5 ms·

The Solution is the Train - that I don't understand why has not dominated in US, though it being a big industry in earlier part of the 20th Century

by machbio 11y ago

joesmo 11y ago
The cost of running rail to supply all the routes currently served by truck now (and generally in the last 50-60 years) is so high that it's infeasible. The less populated and poor the destination, the higher the costs (and most remote areas are both sparsely populated and poor). I think you're seriously underestimating the vastness of the US and the remoteness of the majority of it. Sure, given enough investment and dedication, a nationwide rail network would have been possible but the decision to build America as a car/truck country was taken in the late 40's/early 50's and it's too late to reverse that, even at a governmental level. People expect to live in remote areas now and have all the comforts of a city. That's simply not possible with rail at a sane cost. Not only are cars and trucks more flexible, but the transportation expenses can be shared between commercial and personal transportation. People in America generally don't take trains (and don't like them) and outside of small regional areas, passenger trains are mostly a novelty that run sometimes days late. Between the geography and people's attitudes/expectations, there is no room for trains in America and it shows.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  And Amtrak only exists because the USG didn't want to let all passenger rail services die completely, so it's propped up by tax dollars.
- spqr0a1 11y ago
  Ah, but road transport isn't really shared between commercial and personal transportation. Road maintenance is in large part funded by fuel tax. Fuel use is roughly proportional to vehicle weight at low speed, or frontal area at high speed. While wear to the road is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. So trucking is heavily subsidised by smaller cars. If the costs created by trucking were internalized, the market share in the shipping industry would likely shift considerably toward rail transport.
  - selectodude 11y ago
    Which would be an issue as most major US rail corridors are already running at peak capacity.
- joveian 11y ago
  The worst part is that it did exist and was removed. A lot of folks don't realize just how extensive the rail network was.
kctess5 11y ago
Well, we already have one of the worlds most extensive road systems. Building the same with rails would be a monumental undertaking, but putting smarter trucks on the road would be almost free. So there's that...
bro-stick 11y ago
(Didn't downvote.) There is rarely, if ever, a singular "the solution" to an issue. Trains, boats, planes, trucks, couriers, etc. serve semi-overlapping needs. Trains did dominate the U.S. before the auto industry convinced people cars and highways were "better," and local commuter trains were scrapped over large parts of America. Yes, Europe has loads of them and you can't book an actual train ticket from Paris to Amsterdam (Thalys) online ahead-of-time either. As a result of this indoctrination, a cultural allergy to trains became a core value of Americanism... single-occupant car == freedom, train/bus == low class.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  You can book tickets online for Thayls here: http://m.thalys.com/ http://m.thalys.com/
bluedino 11y ago
Trucks are much more versatile. Rail still reigns supreme for transport in a handful industries, however.
A_COMPUTER 11y ago
Trucks offer vertical integration. You get to a certain size, you own your own trucks. Can't do that with rail, you're always under the thumb of the rail companies.

The Solution is the Train - that I don't understand why has not dominated in US, though it being a big industry in earlier part of the 20th Century

by machbio 11y ago

The Solution is the Train - that I don't understand why has not dominated in US, though it being a big industry in earlier part of the 20th Century

joesmo 11y ago

The cost of running rail to supply all the routes currently served by truck now (and generally in the last 50-60 years) is so high that it's infeasible. The less populated and poor the destination, the higher the costs (and most remote areas are both sparsely populated and poor). I think you're seriously underestimating the vastness of the US and the remoteness of the majority of it. Sure, given enough investment and dedication, a nationwide rail network would have been possible but the decision to build America as a car/truck country was taken in the late 40's/early 50's and it's too late to reverse that, even at a governmental level. People expect to live in remote areas now and have all the comforts of a city. That's simply not possible with rail at a sane cost. Not only are cars and trucks more flexible, but the transportation expenses can be shared between commercial and personal transportation. People in America generally don't take trains (and don't like them) and outside of small regional areas, passenger trains are mostly a novelty that run sometimes days late. Between the geography and people's attitudes/expectations, there is no room for trains in America and it shows.

bro-stick 11y ago
And Amtrak only exists because the USG didn't want to let all passenger rail services die completely, so it's propped up by tax dollars.
spqr0a1 11y ago
Ah, but road transport isn't really shared between commercial and personal transportation. Road maintenance is in large part funded by fuel tax. Fuel use is roughly proportional to vehicle weight at low speed, or frontal area at high speed. While wear to the road is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. So trucking is heavily subsidised by smaller cars. If the costs created by trucking were internalized, the market share in the shipping industry would likely shift considerably toward rail transport.
- selectodude 11y ago
  Which would be an issue as most major US rail corridors are already running at peak capacity.
joveian 11y ago
The worst part is that it did exist and was removed. A lot of folks don't realize just how extensive the rail network was.

kctess5 11y ago

Well, we already have one of the worlds most extensive road systems. Building the same with rails would be a monumental undertaking, but putting smarter trucks on the road would be almost free. So there's that...

bro-stick 11y ago

(Didn't downvote.) There is rarely, if ever, a singular "the solution" to an issue. Trains, boats, planes, trucks, couriers, etc. serve semi-overlapping needs. Trains did dominate the U.S. before the auto industry convinced people cars and highways were "better," and local commuter trains were scrapped over large parts of America. Yes, Europe has loads of them and you can't book an actual train ticket from Paris to Amsterdam (Thalys) online ahead-of-time either. As a result of this indoctrination, a cultural allergy to trains became a core value of Americanism... single-occupant car == freedom, train/bus == low class.

Symbiote 11y ago
You can book tickets online for Thayls here: http://m.thalys.com/ http://m.thalys.com/

bluedino 11y ago

Trucks are much more versatile. Rail still reigns supreme for transport in a handful industries, however.

A_COMPUTER 11y ago

Trucks offer vertical integration. You get to a certain size, you own your own trucks. Can't do that with rail, you're always under the thumb of the rail companies.