are paying up to $ 9 a gallon right now.
But what will happen, when we run out of fossil fuels to be consumed in private transport? That day may come earlier than we expect it, as China is devouring more and more of the world´s energy reserves. Will US railroads and bus companies be ready to jump in?
But what do I know, with my degree in economics, a major in transportation science and having lived nearly a third of my life of 56 years outside of Germany and Europe.
Oltmannd - in the late 1960´s and early 1970´s, the subsidies to keep Deutsche Bundesbahn running ate up as much as 8 % of the Federal Budget. At that time, people did not rebel against this vast amount, but demanded that politics developed a new approach to rail travel. It has taken more than thirty years from the first ideas to where we stand now (and we still have a long way to go!).
I completely agree, the passenger train board is dominated by anti-passenger train types with hidden agendas, it is part of the reason I rarely post anymore, it is like getting into a philosophical discussion about insurance with an insurance salesman, a complete waste of time. I post on more public forums where I think those hidden-agenda types who want passenger trains to go away (e.g. the freight railroads and bus companies) can actually have an impact
As to the "American exceptionalism" argument it reminds me of this skit from the Blues Brothers, people who just don't want certain things and make excuses for why they aren't possible, such as the claim that we are somehow congenitally different. Of course Americans will say that they favor automobile transportation, it is all they know, but if Dwight Eisenhower had transported his troops across Germany on HSR instead of the autobahn and then built HSR when he returned you can bet that our transportation system would be passenger train oriented now, and people's habits would be as well.
Sir Madog, your mention of short term profits and Chinese rail bring up two major points. Short term profits is the curse of the American economy: buy, purge, sell high as soon as possible. Many companies have been closed, towns abandoned, people out of work, and economic entities crushed out of existance in this country. Those who made the short term investment are lounging in their boats off some Carribiean island. As for the Chinese rail. Mention public projects like rail in this country and you are being held suspect of being at least a Socialist if not an all out Communist (disregard that no one in this country really knows what a Socisialist or a Communist is and the difference between the two). Either of these are deemed to be anti American at least, then end of mankind at worst. NO! I'm not endorsing either, although I am definitely not Right by anymeans anymore. So, building and supporting passenger rail is Socialistic here but building and maintaining highways is pro American. Again, the differences and samnesses are overlooked for political and economic exediency and for the sake of maitaining the status quo. The real question we have to face in this country is how far awry do things have to go before we start applying answers...and I have a feeling we are a nation where we will start applying answers before we have the correct answers.
Our problems in general will not solved by sloganeering and cat fights about what's socialism. A new book by Michael Porter of Harvard Business School talks about a survey of 2000 top business leaders (grads of Harvard) and why America is becoming less competitive, which will lead to more job losses. They are not just production but also R&D. The biggest problem is a lack of highly trained and qualified younger workers from here, so that even the highly skilled jobs are getting outsourced because they can't fill them here, not because of cheaper wages abroad..
I guess we all agree that Adam Smith is the enlightening figure of a free market economy, yet in book V of his famous "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", he states the role of the sovereign as follows:
The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.
In Europe, we understand our train networks as a part of these "public institutions" being highly advantageous to the development of our society. I think I am not too far off in saying that history has proven this attitude to be correct.
Henry, don't sell Americans short! They may love their automobiles and spend more time in caring for their autos than in religious or cultural activities, but they also tell they their congressmen and senators they still want the train to stop at the station nearst to them, the train and the station that they never use, just in case they need it, like a bed in the hospital. And they are absolutely rigiht, and that is why long distance trains continue and may they always continue.
For the tourist (internal or external) who wants to see the country in comfort, and there really is no other way.
For the handicapped and infirm who cannot either fly or stand confined spaces for long periods of time.
And for the emergencies. End when in once or twice in a lifetime when they want to use it, it will still be there for them. If Boardman does his job as well as I hope and expect him to do.
The arguments against the long distance trains are like the arguments of the business manager who won't let the purchasing agent buy new shelves for the store because shelves don't earn a profit, only merchandize does.
No, I don't sell the American's short when it comes to transportation needs, Dave, as I pointed out with the surprising and quick successes of Amtrak's Downeaster and NJT's River Line and MidTown Direc Services.
But, Madog, when it comes to the seperation of work and state in the US, the word "free" is misused. We are free to freely do as we wish, want, or have to; we have freedom of choices; we have free enterprise. The fact that these "frees" are guarded and enforced and guarenteed by a soveriegn is totally lost in our train of thought and our trains of track. Free enterprise built the railroads...never mind our goverments' charters, loans, grants, easements, eminent domain, bonding, authority, even right of way ownership, and all other permissions and oversights...so when it comes to passenger rail service, we really don't know what we're talking about because we think it is free enterprise, private business, that does everything that involves money, risk, and development in transportation when our governments are really the ones that private enterprise rely. Even when it comes to cars, trucks and buses on our highways and airplanes flying from municipal airports into a traffic control system courtesy of the US Government. But we are free to do as we please.
