Why is America's rail system so underdeveloped?

Airplanes knocked them out of the box, because of speed.

Because of the whole automobile thing. Originally, towns would grow up around the rail system. Then, when we had cars, people started designing cities around those, instead of rail.

I agree and feel strongly about this. I wish this was not the case. I’m jealous that a high speed train is planned to run from Atlanta onto Chicogo, far removed from me.

Also, size matters. Europe is considerably smaller, making the train more appealing.

Above all true, but I think it’s also because in the American culture, unloike Europe’s, the railroad is considered an old fashioned mode of transportation.

This might be interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

@bob_

Europe:
3,930,000 sq mi

USA incl AK:
3,794,101 sq mi

during the great boom in railway development, USA was far behind Europe in terms of wealth and population density, therefore the routes planned were only long-distance or in the small areas of high-density.

The populations are roughly the same now, but, in 1850, the entire North American population was one tenth that of the European. Even by 1900, it was still only a fifth, and that’s not long before automobiles and aeroplanes hit the scene.

@The_Idler See here.

One contributing factor was actually WWII. During the war, passenger trains were needed for troop transport, so there was an actual campaign to discourage people from taking the train. The trains took a beating through all of this hard use too, and after the war it was difficult for industry to replace the now shabby equipment in time to meet the post-war demand for travel. The net result was that people found other ways to get around, and these new habits stuck.

The rail industry also dropped the ball. Passenger service was balkanized into non-cooperating private lines. Rail advertising was far outpaced by automotive advertising. And governments, both local and federal, poured resources into airports and highways giving them a competitive advantage over the privately funded rail systems. By the time Amtrack came along in the 70’s, the transormation in travel habits was already too entrenched.

An enormous, wealth producing domestic auto industry, post WWII interstate highway system promoted by President Eisenhower, large geographic area to cover, competition from air and highways, cheap gasoline, (back in the day) and the failure of the railroads to recognize that they were all about moving people and stuff, not all about tracks and locomotives.

My money goes with @Nullo. We wanna drive our hummers caddy’s around.

@bob_ Europe isnt on that list because it isnt a country…. <_<

also, I just realised I made a mistake. Europe actually has a population of over 700 million, while the US population is still only about 300 million,
making Europe’s population density 181/sq mi, while the USA is only about 87/sq mi.

Also, one-third of the world’s assets are managed within Europe, more than in any other region.

Also, Europe’s total GDP is about US$19 trillion, compared to the USA’s US$14 trillion.

So Europe is still the weathiest, most productive and most densly populated region of the world, significantly, in this case, ahead of the USA, explaining the far higher standards of public transport.

High wealth-density favours such planned, integrated transport systems…

@The_Idler It’s a good bet that most rail travel in Europe is within the countries that comprise it.
Keep in mind that the European infrastructure was largely developed in the days before the automobile. Cities are denser, and the distance between places is shorter. It’s rather like the setup on the East Coast. Such environments are fine for trains, which take up relatively little space, and are lousy for cars, which you need to park. Whilst in Italy, we would often take the train rather than drive for that very reason.
Rail service to rural areas is limited, though. So we would drive to visit our friends in the mountains.

Cheap gas and I also think many Americans look down their noses at their fellow citizens and wouldn’t want to sit next to them.

@Nullo “Keep in mind that the European infrastructure was largely developed in the days before the automobile. Cities are denser, and the distance between places is shorter. It’s rather like the setup on the East Coast.”

Yeah, that’s actually exactly what I had in mind when I was talking about the far higher wealth-population-density of Europe during the boom in rail development, before the advent of air and auto transport, which continues to this day, excepting the small areas of equivalent density in the USA, i.e. New England, where I believe there is an almost passable integrated public transport network…?

To a European, everywhere in the USA except New England seems to be in the middle of nowhere…

@The_Idler It’s hardly Europe’s fault that they ran out of room.

Freight owns the US rails and freight companies bought into trucks. In order to fix the problem it would require a great investment in human transit rail.

@JeanPaulSartre – I tend to agree with that. From the people I’ve talked to, it seems like freight-hopping is more popular than Amtrak for cross country travel. Could the same rail lines not be used for both, or even combining cars to make freight/travel engines, or are there simply too many logistical problems I’m not seeing to making such an arrangement work. It’s a pity, since it seems like almost everywhere has a freight line, even my little Amtrak-less town.

@Smashley I agree and wish it happened that way… but I’m under the impression that the freight companies charge a premium to use their rails and passenger travel doesn’t pay as well, requires better maintained tracks, needs to be fed, etc.

Fossil fuel lobby. Short-term thinking.