How to keep trains as popular in North America as they are in Europe

[Bytor]

The title mostly says it all.

That both countries in their populated areas have inter-city passenger rail networks as dense as France and Germany have at the same time. Like east of 100°W in the USA, the Pacific Coast, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, plus corridors to any major cities outside those areas Like Calgary, Regina, Denver, Salt Lake City

The idea being that both federal governments (and many provincial and state ones, too) are seriously considering building high-speed rail when the Oil Crisis arrives in the 1970s. End goal is that by the time 1990 arrives, both countries each have at least 700 km of HSR lines in operation, and 2,400 km by 2020 (the same as OTL France, roughly), or more.

What needs to change to make that happen?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The weathermen commit *9/11 in the 1970s leading to lengthy security checks for all domestic flights. Which makes HSR more competitive with North America's very strong domestic airlines.

 

[marathag]

covered (well,beat to death) here

AHC: The US with a high speed rail system as prolific as in East Asia or western Europe

For East Asia I'm referring to Japan and China mainly. How could we have seen the US with a similar system?

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[Riain]

I was thinking about this in my own regional Australian context in the last couple of days, Like the USA we used to have oodles and oodles of railway infrastructure, certainly too much as cars and trucks began to be introduced and could safely cut back in the postwar era. However rather than a 'managed decline' things were just dropped as if everything was useless, meaning otherwise decent stuff was left to degrade away.

Perhaps if decline was managed, when closing off redundant lines etc they were stripped of their good stuff like junctions and signals and the like and incorporated them into what remained that would be gradually improved and therefore services are kept at a high standard. Good service gets well patronised and well patronised services get improved in a virtuous circle.

 

[dmg86]

The main problem was that Railroads were very regulated to the point were they couldn't abandon unnecessary infrastructure due to objections made to the regulators. Add in the fact that in the northeast many railroads also had little money available to maintain their tracks and unions forcing them to keep more personal as well their options were increasingly slim.

 

[ejpsan]

With a POD of 1946 the United States government realizes that WW II has overtaxed the rail network starts a rebuilding program where in return for buying up unwanted tracks for money to be used to rebuild tracks that the railroad companies are keeping for their use.
The government takes over passenger rail using tracks bought from railroads and create a national passenger rail system with various regional, state, and local rail systems as part of passenger rail network.
Rail companies are allowed to merge earlier with allowances for competition, the railroad unions agree to modernize their contract rules like instead of being paid for miles they are paid for time, end the feather bedding in which because of technology workers are still being paid for jobs that no longer exists.
Start road grade separation so that the speed of trains both passengers and freight can be safely increased.
Start to electrify the rails and have a nationwide standard for it.
Also there should be the understanding that passenger air traffic will soon supplant passenger rail no matter what and that rail is only going to find a niche market of people who will use rail because it is either too far to drive or too short to fly.

 

[Monk78]

Get rid of our car obsession esp in the cities

 

[daveg1967]

There are two major problems with the premise. The 1st is population density. North America does not have the population density to support passenger rail service on a continental basis. US rail was always a freight service that operated passenger service as a loss leader / marketing expense. The second is railroads were the most hated industry ever. What we feel about big oil and big pharma is nothing compared to the hatred directed at railroads. Combine this with a regulatory environment and you get the railroad decline.

Here is an example. In the early 1900s there was trolley service in Holyoke, MA. The railroad wanted to connect the trolley service to the Boston rail line. They requested a fare increase to pay for this. The regulators turned them down.

 

[kholieken]

There are two major problems with the premise. The 1st is population density. North America does not have the population density to support passenger rail service on a continental basis.

These is bullshit. These is statistical lie that too frequently mentioned and repeatedly debunked. Many areas in US have dense population density. NE, Calif, even Midwest cities is not that scattered. No one actually planning building HSR in Dakota, so population density is misleading statistic.

he second is railroads were the most hated industry ever. What we feel about big oil and big pharma is nothing compared to the hatred directed at railroads.

