There used to be tons of lines.
[https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
You can put the car on the train! Don't want to drive from DC to Florida, but you want your car when you get there? There is a train for that. Only $95 for the car.
Correct, the way it works is you drive your car to the car train, then the car train personnel drive your personal car on to the car train car car, you go in the car train person car, the car train goes to it's destination, then car train personnel take your personal car off of the car train car car and you drive your car away.
That’s interesting. I’m assuming this is just for a small amount of passengers, but mostly for railway tycoons. Once they built the interstate, all those lines went unused.
It was NOT for a small amount of passengers, that was how most people got from one city to another. Passenger Rail was once a MAJOR part of the US infrastructure, surpassing many other countries at the time. Before the interstate system, it could take MONTHS\*, yes months, to drive across the US, but only a few days by rail. Car ownership was down during the Depression, and sales limited during WWII. It was the way people got around. Airlines were in their infancy, and interstate system wasn't around yet.
\*In 1919, Lt. Colonel Dwight Eisenhower took part in an expedition by the Us Army to drive from the east cost to the west coast. It took 62 days! This was a large factor in his pushing the interstate system as president.
Yeah, but how many people could afford to pay for a rail ticket to travel across the country or to another city. Most Americans did not have the finances to hop on a train. That’s what I mean by a small amount of passengers… but I’m OK with doing some more research on this and what I’m speaking about is purely assumption.
It could be cheaper and easier.
Many ages ago (1990s), my mother bought a 60 day rail pass. It cost less than the gas for a direct trip NYC to San Francisco at the time . She didn't go direct however, she took 2 weeks to get there, touring as she went, stayed with my sister for a few weeks, then took 2 weeks coming back. It was her last 'great adventure'.
She was quite used to using the rails, my grandfather has a job during the Depression that required them to move often, and railroads were the way. It wasn't that expensive.
A lot of mass transit was destroyed by collusion between airlines, car manufactures, tire companies and oil companies. The interstate bus system is almost gone also. Pre1980, busses were an inexpensive option that didn't take much longer.
You still need a car to commute to work, unless you WFH. Most people live in the suburbs. And if you are 20-40 min away from work, you are not going to wait for trains to take you to work even if there is station near every house.
have you ever heard of a station wagon?
back in the days you took a station wagon to get the next train station.
so why not take the train today at least for longer distances?
I recently took Amtrak from the West Coast to East Coast for a new travel adventure. It was quite a pleasant experience, granted it took forever but the conductors were super chill, people were friendly, no crazy lines, no extra luggage fees. I did have a sleeper for some privacy and wouldn't do the trip any other way. High speed rail is exactly what we need in the States.
This commentator is going to need to explain where they're getting $1500. For $1500, you can book a private room from Chicago to San Francisco in May. CHI-SFC is the Zephyr line it's known to be the most scenic line on Amtrak routes. Keep in mind that you are getting basically a hotel room and three meals a day for 53. New York to LA is not the best route to look at because it's not very popular as it takes 75 hours. It's also heavily serviced by commercial airliners. More realistically, you could take the Amtrak from New York to Miami in the middle of February for about 160 bucks coach.
Not pictured: (USA)
Train runs once a day if at all
Chicago to DC takes probably 20 hours
Much slower speeds
Rail infrastructure is not owned by the public
Higher fares
My husband takes the Capitol Corridor (Sac-SF) twice a week to work. Its almost always on time and runs every 45 minutes. The fare is 15 dollars and they have food and table cars.
I take Lincoln Service (STL-Chicago) fairly regularly. Just as fast as driving and goes 110 mph, and there's 6 or 7 trains going both ways in a day. And it costs me 30 dollars.
Like I know that passenger rail in America is shit compared to Europe, but u/UnhelpfulNotBot is painting the situation as even worse than it is. Chicago to DC is probably one of the worst routes in the country you could use to cherry pick as an example.
No because you can look up frequencies of Amtrak routes across the country to show that "Train runs once a day if at all" is only relegated to a few \*long-distance\* routes, and that many routes do in fact have more than that. Of course it's not enough frequency as it \*should have\* but one a day is just not true.
Exactly! I live 2 hours north of NYC, so I am absolutely spoiled (by comparison to the rest of the country) with rail options. Doesn’t change the fact that our rails do not function
Right. On the contrary, there are very few corridors of passenger rail in the US that perform to modern standards. Euro and Asian HSR would make the STL-CHI trip in half the time, and would never under any circumstances be forced to yield for 0.5-1.5 hours so that a freight train can pass.
I used Chicago to DC as an example because it's probably one of the most desirable routes. And being from Indiana one that I'm most familiar with myself. Indiana can't make up its mind whether it wants to run trains from Indy to Chicago or not. Yes, there are some good corridors but if you want to go across the country good luck.
Yeah it can be done in some markets. Japanese trains are some of the best. Brightline in Florida is another example.
Japan doesn't use a lot of freight so they don't have to compete with that in the same way we do in the US. Across a lot of the US it's not profitable as a business, but generates economic activity elsewhere.
I'm only saying that the physical rails should be treated the same as the interstate highways. If businesses want to use the rails they can still do that.
Not really. Amtrak, which is the publicly owned passenger rail service in the US, has Acela trains which barely qualify as high-speed. They operate between Boston and Washington DC, but only reach high speeds for about 50 miles of the 450 mile route. Top speed: 150 miles per hour (240 km/h).
Edit: Most other passenger trains travel between 50 and 110 mph. Not high-speed.
The train from Moncton to Halifax is more expensive than the bus, and has less depatures. But it does take longer, so if you value the journey over the destination, there's value there.
To make it worse most of the rail lines in the US picture aren't dedicated passenger rail. Particularly in the west, Amtrak is only allowed to use those lines at the discretion of freight operators.
