In addition, I don't think that non-Americans (and this is not just people not in the US; this is non-Americans in general) realize just how empty North America is. Building a viable rail network outside of the cities, particularly in the western part of the continent, just is not possible.
And yet it was by the laying of rail that you populated the US continent…
Surprisingly, not true. First, much of the colonization was incremental: your parents would move west, and then you, in your turn, would move further west. Second, almost all of the colonization was done with wheelbarrows, no matter where it started -- travel by train was *very* expensive.
Australia has viable Public Transport with 1/15th the population of the US and approxiamately the same land area as the lower 48 states.
This... actually sounds like the exact situation in which trains make the most sense. Trains have a lot of momentum and can zoom around carrying a lot. They're good for long extended hauls where you don't need a lot of small stops or fooling around. You just connect up the cities.
In 1930, the US had over 250,000 miles of rail connecting EVERY city. It also had a significantly lower population density. In 2022 the US had about 93,000 miles of rail, less than it had in 1880. There are definitely issues with rail, but "population density" isn't one of them.
The biggest issue being "cars get there faster, closer, and when you get there you have, like, your car with you."
The only places many, maybe most USAians are ever on public property today are on the highway in a private vehicle or in an airport, which involves an invasive and stupid inspection by an unaccountable government agency. Both involve money to be there. I think about this from time to time.
I took the California Zephyr from Denver to Emeryville with my parents once. While passing through Utah: Mom: "I wonder what people do out here?" Me: "Do you see any signs of people?" (Driving on highways there are at least generally hamlets with gas stations every so often, not so with trains.)
Although the US govt should definitely improve rail service in the Acela corridor. I say this disinterestedly and not because I hate driving and would like there to be decent rail service if I visit the US.
Which ignores the same can be said about chunks of Europe. There are still viable high speed train connections between countries even those with water between them. West coast north and south. North East. Chicago out to Midwest and Texas. All match similar European layouts in terms of distance/pop
Counterpoint, we are much richer than Europe (and technology has some a long way) and if we had the will we could do it. As my example, I will cite China.
Obviously Scalzi is correct that you cannot just take a train basically anywhere in the US outside the DC-Boston corridor (and even then it is slower than driving and costs as much as flying), but it doesn't have to be that way.
I love the fact that it is quicker to take the train from Philly to Baltimore than it is to drive. (And usually cheaper.)
I recently was in Cleveland and deliberately chose to take the train back to NJ just to know what the experience was like. There were two trains out, and mine left at the highly convenient 2 AM.
I'm in Cincinnati. Our ONE train only comes through 2-3 times a week, heads for either Chicago or (IIRC) NYC, & everything happens at 4am. (On the plus side, our rail station is in the basement of the Hall of Justice.) I will bore anyone who stands still about my desire for Ohio passenger rail.
I have thought about visiting friends in Toronto by overnight train, but the challenge is getting to Cleveland so I can catch the connection to Buffalo. Driving to Cleveland takes 5+ hours. Flying adds so much hassle I might as well just save ALL the time and fly the whole way.
The train from Boston to NYC is faster than driving when you factor in the traffic in Connecticut... And I've seen people get tickets for $30 each way if you book far enough ahead and don't take the Acela.
Boston to NYC, and NYC to DC, are faster than driving if you're doing it during rush hour. But not always.
My kid wanted to go from New Jersey to South Carolina this summer by train and it was going to take 24 hours and cost more than flying Newark to Columbia. I just bought them a plane ticket.
I came to a similar conclusion when I looked at ways to get from San Jose to Seattle for WorldCon. There actually is a train that runs between those two cities! But it would cost almost as much as flying and take 24 hours as opposed to 2-2.5 hours.
Driving would be significantly faster than the train, if you’re unhinged enough to drive 13 hours without stoping for the night.
Sigh. 40+ years ago I worked on that train. The saying goes, if you want to enjoy your destination, fly. If you want to enjoy your trip, take the train.” Not always, but usually the train is a wildly better experience. Obviously, it should be faster, but…capitalism and dysfunctional government
I would kill for a proper NEC extension to the Carolinas. I have close friends in the Charlotte area and hate dealing w/ the hassle of flying just to visit them.
