US Rail System Transportation?

[Johnrankins]

You have a point there, as the closure of passenger railroads corresponds precisely to the biggest moves in civil rights. (Of course, we can’t forget trucks, highways and the postal service.) Another issue is that many communities were glad to see curtailment in railroads. I live in such a town. I moved to Quincy, Illinois in 1979 and people born in the thirties spoke of a raucous “little Chicago” reputation of the rail town. There was an attitude of “good riddance” as the hobos and red light districts disappeared. Other towns shared similar feelings. In 1978, movie producers wanted to make a film about Chicago and gangsters set in the thirties. They wanted to film in Rock Island, some 130 miles north. Rock Island said “no,” they worked hard to dispel that reputation. Movie producers managed to find a town in Canada. [That same year, the University of Missouri and City of Columbia said “no” to Hollywood as their choice to film “Animal House,” sending the project to second choice, Eugene, Oregon.]

Racism is an overused explanation. It is the go-to explanation for "Something I don't like". Most problems in the world have little or nothing to do with racism. When someone uses the word "racist" the first thing that comes to mind is "What are they trying to manipulate into believing?". At this stage it so overused that people will disbelieve accounts of real racism assuming it is just a trick for getting them to agree about something.

The biggest reasons had nothing to do with racism. The price of cars was falling relative to wages, the states and the federal government were building more roads, transit companies were bought by car companies who wanted to use busses which they made instead of trams which they did not. Cars were seen as modern while trains were seen as 19th century. All these and probably more are a better explanation than racism.

 

[Devvy]

That was just an upgrade of already existing track. Doing things like extending electrification and eliminating grade crossings. All of the proposed systems since require building a completely new Right of Way. That balloons the cost enormously. It's really Apples to Oranges.

Disagree. You're mixing construction costs and operational costs. Amtrak on the NEC proves that intercity/interstate rail transport can be operationally viable, that Americans will pay to use that service in preference to a car or plane in certain situations. The point is that operational revenues can cover the cost of operating the service (if not turn a profit).

I'm happy to agree that construction costs will be large for building a new route. That's why the network analysis in the Mid-West I reference used a lot of existing rail right-of-way, and saved the new high speed tracks for the countryside where land is cheaper. It's not as if a train will be able to run at 200mph 2 miles out from a station stop anyway.

To be clear, I'm definitely not saying you could lay down HSR everywhere in the US. Not even in most areas of the US. But a few targeted areas; the Mid-West, the North-East, and maybe Florida.

 

[Marc]

Racism is an overused explanation. It is the go-to explanation for "Something I don't like". Most problems in the world have little or nothing to do with racism. When someone uses the word "racist" the first thing that comes to mind is "What are they trying to manipulate into believing?". At this stage it so overused that people will disbelieve accounts of real racism assuming it is just a trick for getting them to agree about something.

The biggest reasons had nothing to do with racism. The price of cars was falling relative to wages, the states and the federal government were building more roads, transit companies were bought by car companies who wanted to use busses which they made instead of trams which they did not. Cars were seen as modern while trains were seen as 19th century. All these and probably more are a better explanation than racism.

As it happens I have a note card on car prices compared to income as a percentage (these are based on average car price and average household income).


1940: 58.48%

1950: 45.50%

1960: 48.97%

1970: 35.90%

1980: 36.07%

We seemed to have returned full circle: in 2015 the percentage ratio was 58.22%

 

[Johnrankins]

As it happens I have a note card on car prices compared to income as a percentage (these are based on average car price and average household income).


1940: 58.48%

1950: 45.50%

1960: 48.97%

1970: 35.90%

1980: 36.07%

Which shows a decent drop over time. A 22% drop in price relative to wages is quite substantial.

 

[Marc]

Which shows a decent drop over time. A 22% drop in price relative to wages is quite substantial.

Yes, but I added my last numbers as of 2015 - we have gone back to new cars being priced over 50% of household income.

 

[Johnrankins]

Yes, but I added my last numbers as of 2015 - we have gone back to new cars being priced over 50% of household income.

Which has what to do with passenger rails during the Civil Rights era which is long behind us?

 

[Driftless]

Yes, but I added my last numbers as of 2015 - we have gone back to new cars being priced over 50% of household income.

FWIW: Until this century, pickup trucks were primarily a farm or construction utility vehicle, where the box had "stuff" in it more often than the passenger side of the bench seat. It was a comparatively in-expensive vehicle category.

Today's pickups are very often upscale people haulers with a great many amenities. It's rare for those suburbanite vehicles to haul anything in the box - at all - or if they do, it's groceries, potted plants, or the odd kayak. It's common for those vehicles to run $40k and higher.