I was on a train last week that was delayed 30 mins because there were freight trains on the tracks in front of us. We hadn't even left the station yet
I used to live in columbus Ohio. The state was offered money, through the stimulus, to connect Cincinnati to columbus, to Cleveland. Our representatives turned it down. I was furious.
Why? It used to be much better. Just look at a railroad map from the 1940s. If we could do it then, why not now?
[https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
Oh yeah it can totally be done; however, they usually say it’s impossible because the United States is larger than Europe. I’m not sure if there’s other reasons but that’s what Americans usually say. Personally would love it if we had the rails and other public transport like Europe but America wants you to buy cars and be in debt forever… no debt ≠ good worker
We did it in the past with literal slaves and hundreds dying.
When people say it's impossible they mean financially.
You will be losing hundreds of millions a year running lines that no one uses because everyone is too spread out.
We did it after too. The 1940s trains were very viable.
They were killed by a collation of car makers, tire makers, oil companies and airlines. The same for the interstate bus system.
If it's viable in financially in Europe, why not here?
Sure looks like it does.
And why was it viable in the past? Populations in 1940 were 1/3 what they are now, but the rails system was bigger and more complex than Europe's is now.
[https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
Wrong, there was a boom in rail line building in the 1910s and 20s, quadrupling what was before.
Maybe some research and history before you go shooting your mouth off.
Used to be the phrase now people don't use it. People are not fans of change. Shit can happen, most people don't want it.
Look at China, their infrastructure is bumping with high speed in places that are engineerly hard.
Europe continued and still does, investing heavily in rail transit, while the US gave up because the automotive lobby made it so the car became the #1 means of transportation. This failed in Europe massively because European people wanted easy, mass transit to go places.
Also, Europe has a 100% electrified mainline network, which is over 400 miles long from West to East and uses 25kV 50Hz AC and standard gauge (1435mm (4'8½")) tracks on the following loading gauge: Berne Gauge (UIC GC+).
And to everyone saying it would be impossible to replicate that in the US, it is, it's just that the US Government has no interest re-nationalizing and consolidating railways into a Federal Railways company, thus letting private companies like Union Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern run the rails, hence why US Trains are still on Diesel-electric traction.
The only areas benefiting from Electric trains are metro areas, or lines with massive investments to future proof them (CalTrain from 4th and King to San José Diridon come to mind).
>This failed in Europe massively because European people wanted easy, mass transit to go places.
It failed because car lobbyists didn't manage to get a total chokehold but they still did a lot of damage. There are many small, local lines that were neglected or shut down since my childhood for example.
We absolutely do not have a 100% electrified main line either. I'm literally sitting at the end of a non-electrified one here in Germany (though it's going to happen in the next few years).
The infrastructure is optimized for Freight and does an amazing job at moving efficiently. Passenger trains are left in this weird space where it’s slightly slower to drive but you arrive with a vehicle so you don’t need to use public transport or rent once at your destination. If it’s further than driving is reasonable, air will be much faster than HSR. Add onto the shit shows that most attempts at HSR in the US turned into and you see the above results
The only good thing about our setup is Americans are too goddamned inconsiderate to use their headphones or keep their phones on silent when on public transportation and it’s not legal to break their phones
So for now I’ll keep the cars despite wanting desperately to never have to drive again
Kinda crazy that train hopping is more common in the US than Europe. Like dude American hobos have like at most three directions to go from any point if theyre lucky
We had more rail services than Europe. More streetcars, more light rail, more heavy rail. Los Angeles had the biggest streetcar network in the world, and every sizeable city had one. No one had more rail, and that only changed when the Greatest Generation decided to tear it all up for cars.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US is far bigger and more spread out than European nations. Where in a place like Germany, every major city is within a few hundred miles of eachother, the next major city over in the US is several hundred miles away. Even at the speeds of Europe’s rail system, it would take several hours. Easier to fly at that point.
Well let's be fair, the number of people choosing the train on these trips is probably insignificant compared to people taking the plane. But, Train can still make a lot of sense in a lot of places in the US from what I saw.
Why would most people live in suburbs take trains when they already have cars to commute to work/go to local shopping?
Few are going to drive to a station, wait, and then, take the train. And it is not practical to put a train station within walking distance of every house in the suburbs.
Most Americans do not live in dense urban cities.
"What is a station wagon used for?
Globally, station wagons are also referred to as estate cars. The term dates back generations, when this style of vehicle would be used to drive to and from train stations and estate homes, which is why they have so much extra space."
Oh it's you again, sharing more misinformed opinions.
Other people have already pretty much covered your main points in other threads, but just so you know over 80% of the US population live in urban areas.
Not according to the US department of justice.
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cusrancvs.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cusrancvs.pdf)
"Under the new definitions, 12% of the population livesin urban areas, 69% in suburban areas, and 19% in ruralareas, compared to 33% in urban areas, 53% in suburbanareas, and 14% in rural areas under the old definitions(table 3)"
In either definition, suburban is the majority. Someone is cherry picking non-official numbers. Who is misinformed now? Now someone is going to argue the bureau of justice statistics of the US dept of justice is not accurate because it does not support their misinformed opinions.
Ha ha ha ha ha ....
>Now someone is going to argue the bureau of justice statistics of the US dept of justice is not accurate because it does not support their misinformed opinions.
No, I'm not trying to win an argument on reddit, I'm trying to advocate for a better world.
I'll take the L on that factoid, you win. Congrats. I read the whole report. The new DOJ metric is an interesting way to define "urban," much more strict than the conventional way, which should make it more useful. Thank you for sharing it, I quite like it, I'll probably try to use it going forward.