These is true reason of railroad decline in US. Like it or not, modern US culture see car and freeways as symbols of freedom, while railroad as symbol of European style statism. Main problem of railroad in US is culture. Not population density, not cost, not regulation.

 

[daveg1967]

These is bullshit. These is statistical lie that too frequently mentioned and repeatedly debunked. Many areas in US have dense population density. NE, Calif, even Midwest cities is not that scattered. No one actually planning building HSR in Dakota, so population density is misleading statistic.


These is true reason of railroad decline in US. Like it or not, modern US culture see car and freeways as symbols of freedom, while railroad as symbol of European style statism. Main problem of railroad in US is culture. Not population density, not cost, not regulation.

Did you actually read what I wrote? "to support passenger rail service on a continental basis." Northeast corridor can support rail service. Amtrak is actually profitable there. Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee. Houston, Austin, Dallas - Ft. Worth. Pacific Coast. These are all regional solutions. A national passenger rail system requires support from regions that see no benefit from it. Now add in the size of North America. Inter-regional rail is impractical.

The French high speed rail system, features a Paris to Milan route. That's a distance of about 643 km. The trip takes between 7 and 8 hours. NYC to Chicago is 1150 km. At TGV speeds that's still a 13-14 hour trip vs a 2 hour flight. Add 3 hours for check in and airport time it's still 13-14 hours vs 5.

You mention the automobile culture of freedom. That is true. Originally, it was freedom from the railroads.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Did you actually read what I wrote? "to support passenger rail service on a continental basis." Northeast corridor can support rail service. Amtrak is actually profitable there. Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee. Houston, Austin, Dallas - Ft. Worth. Pacific Coast. These are all regional solutions. A national passenger rail system requires support from regions that see no benefit from it. Now add in the size of North America. Inter-regional rail is impractical.

The regions aren't entirely discrete. For example, there's no reason you couldn't connect Boston to NYC to Philly to Baltimore to DC to Charlotte to Charleston to Savannah to Miami. Now if you want to expand that inland you'd have to cross various mountain ranges, but that's not an insurmountable challenge. Yes, longer trips would still be by plane, but you can have increased travel by rail between say Chicago and the Twin Cities, and the layout of American cities makes it plausible to have a rail network that extends across most of the lower 48 (the Dakotas and the states of the mountain west probably wouldn't see much rail except for Nevada) even if people only use it travel to cities a few hundred miles away.

 

[Devvy]

This is a topic which has been well discussed over the years, and passionately by both sides. With due respect to both sides, they are roughly split in to:

- Side "A", which can't see wider rail solutions being viable. Most seem to agree to some level with urban rail transit solutions (ie. subway/light rail), and commuter rail in larger cities, but can't see city-to-city rail as being viable, due to the low density urban sprawl and such high levels of car usage.
- Side "B", which sees wider rail solutions (usually high speed rail on a regional basis) as being viable (as well as the urban rail solutions of side A), of which many advocate the US should adopt transit based development with residential developments being higher density around transit routes (usually rail based). The deployment of transit routes would then lead to higher demand and higher density around the transit stations in their view. City-to-city high speed rail is desirable and would be massively beneficial in their view.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle, gently leaning towards side B. Let's be honest, it's not just an American thing - most people would like to have a large house and large garden around it, and a car to potter around to the shops etc, and this inevitably leads to low density sprawl. I think better rail would be operationally viable on a regional level in some areas - wider north east region, especially on the north east corridor, as well as the Chicago centred region. However, only the wider NEC would be viable with regards to development costs (ie. the capital funds required to modernise the system and develop the feeder routes) - the Chicago network (as well as California, Texas, Florida and other posited routes) I just can't see bringing in enough revenue to cover the building costs as well as operating costs, so would require large public funds from either state or federal governments. Whether that is viable/desirable depends enormously on your individual political outlook.

