OK, let’s talk transportation policy. I know, I know, it’s not as sexy as some of the other topics out there. But hear me out, and then we can get back into the usual offensive nature of this opinion page.
See, I’m a huge supporter of high-speed rail. I think the greatest failing of American transportation policy over the last century is allowing thousands of miles of railroad to become totally useless to most travelers.
We recently found out that an investment of more than $800 million from the federal government will help bring high-speed rail to Madison.
On the surface, that sounds pretty freakin’ awesome. But when you consider it on more of a global scale, it’s not that impressive. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to see something is being done, but the way in which President Obama, Gov. Doyle and Mayor Dave have been discussing this new rail initiative, you would think this would position America as the global leader in fast trains.
The major benefit of high-speed rail is that it allows for quick, intercity travel without the hassle and expense of flying or driving. As somebody who has spent disgusting amounts of money to fly from Madison to my home in Detroit, the prospect of taking high-speed rail for a quarter of the price is beyond enticing.
But the problem is, these trains and rails are nothing like what we’ve seen in Europe and Japan over the past decade.
First off, there’s the small scale of the Obama project itself. There are only 11 areas being examined — the Upper Midwest, the I-95 corridor and the I-5 corridor being the most prominent.
Compare that to the 42 lines China plans to build in the next three years, or the dozens of high-speed lines already in operation across Europe. Both areas have invested far more money in it than America has ever seriously considered.
Second, consider the possible economic impact on travel costs. If you live in Chicago and are traveling anywhere in the Midwest that is more than 200 miles away, you’re going to consider flying — not only for time reasons, but also because nobody wants to be caught driving through Gary, Ind.
That means the cost of flying out of Chicago will drop drastically, bringing American Air’s prices more in line with Southwest’s. But the problem is the trains that will be constructed aren’t going to be the bullet trains we keep hearing about — they’re going to struggle to get faster than 100 miles per hour, making that trip from Chicago to Pittsburgh take four and a half hours. That 90-minute flight sounds a lot better.
Third, there’s the environment. Because these new trains aren’t going to go fast enough to compete against airplanes in mid-range trips, they are going to do little to reduce carbon emissions.
According to one study, traveling the 350 miles from London to Paris by train uses just one-tenth of the fuel that flying the same route does. That route is comparable in distance to going from Chicago to St. Louis.
But the proposed line between Chicago and St. Louis would take upward of four hours instead of the two hours it takes to get from London to Paris — meaning many Chicagoans would just rather take the flight if they wanted to go to St. Louis and help reignite the Cubs-Cards rivalry.
Look, I’m not a total pessimist about what has been proposed. It will be great to be able to take a train from Madison to Milwaukee and be there in just over an hour. It’ll be great for Madison if there is a second high-speed rail stop on First Street on the near east side, which, as Mayor Dave recently discussed on his blog, would allow for the redevelopment of the dilapidated East Washington Avenue.
But America simply isn’t keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to high-speed rail, even with our modestly high-speed rail program currently on the table.
We would need thousands of miles of new railroad laid in order to keep up with China, and until our politicians have the will to make that kind of investment, we should stop acting like the plan before us will be a good transportation policy.
Kevin Bargnes ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.
