Rail Travel Popular in US

Status
Not open for further replies.
Make the legal age of car driving 19-20 years and have a InterRailish ticket allowing the kids taking cheap trips accross the country. It might start a train culture which is what is really needed.
 
Nicomacheus has made a great set ofr points there, but it has one real problem - trying to keep lines that will almost certainly not turn profits (light rail lines in cities that aren't densely populated are bloody difficult to make work) working with ones that can and will.

The Toronto Transit Commission is the most efficient major transit agency on the North American continent—and even they can cover only 80% of operating costs. In contrast the MTA in New York covers maybe 60% of operating costs.

Whether you're talking streetcars, LRT, subways, or even bus: a transit system inside a major city will never ever turn a profit if it in any way moves past the dense urban core.

The TTC made enough money to fund the Young Subway line (from Union to Bloor) out of pocket—but then they were forced to bring service outside Old Toronto and they promptly starting running an operating deficit.

The non-profit lines could be operated like the TTC in Toronto (IIRC, the only city in North America still operating large-scale streetcar lines) as a major public works outlay. But again, the suburban nature of many cities means that you need effective commuter train systems to get people to the HSR lines. Toronto, New York, Chicago and San Francisco do a good job of this. Here in Seattle, that system sucks. It varies all over the place..

Yeah, Toronto was the only city in North America that hung on to streetcars long for committed activists to save them—one key consequence is that the midsize city of Toronto operates the third largest transit system in North America (after NYC & Mexico City).

(Also if you google "Transit City" Toronto is planning a huge LRT network to complement the existing streetcar and subway network.)

However you seem to overlook the fact that no large transit agency makes money: not NYC, not Montreal, not Chicago, not anybody. Toronto's the closest at 80%.

If you want a transit system of any use to anybody outside the core, it has to be paid for in both operating costs (ideally 40-50% paid by government) and capital construction. (75-100% paid for by government).


What you need for a public transit service inside a major city, to handle all levels of service and to serve as a reasonable option to not owning a car is:

  • Commuter Rail (i.e. Toronto's GO) able to move 10,000 to 30,000 people per hour.
  • Subways, also able to move 10,000 to 30,000 people per hour.
  • Light Rapid Transit (i.e. streetcars on surface tracks, with a right-of-way and kilometre apart stops) able to move 5000 to 15,000 (10,000 to 15,000 only with exclusive right of way) people per hour.
  • Streetcars (same vehicles as LRT, just closer together stops & less right-of-way), able to move 2500 to 10,000 people per hour (7500 to 10,000 people per hour only with right-of-way).
  • Buses, able to move up to 7500 people per hour (2500 to 7500 requires right-of-way, and 7500 is basically bumper to bumper Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, like LRT) lines with kilometre apart stops, and right-of-way).


That's the mix you need for any city with a population above a couple million. Even the US cities lucky enough to have subways (LA, Chicago) don't have the LRT and streetcar network to support them[1] and so are stuck with buses—which suck, in transit terms, and should only ever be used if there isn't the people per hour demand to support a streetcar.

Now a number of US and Canadian (Calgary) cities are building / have built some LRT lines—at least in Calgary the LRT line functions as a pseudo-streetcar in the downtown core with close stops (but still the LRT-like exclusive right-of-way; also see the Spadina streetcar in Toronto), and only becomes a proper LRT outside downtown.



So regardless of what the ICC & government did to rail service in general, only the government can afford to run transit inside a major city (aside from the profitable downtown core).

How to achieve all of that? While, the government has to back it (which they did, in Toronto's case until around 1990[2]), the streetcars have to be saved from the false appeal of buses (and, of course, the anti-completive nature of car companies in that period), and LRT "test" lines need to be built in the '70s to demonstrate a reasonable alternative when a streetcar isn't enough, but a subway is (expensive) overkill.

Toronto did almost everything right—they screwed up the LRT part in the 70s/80s, long story—and doing everything almost right still resulted in an LRT network twenty or thirty years too late, and with dozens of billions of dollars wasted on unneeded subways (Sheppard) and weird LRT alternatives/failures (SRT).

So, um, actually achieving a proper public transit system is bloody difficult (where proper = solid alternative to car).




[1] NYC is dense enough that just putting subways everywhere is a pretty viable option. Most cities are nowhere near that dense.

[2] From 1990 onwards the TTC lost much of it's funding, was forced to drastically cut service, and hence ridership plummeted by 25%. Today, with something like 80% the service of 1989, the TTC moves the same number of people per day. Believe me, it gets pretty overcrowded.
 
As one who grew up in Toronto suburbs, I know everything you just said, Electric Monk. But that said, my family has always commented on just how high the TTC's operating costs are, and wages for unionized workers at anything in David Miller's Toronto are stupidly high - which is why the city is going broke in a hurry.

The problem with LRTs is that in order for them to work at all, you need to have them run through areas that are relatively densely populated. Buses are much easier to work with in suburban communities because they can serve longer routes.

The USA has a vast rail network and many thousands of abandoned railroad right of ways became trails or other uses. (Most of the entire Milwaukee Road mainline up here in the Pacific NW is that way - even the old bridges with cantenary poles, if you can believe that!) I suppose one way to help this would for Amtrak to get some of its own right of way - they really have a hard time running on time on the freight railroads' tracks in many cases.
 
The only part of your post I disagree with is the part about welfare recipients. Even with the gov't. subsidies, Amtrak tickets are usually more expensive than Greyhound. Most poor people travel long-distance by bus, not train. However, Amtrak has some good "weekly specials" that might attract some of that crowd if they were better publicised. (Currently they are only mentioned on the website, and not very prominently.)