 

[Marc]

FWIW: Until this century, pickup trucks were primarily a farm or construction utility vehicle, where the box had "stuff" in it more often than the passenger side of the bench seat. It was a comparatively in-expensive vehicle category.

Today's pickups are very often upscale people haulers with a great many amenities. It's rare for those suburbanite vehicles to haul anything in the box - at all - or if they do, it's groceries, potted plants, or the odd kayak. It's common for those vehicles to run $40k and higher.

It's clearly obvious that the greater expense in time, since the 1980's, is a voluntary choice as opposed to obligatory.
One significant factor in my quick listing that isn't in the numbers is the operational costs of owning a car over the decades; which has unquestionably grown - in fact I suspect if anyone wants to get more granular about overall costs, they are likely to find that current automotive ownership costs might be at peak highs per household. Add the increased number of cars per household... an historical footnote if you will about that:
Caltrans is the state agency that builds and operates the highway system in California. They developed a very sophisticated set of projected demands right after WW2 in terms of where and how large to build the highway system. They were remarkably accurate in terms of population growth and patterns of settlement, first rate applied social demography. However they utterly failed in estimating total vehicles - they worked with an assumption that car ownership per household would be a little over 1 vehicle (in total, that takes in low income families, singles etc); the reality turned out closer to 2.

 

[Dan1988]

Certainly, intracity rails are much more practical and give you more "bang for the buck". At the very least you need to pick the "low hanging fruit" first. Why do HSR when building more trams, buses, subways and elevated trains will solve the problems people here are talking about much more efficiently? I think a lot of people are picking "flash" over substance. An ultra-modern HSR is flashier than a bunch of boring diesal buses or trams so they pick that

In my area, though (and I am in part of the NEC, although in an area relatively between Boston and New Haven), intracity rail only works well if you have some sort of feeder system for suburban commuters (and in combo with other modes like buses, so it's not a be-all/end-all). Fortunately, in the upper reaches of the NEC, which tend to be VERY congested, we had some of the few remaining commuter rail systems still in operation, and despite all problems were still frequently used. The choice therefore is not either this form of rail service or that form of rail service, but to see it as an integral system which needs a wholistic plan for growth and development. In that case, commuter rail and intracity rail go together as integral parts which need attention. Then commuter rail can be scaled up to cover the missing links in the network, including linking different regions together, i.e. different areas of the NEC (something which would be more of a reality once Boston's North-South Rail Link comes through), and thus driving demand for both intracity and the main commuter rail links. In that case, it would be commuter rail, not long-distance rail, that would be the driver of passenger rail in the US.

(As for HSR - the current quasi-HSR is basically the best which can be done for the NEC because most potential routes are already covered by existing infrastructure, which because it's older has a lot of curves. Now, that does not mean that that's an obstacle - plenty of other places manage to make HSR work within existing infrastructure. The main problem in the US's - and Canada's, too - case are the regulations set by the ICC. If the rules could be relaxed even a little, that would help quite a bit. And don't put Westinghouse anywhere near a train; that is basically the US rail version of Lucas electronics for British cars.)

 

[Johnrankins]

In my area, though (and I am in part of the NEC, although in an area relatively between Boston and New Haven), intracity rail only works well if you have some sort of feeder system for suburban commuters (and in combo with other modes like buses, so it's not a be-all/end-all). Fortunately, in the upper reaches of the NEC, which tend to be VERY congested, we had some of the few remaining commuter rail systems still in operation, and despite all problems were still frequently used. The choice therefore is not either this form of rail service or that form of rail service, but to see it as an integral system which needs a wholistic plan for growth and development. In that case, commuter rail and intracity rail go together as integral parts which need attention. Then commuter rail can be scaled up to cover the missing links in the network, including linking different regions together, i.e. different areas of the NEC (something which would be more of a reality once Boston's North-South Rail Link comes through), and thus driving demand for both intracity and the main commuter rail links. In that case, it would be commuter rail, not long-distance rail, that would be the driver of passenger rail in the US.

(As for HSR - the current quasi-HSR is basically the best which can be done for the NEC because most potential routes are already covered by existing infrastructure, which because it's older has a lot of curves. Now, that does not mean that that's an obstacle - plenty of other places manage to make HSR work within existing infrastructure. The main problem in the US's - and Canada's, too - case are the regulations set by the ICC. If the rules could be relaxed even a little, that would help quite a bit. And don't put Westinghouse anywhere near a train; that is basically the US rail version of Lucas electronics for British cars.)