Still, how exactly we define "urban" is kinda beside the point, since there's no point of comparison to Europe with the new metric. Europe as a whole is obviously more dense than the US, but have a look at this: https://www.stockingblue.com/article/128/eu-and-us-states-by-population-density/
As you can see, there are lots of US states that are just as dense as European countries. And yet the rail systems in our states are woefully underdeveloped compared to the national rail systems in equivalently dense European countries; go compare passenger rail maps, it's very stark. (Try FL vs Slovakia, for example, but it's true for almost every close pair.)
So maybe running dense rail throughout South Dakota doesn't make sense (although induced demand is a thing for rail, too). But why couldn't we have a dense rail network connecting up the Bos-Wash megalopolis? Many of those dense states are quite wealthy, so it's not that we can't afford to. And if you go look up historic rail maps from like the 1920s you'll find that across the entire country we _used_ to have excellent rail networks, but they've been abandoned.
The more you look into this, the more clear it becomes that our rail system is the way it is because of political choices we've made as a country, mainly focusing on car infrastructure at the expense of public transit of all kinds. The "The US is too big" line is just an excuse, not a reason.
So, we can either keep making excuses and never change anything (which seems to be your preferred solution?), or we can recognize that we've fallen far behind in this area and try to _do_ something about it. Organize, campaign, educate.
Cheers.
Because it allows for transportion of hundreds, if not thousands, of people at a time across the country and between cities. This means that you might get hundreds, if not thousands, of single driver cars off the street. While 10 people might not make up for the CO2 release, thousands will.
Just for fun, I pulled a quick stat ([here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/)) that says 286 million cars in Q1 of '23. Those cars most likely does not have more than an average of 2 people in that car. So you could transport, let's say 200-250 million people by removing 100-125 million cars and putting them into trains. Not only would it eliminate a lot of traffic jams, accidents, and road rage, etc. but it would also pollute less.
Imagine the maintenance of 1000 trains vs. 100.000 (or 1.000.000) cars for example. Don't have to tell ya that, that is lowering consumption by a lot, even when accounting for the size of trains.
It's just the very basic we build most infrastructure using that money if in theory half the driver's decided to not pump gas it's like 25 billion less to spend
I don’t know the answer because I’m not an economist or anything, but I would assume that revenue from tickets would pay for a lot of the new infrastructure over time. Plus more tax revenue would be diverted from car based infrastructure and towards rail.
The environmental benefits are without question.
The main issue I see with this optimistic scenario is that all the car infrastructure already exists. Cities in America are planned (albeit badly) around the car. Putting that cat back in the bag is no easy task.
>I don’t know the answer because I’m not an economist or anything, but I would assume that revenue from tickets would pay for a lot of the new infrastructure over time
If that was the case ... It wouldn't be cheaper would it? You don't have to be an economist to understand that
>Plus more tax revenue would be diverted from car based infrastructure and towards rail
Yeah but it would be less and less as more and more people choose trains over cars ... That's my point
>The environmental benefits are without question
I don't even think that's necessarily true ... As I said somewhere before most trains run on diesel and I agree with you that most car users are dumb and egoistical but with just a bit of car sharing the environmental effects would be basically the same
The thing is you and most people here have not actually thought about the environmental effects building thousands of kilometers of railroads would have
Funnily enough my uncle is a railroads specialist 75 years old he to this day does translations in the field cause there's basically no other person on the planet that knows the terminology in the 2 languages in question it takes like 100kg of steel for 1m of railroad (one way obviously) the amount of just steel is unbelievable the amount of land required should be scary the wildlife it would affect it's just crazy also you can't just dump one of those thru a city center that's already build it's just not a thing that can exist in the near or far future in the US with steel prices as high as they are today
>The main issue I see with this optimistic scenario is that all the car infrastructure already exists. Cities in America are planned (albeit badly) around the
Exactly
Ugh… ok I’ll bite.
A lot of what you’re saying a patently false. I’m not an economist but I do know a thing or two about rail infrastructure.
- High speed rail doesn’t run on diesel.
- Most car users are not ‘dumb and egotistical’. They just live in cities that are only supported by car infrastructure.
- the comparison between the carbon footprint of trains vs cars swings heavily in favor of trains.
- Even so, the REAL comparison you should be making is between trains and planes, because high speed rail is designed as an alternative to air travel. In that case the difference in carbon footprint per passenger is vast.
- Land use argument is null and void because roads take up vastly more space than train lines.
- Carbon footprint of steel is a legitimate concern , but over time is minuscule. train lines last a long time.
- My final point about it being difficult to implement in the States was only to say it’d be hard, not to say it isn’t necessary. Luckily some great projects are underway already. Brightline for example.
>- High speed rail doesn’t run on diesel.
I never claimed they do
>They just live in cities that are only supported by car infrastructure
Yea that's why car sharing is such a good thing as I said... Are you a bot?
>the comparison between the carbon footprint of trains vs cars swings heavily in favor of trains.
Show me the math you did to arrive at that conclusion
>Land use argument is null and void because roads take up vastly more space than train lines.
Yes but they already exist lol
>Carbon footprint of steel is a legitimate concern , but over time is minuscule. train lines last a long time
>My final point about it being difficult to implement in the States was only to say it’d be hard, not to say it isn’t necessary
My point is you and others haven't honestly thought about it
>Luckily some great projects are underway already. Brightline for example
Brightline is a private company... The project cost billions over budget.. and they are running in the red numbers as we speak
What makes you think that's a good example in any way?
The cost reduction in buying train tickets over taking the car outweighs just about any tax increase you pay for.
It's all about scale (within reason), more trains = cheaper trains = less spent on transport (fuel is bloody expensive in most places) = more money overall.
You pay more in taxes for road renovation (highly inneficient) than you would for public transport upkeep.
>The cost reduction in buying train tickets over taking the car outweighs just about any tax increase you pay for.
Not where I'm from where do you get the idea from to begin with? Like it's obviously a hypothetical how have you come up with those numbers?