Here in Massachusetts, Amtrak's definitely cheaper. About 4 hours by rail. I take it from Boston to Springfield all the time (about 2/3s the distance), or to Pittsfield, which is practically on the NY border. Both at 17 bucks. Meanwhile, bus is 22 at best. 36 at worst.

Even though I bash rail travel for the US, I personally love it. It works well enough for BosWash.
 
Cars will always be a frequent sight in developed countries (and even some lesser developed ones) because they are so useful and practical. You have no need to work to somebody else's schedule and can go where you wish. That means a lot to many of us.

I seem to manage OK just using trains / buses / pedal bike / walking.

On the other hand, I live in the SE of England in Greater London, which in transport terms is pretty good (although everyone likes to complain about it). Also, I tens not to travel much... maybe if I was commuting 100 miles every day I would feel differently. :)
 
My idea for this is similar to those of @TheMann, but with a major difference.

This would start with the Ripley Plan being revised like so, with the negotiation with a few railroads of course.

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island; Norfolk & Western; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line; Toledo, Peoria & Western (east of Peoria); 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (Chicago- Indianapolis route); Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; Lehigh & New England; Reading; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Chesapeake & Ohio: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Chicago, Attica & Southern; Detroit & Mackinac; Hocking Valley; Lehigh Valley; New York, Chicago & St. Louis; Pere Marquette

Wabash & Erie: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; Erie; Pittsburgh & Shawmut; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern; Wabash; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Clinchfield; Georgia Route; Gulf, Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; Mississippi Central; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville)

Southern: Chicago, Terre Hautte, and Southeastern; Columbus & Greenville; Florida East Coast; Mobile & Ohio; Norfolk Southern; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (west of Nashville); Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (south of Monon, IN, and Michigan City branch); Tennessee Central (East of Nashville)

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Seaboard Air Line; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville); Tennessee Central (West of Nashville)

Great Northern: Chicago Central & Pacific; Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Great Northern; Minneapolis & St. Louis; Northern Pacific; Spokane, Portland & Seattle

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland.

Union Pacific: Central Pacific; Chicago & North Western; Kansas City Southern; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; 50% of the Louisiana & Arkansas; Missouri-Kansas-Texas

Missouri Pacific: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Colorado & Southern; Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley;

Southern Pacific: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; St. Louis Southwestern; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; 50% of the Louisiana & Arkansas; Meridian & Bigbee; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas; St. Louis-San Francisco; Toledo, Peoria & Western (west of Peoria)

Canadian-American International: Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk Western; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saute Ste. Marie; Wisconsin Central

In addition, Roosevelt grants a bunch of cash to the railroads to built new rail lines if they want, which they naturally take to. Whereas other use the right-of-ways of then recently shut down interurbans. Among these built are...
  • A Pennsylvania line from Toledo to Ft. Wayne, and a reroute of the Butler Branch via the latter city.
  • A RF&P line from Richmond to Norfolk largely paralleling the N&W.
  • The Erie takes up most of the Indiana Railroad to better establish itself in the Midwest.
  • The Santa Fe builds...
    • To New Orleans from Oakdale
    • A line from Temple, TX to Austin and San Antonio, with a line to Houston via the former city.
    • A reroute of the New Mexico mainline from Las Vegas- Santa Fe- Albuquerque- Belen
  • The Southern Pacific builds a line from Santa Ana to San Diego, and east from LA to Las Vegas
  • The Nickel Plate takes up the Ohio Electric Company's Lima- Cincinnati line for use as a replacement for the Erie Route there.
  • The Illinois Central and Central of Georgia build a Nashville- Chattanooga route via Shelbyville and Franklin, giving up their stake in the NC&StL in the process.
  • The Louisville and Nashville replaces the eastern half of the NC&StL with a link from the old NC&StL at Nashville to their own line near Paris, TN.
  • The New York Central builds a line from Cincinnati to Kanauga, OH to better link itself with the Virginian.
  • The Baltimore and Ohio forms a contract with the NYC to build a line in Northern Pennsylvania from Pittsburgh to Williamsport to link itself better with the Reading. In return, the NYC gets trackage rights over the B&O lines from Cleveland and New York to DC.
  • The Great Northern linking Madison and the Twin Cities via La Crosse and Eau Claire
  • The Pere Marquette making their own line to Mackinaw City
In the 50s, Eisenhower funds the Interstate Highway System as in OTL, but also at the same time provides plenty of cash to renovate and upgrade the rail systems, and the ICC (along with its notorious regulatory inertia) is kicked back down to size. The Interstate Highway system is built, but the railways adapt fast. The railways starting to upgrade themselves where thy have the advantage- long distance travel.

Despite this, steam is still prominent on some railroads. Mainly in the coal-rich northeast, where many of the most technologically advanced steam engines ever built serve will into the 60s and early 70s. Even making their mark on more modern types of freight trains.

The oil crisis makes trucking look less attractive due to fluctuating fuel prices, and railways grab the advantage. Intermodal, truck trains and a new development in easily available fiberglass skids, along with railroad-trucking company agreements, removes a huge portion of truck freight from the roads, and electrified railways make the price of shipping lower still. Eventually when trucking does come to be, many roads create land ferries. Which are essentially trains where the truckers park their vehicles, then go sleep for the night until the next morning.

Passenger trains skid badly in the 1950s and 1960s, but the railroads eventually decide to go down the road of top-quality service and great accommodations instead. Virtually every railroad buys almost an entire new fleet of locomotives and cars in the 1970s, which results in a major growth in rail travel. The Auto Train concept catches on nationwide too, and expands beyond the original Lorton- Sanford route.

Express mail trains are even common at times. Including several UPS trains which are painted in a great brown, yellow, and green livery.

Electrification is the norm in most of the east and the west coast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top