Why Europe’s Trains Are So Much Better Than America's

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/how-europe-gets-high-speed-trains-right/404515/?single_page=true

by jseliger • 11 years ago

33 73 11 years ago

amalag2• 11 years ago

Because Europe is older, smaller and more population dense.

cylinder• 11 years ago

New York metro is very dense and all the commuter rail systems are pretty bad, or worse. Bumpy rides, delays, uncomfortable interiors, etc. I can't really work on anything on the LIRR or NJT because it's so wobbly. I got on a commuter rain in Geneva and it was so incredibly smooth and the whole experience comfortable.

virmundi• 11 years ago

To harp on the American rail system: I could literally not type on portions of the ride from Palatka to D.C. The tracks were so wobbly and bouncy that my hands would jump all over the keyboard.

Mithaldu3• 11 years ago

As a german: This.

Europe can afford to have better trains and public transit systems across the board because it's easier for us to have a consistent level of quality, since we simply have much less area to service and trains are a viable alternative for a massive portion of the populace.

HarryHirsch• 11 years ago

Not true, not true at all. The Boston-Washington Megalopolis is about the size and population of West Germany. But West Germany had proper rail service, and in the US it was always awful.

legulere• 11 years ago

That's not true. France has a lower population density and is more centralized to fewer cities. This is an advantage for their high speed train network because they have fewer stops.

cozzyd• 11 years ago

* older: the railroad was invented in the 19th century, and I think the US railroad network circa 1900 was superior to Europe...

* smaller: not really... depends where you count.

* more population dense: nobody is expecting good rail transit in Wyoming or Montana (although, Scandinavia seems to do okay with low density). The Northeast, Midwest, and California are all very dense and still have much worse rail transit.

ghaff6• 11 years ago

The Northeast really isn't that bad for trains but it does suffer from the fact that there was a multi-decade exodus from many cities by both residents and companies for a variety of reasons. That didn't exactly encourage investment in rail infrastructure.

ghaff6• 11 years ago

To pick just one example from the article, there's the argument that successful high-speed rail has to go from dense city core to dense city core while simply passing through ex-urban locations. The ex-urban stops are one of the whole appeals of Acela in the Northeast Corridor in the US as they allow travel to New York City without going to downtown Boston.

The article sort of went off the, um, rails when it basically suggested that if only US cities were bulldozed and re-engineered to the priorities of less land-rich continent then rail would make a lot more sense.

I even like taking the train in general but it's hard to make the numbers work in much of the US.

arethuza2• 11 years ago

The continent of Europe (10.18 million km²) is slightly larger than the area of the United States (9.857 million km²).

Yes, the EU is quite a bit smaller than the US - but there is an awful lot of Europe that isn't in the EU.

Personally, I think it's about the distribution of population in Europe - where most population centers are reasonably close together and with the peripheries less populous whereas the US has populations towards the peripheries and a relatively sparsely populated center (roughly).

duaneb3• 11 years ago

Europe is more than twice the size of the US in population, so even as a whole it is much more densely packed.

sliverstorm2• 11 years ago

A nice map

http://static.persquaremile.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/u...

Wyoming, in particular, has a lower population density than Siberia!

arethuza2• 11 years ago

But that just shows how difficult these comparison are - Siberia has an extremely uneven distribution of population. If you chose one part of Siberia - Krasnoyarsk Krai, it is nearly ten times the area of Wyoming and has a much lower population density 1.21/km2 rather than 2.26/km2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnoyarsk_Krai

[NB And there appears to be an even bigger and emptier bit of Siberia next door but I haven't worked out what it is yet!]

dagw• 11 years ago

I'd take that map with a huge grain of salt. Saying that Norway has High Speed Rail for example is a bit of a stretch considering that the only high speed rail line in all of Norway is a short stretch between Oslo and the main airport.

Saying Norway has high speed rail is like saying that the US has a monorail system.

melling• 11 years ago

I'm just going to copy and paste my notes here. This is sort of an FAQ that is incorrectly brought up. I need to add population for the U.S. cities but it's obvious that you're wrong?

Los Angeles to San Francisco 400 miles

Los Angeles to San Diego 150 miles

NYC to Philadelphia 92 miles

NYC to Boston 220 miles

NYC to Washington DC 226 miles

Chicago to St Louis 260 miles

Dallas to Houston 240 miles

Dallas to Austin 200 miles

Austin to Houston 170 miles

Tampa to Orlando 85 miles

Miami to Orlando 235 miles

---

Population of Rome: 2.7m

Population of Milan: 1.3m

Rome to Milan: 355 miles

amalag2• 11 years ago

Cherry-picking a few cities is not helpful

Arubis• 11 years ago

Without having read the article: because we prioritize freight (CSX, etc.) over passengers. Freight liners own a lot of the rails; Amtrak merely leases time on them.

There's a LOT of trains going through Denver these days--mostly laden with coal and petroleum. Who needs pipes when you've got rails?

stevoski• 11 years ago

"We" is who? Europe or USA?

