3
3
0
Why has Europe developed it's train network and America has not.
Many government dollars go into developing the Airport infrastructure, why not Air to Train for most American big cities?
Yes, the US has less population density, cars and fuel are cheaper.
Culturally are we just resistant to Trains?
http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes
Many government dollars go into developing the Airport infrastructure, why not Air to Train for most American big cities?
Yes, the US has less population density, cars and fuel are cheaper.
Culturally are we just resistant to Trains?
http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes
Leisure and Travel
Family
United States
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 41
1
1
0
Capitalism and freedom at its best. I use it when I can, but people want the convenience, or had and alternative and cheaper bus option. I think if they had more car transportation services, coast to coast unlimited, it would work. But since it is a government run entity, it ends up being very inefficient.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
Unlike Airlines, Rail has to be centralized, at least at the dispatch and control/choke points. Amtrak is not known for efficiency but we don't expect Airlines to bear the cost of Airport locations, the local, state and federal government all pay for the use, along with passenger fees.
With Google and other companies trying to automate the car service, I can see a day when car rental is normal and ownership an exception. Wow, would this change our culture...
With Google and other companies trying to automate the car service, I can see a day when car rental is normal and ownership an exception. Wow, would this change our culture...
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, that premise about car ownership is as long as people are nice and clean. I seriously doubt that for the median population it would be a reachable goal. The ones that can afford Limo's will have them, including corrupt politicians. I think still Americans deep down believe in personal space and freedoms
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If america would have invested more into it than we did it would be as good if not better than Europe now. We opted in for Interstate Highways and Air Travel over Rail. We suffer for that choice now. It would cost too much to upgrade to a viable option today. Land Cost, Infrastructure and cost of building over habitable ground is preventing it from ever taking off. I use EuroRail when I am in Europe and Love that experience, but it will only be in Europe.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
I agree with your comment on investing in rail. It is something that would have to be carefully planned and the segments would have to generate enough traffic to justify the cost with some government subsidy in, say at the level of Airport fees.
I can see the NE routes continuing to expand to major cities along the East and Midwest.
I can see the NE routes continuing to expand to major cities along the East and Midwest.
(1)
(0)
SGT Robert Hawks
The main problem with railways in America is that's thousands of miles of rails where pulled up during WW II for the steel so where we once had rail that went to lots of small towns all over the country we just don't have that infrastructure anymore
(1)
(0)
SFC Charles S.
California is trying to build out a High Speed Rail and they have run into all of the exact reasons I mentioned. They are still pushing forward... I'm not sure how far they will get before they either give up or quit because they bankrupted the state. Rail is a great economic and environmentally friendly option. As long as it can be built before breaking the banks.
(1)
(0)
I think that culture is a definite part of the answer. Americans are more independent. Obviously, a car on the interstate is a much more independent mode of travel than a train on a rail.
(1)
(0)
LTC J. Lee Mudd
I think you may be putting the cart before the horse, SPC Elijah Henry. I think historically it has been shown that the current "independence" of which you speak is, to a large degree, the result of not having been able to rely on large-scale mass transit. Before WWII, Americans were just as willing as Europeans to ride trains for regular travel. It was the post- war economic boom that encouraged people in the U.S. to take advantage of the comparative space and low cost of private autos.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
LTC J. Lee Mudd SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA Yes, Americans love going point to point and Cars are best for that; however, we are pragmatic as well and adopt rail in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc.
Trains were dominant prior to WWII, the federal and state governments have put Trillions into Road and Airports. Why not Rail being a part of the puzzle, not dominant but a useful component of a hub and spoke system, as it is in the NE.
Trains were dominant prior to WWII, the federal and state governments have put Trillions into Road and Airports. Why not Rail being a part of the puzzle, not dominant but a useful component of a hub and spoke system, as it is in the NE.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir You should look into Hawaiis rail project. For the state with the second worse traffic and congestion in the U.S. I think they are being proactive about the problem.
(1)
(0)
SFC Charles S.
I like what they have in the works, I was stationed there for 6 years. I know they really need this to help get rid of some of the expansion on their roads programs.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1) America is bigger than Europe and towns that would use rail are spread much farther apart.
2) because America is bigger, rail takes longer to get where you need to go, especially if you are going cross country.
3) our road system is much better developed so it's actually easier to drive a car (and because of #1, we are not congested).
Honestly I wouldn't mind having rail as a regional option, but wouldn't want to rely on it for cross country travel.
2) because America is bigger, rail takes longer to get where you need to go, especially if you are going cross country.
3) our road system is much better developed so it's actually easier to drive a car (and because of #1, we are not congested).
Honestly I wouldn't mind having rail as a regional option, but wouldn't want to rely on it for cross country travel.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC John Shaw, a couple concerns, the train station is not close and there are not as many stations, it is costly compared to just getting in and driving, and finally I am confident that my car/truck will get me to where I want to go on time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not the rail, but I use the subway everyday.
If we had high speed rail I would use it for travel, I've used the rail system to travel around in Europe.
If we had high speed rail I would use it for travel, I've used the rail system to travel around in Europe.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Subway is great if it's convenient. It was great in Seoul when stationed at Yongsan. Lots of different train lines and very cheap (about $1 one way). But unfortuantely most cities in the US have not built extensive subways (most cities are nowhere near as congested as someplace lke Seoul or Tokyo or NYC). So it's almost easier having a car.
(1)
(0)
WO1 (Join to see)
I live in NYC, I've taken the train around Seoul as well. I've used mass transit in Europe, and a bunch of States I've been in.
Major cities should be subways, and the US needs high speed rail.
Major cities should be subways, and the US needs high speed rail.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
am track dosnt run in alaska. and dont really want to sit on a train 3 days to get to WI.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
1) Amtrack does not own the rails on which it runs
2) Amtrack takes the hole every time a freight contests the line (see #1)
3) The condition of the US rails is abysmal resulting in slow traffic
4) Amtrack on-time record stinks (see all above)
2) Amtrack takes the hole every time a freight contests the line (see #1)
3) The condition of the US rails is abysmal resulting in slow traffic
4) Amtrack on-time record stinks (see all above)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google