Big countries vs. small countries

[coyote6]

This doesn't always hold true everywhere in the states, but for the most part, busses are seen as cheap/poor transportation.

Some places & times, busses aren't terribly reliable or convenient, for in-town use. I used the bus to get to work in San Jose for a year or so, and I had to leave 30-45+ minutes earlier than I would have with a car, because the bus took longer (frequent stops), and the schedule was such that I had a choice: early to work or late. Then there were the times the bus just didn't show up. And I had a direct route, too -- no changing lines or anything. It was as simple as could be.

For cross country trips, a bus is usually slower than driving yourself -- and if you drive, you control when and where you stop, don't have to hassle as much with luggage, etc.

With plane trips, you also get modern American airport security, which can be a drag.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even if Amtrak ran the best possible trains over dedicated passenger rail lines, train travel would be impractical for most routes within the US. The geography just doesn't work; there are very few cities that are both far enough apart that it makes more sense to take a train than drive, and close enough that it makes more sense to take a train than fly.

And even where it is, we're seemingly politically incapable of letting go of our individuality to make rail more practical.

I'm here in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. If you look at the map of Texas, you'll see we have a triangle of three of the US's biggest cities- D/FW, San Antonio, and Houston- with the state's capitol on a dead straight highway (I-35) between D/FW and San Antonio as well...and following that straight-line highway, you get to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast.

This arrangement has been called ideal for high-speed rail...and we can't get it done, mostly due to politics.

And within D/FW itself, we're struggling to get our entire region covered by light rail and busses. Some of the suburbs have actually voted against letting the railway come through.

 

[Kaodi]

There is a saying that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time.

A sentiment in the same vein was once famously expressed by a former Canadian Prime Minister. He said something along the lines of, " Europe has too much history, and Canada has too much geography. "

I think when it comes to the weather, when it says on the news that the Maritimes has been hit by such and such weather, I do sort of think of the whole Maritimes, though that is probably rarely the case.

 

[Morrus]

This doesn't always hold true everywhere in the states, but for the most part, busses are seen as cheap/poor transportation.

See, we're actively encouraged to use them. To the extent that they have dedicated lanes everywhere - it actually annoys me when I'm driving and I see busses flying through. Plus they're insanely cheap.

Trains just aren't common enough anymore except in certain metro areas and maybe the east and north east (New York, Massachusetts, D.C., etc.).

Yeah, we're lucky with our train system. We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!) The network is pretty much all-encompassing. Even the smallest towns have a train station.

 

[El Mahdi]

...

Yeah, but that's major city to major city. Try checking out Palm Beach to Grand Rapids. Almost any flight will require a plane change and layover in Atlanta or Cincinnati. Say I suddenly wanted to fly this weekend, cheapest I found was $428. Plus I'd either need a taxi to the airport, or parking fee for my car, and then a rental in GR. That's easily over $500 total and probably closing in on $600. I could drive it for about $200 in gas, and two nights in a hotel.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Yeah, we're lucky with our train system. We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!) The network is pretty much all-encompassing. Even the smallest towns have a train station.

Yeah, I envied that when I lived in England. I wish we had an affordable train system in the US. I think one of the problems though is the distances can be cost prohibitive.

I've always wanted to get a Europass and tour Europe though.

 

[drothgery]

And even where it is, we're seemingly politically incapable of letting go of our individuality to make rail more practical.

I'm here in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. If you look at the map of Texas, you'll see we have a triangle of three of the US's biggest cities- D/FW, San Antonio, and Houston- with the state's capitol on a dead straight highway (I-35) between D/FW and San Antonio as well...and following that straight-line highway, you get to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast.

This arrangement has been called ideal for high-speed rail...and we can't get it done, mostly due to politics.

Dude, it's Texas. If it's getting done, it's because no one can show the project will make money (which would not be surprising; almost no rail systems on earth make money). If high speed rail can make money at all, it can make money on LA to Las Vegas. I can imagine politics getting in the way of that, because of certain factors in CA politics. But Texas is another matter entirely.

And within D/FW itself, we're struggling to get our entire region covered by light rail and busses. Some of the suburbs have actually voted against letting the railway come through.

Light rail is not cost effective without Manhattan-esque population densities. It's just not. As many cities with nice, new light rail systems that nobody uses can tell you.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I disagree. Yes, we do.

You seem to be speaking for all Europe, but in my experience (which is reasonably large, knowing hundreds of people) the majority of the sample which I know in the UK typically travel less far on a regular basis just to see friends than people I know and know of in the US.

There may be some outliers, but in general I think the archetype/stereotype holds up pretty well.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yeah, we're lucky with our train system. We whine about it all the time, but if I think about it I have a choice of 5-6 local train stations to get on at (all within 3 miles of where I'm sitting right now), they're fast, super-easy to use, and I can go anywhere on them (including across the English Channel!) The network is pretty much all-encompassing. Even the smallest towns have a train station.

True before Beeching, but not so much now. Routes into and out of London are well served, and if you are on one of those major routes (or in one of the other large cities - including Southampton, evidently!), but cross country routes are a nightmare, mostly just not existing anymore; even when there is a usable route trains are so expensive that for more than single people they are rarely a cost effective option.

Bottom line - trains are OK (but expensive) for getting into and out of London or other cities. But for most other town to town travel are either out of the question or involve routes going into a city and then out again. And if you are trying to take a family of 3 or more, forget it! If I wanted to go to Leeds tomorrow to visit friends, we could take the train into London (45 mins), get across to Kings Cross (15 mins), wait for the train to Leeds (~30mins), take the train up to leeds (120 mins) - best case 3.5 hours. Cost about £400 for the family. Or we can drive up there in 3hrs for 17lt fuel, about £20.

There's a good reason why cars are more frequently used than trains by people all over the country outside the cities!

Cheers

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dude, it's Texas. If it's getting done, it's because no one can show the project will make money (which would not be surprising; almost no rail systems on earth make money). If high speed rail can make money at all, it can make money on LA to Las Vegas. I can imagine politics getting in the way of that, because of certain factors in CA politics. But Texas is another matter entirely.

People HAVE proven it would be profitable. Studies have shown that high speed rail in this triangle would cut transportation times for most business or political travel between those 3 cities by an hour or so- probably more, post 9/11. And it would dramatically lessen the traffic load on one of our major interstates (1-35).

The problem is that there are multiple opponents to it- airlines like Southwest, Delta and American; certain gov't agencies that would lose funding; private citizens & corporations who would likely face eminent domain proceedings, etc.- have all raised opposition to the plan.

Light rail is not cost effective without Manhattan-esque population densities. It's just not. As many cities with nice, new light rail systems that nobody uses can tell you.

Actually, DART has fairly high ridership, and its been relatively profitable with $1 tickets for several years, and only recently upped its rates in order to pay for certain extensions...like those that would go directly to the terminals of our airports.

Again, the main problem has been some of the cities in the Metroplex not wanting to contribute $$$ or to pass bills that would permit the lines to be built. Some of it is based in legitimate financial concerns, but some of it is purely obstructionist.

The political lobbying to change all of this has, of course, delayed several projects and driven up costs (hence the price increase).