It’s actually not slower than driving. That’s a fantastic rail line, especially the DC-NYC leg. I grew up taking that route regularly and was shocked by the terrible train service when I moved to California after college.
It is slower than driving the places I have used it (Philly-NYC and NC to DC or Philly). Acela is faster than driving, but costs more than a flight.
Ah, gotcha. It falls apart south of DC. The access and times into VA and NC are terrible, that’s definitely true. But DC to NYC (the route I took most often) is Europe-level good.
The regular Northeast express from DC to NYC takes 3-ish hours. Way faster than driving. Just still bitter than the last southbound NEX train out of NYC (11PM) has a 4 hour layover in Philly and doesnt get into DC until 6AM anymore. Cant do day trips anymore.
I take the train from Philly to NYC and vice versa quite often, and it's definitely faster than driving. The Keystone Express (not Acela) is 90 minutes to 2 hours, which is the same as driving and more consistent than having to deal with Lincoln Tunnel traffic. My last train was like $40 RT.
Fwiw, when adding travel time to the airport, security, boarding, and the necessary buffer in case any of that goes wrong, NEC trains are frequently faster than flying. I just show up to Penn a half hour before my train leaves and I'm good. (Driving has a labor cost often ignored in this calculus)
Regular, sold-out trains between Portland, OR and Seattle, WA! We were excited for more runs and upgraded trains, but, with Trump being bought off by Big Oil, who knows what's gonna happen.
Will get better when new train sets arrive next year to replace those taken offline for corrosion. amtrakcascades.com/about/new-am...
Absolutely. Hooray for trains to Portland! And also the EastLink, and the Lynnwood extension.
Is it as ubiquitous as in Europe? Of course not. But I take the train between Detroit & Chicago very regularly and it's great. Comfortable, reasonably fast, very convenient, and pretty cheap. If we subsidized rails as much as we do roads, it would be even better.
I take the MKE-Chicago train and it's wonderful. It's fast, it's convenient, and, when you consider tolls and wear and tear on the car (not to mention downtown Chicago parking), it costs the same or even less.
I have also taken the Minneapolis-MKE train and it's way better than driving. I watch the beautiful post-glacier scenery or read my book while someone else drives me.
When I was in college I took the train from Denver to Providence and back a few times. It took two days and a long layover in Chicago and I loved it bc I love trains. It was also an odd mix of people who could afford to fly (it was as costly) but chose not to for whatever reason, so that was fun too
And the scenery is amazing!
but a functioning train system would primarily help poorer people, and we can't have that
the US is richer per capita than some European countries and poorer than others tbh
Welllll...no. China does have a great rail service in the part of the country which is densely populated, but it is nowhere nearly as good in the rest of the country. And the rest of the country? Is as empty as north America and much more impassible: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
Yes, and the US could accomplish that. We could have adequate rail from Miami to Boston and out the Midwest, and all along the west coast and several lines across east to west. It can't be as dense as the UK, but it can be close to Europe for the majority of people.
Some of this is choice. If companies were willing to put offices in places like Spokane and Ellensburg in Washington, a high-speed rail across the state would make a lot of sense. And it would allow Seattle infrastructure time to catch up with growth and perhaps save Puget Sound.
It would also bring higher paying tech jobs to places in the eastern part of the state. Not everyone wants to move to Seattle. IBM and GE did this in the late 50's and 60's. You could work in places you could afford to raise kids in.
Columbus, Ohio is the largest US city with NO passenger rail. Which makes NO DAMNED SENSE. It's the state capitol! It's the largest city! It has the biggest university! Biggest Uni football team! It's right in the middle of the state! It's on a straight line btw Pgh and Indy, both served by Amtrak!
In my dreams … Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati connected by train. Instead of building I-73, we also connect Traverse City to Lansing to Ann Arbor to Toledo to Columbus and on south by train.
How do people get from Michigan to South Carolina today? Seems a very specific wish! (Though I agree that rail would be better!)
I only know the current route between Columbus and the U.P., which is mostly on U.S. 23 and I-75, two-lane freeway at a minimum most of the way. People apparently dislike the part with the traffic lights/stop & go between Delaware and I-270. (A problem that could also be alleviated with a train!)
Madison, WI also has no passenger rail. There’s an old station near the center of town that was used for retail. To get a train, you have to go to Columbus, WI, 30 miles away.
