Why doesn't the U.S. have cross country transit like European countries especially considering oil prices?

Answer 1

Railway Passenger Service was never profitable after about 1920 or so. In the 1930s, Airlines began to provide an alternative, and the final nail in the coffin was the InterState Highway System, approved in 1956, and unfortunatley, still under construction. Railroads lost the mail contracts by 1967, and after that passenger trains were a total loss, and by then railroads were no longer considering themselves to be a "public service" - profit being the motivation. In 1971 Amtrak was formed and private passenger trains disappeared except for the very expensive tour trains like the American Orient Express. Now, Politicians are much more interested in serving those that finance their campaigns than they are helping the public, and until that situation improves, or goes away, there will be no transportation alternative that does not use a lot of petroleum.

Answer 2

A high speed train can travel from New York to Chicago in three hours and a half, obviously with a new line that allows high speeds. It is not true that the northeast "it´s the only part of the country where the population density supports wide use of rail travel". There are corridors all over the country and LONG DISTANCE trains are important too. And if you can have two daily trains on most routes the passenger numbers will go up. And it is not true that planes are "cheaper, faster, and more environmentally friendly." And with less oil or more expensive plane fares will go up, trains can be powered by electricity or steam. Oh, yes, and the cross country trains are not "transit".

Answer 3

Because the oil companies and highway/airline interests have grown so big that any form of alternative transportation other than roads, cars and airports don't get enough funding to make a difference. Even though public opinion polls over the years from such sources as the Washington Post and Gallup have shown strong support(60-70 percent) for a national Amtrak/passenger rail network, politicians still don't fund it property, due in part to more political contributions from oil/highway interests than passenger train interests. If the Interstate Highway system were funded like Amtrak, the Interstates would only be a series of two-lane roads without shoulders!

Answer 4

It sounds to me like your question may be incomplete.

If you are wondering why the U.S. doesn't have high speed transcontinental rail systems that approach the velocity of the bullet trains, it is because the ifra-structure (road beds and right of way) to support such a system does not exsist.

When rail ridership began to decrease in the mid fifties, do to air travel for quicker transit time and the automobile for convenience, the rail companies concentrated on freaight traffic and the passenger train fell by the wayside. Contrary to AMTK rider, the twenties, thirties and fortys were the hey-day of passenger service, with trains like the Hiawatha, Sunset, Daylight, Lark, Overland, City of San Francisco, Starlight, Del Monte, North Coast Limited, Golden State, Yellowstone Comet, and dozens upon dozens of others. When ridership did fall, they became the perfect money pit.

Today, rail travel is time consuming and most people don't have lots of time on their hands for vacation travel, etc. Though there is a lot more country to see when riding the rails, it is for those with time on their hands. Cost is also quite high for coach seating, and the available compartments are on a par with first class air travel in terms of expense.

I don't think we'll ever have high speed transcontinental railways. We're too far behind the curve and building such a project would probably consume a couple years of the U.S.' total GNP. Even if we were to make such an effort, we would still need conventional transportation to various locations that were not on or near the right of way or at end of track.

Answer 5

The US does have cross country transit. Amtrak runs trains from the east coast to the west coast. Take the Lake Shore Limited from New York to Chicago, the Captiol Limited from Washington DC to Chicago via Pittsburgh, or the Cardinal from new York to Chicago, via Washington DC and Cincinnati, Ohio and then you can take the California Zephyr to Emeryville (Oakland), California, the Empire Builder to go to Seattle through St. paul, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon, the Southwest Chief from Chicago through Kansas City, Missouri to Los Angeles, the Texas Eagle from Chicago to Los Angeles via Dallas and Fort Worth, texas, or the Sunset Limited from Orlando, Florida to Los Angeles via New Orleans. In all, all of these trains and some others can take you cross country to most of the big cities on all parts of the east and west coasts and the south, and many small towns in between. If you want a more definite schedule, go to the website for Amtrak.

Answer 6

What gives you the idea that we don't?? Because of the distances involved, air travel is the preferred mode most of the time.

The heavily populated East Coast metroplex -- DC to Boston -- has excellent train service as well. It's the only part of the country where the population density supports wide use of rail travel in the US.

Answer 7

The US is over twice the size (in miles) than the entire continent of Europe... Do you realize how much money that would take and how long it would take to travel? That's why.

Take a plane, it's cheaper, faster, and more environmentally friendly.

Answer 8

They do. It's called airplanes. But I do think they need a good passenger cross country rail service.

Answer 9

Uhhh hello? Amtrak Greyhound? Ringing any bells

Answer 10

well .. we do have trains and such as well as buses that cross the nation. One thing you have to remember ... The U.S. is HUGE in size compared to most European nations.