Why Trains Suck in America
.jpg)
My very first trip on a train didn't occur until after graduating from college in the U.S. and visiting Europe for the first time. Since then, I've been on many trains, but only one of which was in the United States.
Train travel, if not already dead, is certainly in the terminal state in the United States. Very few people bother to ever jump on a train and when they do, they discover and antiquated system of delays, inconvenient terminals, and expensive tickets. Amtrak--the major American train service in America--is an embarrassment.
In other countries around the globe, however, trains are not only a lesson in efficiency, but already existing networks and rolling stock are constantly being upgraded into the 21st century, laments David Wolman, writing for Wired Magazine.
Take, for example, the Paris-to-Strasbourg super train which zooms between the two cities at 357 miles per hour. The company which built this high speed rail is now looking for other customers in China and India. But not the United States.
Wolman points out a couple of reasons why train travel is not as popular in the United States;
Distances are much farther between cities than they are in Europe
American roads tend to be in better condition
Gas is cheap
High speed rail is not an impossibility in America, however. There has been talk for years about building a line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. And currently, there is a bill floating around the California legislature for a high speed rail between Sacramento and San Diego. But don't get too excited. Wolman points out that the last time such an idea was under consideration in Texas, it was squashed by a powerful Southwest Airlines lobby.
Don't you just love America at times?
Filed under: Europe, North America, Airlines
Gadling's 10 days of gadget giveaways - day 10 - "super swag bag"
Gadling's Black Friday 2008 deals roundup!
So how well do these digital boarding passes work?
Photo gallery - Virgin America flight 8001 - inaugural Gogo Wi-Fi flight
Uncovering the history of African pop music
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jul 9th 2007 @ 9:10AM
Bob Goldstraw said...
Airlines should see themselves in the transportation business, not merely the air travel business. They would then have a financial interest in creating and operating a train system. Reducing air traffic congestion, equipment costs, fuel and airport expenses and the need for a huge number of highly specialized personnel all seem to be good reasons for airlines to study the possiblity of changing their paradigm.
Reply
Jul 9th 2007 @ 2:33PM
Paul said...
The one between Sacramento and San Diego is being squashed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Which is a shame. I'd love to get to San Francisco in two and a half hours.
Reply
Jul 9th 2007 @ 2:35PM
tseliot said...
That is an interesting point. Our train system and infrastructure is horrible here in the States. Interestingly enough, I never thought of the airlines contributing to this mess although it does make sense. We really do have way too many interest groups that keep preventing us from getting anything done.
Reply
Jul 13th 2007 @ 1:10AM
Jamie Rhein said...
One of the reasons for train travel demise has to do with the trucking industry. Somehow the build-up of highways and use of trucks for transporting goods go hand in hand. There was a turning point when this happened. The 1940s? Now that so much of our transportation of goods is by truck the incentive to further develop the railroads is hard to come by. There sure is an interest in scenic trains, however. If you want a neat train ride, take the train from Grand Central Station to Poughkeepsie, NY. It goes along the Hudson River. It's a cheaper way to get upstate than the bus. Of course, once you get to Poughkeepsie, then what?
Reply
Jul 14th 2007 @ 11:07AM
Marilyn Terrell said...
I love taking trains in America! It's much better than flying or driving. You get a big comfy seat, not squished between two people like in an airplane, you get a huge window that's sometimes clean and that allows you to see the world at ground level, you can get up and walk around without the train staff and fellow passengers shooting you dirty looks, you can tilt your seat back as far as you like, you don't have to take off your shoes to board, and when you arrive you're actually THERE, and don't have to take a taxi or bus into the city. Amtrak is not as perfect as trains in other, much smaller countries, but it's still worth taking. The only way they'll improve is if they see a boost in ridership and realize there's a demand, so don't delay! Call "Julie" and book your ticket: http://intelligenttravel.typepad.com/it/2006/12/tricks_of_the_t.html
Reply
Aug 7th 2007 @ 1:34AM
HighwayCinema said...
I really agree with #5 on this. Train travel is very comfortable and seems much more dignified than being crammed between two people in coach class on a plane.
When I lived in the bay area I was amazed how many people insist on flying from SF to Sacramento. Come on, do the math: Add up the time taken to get to SFO, then the long lines at the airport, long security checks, etc. By the time someone has taken a stressful plane ride to Sacramento they'd could have just taken the train and relaxed. It takes the same amount of time, pretty much. By the time the air travelers are still in line to check baggage, I'm on the train having another glass of wine and reading a good book, the NY Times or watching the scenery roll by.
I love the trains in the US, except for the frequent announcements on the PA system. Now I just plan my CD selections with good headphones, literally choosing the soundtrack to match the scenery.
Crossy-country? If I have the time, I always prefer Amtrak. Packing a great picnic for the trip is an art & and a science...
I hope Mexico brings back the passenger trains. Up until the mid-80's you could still catch and old Pullman train(from the 1930's) and it was only about $1 dollar for every hundred miles.
Reply