And again, with deference to the A side, let's be honest, most times when choosing a mode of transit, you're going to use the car. It's immediately available, quick, convenient, and completely at your control. However, there are times when the train will win over the car in your mind, and that's down to a set of factors which cover congestion en route, speed, cost, comfort, etc. If driving to your destination will take longer due to congestion, the train ticket isn't extortionate, and the service level is sufficient to allow for flexibility in your trips, then the train will probably win out - which is why the NEC is so heavily used. Whether you are American, European, or "other" (ie. Riain!), train vs car is a sliding scale of desirability rather then a binary preference always for the car.

PS: I don't think anyone, even the railfans, think that a passenger rail system is viable on a continental/48-state level. It needs to be regional to be viable, you just have to look at Amtrak in it's current guise to see that long distance cross-country services just aren't really viable.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

This is a topic which has been well discussed over the years, and passionately by both sides. With due respect to both sides, they are roughly split in to:

- Side "A", which can't see wider rail solutions being viable. Most seem to agree to some level with urban rail transit solutions (ie. subway/light rail), and commuter rail in larger cities, but can't see city-to-city rail as being viable, due to the low density urban sprawl and such high levels of car usage.
- Side "B", which sees wider rail solutions (usually high speed rail on a regional basis) as being viable (as well as the urban rail solutions of side A), of which many advocate the US should adopt transit based development with residential developments being higher density around transit routes (usually rail based). The deployment of transit routes would then lead to higher demand and higher density around the transit stations in their view. City-to-city high speed rail is desirable and would be massively beneficial in their view.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle, gently leaning towards side B. Let's be honest, it's not just an American thing - most people would like to have a large house and large garden around it, and a car to potter around to the shops etc, and this inevitably leads to low density sprawl. I think better rail would be operationally viable on a regional level in some areas - wider north east region, especially on the north east corridor, as well as the Chicago centred region. However, only the wider NEC would be viable with regards to development costs (ie. the capital funds required to modernise the system and develop the feeder routes) - the Chicago network (as well as California, Texas, Florida and other posited routes) I just can't see bringing in enough revenue to cover the building costs as well as operating costs, so would require large public funds from either state or federal governments. Whether that is viable/desirable depends enormously on your individual political outlook.

And again, with deference to the A side, let's be honest, most times when choosing a mode of transit, you're going to use the car. It's immediately available, quick, convenient, and completely at your control. However, there are times when the train will win over the car in your mind, and that's down to a set of factors which cover congestion en route, speed, cost, comfort, etc. If driving to your destination will take longer due to congestion, the train ticket isn't extortionate, and the service level is sufficient to allow for flexibility in your trips, then the train will probably win out - which is why the NEC is so heavily used. Whether you are American, European, or "other" (ie. Riain!), train vs car is a sliding scale of desirability rather then a binary preference always for the car.

PS: I don't think anyone, even the railfans, think that a passenger rail system is viable on a continental/48-state level. It needs to be regional to be viable, you just have to look at Amtrak in it's current guise to see that long distance cross-country services just aren't really viable.

Yep. No one thinks you're going to get very many people taking the train from Seattle to Miami. I think cars would predominate for suburban folks because its hard to see mass transit working for that, but I can absolutely see city-to-city high speed rail along with more intracity mass transit. I wonder how backpacking culture would develop. Roadtrippers vs train travelers could make for an interesting split.

 

[Dan1988]

The title mostly says it all.

Well, first off the US would never be like Europe. Canada comes the closest with CN Rail, but even then that was largely designed to service areas not adequately covered by the CPR (mostly by buying loss-making railways - and then becoming loss-making itself, despite the huge amount of support from Ottawa). Considering the train is largely iconic in Canadian culture, you could have a chance here, but most of the profit-makers would be in Ontario and Quebec. So there's much more room for change on that scale north of 49 (as long as it's carefully designed).

The US is a more formidable challenge, primarily because it doesn't have infrastructure as decrepit as, say, the Russian Empire/Soviet Union, to justify keeping trains as popular in the US as in various European countries. Part of it is because of the culture and mentality; another part is just how hated the railways here at the time (as already noted), including even just seeing them the way some viewed hedge funds or asset-stripping modern companies; and yet another is the power of the ICC to regulate much of the American economy. So it's already getting kinda sorta impossible, when the automobile was just stepping forward as the alternative.