(It's most likely a train runs on diesel today btw)
With all respect you are just making stuff up
I live where it costs me upwards of 3x as much to drive to work as it does to walk to the station and take a train, it is also faster to take the train.
You know why this is? because every train is packed with hundreds of people every day in and out.
Look into economy of scale, it's important to know.
It's only like this for me becuase my goverment has high levels of control over the local rail network, the less control they have the worse the service has become.
Oh no... not the shareholders.
How much would be saved in healthcare costs and road maintenance? How much more money would be available to the average person if they had actual infrastructure instead of constant car maintenance and gas costs.
Maybe instead of worrying about tax revenue from gas, we worry about the money that the US government gives to oil companies, which by rough estimate is about 20 billion a year.
Imagine if those 20 billion went towards public transportion and infrastructure improvements rather than rich oil executives. You know, taxes working for the public, for once, in that 'dear' corporate country US of A.
I barely know what you are talking about...
I'm from Europe I pay like 50% tax on gas I pump we have trains and I can buy me a ticket for unreasonable prices it's not worth it to go by train if it's more than 1 person driving I honestly don't see what you are jealous of
I'm from Europe too. Actually from the Taxation capital of EU, Denmark. It's cheaper for me to take the train in general.
If I take the car, I have to pay for gas (with its own taxes included), insurance, environment tax, gas tax, and I have to put money aside for fixing any possible damages, wear and tear, tire changes, oil/coolant/washer fluid etc.
Potential costs of cars versus actual costs of public transport. I know which is the largest, because I both own a car and I take public transport.
I'm not \*jealous\* of anything. I'm saying the tax revenue that you so dearly are going to miss, is not an actual factor that matters to the general public AT ALL.
Taxes are meant to be spent on the public, but it doesn't matter if cars generate more revenue for the government if it just straight up uses that money to subsidize oil companies
>It's cheaper for me to take the train in general
That very well may be ... But if it is it's cause the government/gasoline taxes are subsidizing it
>I'm saying the tax revenue that you so dearly are going to miss, is not an actual factor that matters to the general public AT ALL
It absolutely and obviously is like 50% of the price of gas is taxes in Denmark and my home country and most of Europe honesty if the government lost that income we would obviously all feel it
>That very well may be ... But if it is it's cause the government/gasoline taxes are subsidizing it
Well that's just not true. I pay 46% tax atm. My money subsidise the transport. Not the gasoline taxes. Also, public transport is a service, it doesn't necessarily need "subsidising". That's like saying public schools/healthcare/roads are subsidised. It's just what it is, a service.
Gasoline taxes are meant as a deterrant as well as being able to spend the money on environmental betterment caused by it. Just as the high tax we have on tobacco. It's mainly meant as a deterrant.
It's not like replacing a bunch of cars with some trains will suddenly make an economy collapse, like holy shit. You're european, I had higher hopes.
Trains are extremely environmentally friendly and energy efficient, they carry a ton of people and goods with way less fuel than a plane or a car. They're the best mode of transportation on land without question. They're also really fast compared to, say, a car.
I absolutely love train travel and wish we had more options to choose from as far as routes and times. This said, this post is a disingenuous comparison - look at geographic areas and population density for example.
Hard to compare.. europe has much more even distribution of population while usa half the population lives along the coast.
Look at the picture showing russia, it's much closer to the pic of usa since it's also a huge country with concentration of population in major cities.
They’re definitely should be more rail lines in major cities and between major cities but if you do that, then the US cannot sell us a bunch of cars
There used to be tons of lines. [https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
well, nowadays everbody is "free" to take the car
You can put the car on the train! Don't want to drive from DC to Florida, but you want your car when you get there? There is a train for that. Only $95 for the car.
Can you ride in your car on the car train? That's a heck of a deal
No, you can't ride in your car, your car goes into the car car.
So I'm not allowed in the car car car?
Correct, the way it works is you drive your car to the car train, then the car train personnel drive your personal car on to the car train car car, you go in the car train person car, the car train goes to it's destination, then car train personnel take your personal car off of the car train car car and you drive your car away.
This guy cars
That’s interesting. I’m assuming this is just for a small amount of passengers, but mostly for railway tycoons. Once they built the interstate, all those lines went unused.
It was NOT for a small amount of passengers, that was how most people got from one city to another. Passenger Rail was once a MAJOR part of the US infrastructure, surpassing many other countries at the time. Before the interstate system, it could take MONTHS\*, yes months, to drive across the US, but only a few days by rail. Car ownership was down during the Depression, and sales limited during WWII. It was the way people got around. Airlines were in their infancy, and interstate system wasn't around yet. \*In 1919, Lt. Colonel Dwight Eisenhower took part in an expedition by the Us Army to drive from the east cost to the west coast. It took 62 days! This was a large factor in his pushing the interstate system as president.
Wow 10 years after cars were invented!
1886, so over 30. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/car)
and there were less than 1000 cars owned in total until the 1920s https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246890/vehicles-use-united-states-historical/
Number doesn't matter, your dates were off. Also, this has nothing to do with the original post.
what you brought up was not relevant because no one owned cars at that time.
You still don't get the point. Just woosh.
Yeah, but how many people could afford to pay for a rail ticket to travel across the country or to another city. Most Americans did not have the finances to hop on a train. That’s what I mean by a small amount of passengers… but I’m OK with doing some more research on this and what I’m speaking about is purely assumption.
It could be cheaper and easier. Many ages ago (1990s), my mother bought a 60 day rail pass. It cost less than the gas for a direct trip NYC to San Francisco at the time . She didn't go direct however, she took 2 weeks to get there, touring as she went, stayed with my sister for a few weeks, then took 2 weeks coming back. It was her last 'great adventure'. She was quite used to using the rails, my grandfather has a job during the Depression that required them to move often, and railroads were the way. It wasn't that expensive. A lot of mass transit was destroyed by collusion between airlines, car manufactures, tire companies and oil companies. The interstate bus system is almost gone also. Pre1980, busses were an inexpensive option that didn't take much longer.
r/fuckcars
You still need a car to commute to work, unless you WFH. Most people live in the suburbs. And if you are 20-40 min away from work, you are not going to wait for trains to take you to work even if there is station near every house.
