Verified answer

because our government, president, and Congress, have all given railroads insufficient funding to rehabilitate and construct our railroads. instead they use it to spend it on a silly war. thats ur tax dollars hard at work, sadly

In part because America is so large, with so many possible destinations, that having a train system large enough to accomodate all the people who travel yearly to all of the possible destinations would require a HUGE investment in the infrastructure. Our national rail system (Amtrak) has a horrible public image here in America. The only time the public at large hears about them is when:

1. There is a train wreck somewhere.

2. The news trumpets how fiscally weak Amtrak is, requiring government money just to stay afloat.

Also, unlike Europe, America has lots of wide, spacious roads that go straight (read: the Interstate Highway system) that any idiot can navigate. Lastly, Americans view driving as a right rather than a priviledge, and much prefer the mobility afforded by driving as opposed to rail (ironic, since most Americans view driving as some automatic function, and are involved with it as little as possible, instead talking on their cell phones or other nonsense.)

First off, the U.S. used to have excellent mass transit; "Union Station" in a number of cities like St. Louis and Chicago used to be the hub of activity; Los Angeles once had a trolley system that was amongst the world's best. But after WWII, a lot of that was left to decay in favor of the Interstate. People moved to the suburbs, where population density wasn't high enough to make mass transit economically viable. Settlement patterns in Europe were well established and they were significantly less prosperous immediately after the destruction of WWII, so suburbs didn't pop up (and Europe simply has a higher population density anyway). They tend to be more favorable towards public spending than Americans (although, when you consider how many tax dollars are needed to support our interstate system, and see it as a big subsidy of the auto industry, we're not an independent as we think.) Finally, did you try to drive in Europe? In some of the older cities, on some of the older streets, it's confusing enough to make you want to take the train that much more ...

Passenger train service was hit with a one-two punch after the 1950s: the rise of travel by airplane, and the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Once people could conveniently drive where they needed to go, or get there faster by flying, passenger train service lacked a critical mass to remain profitable. The railroads also lost freight traffic to trucking companies. While the Interstate Highway System was fully subsidized by state and federal funds, railroad companies had to pay for their own infrastrucutre. As a result railroads went through a massive reorganization in the mid-20th century, and the federal government had to intervene. Amtrak was created to handle passenger service, and Conrail handled freight service for a while in the Northeast (the latter company was since bought up and split between CSX and Norfolk Southern). Passenger train service in America, even at its peak, was never purely profitable. It was subsidized by U.S. mail contracts (which the railroads also lost to trucking companies and airlines) and freight service.

That's the history, anyway. As for the present, the majority of Americans continue to rely on cars for transportation, and transit systems in most cities remain underdeveloped for train travel to be feasible in most parts of the country. That is changing as gas prices rise and population continues to grow, but on the whole government is afraid to invest in public infrastrucutre. We have the lowest tax burden in the industrialized world, so our government is too poor to pay for anything more than what we have now. We have enough trouble keeping what little Amtrak subsidies there are as it is, and the anti-tax rhetoric of Republicans doesn't make things much better.

In the end, as the Interstate Highway System becomes more and more clogged, population continues to grow and gas prices continue to rise, people will need to demand public transit and high-speed rail service from their politicians. Until then, we'll just have to make do with the infrastructure we have, inadequate as it is.

Umm, when you can fit most If not all European country's into the state of Texas, then we could have a great transit system! When it takes you a day and a half just to get from one side of Texas to the other at 70 mph. and it only take 2 hours to get from Germany to France. Look at a map! To much land in between us here in the states.

As usual, DTTRR89ACE is spot on.

We have the finest railroad infrastructure on the planet. Passenger train travel fell from grace due to the lack of interest by the general public. And, this is not a class issue of any sort.

Post WWII America saw the beginnings of the interstate and federal high way projects, providing lots of work for returning GIs and the populace at large.

Once the roadway infrastructure was improved and the economic boom that followed provided the means for the every day Joe Schnook to buy his own personal transportation, people stayed away from rail travel in droves.

Gradually, as passenger trains more and more frequently ran in the red, one by one they began to be recognized for the dinosaurs they were becoming and carrier after carrier began removing them from service.

Consequently, as they were disappearing from the rail routes of America due to financial insolvency and public apathy, the Europeans, who had to rebuild all of their infrastructure after the devastation that was WWII, and in typical European fashion, were far sighted enough to know that the transportation of people was as equally important as the transportation of freight.

The availability of affordable air travel also made a deep dent in the customer base for the railroads that were still operating their own passenger schedules.

So now, due to economic restraints, emmissions levels, grid lock, steep insurance rates, sky rocketing fuel prices, etc., people are finally waking up and calling for the fire department now that the ship of mass transit has burned to the water line.

It is too late. Long distance train travel is quite impractical, if for no other reason than one will still need surface transportation from whatever depot they are deposited in to complete their journey, in most cases.

Even if we did have the system in place to support the travel, we'd still refuse to part with our cars and two story pick up trucks that can drive over anything except the two story pick up truck right in front of it.

So, forget mass transit in other than commute situations. Isn't going to happen here. Why? Where I live a gallon of regular costs $3.57. Guess what? There is not one car fewer on our streets.

So, hop in and fire that mother up! Be sure to goose the volume on the stereo too. In coming years we will have a medical problem in this country that will be as wide spread as the lack of decent mass transit. A significant portion of the population will be quite hard of hearing.

Bon voyage.

We lack an "enervated lower middle class" which finds mechanics pleasing. Europe and Japan have that class. In the US, management and operation of trains is not a career goal for a person.

In the meantime, we still have a traffic grid problem, so tell your

friends about Hallitubes -

Trains and ships can not compete with planes and flexibility cars offer (detours, stopping on convenience). Besides, trains are more expensive to travel on than planes. In Europe, the trains you talk about are cross border trains and I don't know, maybe they are cheaper than planes there.

Trains are very reliable (to counter the first two answers here) -- they stop being reliable when there is deferred maintenance, poor scheduling, operating on "host railroads", and lack of funding..which is the problem we have now.

♠DTTRR89ACE♠ I don't think the first 2 answers were saying all trains are unreliable, they clearly meant the ones in the US.