QUOTE (hermit @ Jul 10 2010, 03:11 PM)

Why Americans are so attached to slow moving transport - those speed limits without any reason (since you build roads devoid of turns) and the neglected trains - is somehow beyond me. Is it the relative cheapness of inland flights? The country certainly is big enough for flight to be viable.
...it goes back to post WWI. It was a complex situation however suffice to say the private automobile emerged as the backbone for US passenger transportation. All that "freedom to roam" & "wide open spaces" drek. The feds and states built the new interstate system that the cars drove on. Posted highway speeds increased, in some areas exceeding 80MPH and there was even interest towards heading towards a more autobahn styled system on long stretches with speeds in excess of 100MPH. Gas was cheap so efficiency didn't matter. Cars were inexpensive and fairly simple to work on. And the future promised turbines and even (yes, don't laugh) atomic power.
Next came the "Golden Age of jet travel" in the 60s (which was aided by both hidden and not so hidden subsidies). The Feds and local governments built the airports, the Feds maintained ATC and the airways, The feds determined what routes the airlines flew (which in and of itself was not really a bad thing as it lent itself to more linear routings instead of the inefficient hub & spoke system we endure today). They provided a trained pilot and mechanic workforce pool in the form of military vets, and even funded technological development (which ended with the demise of the US SST project in the 1970s). Flying became relatively inexpensive as larger planes with more efficient (albeit slightly so) engines took to the air with more seats to fill. Special fares for families, seniors, students and those who didn't mind travelling "space available" (the way I went a lot of times) brought what was once a mode of travel for the wealthy and businessman on the company's expense account to the masses (I am talking about the pre-deregulation days).
Meanwhile passenger rail travel languished. In some cases lines were running equipment that was three or more decades old on tracks that were being pounded into submission by increasingly longer and heavier freights. What was once the means of travel for movie stars, celebrity athletes, and the chic had become not much better than an intercity bus. On time performance (once a major selling point) slipped. The posh "Limiteds" and Long Distance trains became a mere shadow of what they once were. Finally the private railroads decided to opt out of passenger service altogether and sell everything (save for the track right of ways which the feds gave them back in the 1800s).
That is how Amtrak came to be. At first it was laughable, and many feel was deigned to fail so that the nation could quietly put it it to pasture like it did with the streetcars and interurban lines back in the 1940s, 50s & early 60s (the feds actually appointed an ex-airline administrator who had zero knowledge of rail travel to run the show). Since the tracks were owned by the freight lines (and actually leased from them for Amtrak by the government) freights now had priority over passenger trains. In some parts of Indiana and Ohio, once crack passenger trains such as the Broadway Limited that you could set your watch by, were relegated to poorly maintained tracks forced in some cases to travel at a walking pace. I remember a 60 minutes report where Mike Wallace actually pulled a spike out of a track with his bare hand shortly after a slow moving Amtrak train had passed, that was how bad it got.
Back then, "On time" pretty much meant you arrived before midnight on the same day the train was scheduled to pull into the station.
While over the years service has steadily improved, new equipment brought on line to replace the old, and the system has proved itself viable if not even popular (the Coast Starlight is a difficult train to get reservations on during the summer), it is still at the mercy of those wielding the budget axe every biennium in the name of paring down the pork fat (while of course touting their own porcine agendas)
However even these modest successes are not enough for the US government to embark on a real rail transportation plan for the nation. For one, the idea of "big government" is not well accepted here and is seen by some as socialistic (which in the eyes of the far right is the downhill road to communism). Better to have more cars, more fuel consumption per capita, more pollution, more traffic woes, and a more inefficient transportation network with all the associated fiscal, environmental, social, and political expenses.
Every day while I wait for my bus after work about 90% of the cars I see go by have but a single occupant (including those huge SUVs). At one point on the approach to one of the bridges we cross it is pretty much a standstill. Lots of fun on a 95° day with no air conditioning. Yet the local transit commission here is reducing bus service across the board (again) come this fall because of budget shortfalls (and mismanagement).
Ahh the freedom to sit in traffic jams, breathe exhaust fumes, pay high petrol prices, parking fees, maintenance bills (they may as well put a sticker on the bonnet that reads "No User Serviceable Parts"), and insurance premiums (mandatory in most states).
I'd love to see an American city adopt what London did as a means of reducing traffic in it's central district. But here, that would be grounds for riots because the car is sacred and driving, a "god given right".
Until we change this attitude we will continue to be mired in an overseas conflict we will never win, risk future blowouts like we are seeing in the gulf, and be forced to have to earn more and more (thus driving up costs further) just to feed that metallic and plastic stepchild out there in the garage.
This is why we don't have decent trains here (and the way things are going, decent transit altogether)
Apologies for getting on the soapabox.