When I talk intracity rail I am talking about the entire metro area. I probably should have said metro rail instead which would have been clearer. Most mass transit systems do that already. Milwaukee's covers places like Shorewood, Wauwatosa and West Allis. Seattle's covers Redmond, Bainbridge, Bremerton and others which makes it an entire regional net, not just King County. So there are your suburban feeder lines. It might make sense to build a tramway from West Allis to Milwaukee. It makes no sense to build a big, expensive HSR from Milwaukee to Minneapolis via Madison. The costs way, way outweigh the benefit.

 

[Marc]

Slightly off main topic: I was curious as to whether we ever had direct rails links to Canada or Mexico. Vaguely recall reading we might have had one to Ontario at some point, but as far as I know, never to Mexico; in the later case I could easily envision a link from say San Antonio down to Monterrey.

 

[SsgtC]

Slightly off main topic: I was curious as to whether we ever had direct rails links to Canada or Mexico. Vaguely recall reading we might have had one to Ontario at some point, but as far as I know, never to Mexico; in the later case I could easily envision a link from say San Antonio down to Monterrey.

Huh? There are multiple cross border rail lines to both Canada and Mexico. Both CN and CP operate extensive trackage in the US and it's not uncommon to see Ferromex engines in UP and KCS trains (the engines are being used as "Pool Power")

 

[Marc]

Huh? There are multiple cross border rail lines to both Canada and Mexico. Both CN and CP operate extensive trackage in the US and it's not uncommon to see Ferromex engines in UP and KCS trains (the engines are being used as "Pool Power")

My apology, I was thinking specifically of passenger traffic, I am aware of freight.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Slightly off main topic: I was curious as to whether we ever had direct rails links to Canada or Mexico. Vaguely recall reading we might have had one to Ontario at some point, but as far as I know, never to Mexico; in the later case I could easily envision a link from say San Antonio down to Monterrey.

Amtrak operates the Maple Leaf (New York-Toronto) and the Adirondack (NYC- Montréal) and formerly the International (Toronto-Chicago)

 

[DougM]

The train tunnel to Canada from Michigan (well one of them) basically sits under the largest (ex) train station in Detroit. It used to see passenger service on a daily basis

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Being from South Bend, IN most trips I take to Chicago have been on the South Shore interurban.

Personally, my ideal US Rail system would look something like OTL's NS/South Shore tracks. Albeit more like the Steel Interstate.

 

[Marc]

Thanks to all who responded about my "international" rail traffic query. I take it we didn't have a connection to Mexico, which given our chronically sensitive relations shouldn't be a surprise, albeit a small regret.
I was reminded by my wife, who has the easily superior memory, that Amtrak's Cascades runs from Vancouver BC down to Eugene and back.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

SP and MoPac (usually with NdeM) have operated trains into Mexico. SP trains were usually along the California border (Calexico and Tijuana) while MP and NdeM ran trains from Mexico City via San Antonio to points north. This market was never as large as the US-Canada international market because of Mexico's internal instability and the lack of economic ties, so the trains were not as well-established.

 

[phx1138]

During the GD HSR didn't exist. The best you could maybe do the 100 MPH rail you suggested but I doubt it would have a huge impact.

Not immediately, perhaps. The basis for upgrading in the '50s & '60s will have been laid, however, making it not a zillion-dollar project since it's not being built fresh.

I think a lot of people are picking "flash" over substance. An ultra-modern HSR is flashier than a bunch of boring diesal buses or trams so they pick that

I'm not. It's just this thead isn't about urban trams or radial rail. (I started a thread on radials, but nobody wanted to comment. {Maybe I shouldn't have focused on Canada?})

I'd happily have much improved radials & elevated urban tram systems rather than buses, & I'd strongly advocate it as a GD jobs program.

The trouble with it is, FDR was trying to break the electric power monopolies, & they owned & operated a lot of tram systems. That means he'd have to see a separation, & be willing to support the trams while breaking the power monopolies.

I continue to wonder how much more profitable the heavyweight railways (& interurbans) would be if they didn't pay taxes on the land under their rails. (Seriously?)

 

[SsgtC]

The trouble with it is, FDR was trying to break the electric power monopolies, & they owned & operated a lot of tram systems. That means he'd have to see a separation, & be willing to support the trams while breaking the power monopolies.

And the problem with that is, without being owned by the power company, trolleys and trams became prohibitively expensive to operate. Most trolley systems were already money losers. But the electric companies could write it off as an advertising expense and lower their tax bill. That made it worth it to them. An independent trolley company would just lose money and go bankrupt.