
Why Europe’s Trains Are So Much Better Than America's - jseliger
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/how-europe-gets-high-speed-trains-right/404515/?single_page=true
======
zobzu
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
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...](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/12/8764819/why-american-trains-are-bad)

------
iolothebard
"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.

~~~
x0x0
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
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?

~~~
jpatokal
They _are_ building the HSR into SF proper, and they're doing the obvious
thing: using the existing Caltrain alignment from Millbrae into the city,
terminating at the Transbay Transit Center (already under construction and
build with this in mind).

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/California_to...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/California_topographical_map_of_proposed_HSR_route_%282014%29.jpg)

~~~
ghaff
Which is also the sensible thing--leaving aside other pro/con HSR arguments in
general. It also doesn't seem to be what the article is arguing for.

That said, you start having lots of connections and the value of transit
systems goes down. I was just looking last night and I'm told that the time to
get from SFO to the Santa Clara Convention Center/Great America/Stadium is
still about 2 hours which, while theoretically doable, isn't something I'm
going to do.

------
hannob
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
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
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.

------
dogma1138
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...

~~~
cjrp
> 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
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.

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

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

~~~
nathancahill
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.

------
amalag
Because Europe is older, smaller and more population dense.

~~~
sliverstorm
A nice map

[http://static.persquaremile.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/u...](http://static.persquaremile.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/us-europe-high-speed-rail-and-density.png)

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

~~~
arethuza
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](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!]

~~~
sliverstorm
Precise comparisons are aside the point, which is simply that the middle of
the United States is incredibly population-sparse, in the same ballpark as
Siberia. Which, coincidentally, is not exactly known for its convenient
commuter rail network.

------
Arubis
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
"We" is who? Europe or USA?

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

------
pothibo
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.

~~~
prawn
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.

~~~
_delirium
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.

~~~
pothibo
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV) Might
be worth a read. While it may not be up to par to your standard, it's one of
the train system the most complex and speedy in the entire world.

~~~
_delirium
Oh, TGV is great in France, or if you travel on a TGV-operated train to a
neighboring country. I'm just complaining about timetable engines and
ticketing for international trips across Europe, when they involve more than
one operator. For example if you want to buy a ticket from Paris to
Copenhagen, there isn't an integrated timetable/booking system. For this,
bahn.de is better than most national train companies, because their search
engine at least includes other operators' timetables (though they aren't
always able to actually sell you a ticket).