I agree to the term "free" to be quite often misused - not only in your country, but in mine as well. In a philosophical view, the personal freedom of an individual ends where the rights of others are infringed. To avoid this each society has set forth rules and regulations in which we are free to act. These laws may differ, but the basic set-up is just the same.
What strikes me more, is that often quite useful things for a society are brand-marked as "socialistic" or "un-American" on purpose, just to avoid discussions on facts and figures or to discredit the political opponent. I still have to figure out what is so un-American of having a working passenger train service in the US, as there had been one for more than a hundred years, being the backbone of the nation.
Sir Madog .... I still have to figure out what is so un-American of having a working passenger train service in the US, as there had been one for more than a hundred years, being the backbone of the nation.
.... I still have to figure out what is so un-American of having a working passenger train service in the US, as there had been one for more than a hundred years, being the backbone of the nation.
If it doesn't make money it's unAmerican. If the government has to do it or pay for it, it is Socialism or Communism, neither of which is understood, differentiated, nor to be tolerated and should be lables as unAmerican. According the the right conservatives that is..
henry6 Sir Madog: .... I still have to figure out what is so un-American of having a working passenger train service in the US, as there had been one for more than a hundred years, being the backbone of the nation. If it doesn't make money it's unAmerican. If the government has to do it or pay for it, it is Socialism or Communism, neither of which is understood, differentiated, nor to be tolerated and should be lables as unAmerican. According the the right conservatives that is..
Sir Madog: .... I still have to figure out what is so un-American of having a working passenger train service in the US, as there had been one for more than a hundred years, being the backbone of the nation.
All part of life in the fact-free zone.
In 30 + years in international business, I have learned that a look over the fence at best practices has never hurt anybody and that taking the following two sentences out of one´s language made adaption to inevitable change a lot easier:
An open-minded attitude, may be guided by the above, helps to develop a society to meet the challenges ahead of us.
As we are treading on dangerous grounds, I think it is time to end the discussion and move on. I am not locking this thread, as a participant, I ´ll leave that to my fellow moderators.
Sir Madog Oltmannd - in the late 1960´s and early 1970´s, the subsidies to keep Deutsche Bundesbahn running ate up as much as 8 % of the Federal Budget. At that time, people did not rebel against this vast amount, but demanded that politics developed a new approach to rail travel. It has taken more than thirty years from the first ideas to where we stand now (and we still have a long way to go!).
And, in a nutshell, that is exactly the problem with Amtrak. There is not now, nor has there been any internally generated response to the request for a "new approach". The push has come from the outside many times in many forms, but in the end, nothing much changes.
I want a "better Amtrak" so that we might have a chance keeping passenger trains around!
Sir Madog Vast cultural differences between the EU countries and the US? That´s what I´d call a killer phrase - no offense meant, though. World-wide communication has nearly annihilated any difference which may have been there in the past, when people could not travel to the extent they do now. The only key difference I see between Germany and the US, just as an example, is the language, but with the rate English or pseudo-English words enter the German language, that difference will be gone in a couple of generation´s time. Germans just love their cars and they spend by far more on them than on child care. They love to take a ride on the Autobahn, where, in theory, no speed limit hinders you on your path forward. The reality is different. Our highways are so congested, that the average travel time by car is nearly double that of trains. Still the majority travels by car, but ridership figures are constantly growing, as railroads invest into speed and comfort. Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s, as Mr. Ike and his successors decided to re-directed government money into building a highway network similar to what Eisenhower had seen in occupied Germany. Amtrak took over the shabby remains of what once was the best system in the world and has not been able to catch up on developments due to bad funding. Traveling by train in the US is, as the "network" stands now, no alternative to taking the car or the plane. No wonder people prefer those modes of transportation, when there is no option available. Unlike in China, politicians in our western democracies have to justify their decisions on spendings before the people - latest, when the people are called to the ballots again. Many a vote, however, is a pocket book decision, not a decision based on necessity or vision. In the US the car lobby proved to be strong enough to prevent long overdue investments into trains - a situation that will still prevail in some years time, or at least as long as gas is as cheap as it is now - when compared to Europe, where we are paying up to $ 9 a gallon right now. But what will happen, when we run out of fossil fuels to be consumed in private transport? That day may come earlier than we expect it, as China is devouring more and more of the world´s energy reserves. Will US railroads and bus companies be ready to jump in? But what do I know, with my degree in economics, a major in transportation science and having lived nearly a third of my life of 56 years outside of Germany and Europe.
