In Europe 25% of all goods moved around go by rail

In the U.S. 49% of all goods are moved by rail

(Figures from experts on NPR this morning)

When is Europe going to catch up to America in moving freight the most efficiently and the most environmentally-friendly way?

What's wrong with European trains, which are actually losing freight to trucks every year vs. American trains where freight is actually growing on the rails?

As a frequent European rail traveler now for decades i can testify to the lessening of freight trains and the ever-increasing parade of big lorries clogging up the autoroutes.

It's said that European devotes their rail lines to passengers yet only 5% of all inter-city journeys are done by rail.

Which countries in Europe? How many of the goods are transported by boat (both rivers and sea)?

I can only say that in my area the rail line Berlin - Dresden - Prague reaches the limit of capacity. We're planning to build a new one.

Oh, btw, do you mean the number of goods or do you refer to the goods x distance?

Statistics ...

I.

<i>When is Europe going to catch up to America in moving freight the most efficiently and the most environmentally-friendly way?</i>

To be pedantic, container shipping is actually the most environmentally friendly. Of course, it isn't practical to use container ships to move freight from Utah to Iowa, or Milan to Berlin.

This is an interesting statistic, though.

This is one of the reasons why passenger train travel in the U.S. is difficult and time-consuming. Freight trains have priority over passenger trains on most tracks.

Yes, Jean ! A journey by train (Amtrak) from Montreal to NYC is 10 to 11 hours, a distance of approx. 350 miles. A Eurostar journey from London to Paris takes 2 hours &amp; 15 minutes.

I am open to correction on this, but I believe when the railways in the UK were privatised, that there was a deliberate dicision made that the money was in passengers, and that freight should be discouraged.

For many cargoes, ships are more efficient and can reach most parts of Europe: few places are far from the sea or a major waterway.
On land, distances in Europe are shorter, and road haulage is more competitive for short journeys.

Have you also noticed all those freight barges on the canals and rivers in Europe?
The Netherlands also had a new dedicated frieght railway line which is sort of up and runninng now to carry freight to Germany.
I was impressed by the number of freight trains I saw in the US in May I admit - but I didn't see a single passenger train. Surely now that petrol is increasing in price it would make sense to have more passenger trains in the US?

<i>Surely now that petrol is increasing in price it would make sense to have more passenger trains in the US?</i>

The distances and sparse populations involved make it difficult. The Northeast, which is an area with population densities similar to Europe does have passenger rail service that is relatively widely used.

&quot;When is Europe going to catch up to America in moving freight the most efficiently and the most environmentally-friendly way?&quot;

We have.

We simply don't have a primitive economy largely based on digging things out of the ground and shifting millions of tons of undifferentiated grain around a continent.

Apart from an experiment from Limited Brands, no US retailer uses trains. No Nike sneakers move round the US on a train. Virtually none of the consumer goods arriving in California and Florida are shipped within the US by train: try looking at the approach roads to the S. California ports to see how they're shipped.

Do you really believe anything Microsoft or Boeing - or the high-tech implant industries of the MidWest - make uses a train to get to their final consumer?

If we ever regress to being the agro-extractive society the US is, trains MIGHT get as important a way of transporting their age-old output as in the US.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Apart from an experiment from Limited Brands, no US retailer uses trains.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;


pants. energy, food, raw materials account for a large part of the american economy. i-pods aren't shipped to apple store via train and ms doesn't ship windows vista by train...so what? i'm not an expert on train freight in the us, but you need to look at the whole supply chain and not just how retailers ship from their warehouse to their stores.

i always appreciate looking at perspectives that challenge and complicate the simplistic stereotypes often seen here (i.e. america doesn't use trains and europe's transport system is utopia).

it's not a matter of mine is better than yours but rather to try to understand the world better...even if this means things aren't always neat and simple.

Flanner:

You have not heard of the veggie and fruit train that goes practically non-stop California to New Jersey?

and containers that move coast to coast on trains from ports - carrying no doubt loads of Nike shoes, etc.

the development of super truck-train terminals where the containers are lifted off trains and onto waiting trucks - they have these in Europe as well but a fraction from what i see as here.

Once again you comments are loaded with jingoism

For many years now the American public has been told that paying Taxes was a dirty word. So without tax money, how can our government pay for new rail service, or even improving what we have? Remember the Europeans pay lots of taxes, and for that they get 4-6 weeks vacation every year, free medical care, free schools, good roads etc. In the USA the Tooth fairy is expected to provide all of these benefits.

Hi P,

What fraction of people are moved on trains in the US vs Europe?

Also consider the distances involved, the roads, etc.

It could well be that both the US and Europe are doing what is most economical for them.

But europe has decided that what is economical for them in terms of passenger rail is dumping huge subsidies from the public trough into passenger trains

The U.S. has not, at least to the staggering amount more socialistic Europeans do

European roads are much more clogged IME with heavy lorries, etc. than ours are - with makes one wonder why they don't try to move more of this freight by rail, instead of less and less.

Severe smog in many areas should dictate this as a health measure IMO

flanneruk, about one-third of goods off-loaded at the Port of Los Angeles leave the air by train. About one-fourth of all goods arriving in the U.S. moves through the ports of Los Angeles and (adjacent) Long Beach. These ports are the busiest in the U.S. and in the top 20 busiest container ports in the world. To say &quot;virtually none of the consumer goods arriving in California and Florida are shipped within the U.S. by train&quot; is not just incorrect, it's impossible. There aren't enough trucks and road capacity.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alameda/

Correction: &quot;... leave the area by train.&quot;

&quot;It could well be that both the US and Europe are doing what is most economical for them.&quot;


Geography does probably play a role but also, the US made policy decisions to emphasize cars, with such investments as the interstate freeways and planning which led to suburbs spread out from urban centers.

Some would allege that Rockefeller wanted uses for the oil he was pumping and Ford helped out making automobiles affordable.

Then in mid-20th century, Eisenhower pushed for building of freeways (in the name of national security) which had the effect of boosting the oil and auto industries.

Hi PQ,

&gt;But europe has decided that what is economical for them in terms of passenger rail is dumping huge subsidies from the public trough into passenger trains

The U.S. has not, at least to the staggering amount more socialistic Europeans do.&lt;

No, we dump the money into building more and more roads, subsidizing airlines, oil companies and ethanol producers, bailing out automobile manufacturers, etc.

This, of course, is not socialism. It is &quot;Free Market Capitalism&quot; - hooey.

The US simply doesn;t have the infrastructure for viable passenger train travel. Most of the tracks are ancient and owned by the freight companies - so passenger trains get short shrift (may have to pull over and wait for a huge freight train to go by).

Also tracks are not build for speed - about 60 is the max you can do - and distances are just too far to spend all those hours getting anywhere. That's why there are so many flight packed to the gills.

NYC to Chicago will take 2 and a little hours by plane and about 24 by train (and a very uncomfortable, unpleasant 24 hours). That's why there are several flights an hour (from the various airports) from NYC to Chicago and vice versa.