AnimalMuppet• 11 years ago

CSX is an American railroad. Amtrak is the national passenger agency in the US. Denver is in the US, not in Europe.

KfZ• 11 years ago

Denver and the Am in Amtrak suggest USA.

iolothebard• 11 years ago

"Also, the Milbrae and Burbank station locations will be in less accessible areas"

Millbrae isn't a "less accessible area". You've got both BART and Caltrain. Do a little research author? Millbrae is actually the best place IMO in the Bay Area to stop, especially if they ever expand BART.

ghaff6• 11 years ago

Not if everyone would only live in densely populated, walkable cities created by the wave of a magic wand because that's what the author would clearly prefer.

x0x05• 11 years ago

Well, it's what we can afford / are capable of making work, given the constraints in California: limited land area (particularly coastal land area with nice weather), large increases in population, an inability to scale freeways to move as many people as necessary, etc.

x0x05• 11 years ago

I don't think you understood the article. It claims that, for speed purposes, train stops should only be in major cities and not on the urban periphery. Millbrae is hardly a major city. Nor is Millbrae particularly accessible: there is poor parking near the bart station, few options for public transport, and I doubt even 2k people live within walking distance of the bart station.

Millbrae is also obviously not the best location in the bay area to stop. Millbrae population: 22k. sf population: 837k.

johan_larson• 11 years ago

You want to draw a high-speed train line into SF proper? You'd be looking at clearing tens of miles of housing or digging a comparable amount of tunnel, which would be either politically difficult or $EXPENSIVE.

What's your plan?

johns• 11 years ago

However, it is across the street from a major international airport.

ojbyrne• 11 years ago

I think the purpose of both the Millbrae and Burbank stops is to connect to airports.

mahyarm• 11 years ago

Milbrae is a nexus point for various transportation options in the bay area. BART, Caltrain Bullet, SFO Airport & the 101 highway all meet there. It's also close to the san mateo bridge.

I would suggest putting the high speed train station in the same station that BART & Caltrain share. If I lived in SF and wanted to go to LA, I would just hop onto a BART for 20m and then catch the high speed train. I would also expand the BART parking tower to several more floors if possible.

_delirium4• 11 years ago

There are successful examples of both models when building out high-speed rail. The Japanese system often puts the new stations on the outskirts of cities and lets people do the last-mile transfer via the local metro system. Many cities have both a station with the city's name, which is in the urban center and serves the old line, and a station named Shin-Cityname ("New-Cityname"), which is on the urban periphery and serves the Shinkansen line. In other cities they do roll all the way to the old station (e.g. Tokyo Station), but switching onto low-speed track for the final connection.

Europe mainly decided to route trains through city centers, sometimes by also taking the strategy of using older, low-speed track for the urban portion of the trip, and accelerating to high-speed once the train switches onto the new tracks. However even there sometimes the outskirts option was taken when geography makes it more convenient; examples include Gare de Saint-Pierre-des-Corps (outside Tours, France) and Köln Messe/Deutz station (outside Cologne, Germany).

kt103099• 11 years ago

Millbrae resident here.

Millbrae is the largest 'intermodal' station west of the Mississippi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrae_Intermodal_Terminal). It is the closest station to the largest airport in the Bay Area (SFO). If you're flying into SFO and want to connect to the high-speed rail, Millbrae is the _most_ accessible station, and one of the few (only?) stations in the region which allows you connect to most of the Bay Area.

'Poor parking near the bart station' - BART says there are 2900 spaces available. I don't know what would be expected, but I wouldn't describe that as 'poor parking'.

Also, perhaps less relevant, Millbrae is the last stop on the existing rail corridor still allowing relatively flat (and straight) tracks. North of that, tunneling or large bends around hills may be required.

dogma1138• 11 years ago

Hmm European train rides tend to be quite bit more expensive than in the US, even if you take the craziness of the UK train system which is much costlier than mainland Europe (London to Newcastle costs more than London to Brussels), yearly train tickets in the Netherlands, Germany and France are also quite expensive...

wozniacki• 11 years ago

Pareto optimally, perhaps the European train experience is superior to the American one.

However, Bill Maher begs to differ on his recent train trip experience from Stockholm to Oslo which he equates to Amtrak [1]

[1] Lewis Black and Bill Maher: Why we're bachelors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8osINepuw8&t=2m43s

_delirium4• 11 years ago

Scandinavia is not really where you want to go in Europe for good intercity trains (its commuter rail is another story). The connection between Sweden and Norway is especially notorious for being ancient and slow, with plans to upgrade it being discussed for many years. The modern lines are the Great Belt route east-to-west across Denmark, and the triangle in southern Sweden connecting Malmö, Gothenburg, and Stockholm. And even those are not up to French, Spanish, or German standards.

