A recent post on the International Passenger News thread regarding the Zurich Hbf improvements got me thinking about the question, "Why not here?"
And, I know what the answers would be:
1) "Not enough trains to justify the expense." Why?
2) "Not enough people ride trains to justify more trains." Why?
3) "Not enough frequency of service and routes covered to make trains a viable option for most people." Why?
4) "Not enough money to invest in equipment, infrastructure, reimbursements to freight carriers, etc., to increase frequencies and routes." Why?
5) See #1 above.
Is there any way to break this tautology in the US? I know "Build it and they will come" only exists in the movies. But there are examples of improvements in service resulting in disproportionately large increases in service -- even to the point of (maybe) profitability.
I don't want to re-ignite the argument of whether passenger services can ever really be profitable. Just asking if we can break the viscious circle of "spend no more money because there are not enough riders, but riders won't come unless we spend more money."
See how well Congress works! See Amtrak and their need for capital improvements! See how well Congress works!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD See how well Congress works! See Amtrak and their need for capital improvements! See how well Congress works!
True, of course, although the blame for gridlock is not equal. But you needn't look only at Congress.
Consider these Trains forums. One would think that unlike most Americans, the posters here are very interested in railroads, so therefore most posters would also favor the improvements and expansions of passenger services Dragoman mentions. Think again.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I think their be a slow movement towards more intercity train travel. More families are moving back into the central cities and ownership of automobiles by teenagers and twenty's something's is at a historic low. Mass transit also continues to grow.
What to do about it?
1. Fix Amtrak - it's easier than starting from scratch.2. Focus on what works now - not on what used to be.3. Fit into the air/rail network by making trains visible, making travel seamless, and growing the network organically.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Most countries that have high speed rail that is government sponsored are about the size of our largest states. We could put Europe and Japan in the US and still have some room left. Our railroads are not government sponsored. They are private companies. We have 7 class 1 and a whole flock of feeders that those companies do not have. Their railroads emphasize passenger service for in country travel whch for most have about as many square miles as Texas. They have a whole lot fewer commuter airlines than the US. They do more trucking in country because of the small size than we do. Its all about the size of the infrastructure and upkeep costs. Highways and aviation gets more government funds than railroads do in this country. Except for the NEC we have a network of airports and commuter arlines that carry people for 200 to 400 miles quicker and more efficiently to major city hubs. Amtrak depend on freight roads but most European and Japanese roads are passenger only because they .do not need or have to tranfer freight the distanced we do
I C Rider Most countries that have high speed rail that is government sponsored are about the size of our largest states. We could put Europe and Japan in the US and still have some room left. Our railroads are not government sponsored. They are private companies. We have 7 class 1 and a whole flock of feeders that those companies do not have. Their railroads emphasize passenger service for in country travel whch for most have about as many square miles as Texas. They have a whole lot fewer commuter airlines than the US. They do more trucking in country because of the small size than we do. Its all about the size of the infrastructure and upkeep costs. Highways and aviation gets more government funds than railroads do in this country. Except for the NEC we have a network of airports and commuter arlines that carry people for 200 to 400 miles quicker and more efficiently to major city hubs. Amtrak depend on freight roads but most European and Japanese roads are passenger only because they .do not need or have to tranfer freight the distanced we do
Lots of generalizations and inacuracies there, which make your apologia less than useful.
I C Rider Except for the NEC we have a network of airports and commuter arlines that carry people for 200 to 400 miles quicker and more efficiently to major city hubs.
Except for the NEC we have a network of airports and commuter arlines that carry people for 200 to 400 miles quicker and more efficiently to major city hubs.
Surely you jest about flying in the 200-400 mile range being quick and efficient. Based on actual experience with flying in this country, if I can drive where I am going in 6-7 hours, I'll drive. I get there without worrying about the flight being cancelled, luggage lost (yes, I travel with video equipment for business much of the time) or assorted luggage charges. And I won't have to deal with the screening circus.
Distance in 10-12 hour drive range: I'll probably still drive.
If there is a train covering the route, I'll be on that train. Then none of the time is wasted as I can work or sleep from the moment I get on the train until I get off.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.