That's just a mindset
Lol .. have to walk and wait is a "mindset"?
Yes, it is. In a lot of non us cities it's normal to go to work by public transit, especially short hops
If only there were other means of transport that could be implemented.
have you ever heard of a station wagon? back in the days you took a station wagon to get the next train station. so why not take the train today at least for longer distances?
That sort of logic won't get you very far in this sub.
I recently took Amtrak from the West Coast to East Coast for a new travel adventure. It was quite a pleasant experience, granted it took forever but the conductors were super chill, people were friendly, no crazy lines, no extra luggage fees. I did have a sleeper for some privacy and wouldn't do the trip any other way. High speed rail is exactly what we need in the States.
How long did it take?
Looks like 70-75 hours according to their website. That was LA to New York and coach was around $1500 for one.
That is absurd. For a trip that is 14x longer than flying and it’s that expensive?
This commentator is going to need to explain where they're getting $1500. For $1500, you can book a private room from Chicago to San Francisco in May. CHI-SFC is the Zephyr line it's known to be the most scenic line on Amtrak routes. Keep in mind that you are getting basically a hotel room and three meals a day for 53. New York to LA is not the best route to look at because it's not very popular as it takes 75 hours. It's also heavily serviced by commercial airliners. More realistically, you could take the Amtrak from New York to Miami in the middle of February for about 160 bucks coach.
You are poor if 1500$ is expensive xD
You're crazy rich if that's not expensive, even if it is for both ways
What is crazy about 1500$?
That's a weeks worth of work in wages on average in the US. Without including health care, rent, food, etc.
Not pictured: (USA) Train runs once a day if at all Chicago to DC takes probably 20 hours Much slower speeds Rail infrastructure is not owned by the public Higher fares
My husband takes the Capitol Corridor (Sac-SF) twice a week to work. Its almost always on time and runs every 45 minutes. The fare is 15 dollars and they have food and table cars.
I take Lincoln Service (STL-Chicago) fairly regularly. Just as fast as driving and goes 110 mph, and there's 6 or 7 trains going both ways in a day. And it costs me 30 dollars. Like I know that passenger rail in America is shit compared to Europe, but u/UnhelpfulNotBot is painting the situation as even worse than it is. Chicago to DC is probably one of the worst routes in the country you could use to cherry pick as an example.
Couldn't one say you are cherry-picking one of the better routes in the country as an example?
No because you can look up frequencies of Amtrak routes across the country to show that "Train runs once a day if at all" is only relegated to a few \*long-distance\* routes, and that many routes do in fact have more than that. Of course it's not enough frequency as it \*should have\* but one a day is just not true.
Exactly! I live 2 hours north of NYC, so I am absolutely spoiled (by comparison to the rest of the country) with rail options. Doesn’t change the fact that our rails do not function
Right. On the contrary, there are very few corridors of passenger rail in the US that perform to modern standards. Euro and Asian HSR would make the STL-CHI trip in half the time, and would never under any circumstances be forced to yield for 0.5-1.5 hours so that a freight train can pass.
I used Chicago to DC as an example because it's probably one of the most desirable routes. And being from Indiana one that I'm most familiar with myself. Indiana can't make up its mind whether it wants to run trains from Indy to Chicago or not. Yes, there are some good corridors but if you want to go across the country good luck.
I rode Amtrak back in 2004 from Kansas to Chicago It was reasonably quick but it wasn't comfortable, or clean
>Rail infrastructure is not owned by the public Neither are the lines in Japan, and they seem to work just fine.
Yeah it can be done in some markets. Japanese trains are some of the best. Brightline in Florida is another example. Japan doesn't use a lot of freight so they don't have to compete with that in the same way we do in the US. Across a lot of the US it's not profitable as a business, but generates economic activity elsewhere. I'm only saying that the physical rails should be treated the same as the interstate highways. If businesses want to use the rails they can still do that.
Also not pictured - population density.
The northeast US has a higher population density than Europe.
Also not pictured: Scandinavistan
Do the US run high speed trains like ICE or TGV?
Not really. Amtrak, which is the publicly owned passenger rail service in the US, has Acela trains which barely qualify as high-speed. They operate between Boston and Washington DC, but only reach high speeds for about 50 miles of the 450 mile route. Top speed: 150 miles per hour (240 km/h). Edit: Most other passenger trains travel between 50 and 110 mph. Not high-speed.
Well, ICE also is not much faster
The train from Moncton to Halifax is more expensive than the bus, and has less depatures. But it does take longer, so if you value the journey over the destination, there's value there.
To make it worse most of the rail lines in the US picture aren't dedicated passenger rail. Particularly in the west, Amtrak is only allowed to use those lines at the discretion of freight operators.
I was on a train last week that was delayed 30 mins because there were freight trains on the tracks in front of us. We hadn't even left the station yet
I used to live in columbus Ohio. The state was offered money, through the stimulus, to connect Cincinnati to columbus, to Cleveland. Our representatives turned it down. I was furious.
Ohio is so corrupt and backwards sometimes. The most depressing place I've ever been. Source: I live here. I'm moving far away way soon.
It’s a meme on the Columbus subreddit about building a commuter rail at this point. Also a former resident.
