Why Doesn’t the US Have a Train System as Good As Europe’s?

Urban life has always been characterized by a need for mobility because it determines one’s capacity to take part in contemporary societal activities. The efficiency of the public transportation systems is part of what makes cities livable and functional. 

Individuals choose a mode of mass transit based on their unique circumstances. Whether they choose to go by bus or hop on the next train, an individual’s access to transportation is the culmination of a variety of factors. These include regional travel demand, government policies, competition between different modes of transportation, and financial means accessible to each person to pay for the services.

You have probably been on a high-speed train that took you on a scenic trip between two European cities. Or perhaps an all-day local bus to get across the city. The good feeder bus and commuter rail systems were built over a number of decades with deliberate urban planning. From the rails that were installed on the streets of New York in 1832 to the cable car that was invented in 1873, the 19th century witnessed the gradual unfolding of the public transit systems.

By the mid-19th century, independent steam locomotives could pull multiple cars. They then became the primary form of power for urban mass transit. Due to their lack of reliance on a single cable, steam locomotives were able to travel farther than cable cars. They were also much faster. Electric power was cleaner, quieter, and allowed operation in tunnels. This made it possible for urban rail transit to be situated beneath streets and buildings. This also greatly displaced steam starting in Berlin in 1879.

With the advancement of technology, travel speeds increased and cities expanded along the routes used for mass transit. 

The 20th century ushered in the emergence of automobiles in Europe and North America. People no longer had to reside close to rail lines or stations due to the convenience of the automobile. Instead, they could choose to live anywhere in a city as long as there were roads to get them there. For the purpose of constructing and maintaining roadways, many states in the US authorized automobile fuel taxes.

Following World War II, there was a spike in car ownership, particularly in the United States and Western Europe. However, the two regions dealt with the situation quite differently.

The postwar boom in car ownership, and the subsequent response by some countries in what would become the developed world, laid the groundwork for today’s public transit systems in those countries. 

Have you ever visited any European cities? Was it a 10-hour sleeper train ride from Munich to Florence, or did you take a direct train from Paris to Bern? The effective commuter train system must have been one of the things that stuck out.

Whether you’ve had this experience or not, it’s the lived reality of many people, especially Europeans. It raises the question, “Why doesn’t the United States have a train system as good as Europe’s?” The answer could be financial, political, or cultural, depending on who you ask. 

Economics

In terms of economics, the cost is always the biggest obstacle when building new rail lines, especially high-speed railways. Overruns are common, just like with many other mega-projects. The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Authority estimated the cost of the HSR from Los Angeles to San Francisco at $42.6 billion in 2009. As of 2015, the amount had increased by about 60%. Since public funding is typically provided for rail projects, attention is naturally drawn to the many other social impact projects that such a substantial sum of money could provide.

However, many have argued that an effective feeder bus system can significantly reduce the cost of capital projects by connecting people to the existing rail network. Surprisingly, it can be affordable to convert existing rail lines to run regular transit services. 

Examples are everywhere, in some of the world’s best cities. The 95 kilometers of the subway in Munich, Germany are approximately half as long as the Metro system in Washington. In addition, it boasts 434 kilometers of S-Bahn. It is similar to commuter rail in the United States. The difference is that it charges the same fee as local bus and metro services and its trains run every 20 minutes throughout the day. All S-Bahn routes converge into a single underground line. This line serves as a sort of super-subway across the downtown area, with trains running every two minutes.

Back in North America, Ottawa spent about $16 million to turn a sparsely utilized freight route into a five-stop rail transit line with trains every 15 minutes. In America, a single station on the Second Avenue Subway in New York cost $740 million. Of that,$200 million was spent on the 2.2-mile-long D.C Streetcar. The cost of installing new tracks for passenger service is much lower than building subway tunnels.

Many train lines that branch out of some American cities are largely underutilized. Since the bulk of them are used for freight or commuter trains, they can be modified into rapidly moving subway lines without incurring the enormous cost of tunneling. Why not?

Automobiles

As mentioned earlier, car ownership was widespread after the Second World War. Automobiles became the new big thing in both the United States and Europe, but there were some distinctions. 

America invested billions of dollars in the Interstate Highway System which led to the expansion of housing in suburban areas. As the road network widened, urban planning placed less emphasis on nodes and corridors for travel. This created geography that was challenging to access by mass transit.

The high rate of car ownership was also enabled by the lack of heavy taxes on automobiles. 

Despite much rhetoric among American planners of “balanced” transportation plans that incorporated both highway and public transit projects, the U.S. actually did stop installing rail. Between the 1930s and early 1940s and the 1960s, there was hardly any substantial rail construction.

In Europe, cars also represented the post-World War II reconstruction. Many old neighborhoods were demolished to make space for large roads and parking as cities around Europe made deliberate plans to make room for cars. 

However, government regulations that imposed high taxes on both automobiles and their fuels in many western European nations limited the growth of the automobile industry after the Second World War. Government subsidies were used to maintain and expand mass transit systems, and public policies encouraged suburban growth in thoughtfully planned, higher-density nodes.  Thus, higher demand for alternate modes of transportation resulted from lower car ownership rates. 

Due to the suburban sprawl which resulted from the automobile area, many Americans lived in suburbs with a predominance of single-family homes on long stretches of land. Imagine a community centered around cars and structured around access to automobiles. Early American suburbs like Levittown in New York were constructed alongside roads and had almost no access to public transportation. The Long Island Rail Road station closest to the town was quite a distance away, and its trains were aging and in poor condition. Those who commuted 30 miles to Manhattan for work had to drive.

Thanks to the rising wealth of American families and falling car prices, the postwar suburban dream was affordable for even the typical worker by the 1950s. Not much has changed since the design of this era, American suburbs still feature single-family homes on quiet streets near supermarkets that are a good drive away from each other and are surrounded by parking lots. 

In contrast, European planners created new suburbs in a way that preserved the viability of transit use.  A lot of new communities were constructed close to train and metro stations. For instance, Vällingby is a Swedish suburb that was developed in the 1950s around a new metro station. This was the concept adopted by cities like Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Munich. It’s easy to see how European cities generally favored rail-bus transit over building highways when developing new neighborhoods.

It is quite expensive to install train infrastructure through already-developed regions, but it is relatively cheaper to construct it through greenfields before new communities are formed.

What Good Will a High-Speed Rail System Bring to America?

According to the International Union of Railways, high-speed rail uses eight times less energy than airplanes and four times less energy than automobiles. Apart from improving the air quality, investing in high-speed rail will reduce oil consumption, and save the American economy some billion dollars.

The efficiency of highways and airports will be enhanced through the integration of high-speed trains into America’s transportation network. With more transfer stations and feeder services that link to new HSR corridors, it will boost options for residents of rural and small urban towns to travel between downtowns as fast as possible.

The 2019 Global Traffic Scorecard published by INRIX showed that road congestion in the United States cost $88 billion in 2019. According to the report, each American lost 99 hours and $1,400 a year to congestion. As the population increases, there should be a corresponding increment in the nation’s transportation capacity through a high-speed rail network.

Also, a high-speed train system will link America’s key economic megaregions and support their continued mobility, productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness.

Up Next…

Check out some of our other articles on trains.

• 10 Most Expensive Train Trips – See our list of train rides only the richest can afford.
• 7 Most Beautiful Train Rides – We’ve made a list of the most beautiful train rides on Earth!
• Deadliest Train In America – Take a look so you know which train to avoid.

The photo featured at the top of this post is © Philip Lange/Shutterstock.com