The FedEx analogy is appropriate, since it gives us an understanding of why exactly train service doesn't work.

Getting a letter from New York to Chicago is easier with a high speed train running between the two points. But getting that same letter from upstate New York to Wisconsin is a tremendous nuisance. Which is precisely why FedEx does it the way they do - it's not like they're eager to spend money on fuel to increase carbon emissions. But they do have an interest in reliably delivering packages to every point they need to deliver in a timely manner.

The real reason rail faltered in this country is a combination of a wide population distribution and long distances. Rail has a much higher per-mile cost than other forms of transportation (due to all that rail you need to lay), so it isn't very good if you're talking long distances or very diffuse networks.

The reason rail works in places like Europe and Japan is due to a very different model of urbanization. In most of the rest of the world, the 'inner city' is where the well-to-do live, not the poor. The concept of 'exurbs' in America (far-flung suburban areas) is non-existant. So public transportation in the U.S. is almost exclusively the province of the poor, not the middle class. Pretty much the only exception to this is New York City - and it's a result of water presenting a major barrier to commuting.

It would be nice if we had a 'bullet train' running from Boston down to Miami. But the reason we don't has little to do with intransigent unions, mismanaged companies or regulation-happy government. It has to do with it being an inefficient solution to the problem.

Most of my coworkers don't even think of taking the train because they live in the 'burbs. In fact, the Acela from Boston to NYC would be a lot faster if it didn't have to stop at every suburban station outside of Boston when coming/going. But I guess that's where people live, so we have to stop and pick 'em up.

I take the Acela once a week from Boston to NYC, one day turn-around, for work. Since I live in Boston and Penn Station is convenient to my office in NYC, the train is the best option - not to mention, I don't have to sit in a cab frantic about getting back to LaGuardia on time for the shuttle. The Acela is also [marginally] cheaper. But rail just doesn't seem to occur to other associates, as it is no more convenient than air travel. I wish it weren't so (or do I? because I can sometimes have a whole row to myself on the way home, muhahaha; legroom).

I'm afraid you've got it pretty much but not entirely right. There are two considerations for passenger rail -- how fast does it get you there, and what do you do once you're there. On speed, it's competitive with air over the Boston -- Washington or Madrid -- Barcelona or Paris -- Lyon distance. Much longer than that, and the plane becomes significantly faster. Once you get there, rail is fine if you're going to a destination within cab or mass transit range. If not, you still wind up renting a car. If I were going to a meeting in DC, Arlington or Alexandria, I'd take the Acela from NY. If I were going to a meeting in some office park in Tyson's Corner or Rockville, I'd fly from Newark and rent a car. The physical structure of American low density, auto dependent real estate development means that high speed passenger rail in this country is a niche market for business travelers between center cities no more than 3-4 hours apart by rail. Outside the Northeast Corridor there aren't too many spots for it -- maybe Houston to SA or Atlanta to Birmingham, Savannah or Charlotte, or Portland to Seattle.

You're wrong on cost in part. Roads aren't free and neither is air traffic control, but they're government owned and paid for out of taxes instead of fares. The advantage of private passenger auto is that it is self routing and self scheduling. The advantage of passenger air is that the network isn't physically constrained by roadbed and can be reconfigured between any terminals of adequate capacity.

Christine_Stone:

Most of my coworkers don't even think of taking the train because they live in the 'burbs. In fact, the Acela from Boston to NYC would be a lot faster if it didn't have to stop at every suburban station outside of Boston when coming/going. But I guess that's where people live, so we have to stop and pick 'em up.

I find your comment interesting because of the implicit assumption you make. But ask yourself this: why does the train need to stop?

Modern high speed trains are powered from the track. So you don't actually need a locomotive to power the train. You could take an ordinary passenger car and have it drive itself. While you wouldn't want to do this over long distances due to drag issues, there really isn't any reason you couldn't have a car load up in some suburb, then get up to speed and merge with the already operating train. Without ever stopping the train itself (there are significant benefits to running cars in a group due to the reduced drag).

Unfortunately, Obama's high speed train push has a lot less to do with practical transportation methods (you'll notice he never mentions the possibility of building 'professional driver only' highways designed to accomodate 200+ mph electric trucks and busses although this would accomplish the same basic goal as a train at lower expense) than it does nostalgia. In the case of Obama, my suspicion is that the nostalgia is for the days of all-powerful railroad unions.

Not nostalgia. Euro-envy. That's partly embarassment that the Europeans have flashier, neater stuff, like the TGV, than we do, and partly distaste for the low-density, automobile-dependent American way of living. See, e.g., this Tom Friedman op-ed <link> from a year ago.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

You might consider that some of that disparity in infrastructure is due to when it was put into place. Singapore's airport wasn't built at the same time as many modern airports in the US - the cost to modernize or update our infrastructure is what prevents us from doing so. The same applies to that Berlin station. I'm presuming that the original was reduced to Soviet tank sized rubble and B-17 blockbuster bombs. While Penn station has been there since 1910 or so and despite rennovations is still severely limited in what it can do without disrupting the properties around it.

One could say that the US is behind the times because we HAVEN'T been turned into rubble. But yes the automobile does dominate all aspects of transportation.