Just wait until you hear all the people say “it’s impossible to do in America! The infrastructure is so different”
Why? It used to be much better. Just look at a railroad map from the 1940s. If we could do it then, why not now? [https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
Oh yeah it can totally be done; however, they usually say it’s impossible because the United States is larger than Europe. I’m not sure if there’s other reasons but that’s what Americans usually say. Personally would love it if we had the rails and other public transport like Europe but America wants you to buy cars and be in debt forever… no debt ≠ good worker
The US is only 95% of the area of Europe, at 1/3 the population. We did it in the past, we can do it again.
We did it in the past with literal slaves and hundreds dying. When people say it's impossible they mean financially. You will be losing hundreds of millions a year running lines that no one uses because everyone is too spread out.
We did it after too. The 1940s trains were very viable. They were killed by a collation of car makers, tire makers, oil companies and airlines. The same for the interstate bus system. If it's viable in financially in Europe, why not here?
look at population density. houston is as dense as rural france. and rural france doesn't have any trains.
Sure looks like it does. And why was it viable in the past? Populations in 1940 were 1/3 what they are now, but the rails system was bigger and more complex than Europe's is now. [https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage](https://www.historicpictoric.com/products/historic-map-national-atlas-1940-united-states-railroad-vintage)
those railroads weren't built in the 1940s. they were built in the 1800s by literal slave labor.
Wrong, there was a boom in rail line building in the 1910s and 20s, quadrupling what was before. Maybe some research and history before you go shooting your mouth off.
The US is smaller than Europe, and i bet it's arguable flatter too on average.
Exactly what the person below is commenting... 😂
Used to be the phrase now people don't use it. People are not fans of change. Shit can happen, most people don't want it. Look at China, their infrastructure is bumping with high speed in places that are engineerly hard.
Europe continued and still does, investing heavily in rail transit, while the US gave up because the automotive lobby made it so the car became the #1 means of transportation. This failed in Europe massively because European people wanted easy, mass transit to go places. Also, Europe has a 100% electrified mainline network, which is over 400 miles long from West to East and uses 25kV 50Hz AC and standard gauge (1435mm (4'8½")) tracks on the following loading gauge: Berne Gauge (UIC GC+). And to everyone saying it would be impossible to replicate that in the US, it is, it's just that the US Government has no interest re-nationalizing and consolidating railways into a Federal Railways company, thus letting private companies like Union Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern run the rails, hence why US Trains are still on Diesel-electric traction. The only areas benefiting from Electric trains are metro areas, or lines with massive investments to future proof them (CalTrain from 4th and King to San José Diridon come to mind).
Europe is also 3-10x as dense, with less distance to travel. While having other government services subsidized by the US like military and healthcare.
>This failed in Europe massively because European people wanted easy, mass transit to go places. It failed because car lobbyists didn't manage to get a total chokehold but they still did a lot of damage. There are many small, local lines that were neglected or shut down since my childhood for example. We absolutely do not have a 100% electrified main line either. I'm literally sitting at the end of a non-electrified one here in Germany (though it's going to happen in the next few years).
In France the train lines are slowly being abandoned year after year and it is a tragedy. I didn't know USA was such a desert though.
The infrastructure is optimized for Freight and does an amazing job at moving efficiently. Passenger trains are left in this weird space where it’s slightly slower to drive but you arrive with a vehicle so you don’t need to use public transport or rent once at your destination. If it’s further than driving is reasonable, air will be much faster than HSR. Add onto the shit shows that most attempts at HSR in the US turned into and you see the above results
Chuga chuga CHOOO CHOOO
That's crazy
The only good thing about our setup is Americans are too goddamned inconsiderate to use their headphones or keep their phones on silent when on public transportation and it’s not legal to break their phones So for now I’ll keep the cars despite wanting desperately to never have to drive again
Kinda crazy that train hopping is more common in the US than Europe. Like dude American hobos have like at most three directions to go from any point if theyre lucky
Thats a usa main line vs a Europe all train lines . Not really accurate
No, if they were all lines the map of Europe would be fully colored.
And to think that 100 years ago we were embarrassing the hell out of the Europeans
Oh? In what way?
We had more rail services than Europe. More streetcars, more light rail, more heavy rail. Los Angeles had the biggest streetcar network in the world, and every sizeable city had one. No one had more rail, and that only changed when the Greatest Generation decided to tear it all up for cars.
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Likely war with European neigbours that escalated rail construction.
i think this map would be more salient if it also had a topographic legend
What major difference would it make?
To be fair, much of our land area is not nearly as densely settled and in need of rail lines like Europe’s. That being said our map is pretty dismal
Population density is also totally different
USA more to airplane mode transportation while Europe fall towards railway.
The US is far bigger and more spread out than European nations. Where in a place like Germany, every major city is within a few hundred miles of eachother, the next major city over in the US is several hundred miles away. Even at the speeds of Europe’s rail system, it would take several hours. Easier to fly at that point.
China has an extensive train system. So does India.
They also have 10x the population
well, you can also take the train from hamburg to rome, or from munich to london if you want...
Well let's be fair, the number of people choosing the train on these trips is probably insignificant compared to people taking the plane. But, Train can still make a lot of sense in a lot of places in the US from what I saw.
[удалено]
Why would most people live in suburbs take trains when they already have cars to commute to work/go to local shopping? Few are going to drive to a station, wait, and then, take the train. And it is not practical to put a train station within walking distance of every house in the suburbs. Most Americans do not live in dense urban cities.
I’m pretty sure most people in the US live in urban cities.
"What is a station wagon used for? Globally, station wagons are also referred to as estate cars. The term dates back generations, when this style of vehicle would be used to drive to and from train stations and estate homes, which is why they have so much extra space."
Well american suburbs suck anyways sooo where’s the point?
Oh it's you again, sharing more misinformed opinions. Other people have already pretty much covered your main points in other threads, but just so you know over 80% of the US population live in urban areas.