Counterpoint: China
It depends on what you mean by "a viable rail network". Because of the size of the US, a long haul electric rapid freight rail network would be well worth establishing, and be cheaper than the equivalent subsidy being paid for long haul truck freight ...
... and long haul rapid passenger rail would certainly be viable on rail corridors designed for rapid freight rail. What kills the viability of the long western routes is running them on slow, bulk freight rail corridors. ...
... meanwhile, anyone who judges the viability of true High Speed Rail corridors based on sketching random long haul routes on the map rather than starting from the most viable routes first is simply not engaging in a serious discussion of US High Speed Rail.
Yes but we don’t do that bit either :)
In part because the oil companies have a hobby of fighting High Speed Rail because building too many of the viable High Speed Rail corridors would create mode shifts away from passenger motor vehicles and some of the highest frequency spoke route in airline hub and spoke systems. ...
... this is why the dominant economic hegemon rarely replaces itself, because the vested interests use political influence to shore up their position as they go obsolete, so it's other places that have the freedom to do the things that are not obsolete.
It's possible, alright. It's just not profitable. You'd have to invest a lot of money into planning, construction, meeting regulations, future-proofing, etc, and it wouldn't have a huge return on investment in terms of direct revenue. So you'd need a mindset of "who does this help?"
The barrier is that nobody thinks that way; whether they're in business or government, they think "what does this cost?" Which is literally why we can't have nice things.
Building out interstate passenger rail networks is at least as possible as building out interstate highways, and we did that one. The only reason we think it isn't possible anymore is because we haven't already done it, and the conservatives who don't like changing anything are in charge.
bro we did it in the fucking 19th century
No, we didn't. I live at the Western terminus of the Great Northern Railway, and it was a failure as a passenger line. It was even a failure as a *freight* line, despite massive subsidies. We literally gave huge chunks of the West to the transcontinental railroads -- and they all failed repeatedly.
You'd need to start concentrating even more people into cities next to coast to coast high speed rail. Ideally in an already paved area. Probably need to build all the sections simultaneously to get it done faster.
They had one in the 19th century! They still have a terrific rail network in Russia - including in Siberia. Russia is twice the size of the United States, and has a population that is less than 1/2 that of the US - and my Russian friends could still travel to any city they wanted to by rail.
haha in the book I was reading today a character commented that America is only half-populated. 😄
We also have to remember that large sections of the US never should have been populated, never should have had cattle run on them. It took a LOT of wheat to feed one family. And that was the wettest the upper plains had been in centuries. Rewild, deep roots, soil enrichment. No people. :(
Before the car industry kneecapped your railroads there were even less people and no one was going "omg, we're so few people, we can't have trains!" Just saying.
Yeah, really, there seems to be no end to the "It's impossible to do this in the US!" reasons. I've also heard we can't do it because it's easier to have trains running across several countries than it is to run across one country for some reason.
Once again, what about Canada?
Geography/Demography is different in Canada. There's only one possible terminus in the west (Vancouver) and only one route for it to follow to Toronto. East from Toronto, there's only one route east, Ottowa-Montreal.
Which only strengthens my case. We all agree that the line West from Winnipeg makes no sense economically -- but it would have served the vast majority of the population of the Prairie provinces. Why hasn't it been built? Canada can easily afford it, and is not run by the US car companies.
I must be misunderstanding you. There is a line from Winnipeg to Vancouver via Saksatoon and Edmonton.
There is indeed -- just as there is a line from Chicago to Seattle. (I know; I rode it earlier this month with a stop at Glacier National Park. It's been on my bucket list for a long time.) But it is not a viable service.
It was. That’s why Great Northern built it out - was useful for both freight and passenger. Glacier wouldn’t be what it is without GN and that line.
And once they'd made their money from the free land the government gave them for building it, passenger service couldn't break even and Amtrak had to take it over. If Fracking hadn't made that line viable for shipping oil from the Bakken Shale to refineries elsewhere, freight would go bust, too.
Well, yes, if the only alternative was a stagecoach, more people would ride trains.
If the better* alternative.
Trains used to be much, *much* more expensive. Riding the Transcontinental Railroad from Nebraska to SF (so half the US) cost something like $2,500 in today's money. It's not that trains literally *can't* work with low density, it's that they can't be competitively priced with alternatives.