I would have to agree that there really isn't much difference between the culture in Western Europe and the US. I think the big difference is that European cities don't have 10 lane interstate highways running through them. I also don't think that difference was driven by social engineering or different views of the government's role in public life, but just from the economics of the times that these roads were planned and built in the 50s and 60s.
I'm looking out my window at a 10 lane "river" that divides Atlanta right in half. It allows 90% of the people who work in the city to commute from the very low density suburbs by car. These same kinds of roads exist in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, St. Louis, KC, Denver, etc, etc. I saw nothing like this in my limited travels in England, Ireland or Germany. The highways tended to stop at the city limits.
(one other observation...the development in the past couple decades on the east side of the 10 lane "river' has generally been higher density, high rise construction. On the west side, it's been low rise, lower density. Guess which side the MARTA rail line runs?)
Hamburg:
Berlin:
Paris:
Nice to see some graphic presentations on the way other places actually are, as opposed to inaccurate assumptions. Pictures from several other European, Japanese, Chinese, etc. cities would have revealed the same thing: expressways much like those in the US. The difference is a viable rail and mass transit network unmatched here except in a few places like NY, Chicago and a few more.
Just go to Google maps and look! No detailed analysis is needed. Just look!
Hamburg. There is a highway (7) that passes to the west of the center of town on it's way to the north and one that dead ends on the east side of town (24) and an extension of one (1/265) that stub ends to the south. This is the second largest German city and it has the most North American like sprawl.
Now, look at Philadelphia, I-76 (4 lanes), I-95 (eight lanes) and I-676 (six lanes) right through the center of the city. Plus a belt to the south and a belt to the north and a belt to the east (in NJ). Phila has the least miles of highway per person of any US city in the Northeast.
Now, look at Atlanta, if you dare. In the dead center of the city, I-20 (eight lanes) and I-75/85 (ten lanes) cross. Metro Atlanta is about the same size as Phila.
Now look at London. All the "M" motorways terminate miles outside of the city center. The through routes skirt the city by a wide margin.
Now, look at the early US toll roads in the east (NJ, PA, NY, MA, OH, IN, IL). None of them went through major cites. Some terminated at the outskirts of the cities, but generally there were built far from city centers.
It's just not nearly as practical to drive from the outskirts into the city center in these European cities as it is in just about any US city I can think of (except SF and NYC, perhaps).
Why did we build these highways while Europe did not? Available money.
We build roads to commute right to work. Door to door. We didn't build the roads because transit went away. Transit went away because we built roads.
Sir Madog Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s,
Short term profit orientation (which is per se not a bad thing) stopped US railroads in maintaining and developing their passenger network in the 1960´s,
Not exactly.... RRs in the US in the 50s and 60s were slowly going out of business. There were profits but they were too little - none were earning their cost of capital. They had to do everything and anything to stay afloat. Many sold real estate they held to fund bare-bones capital budgets for track and equipment. That included bailing on passenger service.
The RRs did give it a good try. They invested huge sums into new equipment in the late 1940s, only to see ridership plummet. Throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea, especially when you are short of money to begin with.
Other cities should be included, NYC - any 10 lane expressways through Manhattan?; look at Shanghai - loads of expressways and gridlock; the list could go on and on. As far as Atlanta goes, having lived there myself in the past, a lot of folks felt I85, I75 and I20 destroyed much of the urban landscape. how many more lanes can you add to 10 lanes? Still gridlock. Laying more pavement is not the solution for the future.
schlimm Other cities should be included, NYC - any 10 lane expressways through Manhattan?; look at Shanghai - loads of expressways and gridlock; the list could go on and on. As far as Atlanta goes, having lived there myself in the past, a lot of folks felt I85, I75 and I20 destroyed much of the urban landscape. how many more lanes can you add to 10 lanes? Still gridlock. Laying more pavement is not the solution for the future.
Yup. But, once you head down that path and sprawl ensues, you wind up with a web of O/D pairs for most trips and few heavy corridors to concentrate transit onto. You can increase artery size, but you still have trips starting and ending in low density, dendritic fashion. And, as you point out, there are limits to how big the arteries can get, too.
If you don't built highways into the heart of the cities, you can keep and grow transit and sprawl occurs less rapidly. And, if have good transit, intercity trains make more sense. Exhibit A: Europe. (I tried to stick to places I've actually been...)
People will vote for transit if it can be shown it fixes existing traffic problems - which, generally, it can't. But, that's the tail wagging the dog. (I am preaching to the choir, I suppose!)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.