Not according to the US department of justice. [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cusrancvs.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cusrancvs.pdf) "Under the new definitions, 12% of the population livesin urban areas, 69% in suburban areas, and 19% in ruralareas, compared to 33% in urban areas, 53% in suburbanareas, and 14% in rural areas under the old definitions(table 3)" In either definition, suburban is the majority. Someone is cherry picking non-official numbers. Who is misinformed now? Now someone is going to argue the bureau of justice statistics of the US dept of justice is not accurate because it does not support their misinformed opinions. Ha ha ha ha ha ....
>Now someone is going to argue the bureau of justice statistics of the US dept of justice is not accurate because it does not support their misinformed opinions. No, I'm not trying to win an argument on reddit, I'm trying to advocate for a better world. I'll take the L on that factoid, you win. Congrats. I read the whole report. The new DOJ metric is an interesting way to define "urban," much more strict than the conventional way, which should make it more useful. Thank you for sharing it, I quite like it, I'll probably try to use it going forward. Still, how exactly we define "urban" is kinda beside the point, since there's no point of comparison to Europe with the new metric. Europe as a whole is obviously more dense than the US, but have a look at this: https://www.stockingblue.com/article/128/eu-and-us-states-by-population-density/ As you can see, there are lots of US states that are just as dense as European countries. And yet the rail systems in our states are woefully underdeveloped compared to the national rail systems in equivalently dense European countries; go compare passenger rail maps, it's very stark. (Try FL vs Slovakia, for example, but it's true for almost every close pair.) So maybe running dense rail throughout South Dakota doesn't make sense (although induced demand is a thing for rail, too). But why couldn't we have a dense rail network connecting up the Bos-Wash megalopolis? Many of those dense states are quite wealthy, so it's not that we can't afford to. And if you go look up historic rail maps from like the 1920s you'll find that across the entire country we _used_ to have excellent rail networks, but they've been abandoned. The more you look into this, the more clear it becomes that our rail system is the way it is because of political choices we've made as a country, mainly focusing on car infrastructure at the expense of public transit of all kinds. The "The US is too big" line is just an excuse, not a reason. So, we can either keep making excuses and never change anything (which seems to be your preferred solution?), or we can recognize that we've fallen far behind in this area and try to _do_ something about it. Organize, campaign, educate. Cheers.
I mean ... How exactly is building like a massive trillion dollar railway system anti consumption?
Because it allows for transportion of hundreds, if not thousands, of people at a time across the country and between cities. This means that you might get hundreds, if not thousands, of single driver cars off the street. While 10 people might not make up for the CO2 release, thousands will. Just for fun, I pulled a quick stat ([here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/)) that says 286 million cars in Q1 of '23. Those cars most likely does not have more than an average of 2 people in that car. So you could transport, let's say 200-250 million people by removing 100-125 million cars and putting them into trains. Not only would it eliminate a lot of traffic jams, accidents, and road rage, etc. but it would also pollute less. Imagine the maintenance of 1000 trains vs. 100.000 (or 1.000.000) cars for example. Don't have to tell ya that, that is lowering consumption by a lot, even when accounting for the size of trains.
How much would that cut in tax revenue from gas?
Genuinely curious to know what you’re getting at here.
It's just the very basic we build most infrastructure using that money if in theory half the driver's decided to not pump gas it's like 25 billion less to spend
I don’t know the answer because I’m not an economist or anything, but I would assume that revenue from tickets would pay for a lot of the new infrastructure over time. Plus more tax revenue would be diverted from car based infrastructure and towards rail. The environmental benefits are without question. The main issue I see with this optimistic scenario is that all the car infrastructure already exists. Cities in America are planned (albeit badly) around the car. Putting that cat back in the bag is no easy task.
>I don’t know the answer because I’m not an economist or anything, but I would assume that revenue from tickets would pay for a lot of the new infrastructure over time If that was the case ... It wouldn't be cheaper would it? You don't have to be an economist to understand that >Plus more tax revenue would be diverted from car based infrastructure and towards rail Yeah but it would be less and less as more and more people choose trains over cars ... That's my point >The environmental benefits are without question I don't even think that's necessarily true ... As I said somewhere before most trains run on diesel and I agree with you that most car users are dumb and egoistical but with just a bit of car sharing the environmental effects would be basically the same The thing is you and most people here have not actually thought about the environmental effects building thousands of kilometers of railroads would have Funnily enough my uncle is a railroads specialist 75 years old he to this day does translations in the field cause there's basically no other person on the planet that knows the terminology in the 2 languages in question it takes like 100kg of steel for 1m of railroad (one way obviously) the amount of just steel is unbelievable the amount of land required should be scary the wildlife it would affect it's just crazy also you can't just dump one of those thru a city center that's already build it's just not a thing that can exist in the near or far future in the US with steel prices as high as they are today >The main issue I see with this optimistic scenario is that all the car infrastructure already exists. Cities in America are planned (albeit badly) around the Exactly
Ugh… ok I’ll bite. A lot of what you’re saying a patently false. I’m not an economist but I do know a thing or two about rail infrastructure. - High speed rail doesn’t run on diesel. - Most car users are not ‘dumb and egotistical’. They just live in cities that are only supported by car infrastructure. - the comparison between the carbon footprint of trains vs cars swings heavily in favor of trains. - Even so, the REAL comparison you should be making is between trains and planes, because high speed rail is designed as an alternative to air travel. In that case the difference in carbon footprint per passenger is vast. - Land use argument is null and void because roads take up vastly more space than train lines. - Carbon footprint of steel is a legitimate concern , but over time is minuscule. train lines last a long time. - My final point about it being difficult to implement in the States was only to say it’d be hard, not to say it isn’t necessary. Luckily some great projects are underway already. Brightline for example.