Travel in general used to be much more expensive; airline prices dropped by about half during the 1980s. Today, you can take a train from Paris to Moscow for under 250 euros.
I idly checked lincoln to sf on amtrak just now: $178 for coach, $1500 for private room. $310 for flight. About 1600 miles, so ~$200 in gas, plus cost of car depreciation/insurance. So actually rail is (cashwise) the cheapest, right now. And that’s with public funding that massively favors cars
A problem to solve, sure.
Honestly the inter-city stuff is kind of a distraction. What the US needs is more city-and-surrounds train networks, like NYC has. And those CAN work.
You mean "free" roads build and maintained by the government outcompete rail lines that you need to build and maintain yourself? Who'd have thought that?
A lot of railroads went out of business and lost a lot of money learning that lesson. A couple of times, it crashed the whole national economy in the process. Even in the UK, smaller and more densely populated, railroads often went bust even before cars. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...
Yeah, well, greedy people alongside opportunist scammers being assholes and crashing economies is nothing new. "Trains will never work" is the wrong lesson to take from that.
As an Australian I think it's *adorable* that you think of any part of the contiguous US states as 'empty' :)
The population density of Western Australia is approximately zero persons/km2
It's slightly over 1. (3M people/2.5M km^2) but outside Perth (6500km^2) it's 0.7M/2.5M Nunavut, as another commenter alludes, is about 0.04M people/2M km^2
Like I said, Nunavut. Northern Canada is incredibly empty. And *huge*. Canada is the largest country in the Americas -- it's not even close.
Australia is remarkable. The drive from Perth to Adelaide was stunningly empty, and I say this as someone who was raised partly in the US Great Basin (the big western blank space in cell coverage maps)
Perth is about as isolated as a big city can get. Adelaide is the nearest city with a population over 100k
Well, fair. I will point out, in my defense, that I keep talking about Canada, and I'll see your Australia and raise you Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. Not to mention most of the Prairie provinces.
It was possible. It can be possible again. Look at an older railway map. You might be surprised. www.loc.gov/item/2006627...
This has always been a silly argument. Japan has a lower population density than the Northeast Corridor but its highspeed rail network is decades ahead of ours. No one is asking for coast to coast trains, but there's zero reason why we can't have regional HSR networks in America.
And before you show me a map of the 1940's rail network, let me point out two things. (1) Passenger rail didn't start to die in the US until the late 60's. (2) Canada doesn't have a viable passenger rail network outside of the Windsor peninsula. It isn't the lack of subsidies
It's absolutely possible! We've done it before! It would just take a massive amount of funding to build and maintain the infrastructure required for consistent and reliable railway systems in North America. Of course, there are many companies here who don't want people to be able to travel by train.
I think we remember all that nineteenth century stuff about the golden spike and so on, and assumed that having built cross country railways, you built on that.
We had a viable rail network up through to the 1940s, when policy decisions & subsidies shifted to air and road. Not saying good or bad, but the money spent on road and air infrastructure could have been shared with rail. A startup airline like Herb Kelleher's was possible. A startup railroad? Nah!
We HAD startup railroads in the late 19th century, a shitton of them There’s an argument to be made that railroads, not web1.0, was the first American tech bubble
Knew an old guy (who grew up in BFE NC) and as a kid he could hop a train in his nothing town and take it to any one of a long line of nothing towns or all the way to Raleigh. That was how he traveled, no car, too poor. All those stops and some of the towns are gone now.
This is just plain wrong. Empty space makes rail much much cheaper. Just ask Spain. Or look at the opposite example in the UK where we are building the worlds most expensive railway mostly because of lack of space. (Tbf the people in that space)
We used to have the largest rail system in the world with robust intercity connections
So what's Ireland's excuse?
Deliberate policy. We used to have more railways. The government ripped them out. We used to have urban trams. Gone. They weren't 'modern'. Plus they also weren't profitable and the early Republic had no money. Now, of course, this policy is seen as criminally stupid but too expensive to fix.
Road transport was seen as The Future by politicians blinded by technologies they couldn't understand (and doubtless not a few brown envelopes), so they just tore up the tracks, which once served almost every town in Ireland.