Great Article! As an Interrail Enthusiast in Europe, the idea of not being able to travel by train is terrifying. Another thing that I find incomprehensible about America, is that, even though they have such a good highway system, nobody travels by long-distance bus routes. A concept similar to Flixbus would be an interesting thought.
Talk about all the subsidies one wants but cars win over rail because:
a) Most trips are local or regional. Point to point is more efficient.
b) Car expenses are per car, not person. If I drive 500 miles, it costs me ~$250 whether it's 1 person or 5 in the car. Air and rail, that's per person.
c) Most people don't recognize the per trip cost of that mileage on their car; they just see the $$ shelled out for the gas ( psychological, not logical ).
The biggest reason ---> The cost of driving has massively decreased.
In the 1920s and 1930s a car would maybe last ya 50,000 miles. By the 1950s and 1960s, it doubled to 100,000 miles.
Rail construction in the 19th Century was also subsidized in that it was able to claim real estate along the track as it was laid and then sell or develop that land itself. This led to some contraction and realignment of tracks when there was insufficient demand for travel or transport by rail. As for freight today, the difference in scale between the US and Europe specifically works to the advantage of rail of roads for long hauls.
From American Rail travel to Road, but not convenient and cheaper air transport, and the vast geo breath of the US. Russian rail to Chinese is better, and not Indian to Chinese or even Canadian.
Like Mosher mentioned of high costs, to European luxury rail, to evenly distributed population in some of these countries, to the US, etc.
Great Article! As an Interrail Enthusiast in Europe, the idea of not being able to travel by train is terrifying. Another thing that I find incomprehensible about America, is that, even though they have such a good highway system, nobody travels by long-distance bus routes. A concept similar to Flixbus would be an interesting thought.
Talk about all the subsidies one wants but cars win over rail because:
a) Most trips are local or regional. Point to point is more efficient.
b) Car expenses are per car, not person. If I drive 500 miles, it costs me ~$250 whether it's 1 person or 5 in the car. Air and rail, that's per person.
c) Most people don't recognize the per trip cost of that mileage on their car; they just see the $$ shelled out for the gas ( psychological, not logical ).
The biggest reason ---> The cost of driving has massively decreased.
In the 1920s and 1930s a car would maybe last ya 50,000 miles. By the 1950s and 1960s, it doubled to 100,000 miles.
Rail construction in the 19th Century was also subsidized in that it was able to claim real estate along the track as it was laid and then sell or develop that land itself. This led to some contraction and realignment of tracks when there was insufficient demand for travel or transport by rail. As for freight today, the difference in scale between the US and Europe specifically works to the advantage of rail of roads for long hauls.
The lion share of rail was built without land grants.
From American Rail travel to Road, but not convenient and cheaper air transport, and the vast geo breath of the US. Russian rail to Chinese is better, and not Indian to Chinese or even Canadian.
Like Mosher mentioned of high costs, to European luxury rail, to evenly distributed population in some of these countries, to the US, etc.