When was the last time you took a train in the U.S. to get from city to city? If you don’t live in the Northeast part of the country, chances are you probably haven’t used a train for any sort of long distance travel.
Harry Nillsson was right: Nobody cares about the railroads anymore.
Even in large American cities, much of the population doesn’t take public transit. In fact, according to the American Public Transportation Association, 45% of Americans have no access to public transportation. If you don’t live in New York or Chicago, you probably drive most places. Everyone in your household of driving age owns a car, and you wouldn’t even dream of your life without it.
For an increasing number of people in the U.S., there is an echo of a future that never was. Cities that could have provided high-speed public transit access throughout the local area and between major cities is almost nowhere to be found. For the masses, cars are the only option in an expansive, sprawled metro area clogged with traffic and long commutes.
Historically, there are many reasons things ended up this way. Let’s look at a few:
Oil Companies Encouraging the Dismantling of Public Transportation
There was a huge shift in the middle of the 20th Century when it came to how Americans transported themselves. Although cars had existed for many decades leading up to the 1940s, it had yet to become the powerhouse form of transportation it is today.
Much of this was due to a distinct cultural shift towards automobiles, an increasing suburbanization in the U.S., and a strategic moves by the big car companies and oil businesses of the day.
But the U.S. car and oil companies didn’t only advertise how great cars were (and how dismal trains were), but also actively tried to undercut the rail infrastructure already existing across the country.
in the 1930s through the 50s, several oil companies and car manufacturers bought up streetcar and rail operations across the U.S., using these funds to slowly take apart the rails that had been put in and phase out the whole system.
Trains and streetcars were replaced with smelly, slow buses that much of the population didn’t want to ride. What other option was there but to buy a car and start driving everywhere?
One such rail system was in Los Angeles, which according to reports was much loved (and used) by residents. The death of the streetcar and rail system in Los Angeles was recently documented in a great story by The Guardian.
What is most shocking to hear that the city now known as being addicted to driving, freeways, and traffic once had one of the best public transport networks in the country.
The company that bought the Los Angeles line, and the rail systems in 25 other American cities, was called National City Lines. Their investors? Standard Oil, Firestone Rubber and Tire, General Motors, and many more.
These companies not only wanted people to drive, but they wanted people to have no other option but to drive. They helped it become practically mandatory to own a car in Los Angeles and dozens of other cities, changing the very fabric of these cities. Parking lots and wider streets began to pop up all over the city as the age of the personal vehicle truly came into its own.
Yet these oil and car companies weren’t the only causes of this transportation shift. Although they heavily profited from the popularity of cars, the general cultural movement seemed to be towards vehicular transportation, positioning them fortuitously in the right place at the right time.
According to The Guardian:
One can confidently accuse General Motors and their National City Lines of nothing worse than scheming to profit from a trend already in motion. As far as who took away the streetcars, more of the blame lies at the feet of the United States federal government, whose suite of anti-urban post-war policies from building freeways on a colossal scale to incentivise single-family home ownership — not to mention the local voters who both refused to bring the Los Angeles’ rail systems under public ownership in the 1920s and repeatedly shot down rapid-transit proposals in favour of improved automotive infrastructure for decades thereafter.
The Federal Highway Act of 1956
As if things couldn’t look any more dismal for rail in the middle of the 20th Century, enter in the Federal Highway Act of 1956. This was the proverbial nail in the coffin for rail, and the ribbon-cutting victory for the car and oil industry.
With the 1956 Highway Act, The Feds offered to pay for 90% of the highways built in the United States. As long as the proposal concerned an interstate highway, it would qualify. States had only to pay for the remaining 10% of costs.
It was a deal too sweet to pass up, and many cities and states jumped at the opportunity. Interstates and connections were built everywhere across the country. Where once existed neighborhoods and communities, there were suddenly monstrous interstate overpasses that sliced through the landscape like some concrete juggernaut.
Normal Americans were helpless to stop the destruction of neighborhoods in their own city, watching as poor and voiceless communities were removed for the “greater good.”
All of a sudden, driving a car was an incredibly practical and easy way to transport yourself over the American landscape. Fast food joints, gas stations, and convenience stores popped up alongside the Interstates, providing drivers with food and necessities along the way.
Yet this convenience came with a steep price. The rail industry severely declined over the second half of the 20th Century, causing the Federal government to have to create Amtrak in 1971 just to keep it afloat.
And now, road crashes are the leading cause of death among people in the U.S. aged 1–54. 38,000 people die every year in crashes on American roadways.
Is it time for a change? Some think so.
Is High-Speed Rail Coming to the U.S.?
There’s a rule of thumb when it comes to train travel. In places where the trip is four hours or less, it makes sense to build a high speed rail line. Why? Well it has to do with cost/benefit of transportation choices.
The sweet spot is about 200–500 miles, a zone which some call “too short to fly, but too long to drive.”
That’s exactly the thinking that is spurring some big high-speed rail projects in the United States.
Take Brightline, now known as Virgin Trains USA, which is building a train between Miami and Orlando. Already operating between Miami and West Palm Beach, this new line will provide travelers that “sweet spot” trip that will take only 3 hours.
Another train that is coming soon is Victorville to Las Vegas, also being built by Virgin USA. This will be an electric train that also hits that sweet spot of travel, cutting the current bus trip of nearly 4 hours to just 90 minutes.
Even Dallas to Houston is getting a privately-financed high-speed line, promising to connect the two major Texas cities and cutting driving times drastically, taking the 3 and a half hour drive (without traffic) to an amazing 90 minutes.
On the public side, the much-publicized California high-speed line has hit some snags, mostly due to the enormous cost of building a rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Still the project chugs along, one day promising that much of California will be connected by high-speed transit.
Although things appear to be changing, it will be a long time before the U.S. has a truly connected and widespread network of high-speed rail. The complications of labor laws, environmental regulation, land acquisition, and politics will likely slow down (or stop completely) many of these projects.
What’s your opinion on high-speed rail? Are you for or against it coming to your area?
For additional reading, check out one of the great videos by City Nerd: