Bruce_B

Their density is mostly concentrated in the cities. You get out in the countryside and it looks much like rural America. And many of their more rural areas don't have much public transport, but they do usually have a train stop at least. Obviously it's not a 1 to 1 comparison (all of England is about the size of Alabama). It doesn't mean it can't be done here. Especially in the sprawl areas where most of our commuter traffic is concentrated.

dynodonn 

It's more cost effective to move millons of people over a few hundred miles than thousands over the same distance, plus our mountainous terrain makes train operating costs very expensive, several train corporations have either pulled out or went bankrupt trying to make our railroad viable.

Bruce_B

I don't see how each person using a car and the costs of the infrastructure to support that is more cost effective. What is holding it back IMHO is cheap fuel, people's reluctance to change, and our car centered society where driving has become a right and a necessity rather than a privilege. So we wouldn't be able to run as many trains on each route every day as denser areas. We run what the demand calls for. Make gas $15 a gallon and there will be a demand.

Newspaperguy

The Kettle Valley Railway in British Columbia folded for that reason. Construction was difficult as there were mountains and valleys to cross. During its entire history, the railway made money just one year and that was during an exceptionally mild winter with little snow. Today, the tracks have been removed except for a 16-kilometre portion in Summerland where a tourist train operates

Bruce_B

Obviously trains aren't the only option, and they're not the answer for every situation. If you can build a road for cars then buses can go over it as well. I'm not saying public transportation has to be the only option, just the better one.

adgrant

If buses were the only mass transit option available, I would probably drive. They are definitely my least favorite form of transportation. I was riding on one in the city a couple of weeks ago. I ended getting out of the bus and walking. Took me longer but was much more enjoyable.

noisebeam

My next door neighbors are truck crazy. They have a two children living there, now of driving age.
They own 5 pickup trucks, two diesel. Three are extended cab. As soon as each kid started driving they got a truck. The youngest boy spends 5min reving the engine while parked in front of my house and seems to make a dozen trips a day on weekends. Drives me nuts. They leave the diesels idling for 20min at a time and the fumes choke me inside my own house (in the fall/spring with windows open)
Anyway last weekend they had a family BBQ in the park 1/2mi from home. There were six of them and they took 4 trucks to get there. Yikes.

Al

bmclaughlin807

Look at the amount of money poured into the car culture every year... if even a fraction of that went to the train industries, we could have service that is magnitudes of order better than what we have now.

The fact is that the reason it's so easy to use a car in so many areas is that it's VERY heavily subsidized by the government...

Those tracks that they can't build or maintain? Why isn't the government trying to subsidize them?

Imagine how many trucking companies would stay in business if they had to build and maintain their own roads!

Bruce_B

I know how that is. I live in the land of the "my truck is bigger than yours" syndrome. I would say about 90% of the commuters around here are single occupant full size trucks and SUVs. The average commute is probably 10 to 20 miles one way. I actually know of people who commute about 60 miles one way every day. I wonder if they could find a better way if gas wasn't so cheap.

noisebeam

Of course I was just venting. But what I was thinking, but not typing, was how could I begin to reach them? So far gone.

Al

Bruce_B

And the worst part is that a lot of the rail infrastructure we would need is already there. It's just not used for passengers. There are a lot more rail lines than what Amtrak travels. We could have a viable passenger rail system through most of the country if we really wanted. It would be a lot cheaper than what we've spent on some other things lately. And if manged right it could pay for itself.

Bruce_B

I don't think anything will reach them... except $15 a gallon gas

Newspaperguy

Years ago, I had neighbours I nicknamed Mr. Harley and Mr. Davidson. They were in their early 20s and had nice motorcycles. Often, they'd let the bikes rev for a good 15 minutes — at 12:30 or 1 a.m. On a warm day, they'd be outside, shirts off, polishing their bikes.

If they were my neighbours today, I'd wait until they were out polishing their bikes. Then I'd get out with my bicycle and I'd meticulously clean and polish it, in a place where they could see me.

If nothing else, it would provide a little comic relief for the neighbourhood.

Cosmoline

It depends what you mean by "rural America." Rural Vermont or Mass, maybe. But the rural midwest and mountain west, and certainly my state, are almost uninhabited compared with the UK. Instead of a village over the next hill the nearest HOUSE may be twenty miles away. That said, I know many people who live in some extremely remote areas with no cars. No roads, either!

Herman47

"But two or more cars is surely an unnecessary extravagance." -- csr

Let me state at the outset that I do not have a car, have never had a car, and have never driven a car. I am about as strongly anti-car as they come, longing for the day when gasoline taxes are increased to reduce the number of cars on the road. That being said, csr's conclusion in the quote above needs to be more firmly established. Think: if a person owns two cars, he/she only uses one at a time, and therefore the reduced wear and tear on each car should make each one last twice as long.