But, there's one possible way I can think of it, and that's taking advantage of the collapse of the Grand Trunk Railway. Let's assume that the Grand Trunk collapse triggers a wider collapse of railways in the Northeast and Midwest (if not further afield). For maximum effect, let's say it all happens as a result of the disestablishment of the USRA. Now, some freight service would still be needed to keep the network going (as that was the entire point of the railway system in the US in the first place), but passenger service would be tricky (even all the various ICC reorganization schemes still focused more on a regional level, where it would be more feasible). So there's a compromise. In exchange for getting the ICC off the backs of the railways, a reactivated USRA can handle the freight system and all that (with or without the involvement of the private sector), while leaving it to states and regions themselves to handle passenger service as they see fit. (Yes, I know, it would be out of step with the times, which would prefer to let the railways die and their tracks ripped up for new roads, but the thing that the US did best here would be to take advantage of a crisis to come up with constructive, positive solutions - as the New Deal proved in the next decade.)

While some would just get rid of it or at least severely reduce service to accommodate the automobiles, others would run passenger service as public services. The more ambitious would combine regional coordination with a variation of what has come IOTL to be called the "rail + property" strategy as applied to Hong Kong's MTR (indeed, a lot of the old railway and streetcar companies were just like this, hence places like Shaker Heights). The latter could combine streetcars with railways to form dedicated networks - but note, they would be regional in scope. National would be much more tricky, and all without the expectation of profit. Call it survival of the fittest, but for trains; the states/regions that run the best, most efficient passenger trains would be the most popular.

The idea being that both federal governments (and many provincial and state ones, too) are seriously considering building high-speed rail when the Oil Crisis arrives in the 1970s. End goal is that by the time 1990 arrives, both countries each have at least 700 km of HSR lines in operation, and 2,400 km by 2020 (the same as OTL France, roughly), or more.

The US tried that in the 1960s in response to Japan's Shinkansen as a result of the 1964 Olympics (without understanding why the Japanese created it in the first place), and all we got was the half-assed Metroliner. That probably bummed out a lot of development on that score, though it didn't help that the commitment was primarily towards expressways (and even then there were protests over new freeway development). Overall, it's not going to happen unless changes are made early on during the Progressive Era, if not within the interwar period (when it is at its most difficult to get things going).

 

[tonycat77]

Get rid of our car obsession esp in the cities

That would seriously hurt the american economy.

 

[Dan1988]

That would seriously hurt the american economy.

Well, one doesn't necessarily need to get rid of the auto obsession; one just needs to better manage it as part of overall development policy. At all points of German history (well, scratch East Germany from this), for example, they were able to combine a car obsession with a relatively decent railway system. Since the focus in the US would be at a regional level for most railway service, it shouldn't be too difficult to create a balanced development strategy there were cars co-exist with trains. It would also benefit the US economy in some way, furthermore.

 

[DougM]

