Despite its inherent disadvantages of being a fixed system, its rejection of the latest technologies, its extreme costs and the fact that we have nowhere near the congestion to justify such an expense in Milwaukee, many of our elected representatives refuse to let that dinosaur, commuter rail, die.
Some time back I had a correspondence with a Journal Sentinel Reporter on mass transit. He happened to mention the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative that would upgrade our rail to allow speeds up to 110 mph. It has failed to receive Federal funding.... Thank God.
As the world is creating rail systems that reach 300+ mph do we really want to be investing in obsolete systems? Further inquiry reveals a system much more extensive than connecting major cities with supposed high speed rail (Rail to Rhinelander? Can I take my bike with me for the WORS race?). More a social engineering project than one addressing real transportation demands. However, how many could you find in the media or academia that do not give their whole hearted support to any such projects? Who would be bold enough to express disdain at the lack of vision or true initiative, at a lack of pride in settling for feel good token projects based on old technologies rather than creating the best possible solutions to real problems?
As oil prices surge what are the market forces dictating? Many are finding that driving is actually cheaper than flying. Airfares are rising drastically and extra fees being developed to cover rising costs. And almost no one is choosing rail as a solution though it uses less fuel per passenger mile. And why should they if they value their time? To travel by rail to New York from Chicago is over 24 hours. A slightly longer and slightly cheaper ($2) ride than the Greyhound Bus. To Miami it is two days by train and a day and a half by bus.
Rather than the spider web suggested by the Midwest Regional Rail Plan, a solution that would truly open peoples minds to the use of rail as a viable travel option would be to create a single high speed line with the latest and greatest technologies that connects airline hubs from North to South. This would relieve congestion in our airports, saving fuel in taxiing, holding patten times, and by reducing the number of connecting flights. The potential for greater competition providing the consumer the best value. A new built from scratch system that would inspire support from those with vision and pride despite its seemingly prohibitive costs. A more noble battle than beating people over and over with a redundant and obsolete transportation system, known as commuter rail, until they give up.
Several routes could connect major airline hubs,as well as our major cities, and open airports in less desired destinations to relieve airport congestion in our larger cities. The most likely route to achieve those goals also contains the most difficult terrain. It would start in the Chicago area, including General Mitchell International Airport, O'Hare and Chicago Midway, and extend to Miami Florida. Existing hubs in the route include the fore mentioned as well as Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International, Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International, Orlando International, Ft. Lauderdale International and Miami International. This would open Indianapolis International and possibly Louisville International to possible expanded service. This route could extend to Minneapolis St. Paul International or begin in Detroit rather than Chicago, both airline hubs.
The distance by rail from Minneapolis to Miami, following this general route would be roughly under 1800 miles. At an average speed with stops at 180 mph the trip would take approximately 10 hours and begin to make rail competitive. Driving time, without stops, is currently in excess of 27 hours at posted highway speeds. Round trip flights found on Expedia.com with one connection begin in excess of $300. Travel times ranging from approximately 5 hours to more than 8 hours, not including delays or the time it takes to check in. Nonstop flights taking about 3 hours 30 minutes and costing over $500 departing on Friday and returning on Monday. A proven and well established high speed rail system, the N700 Shinkansen, reaches speeds over 180 mph though with stops the average would be somewhat lower. Meglevs are being researched in the United States that will exceed 300 mph. Similar systems already exist and others are being developed and marketed that far exceed 300 mph. (Lets surrender to the French.)
An alternative route from Chicago or Minneapolis over our central plains, much easier to construct, could connect to the hubs of St Louis and Memphis, and extend to New Orleans . A second alternative connecting with the hub in Kansas City and on to Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston, each containing two hub airports. Terre Haute airport in Indiana, currently with no passenger service, if connected with high speed rail could handle much more traffic.
The incremental approach that has been the status quo for the advancement of high speed rail has failed and is justification for the colossal investment I am suggesting. While the costs may appear astronomical (exceeding $100 billion), how do they compare to the costs we face in unplanned natural disasters or wars? How much money is already set aside across the country for alternative transportation projects? Where there is a will there is a way. Cliche, but so true. Is it not an ethical mandate to produce a system that would succeed? Actually being used to capacity, reducing congestion on our interstates and airways and reducing overall energy consumption. The moneys spent and then wasted on operating systems that are too limited in scope to compete with the costs and time advantages of cars, buses, and airlines could very well be much more costly. Including interconnecting the various, already obsolete, high speed rail technologies into a larger continuous system.
My opinions are not unique or an unseen revelation. Yet with all the talk of mass transit among our elected officials and media who among them is even considering what has been written here and elsewhere, and eagerly pursued by other nations and companies around the world? If one believes in rail as a real solution where's the will, the vision, the desire for responsible solutions over special interests? Do our elected representatives, professionals and academics truly desire excellence or is it all in the bottom line? Winning the feel good voters, making the quick easy buck.