Still, though, why would anyone ever own two cars? Well, for similar reasons that people own two bikes. You have one available should the other be being repaired. Different cars might be more appropriate for different sorts of situations (e.g., a wider car for a car-pool, a more narrow and fuel efficient car for solo driving). Finally, family members going in different directions at a particular time can each use a car.

My suspicion, though, is that while two cars should theoretically last twice as long, motorists probably don't wait long enough for that to happen, and probably start trading in one or both cars before their functioning lifespan is over. This entails some loss of efficiency, some degree of the wastefulness that csr referred to.

Bruce_B

We don't count Alaska down here in the 48

But seriously, as I said it's not an exact comparison. I was just using an example of a place I'm familiar with that has good public transportation. We got to some very remote areas without ever using a car. I'm sure some places do it even better. My point is we could do it here, we just don't want to.

dynodonn 

Buses may be a good alternative to trains, but again, there has to be enough of a demand to make them viable, and the only bus transit in our area that is close to being financially viable and with a decent running schedule only services a 50 mile stretch of road connecting 5 of our towns. I don't see 15 dollar a gallon gas anytime in the near furture, along with the bus's inability to service every nook and cranny of our area, plus subsidized roads, adding in low population density, I have to say that the motor vehicle will be with us, at least during my remaining years.

Artkansas 

Yeah, we could criminalize cars. The War on Cars!

All joking aside, I think the wiser thing is to encourage non-car use. That is a pretty complex task too.

Bruce_B

Why is it complex? Make them expensive to use and people will find another way.

csr

I mean per household, where there are multiple drivers. In most cases there is at least one principal driver whose route will overlap some form of public transportation, and certainly overlap potential public transportation. Consider this in the most populated areas of the country, where say 85% of the people live, suburban and urban (just guessing at the percentage).

Actually gas could get that expensive, but it may have more to do with the collapse of the dollar, which tends to coincide with inflation.

I think the public transportation problem is a 'last mile' problem. The way to solve it is to inject a profit motive into the picture.

Another idea: Perhaps people could be given a tax credit for not driving a car to work. Anything else instead of driving would qualify: walking, bus, subway, train, biking. But not helicopter. Have to draw the line somewhere. And absolutely no fighter jet commuting. Very wasteful, that.

Another long-term benefit of higher taxation on gas and cars would be that people would tend to consume less and save more. This would stimulate long-term saving and reduce consumer spending (and indebtedness). We send too much money to China for plastic trash that breaks in six months. We use debt to buy consumable items. We're literally driving around in circles, driving ourselves into the ground. We should calm down, and smell the roses.

Someone mentioned food shopping: a car is handy for that, indeed. I propose the luxury tax on second, third, etc., motor vehicles.

shumacher

I have a relative who uses a wheelchair, and lives on a fixed income. Her home is in a rural area. She could move to an area with a bus route, but that would have her living in a higher crime area too. She owns an inexpensive car that carries her chair and her groceries just fine. I love her, and cycling is great fun for me, but I'd never try to get her out of the car. It lets her live near family. She's within five miles of nearly everything she needs, and is responsible for less than three thousand miles of travel a year.

I'm against any policy that would mess with her car. Making it more expensive to own and operate a car would do that.

Bruce_B

It wouldn't be difficult to have some common sense exemptions. Disabled people who can't get around without a car could be exempt from the tax. We could also exempt emergency services, delivery services, farmers, and maybe a few others.

Spaceman Spiff

There is already a country where the government decides who needs a car and how many they are allowed to own. It's called North Korea.

Discouraging car use should be done by convincing people that it's the right thing to do, NOT by forcing them.

Besides, I don't think the number of cars one owns matters as much as how they're used. If I own 3 cars but only drive a total of 5000 kms a year and another guy owns only 1 car but drives 30,000 kms a year, who is causing more damage to the environment?

csr

Government is in effect a principle of force that continuously alters choices of all kinds. We are already being forced to accept driving. The question is, does that serve national and personal interests as well as a policy that discourages driving?

The savings materialize when family groupings are considered. One family with three cars will use the cars a great deal. One family with one car will rely more heavily on walking, public transportation, bike riding, and where applicable, swimming. lol

Artkansas 

I don't think you understood. You are talking discouraging car use. That's not at all what I was referring to.

I said that encouraging non-car use was complex. You have to disassemble the pro-car paradigm. If you are living in suburbia, you are so hostage to a car that you will pay a hefty price to continue.

So I am calling for encouraging non-car living. So we need light rail, we need ample sidewalks, we need bike paths, we need stores and merchants in neighborhoods not gated communities and a lot more. We need to make it easy to live without a car. People can't just "find another way". It takes planning and infrastructure.