This is impossible. Contrary to some folks opinion. The largest portion of the US has a population density that simply can not support trains as well as cars. And you cant get rid of cars because they are a better system from an individual basis. Yes some of the US has the population to support the trains but not most. And here is why that is a problem. Almost all passenger rail in the world loses money. So you need the feds to pay for it but if I am from a state that does not have the population to support trains why would I pay for a other state to get trains i can’t have and frankly dont need?
In Europe you had several countries all paying for small regional rail networks Europe didnt pay for anything. Germany and France and Italy and Gzb did. To pull that trick off in the US you need the states to build a rail network but most states don’t have enough large cities to justify a rail network so you would need a couple states to join together to form a rail network. But the states that want it don’t want to pay for it so they ask the reds but the states that have no use for the net work or at least won’t benefit from it say no.
So you need to get around having the feds pay and creat regional multi state rail Networks.
Keep in mind that even in Europe long distance travel is by aircraft. You dont take a train from southern Italy to Amsterdam. You take a plane. it is simply math if it if faster to drive you drive it is faster to fly you fly if it faster to take HSR then you take a train.
The issue is that in the US you have a very limited number locations that have destinations close enough to use a train but far enough to not want to drive that have enough people traveling between them to justify a train line. On top of this those locations that fit this are very very expensive to build in. As the land is valuable and already built up.
So you can do a route on the west coast one on the north east and mayby some unconnected routes elsewhere but only a handful of locations meat the requirements. And with the exception of the northeast you probably will lose money on all of them (like most HSR in Europe for that matter). So the question is who pays to build it and who pays to run it? Because you CAN NOT get the rest of the country to fork out that kind of cash on a system they get ABSOLUTELY NO benefit from.
Because Germany is the size of a good sized US state when they build a couple lines a huge percentage of the German population lived within a reasonavble distance of said lines. But if the US builds a system in one state or even three the vast majority of the country lives hou if not days away from these lines.
This is why England didn’t help pay for the system in Germany,
The reality is we think of State (local) and Federal (national governments but in the scope of Europe you have State level (about like our counties) Federal (like our states) And Continental (like our Federal).
So in order to get HSR in the US you need something bigger then a state but smaller then the federal government to foot the bill. I mean Hawaii is not paying for HSR in New England and frankly Michigan isn’t either. So you want. HSR you need a regional way of paying for them

 

[CV12Hornet]

The regions aren't entirely discrete. For example, there's no reason you couldn't connect Boston to NYC to Philly to Baltimore to DC to Charlotte to Charleston to Savannah to Miami. Now if you want to expand that inland you'd have to cross various mountain ranges, but that's not an insurmountable challenge. Yes, longer trips would still be by plane, but you can have increased travel by rail between say Chicago and the Twin Cities, and the layout of American cities makes it plausible to have a rail network that extends across most of the lower 48 (the Dakotas and the states of the mountain west probably wouldn't see much rail except for Nevada) even if people only use it travel to cities a few hundred miles away.

Well, yes, there is: Savannah to Miami is 782 kilometers. DC to Charlotte is 644 kilometers. We're talking Paris to Milan-length routes between cities that are much smaller than both. For goodness' sake, Savannah is tiny, it's never crested 200,000 people and is just not the kind of destination that justifies a high-speed rail line going to it. Charleston is even smaller. And even Charlotte is on the small side back in the 1960s when any POD would happen, not to mention the primary industry is banking and that industry is going to prefer flying to passenger rail.

No, between DC and Atlanta there's just not much to justify a high-speed rail line in the 1960s, nor is there much between Atlanta and New Orleans, Miami, or Nashville. Which puts the ball back in the airlines' court.

 

[Paradoxer]

Probably want to start immediately after ww2 before the massive derailing of civilian trains.

We still have a ton of trains and good ones for more commercial and good/resource transportation.

It would also have to be mostly in northeast coast and west coast. Later on Texas and Florida. The northeast rail system would basically cover Maryland, Delaware, DC/north Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York state, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and maybe one going through New Hampshire to Maine along coastline. Texas and Florida they just connect major cities. On west coast you have it start in California first before possibly building up to rail systems along Oregon and Washington coastline. Possibly connected to Vancouver depending how things go there. Probably mostly along coastline and border in Canada.

The Midwest could get one is possibly biggest maybe. Putting off de industrialization of rust belt for decade or two or make process slower then Midwest might build some major rails between major cities and possibly few out of Louisville and Cincinnati, possibly one connected to Huntington too. This helps bring in migrant labors from often struggling and rural Appalachia and coal country.

Their few issue in US with rail system for civilian use besides the obvious logistics and geographic obstacles(if China can build speed train that loops around their country US has no excuse to say they can’t do similar projects especially given interstate projects after ww2).

The first is growing interstate/car industries especially after war, suburbanization, and growing airports coming to odds or making such projects not top priority. The car industry and airlines are at times buying up railroads to just derail because lack of competition for travel options(they buy more cars, gas, and plane tickets).

