But if you want to keep the France comparison, let's compare a journey from Paris to Marseille with a journey from San Francisco to Los Angeles:
Paris to Marseille: - by car: 7h30m (773km/480mi) - by train: 3h11m direct for 94 EUR/103 USD with luggage and WiFi, amongst others
San Francisco to Los Angeles: - by car: 6h (613km/381mi) - note that I'm checking the route times at 8:24 BST and so it's night time in the US - hence less traffic. - by train (and bus): 8h30m with a change for 61 EUR/67 USD
The SF to LA route covers less distance and requires a change, so the passenger would travel 6h by train and then a further 2h on a bus - and when you compare that to driving it doesn't make any sense to ever pick public transport.
I do think there's more to it than just Americans not liking rail travel or preferring their cars. To build significant passenger rail infrastructure requires coordination at state government levels with all the stakeholders; funding; purcahsing land; technology to build modern and efficient railways etc. I don't believe the US has the capability to just build rail anymore - it would require significant investment in skills and manufacturing to increase capability to the point where it will be able to build the type of modern railway they would need to actually be a viable alternative.
Hell, even in the Paris region, outside the closest suburbs, there are only a few train lines going into Paris. At best you'll need to ride a bus or two to grab one, but most often you'll take your car.
You don't need to drive cross the whole state for your daily commute, do you?
> along with the EU being more densely populated
Reversing cause-and-effect, here. Suburban sprawl happens because of the car-centric development, not the other way around.
I've done this before in America. It's over twice as cheap to drive than take a train.
Yeah, I can also take a plane from Germany to England and pay less than what it costs me for the taxi that I will need to get to the airport. Does that mean that flying EasyJet should be considered the most efficient means of transportation?
What exactly are you trying to argue, here?
- That the cost of one train ticket is higher than the cost of a car trip?
- For one single passenger or for a family?
- In the US or overall?
- Are externalities factored in?
I'm arguing that in America the only reason to take a train for me is for the novelty factor. Novelty isn't enough to garner a ton of investment to get rail built.
Sure, if you are willing to disregard all of the environmental and health costs associated with car-centric development, then there is no reason to invest in rail.
If you are willing to ignore the more than 40 thousand people that die on car crashes per year in the US, then there is no reason to invest in rail.
If you are willing to ignore the fact that all cities are going bankrupt because they don't get enough in property taxes to maintain the roads and basic infrastructure in the suburbs, then there is no reason to invest in rail.
If you don't care about the fact that your kids are growing completely isolated because they can't go anywhere unless they have someone driving them around, then there is no reason to invest in rail.
I just checked on Amtrak and you can get a train from Seattle to Spokane for $37 in July. This website suggests a comparable cost for driving: https://www.travelmath.com/cost-of-driving/from/Seattle,+WA/... . That seems to be based purely on fuel costs, not counting the marginal costs of insurance and maintenance.
Using the same method, I can get Amtrak from Seattle to Chicago at $169, vs $300 drivings costs.
- most travel is within the local polity, e.g. suburbs to work & back, social activities, etc. The radius for these is not hugely different between the US and the EU.
- it's the European train network at this point, not one country's, and it needs to be one US system too, not one state's.
Yes, trains are hard in the US Midwest. But not on the west coast, and not in the larger east coast area either.
I ran some rough calculations and this is true but the distinction is perhaps not as great as you imagine.
USA has land mass 9.1 million km2 50 states => 182000 km2 per state
EU has land mass 4.2 million km2 and 27 countries => 156000 km2 per country
The average EU country is 87% the size of the average US state.
Just goes on and on
Also, your car has to park somewhere presumably, which uses land, and I assume your car uses fuel (or electricity, but unlikely if your car is that cheap)
Park it on the drive. Yeah I wasn't including fuel costs because they depend on how much you drive. I'm probably about at about £500/year at most (I work from home).
When I commuted by car it would have been maybe £1k/year (£10/day but I lift shared).
Maybe you can get it down to £1k/year by driving an old car that you’ve fully paid off (in which case you’re ignoring the amorted cost), never needs maintenance, has a low value to minimise depreciation and insurance etc., but even then 2-3x that wouldn’t be uncommon.
One of the issues with trains is that people often severely underestimate the true total cost of car trips.
Then, a metro monthly pass is around $100 in Paris and $130 in NYC. In other words, after paying through taxes, you have to pay for tickets at market rates. That’s $1200 for city transport, not covering outer zones or intercity travel (unless you live in densely populated cities that have sufficient transportation, in which case you pay in rent).
Then, you pay through wasting time, and other factors I mentioned in my other comment.
It's kinda sad, but a car is the WAY cheaper option for us.
But, an adult GA is a premium ticket. That buys you unlimited travel on the entire network for a year. Not many travel patterns need that. If you just buy tickets as you need them and especially combined with a Halbtax it's not so bad. Where the crossover between car ownership and using public transport for everything occurs is going to depend a lot on your specific travel patterns and what kind of car you compare to.
You are right tho. If I would live near a bus station that has more than 3 rides a day (which 98% of all Swiss do, rough estimate) I would probably just use a halbtax and a Region specific subscription.
But if I use regular SBB tickets for like 10-15 short trips a year you are already getting closer to the GA. Depends on your patterns :)
No time lost commuting, no fuel / electricity used to move and roads are less congested for people who have to commute due to their jobs requiring their physical presence.
I’m not judging them as better. I’m just predicting they’ll come first and make it even more challenging to get public transportation funded and approved
Also, not sure how it's more expensive than having people drive. I save 10k+ a year by not owning a car. And I can sit in the train and get work done, have a drink, sleep, whatever - can't do that while driving.
Your second argument on the other hand rings true and is the main reason high speed train service in the US makes less sense. Many cities have near-zero infrastructure locally to transport passengers to their final destination.
Same goes for airports too though.
It's very different for Paris - London where both cities have excellent subway networks or Tokyo - Osaka (ditto) or anywhere within China. The Taiwan HSR is also very successful since it got better connected to local trains including Taoyuan airport.