Some maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sweden_railways.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Danmark_maks._hastig...

cjrp• 11 years ago

even if you take the craziness of the UK train system which is much costlier than mainland Europe (London to Newcastle costs more than London to Brussels)

Not if you book in advance; a single journey London -> Newcastle in 3 months will cost £29.10, vs. traveling today which would cost £121.00.

Timmons• 11 years ago

For regular trips that is true, and great. For more urgent trips or trips where the date may be flexible you are kind of stuck paying that huge cost most the time.

I used to live in Cambridge and had a similar problem on my frequent visits to Newcastle which I couldn't pin a date down for.

pothibo3• 11 years ago

The difference is because in America, there's 2(3) countries. In Europe, you travel between ~10 countries. The budget/mentality is different since you operate in international level with international import/exports.

chadgeidel• 11 years ago

"in America there's 2(3) countries" - I'm curious what you are referring to here - Canada, US, and Mexico or "regions of the United States". The article appears to be merely talking about the United States.

prawn• 11 years ago

Wouldn't the hassle in coordinating things across multiple countries be much higher?

Not sure why anyone would make excuses for the US on trains. There are some great opportunities to get it right. Or ignore it and wait for automated bus services.

_delirium4• 11 years ago

Yes, and international trains are not where the European network shines. It's getting better, but it has historically been hard to even figure out how to buy a ticket involving multiple countries. Deutsche Bahn is one of the better ones. If you originate or terminate in Germany, their booking engine can figure out how to get you to a neighboring country (and they actually have these countries' timetables in their system, too). But if you want to go through Germany, say from France to Poland, good luck getting that booked, unless you split it into two tickets, each terminating in Germany.

Specific through services make it easier a few routes, such as the CityNightLine sleeper services, since there is one train and one operator for the whole route.

pothibo3• 11 years ago

Not excuses, just maths. I'm not a US citizen. But I'm canadian. And my province has tried to get high speed train through the border, but the economics never added up.

That's the problem with N. America, airplanes are cheaper for our geographic situation. Because routes are not set in stone, they can be changed as the demand adjusts itself.

When you lay out train track, you can't change your mind in 20 years or you need to change your infrastructure.

DiThi2• 11 years ago

Wouldn't the hassle in coordinating things across multiple countries be much higher?

Not much more than across US states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

(although as someone else commented, it's not easy to get trains going through more than one border).

Or ignore it and wait for automated bus services.

Buses won't reach 330 km/h (210 mph, speed of trains made in my country, Spain).

fraencko• 11 years ago

And on German trains, the wi-fi actually works.

That is a lie. Source: I'm German.

nathancahill• 11 years ago

I'd heard rumors, so I was excited to get some work done on a bus from Hamburg to Berlin a couple months ago. Was disappointed when the wifi cut out after 10 minutes.

zobzu• 11 years ago

I dont think american trains have any incentive to get better. it works sort of good enough and people pay, why care about speed or comfort?

in "europe" and really they mean germany and france, switzerland in particular, not actual "all of europe" - there is a minimum coverage the company has to achieve ands it cant "get out of it".

Same thing for cellphone coverage and internet coverage. Heck, France is starting to get a lot of FTTH everywhere (free install, less than 30e/mo for 100mit) because of these requirements. The bay area can keep dreaming on getting something else than comcast at 30mbit coaxial cable for 60 bucks/mo + have to buy modem and tech if not wired.

Basically, capitalism-all-the-things don't work very well with monopolies and corrupted organizations/cities/countries.

socio-capitalism isnt the greatest but it works a little better.

1971genocide• 11 years ago

Its also got to do with culture.

Americans have a deep love for car culture - and look at public transportation as social welfare [1].

American capitalism is also responsible for america having the most profitable multinationals in the world. Its just that it doesn't work very good for society but does allow money to multiply really well.

[1] http://www.vox.com/2015/6/12/8764819/why-american-trains-are...

hannob• 11 years ago

As someone from Germany I find the description in the first chapter a bit idealized.

The truth is: Trains in Germany are also notoriously late. And the Wifi quite often doesn't work as another commenter already mentioned.

(that doesn't change the fact that of course the German rail system is much better than the one in the US - but one shouldn't overidealize it, it has lots of problems itself)

ahh• 11 years ago

I don't have data on this, but I am willing to bet your German definition of "notoriously late" is much more stringent than an American's. (Not that you're wrong to think that: we've just gotten used to extremely low standards in America because all of our public projects are run incompetently.)

jbpritts• 11 years ago

Utopic intercity train travel in Europe is a myth. In Germany it is good, but expensive and most under 30 are trying to find an affordable alternative, e.g., BlahBlah car or a bus. France is just prohibitively expensive: I had a group trip cancelled because people balked once they saw what the TGV costs were. In Czech republic inter city is cheap, but there is no AC in the cabins and dodgy heat, infrequent high speed corridors, no WiFi, and often it is standing room only (keep in mind this might be for a 2-3 hour trip). Intracity transport is much better than the us almost all over Europe, but don't by the hype otherwise.

Why Europe’s Trains Are So Much Better Than America's

Related Stories