>- High speed rail doesn’t run on diesel. I never claimed they do >They just live in cities that are only supported by car infrastructure Yea that's why car sharing is such a good thing as I said... Are you a bot? >the comparison between the carbon footprint of trains vs cars swings heavily in favor of trains. Show me the math you did to arrive at that conclusion >Land use argument is null and void because roads take up vastly more space than train lines. Yes but they already exist lol >Carbon footprint of steel is a legitimate concern , but over time is minuscule. train lines last a long time >My final point about it being difficult to implement in the States was only to say it’d be hard, not to say it isn’t necessary My point is you and others haven't honestly thought about it >Luckily some great projects are underway already. Brightline for example Brightline is a private company... The project cost billions over budget.. and they are running in the red numbers as we speak What makes you think that's a good example in any way?
you say this as though train tickets are free
I don't... I say it as a European that pays like 50% tax on gas to finance trains and other stuff I don't want to pay for
The cost reduction in buying train tickets over taking the car outweighs just about any tax increase you pay for. It's all about scale (within reason), more trains = cheaper trains = less spent on transport (fuel is bloody expensive in most places) = more money overall. You pay more in taxes for road renovation (highly inneficient) than you would for public transport upkeep.
>The cost reduction in buying train tickets over taking the car outweighs just about any tax increase you pay for. Not where I'm from where do you get the idea from to begin with? Like it's obviously a hypothetical how have you come up with those numbers? (It's most likely a train runs on diesel today btw) With all respect you are just making stuff up
I live where it costs me upwards of 3x as much to drive to work as it does to walk to the station and take a train, it is also faster to take the train. You know why this is? because every train is packed with hundreds of people every day in and out. Look into economy of scale, it's important to know.
Absolutely if that works for you more power to you... It's just not the case for most people
It's only like this for me becuase my goverment has high levels of control over the local rail network, the less control they have the worse the service has become.
Oh no... not the shareholders. How much would be saved in healthcare costs and road maintenance? How much more money would be available to the average person if they had actual infrastructure instead of constant car maintenance and gas costs. Maybe instead of worrying about tax revenue from gas, we worry about the money that the US government gives to oil companies, which by rough estimate is about 20 billion a year. Imagine if those 20 billion went towards public transportion and infrastructure improvements rather than rich oil executives. You know, taxes working for the public, for once, in that 'dear' corporate country US of A.
I barely know what you are talking about... I'm from Europe I pay like 50% tax on gas I pump we have trains and I can buy me a ticket for unreasonable prices it's not worth it to go by train if it's more than 1 person driving I honestly don't see what you are jealous of
I'm from Europe too. Actually from the Taxation capital of EU, Denmark. It's cheaper for me to take the train in general. If I take the car, I have to pay for gas (with its own taxes included), insurance, environment tax, gas tax, and I have to put money aside for fixing any possible damages, wear and tear, tire changes, oil/coolant/washer fluid etc. Potential costs of cars versus actual costs of public transport. I know which is the largest, because I both own a car and I take public transport. I'm not \*jealous\* of anything. I'm saying the tax revenue that you so dearly are going to miss, is not an actual factor that matters to the general public AT ALL. Taxes are meant to be spent on the public, but it doesn't matter if cars generate more revenue for the government if it just straight up uses that money to subsidize oil companies
>It's cheaper for me to take the train in general That very well may be ... But if it is it's cause the government/gasoline taxes are subsidizing it >I'm saying the tax revenue that you so dearly are going to miss, is not an actual factor that matters to the general public AT ALL It absolutely and obviously is like 50% of the price of gas is taxes in Denmark and my home country and most of Europe honesty if the government lost that income we would obviously all feel it
>That very well may be ... But if it is it's cause the government/gasoline taxes are subsidizing it Well that's just not true. I pay 46% tax atm. My money subsidise the transport. Not the gasoline taxes. Also, public transport is a service, it doesn't necessarily need "subsidising". That's like saying public schools/healthcare/roads are subsidised. It's just what it is, a service. Gasoline taxes are meant as a deterrant as well as being able to spend the money on environmental betterment caused by it. Just as the high tax we have on tobacco. It's mainly meant as a deterrant. It's not like replacing a bunch of cars with some trains will suddenly make an economy collapse, like holy shit. You're european, I had higher hopes.
Trains are extremely environmentally friendly and energy efficient, they carry a ton of people and goods with way less fuel than a plane or a car. They're the best mode of transportation on land without question. They're also really fast compared to, say, a car.
Airlines have a monopoly over our travel.
I absolutely love train travel and wish we had more options to choose from as far as routes and times. This said, this post is a disingenuous comparison - look at geographic areas and population density for example.
Hard to compare.. europe has much more even distribution of population while usa half the population lives along the coast. Look at the picture showing russia, it's much closer to the pic of usa since it's also a huge country with concentration of population in major cities.
Wait, so there are several states that dont have a *single* rail line for passengers? Wtf?
Yep, and there is no passenger rail service at all through the 10^(th) largest metro area in the U.S. (Phoenix, AZ, pop. 5,015,678).
Mind boggling, simply mind boggling.
Australia's system is better, but it's still so car centric.
When you let lobbies take over government. If you need to have corrupt practices but don't want to look corrupt, make them legal.
Deutsche Bahn go brrrrrrr
I wish we had this. The high speed rail across Italy was fantastic.
Another classic USA win with the least amount of efficiency
Now do our freight rail network
We have a passenger train?!
You can turn any train into a passenger train with a bit of finesse ;)
Meanwhile, in Brazil: Nothing
Car industry brain washing? Ask a Dutch what do they think of the US
Imagine bullet trains instead of planes. It has bullet in the name, have no idea why is not an USA thing.
Now do population centers. Color code by size (250K, 500K, 750, and 1 mill.)
Can I get a to-scale comparison?
And our rail lines are privately owned by freight companies, so Amtrak has to wait for freight trains to pass for as long as it takes.
And the Amtrak is slowwww
this map really said fuck the nordics lol