is it just a money problem (justification) or is it a mindset? I can't believe this country intends to just keep plodding along with our cars as the regular/normal mode of transportation. Europe is much more advanced with the trains but they've been at it for years out of necessity. They're been living with high fuel costs for decades and mass transportation is a necessity. Not here yet. I say that if gas was $5-6/gal (as in Europe) there would be the wailing and gnashing of teeth and we'd all be hollering for high speed rail. I remember hearing some years ago that Americans are in love with their cars and they would rather sit in traffic for hours than get on a train. What say you?
Answer: It's all in the numbers.
Using some Wikipedia numbers, the population density of most large Western European countries was around 200+ people/km^2 (France was the outlier at just 115/km^2).
Compare that to the Continential US: 37 people/km^2.
Western Europe is mostly 6 times (or more) densely populated as the US is. That simple fact alone should tell us something about the economics of some transportation methods.
And then consider the politics/economics of having enough highway networks when you have 20 different countries, all with different politicians, different tax bases, different trade networks. Imagine if the US Interstate system were funded by the states, and not the federal government - that is similar to how Western Europe is, with each country having their own agenda/goals. Sure, they have some highways linking the countries (just like the US had some highways linking states together before the Interstate system), but it's not quite as easy to develop or maximize.
And as you point out, when the taxes on fuel are such, it can make far more economic sense to use trains, given their population density and infrastructure/support network, like other public transit and parking garages (or lack thereof)...although I would venture a guess and say that most of the major cities in Europe have not experienced urban sprawl like the US has. As such, the population densities have stayed relatively close to the urban centers - keeping mass transit not only an option, but sheer necessity, due to simple lack of place for parking garages and bigger streets (streets which were designed 300-500 years ago for horses).
That's why transit systems in Chicago and NYC can be viable...but why a mass transit in Podunk, Alabama can never be economically justifiable.
When we get to Eastern Europe (former Soviet Bloc), I imagine they have a different historical reason for mass transit - perhaps mostly a simple lack of disposable income under socialism for the masses to afford cars, and perhaps partly also to keep it easier to 'control' the movement of the masses from a socialist governance perspective?
Although, interestingly enough, based on another Wikipedia entry, the US car density is roughly 770 cars/1,000 people, while Western Europe averages roughly 600 cars/1,000 people - a higher number than I would have thought for W. Europe, given their widespread use of public transport.
Also, according to
this Wikipedia entry, there are actually quite a few US Cities among the top 200 world mass transit systems....so, again, it comes down to the sheer numbers: the US population-wise has too many people spread out in medium and smaller cities to make extensive inter-city mass transit viable in all but a handful of situations.