Suburbanization while it does not help it doesn’t always directly hurt it either since many who use subways or transit systems in US would be used by working class, migrant labor, and immigrants largely so some of these places while convenient and fast might not be cleanest or safest place to travel.

Zoning will also be huge issue especially in parts of US that modernize post ww2. The suburbs in otl don’t want interstates too overlapping with them either. They have to build hills or them behind a shit ton of brush to even get approval by county for project. Basically people don’t want to see or hear it. Nor do they want people from interstate to be able to causally see their neighborhoods or coming over for gas(truckers attract prostitutes to gas stations/truck stops and sometimes shady drifters off interstate as well). The interstate while making travel for suburbs easier to city is often design in way especially in south that it circles around suburbs so unless your local or lost random people just won’t be wondering into place.

Hell interstate is often used as modern version of “bad side of town or tracks”(train tracks). A lot of those interstates you can’t just causally cross on foot without risking your life or getting hit by car. So if your poor rural or urban that often keeps homeless or other poor from drifting over causally.

This isn’t fully race thing but more of class and zoning thing. Many middle class and upper move to suburbs to get away from lower class elements or old assholes who just want to be left alone. They will pay higher taxes and drive up cost of rent and land in suburbs by tiring down old houses of old “holdouts”(grandfather in people. Usually Redneck ass old people who lived their when it still look like frontier town and surrounded by farmland or forest) to build nice even if zero lot homes to keep inner city and rural poor out.

That issue rail system would raise with suburbs. They might not even want these transits connected to suburbs because that means the inner city can use that to bus kids to suburb schools or poor labor comes flooding in to work in service industries like fast food so their kids have harder time finding part time jobs because people from city or rural fill in that gap.

Rural poor population often cling to outskirts or outside of suburbs as it for work or drive 30 minutes to work anyway so this impacts inner city poor more so. Highway patrol deal with more people out their due to highway or interstate usually being farthest district lines or unofficial ones for most suburbs.

Although could they build these rail systems side by side or even over interstate systems(in that grass area on interstate between both highways of opposing traffic you build bullet train system that follows interstate. The train station being built into or near under bridge passes on interstate or highway).

But suburbs generally don’t want poor to be able to easily move in or even travel them. The rail system likely needs to stick to major metro or urban centers especially outside of northeast, DC, and California. Anywhere they will face local opposition if too excessive

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Well, yes, there is: Savannah to Miami is 782 kilometers. DC to Charlotte is 644 kilometers. We're talking Paris to Milan-length routes between cities that are much smaller than both. For goodness' sake, Savannah is tiny, it's never crested 200,000 people and is just not the kind of destination that justifies a high-speed rail line going to it. Charleston is even smaller. And even Charlotte is on the small side back in the 1960s when any POD would happen, not to mention the primary industry is banking and that industry is going to prefer flying to passenger rail.

No, between DC and Atlanta there's just not much to justify a high-speed rail line in the 1960s, nor is there much between Atlanta and New Orleans, Miami, or Nashville. Which puts the ball back in the airlines' court.

The OP never said the POD had to be in the 1960s, just that you had to still have an oil crisis in the 70s. Yes, that's when high speed rail was first deployed, but there's no reason you can't have an earlier POD eventually leading to adoption of high-speed rail in the USA. The 1973 oil embargo by OPEC was meant to target countries supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. You can have a POD before the 60s and still have Israel get into a fight with its neighbors in the 70s, and have OPEC (or ATL counterpart) respond similarly.al Note: I'm assuming early high speed rail has speeds similar to OTL: ~ 200kph, although I probably should have said you could connect DC to Richmond and Richmond to Charlotte. At any rate, I wouldn't call Paris to Milan a good comparison because it involves the issues of building and operating track across the Alps. Not an insurmountable challenge, but one that you wouldn't face simply travelling along the east coast (though as I said you would have to cross mountains to go inland from the coast). To the OP I'd say that you'd need to have cheaper electricity and have oil prices stay high.