The notion that trains have left their glory days in the past in the United States is premature. To the contrary, one of the nation`s oldest forms of transportation may have a very modern future.
Once dismissed as a pipe dream, the idea of linking cities with a high-speed rail network has taken on a new life and finally is getting the attention it deserves. It is a concept that should continue to be encouraged for the exciting and important possibilities it presents for the country`s transportation future.
The most recent development toward this goal was a $500,000 Federal Railroad Administration grant to Illinois to study the potential for speedy passenger runs between Chicago and St. Louis, a prime candidate for this kind of service. It is part of an impetus from the Bush administration-under the Surface Transportation Act of 1991-to explore research and development of high-speed train technology.
Even using the most basic of the potential new technologies-specially designed Swedish trains that can travel 125 to 150 m.p.h. on existing, upgraded Amtrak tracks-the Chicago-St. Louis run could be cut to three hours, about half the current time by train or car. A similar study sponsored by Illinois, Wisconsin and the federal government is examining the potential of Chicago-Milwaukee service.
The most critical question of such research is whether offering faster trains will attract more passengers. France, a pioneer in the use of so-called ”bullet” trains that typically travel about 185 m.p.h., has proved it will. These trains have increased passenger volume to 22 million from 12 million a year on routes between Paris and southeastern France. It is the kind of service being planned now in Texas, where a privately financed venture would connect Dallas and Houston, and eventually several other cities.
The most encouraging such research in the Midwest was a preliminary study undertaken by Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota on a potential Chicago to Minneapolis-St. Paul line. It found that the slowest service-125 m.p.h. on Amtrak rails-would draw 5.8 million passengers and $227 million in revenue annually; bullet trains would generate 7.5 million passengers and $336 million. A third, more fanciful option would be the most successful: Magnetic levitation trains, still under development, would cruise the distance in two hours and 15 minutes at 300 m.p.h., with an expected 8.5 million passengers and $409 million in revenue.
The cost for this kind of service, of course, is enormous, and it gets more expensive as the technology gets fancier. But the potential for passengers is strong enough to encourage private investment, without which it would not be possible-even with anticipated greater federal support.
One notion that should be dismissed is that high-speed rail could supplant air service; proponents have argued it would eliminate the need for a new Chicago regional airport. This service essentially would be a valuable supplement to air travel, especially to cities a few hundred miles distant where airport delays can be a big part of travel time. But because rail travel is limited by fixed track, it never will have the flexibility of air to serve a variety of destinations.
The biggest advantage in the future may be as an alternative to cars, which are far slower, more dangerous and polluting than trains or planes. It is estimated, for example, that 95 percent of the trips between Chicago and St. Louis now are by automobile.
Taking this trip by high-speed train not only would be faster, safer and more comfortable, but it would provide the old romance of train travel that no other form of transportation ever has been able to duplicate.