There is an easier way to handle the problem of trains being slowed by having to stop a lots of small stations - have faster and slower trains on running on the same lines.

The slower trains stop at every station. The faster trains only stop at major or terminal stations in population centers or where various lines cross. The faster trains pass the slower trains in the stations themselves, where there are multiple platforms. The slow train pulls in, then the fast train. There is a minute or two for people to switch trains, and then the fast train leaves first.

This system works excellently in Japan, where up to five different types of trains run on the same track. On huge advantage of this system is that there can be lots of little stations. Typically, they are no more than a mile apart in developed areas, implying that almost everywhere is within walking distance of one station or another. Even where we have commuter trains here in the US, large spaces are too distant from the nearest station to make using the train feasible.

<i>The reason rail works in places like Europe and Japan is due to a very different model of urbanization.</i>

This is a chicken and egg problem. Their urbanization model is different largely BECAUSE of public transportation. Land near stations is enormously valuable. Usually, the same companies that own the line and stations own the nearby land and develop apartments, shopping centers, etc right outside or on top of the new stations. Lo and behold! Density magically appears.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on issue. Even were such centers developed, they would fail to be fully utilized. America is in love with the idea of single family homes on an acre or more of land.

Extending the subway into the Bronx and Queens between 1910 and 1930 turned two low density, semi-rural counties into high density urban areas for the reasons you describe. In the 1940s, when Nassau County (east of NY City) began to suburbanize, the local and state authorities successfully fought a proposal to extend the subway out beyond NYC by building lines in the median strip of the new superhighways. The developers were selling space and homogeniety to lower middle class familes who could afford it. The last thing they and the local authorities wanted was to extend the urban pattern of land use outward.

Most Americans don't want high density, especially those who have children to raise. Given the money and the choice, they will vote with ballots, feet and wallets for homogenous, class segregated house and yard residential development. That's not an available option in Japan. Except in a few cities (NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, SF, and maybe Philadelphia) you need a car to live, and mass transit is left to people who can't afford cars. Sticking a subway onto an auto dependent city like LA or Atlanta doesn't change the basic land use pattern.

DC is a special case. The Metro is a very dense net built by the central government as a prestige project for the capital. It serves a large population of transient young people who have not yet had children and want to enjoy urban life. For that reason, it has really transformed land use in the DC area over the past 30+ years since it opened. The other rail mass transit cities in the US are legacy systems from before the Second World War.

But will they be with persistently high fuel prices? Because that is the future. 20 mile commutes and 2500 square foot homes look awfully unattractive when gas is $4.50/gal and you are paying $400 per month to heat your McMansion.

Property near stations has appreciated well ahead of other property in the last few years.

NO,

Go do a little research. The reason rail failed in this country as a method of mass transit is the rail companies killed passenger trains as a matter of business. People are far more expensive to move and far more difficult to deal with than Bulk goods and mail. Goods and mail never complain when they are late and don't have to be fed or supplied with bathrooms.

As long as they can make more money with less hassle to move bulk frieght this won't change in america. In Europe and china the governments have taken a strong interest in building out mass transit. In america mass transit is a local thing. Some areas have done it well some like texas are 50 years behind.

Until the federal government has a comprehensive plan and actively pushes for this kind of national mass transit it simply won't happen. And the half-baked plans we push to keep Amtrak on life support are just pennies in an empty bucket in that direction.

Freight doesn't complain when its late, but shippers and customers sure do. And you build the cost of bathrooms and dining cars into the ticket price.

The railroads made money on passenger traffic until the 1920s because there was no competition. Short haul traffic became a loser when the automobile (and bus) became faster, cheaper and, because the private car is self routing and self scheduling, far more convenient. Overnight traffic became a loser in the 1950s once air travel, faster since the 1930s, became cheap, reliable and safe enough for the mass of long distance travelers. Both motor and air traffic had their public right of way paid for out of tax revenues instead of by the shareholders. The mass of passengers deserted the railroads before the railroads deserted the remaining die hard passengers.

In China, only a small part of the populace owns cars. In Europe, governments have always kept the price of motor fuel high. Until the last decade, national airline monopolies kept the price of flying within Europe high. (What impact have cheap intra-Europe flights had on rail passenger volume?) In those circumstances, and over European distances, inter-city rail makes economic sense at a tolerable subsidy cost. It won't make similar sense over American distances until motor and aviation fuel becomes a lot more expensive and stays that way for a sustained period.

You're right that Berlin had the benefit of urban renewal by the allied air forces and the Red Army, while New York and Chicago did not. But that doesn't explain why the post-war mega-cities of the Sunbelt, all built essentially on virgin land, were built as they are. Nor does it explain why the money for maintenance and upgrading of existing facilities hasn't been spent, or better spent.

First of all, how high does fuel have to go and how long does it have to stay there in order to change consumer preference to high density? Heat and commuting cost/time are part of the total monthly cost of carrying a house, along with mortgage and taxes. Americans have proven to be willing to pay a great deal for space and for the kind of segregation that they think means security.

Second, as and when energy costs do change land use demand, the result will be that the owners of distant, low density suburban housing will be stuck with a now undesirable asset with a declining, or at least no longer appreciating, value. For most American households, the equity in the house is their biggest, if not their only, form of savings. The economic and political consequences will be most interesting.