Train Envy: Will We Ever Get High-Speed Rail in the U.S.?
I've long had a love affair with trains. But it's been a long-distance romance, as in . . . overseas. While other countries get passengers from point A to point B quickly, efficiently and in style, train travel in the U.S. has a long way to go.
I've fallen in love with the Indian Pacific in Australia; Rovos Rail between Pretoria and Victoria Falls in South Africa, the bullet train between Tokyo and Kyoto in Japan and the TGV in France. I admit to serious flirtations with VIA Rail in Canada. And no one could forget the Royal Scotsman.
Why the frequent flier should care
And then I come home, where the level of train travel is downright embarrassing. Especially when a modern rail system would be a win-win even for travelers who don't think they'd ever set foot on a train. High-speed rail in this country would not only make our lives easier, it would also have an almost immediate effect on airport delays across the U.S., eliminating most of them.
If we put high-speed rail systems between Wisconsin and Chicago, Missouri and Chicago, on the Washington/New York and Boston corridors, and along the California coast, airport congestion would almost evaporate. We would no longer be trapped by the curse of the CRJs -- or as I call them, Captain Skippy commuter planes. Think about it: These 50-seat aircraft take up as much space at the gate and on the runway as a 400-seat 747, and as much radar space in the sky.
Does Acela really accelerate?
High-speed rail on short-haul trips -- up to 400 miles -- is the answer. What do we have now? Amtrak. A train system that has never had the full support of Congress or of the past five presidential administrations. And it's not exactly high speed, even if you include the Acela, which makes trips between Washington, New York and Boston in less time than Amtrak's regular trains.
True, the Acela can reach speeds of 150 miles per hour, but it almost never does, thanks to track limitations, the number of stops, and capacity demands from other rail operators on the Northeast Corridor. Currently, the Acela's commercial operating speeds (average speeds including time in stations) are 62 mph (New York City-Boston) and 86 mph (New York City-Washington).
The reason for the slow speeds -- and the problems with on-time performance throughout the Amtrak system -- is simple, and frustrating. Amtrak doesn't even own the tracks. The freight lines are the owners, which explains why you may find yourself in an Amtrak train, waiting on the sidings while a 100-car freight train lumbers on by.
No lack of customers
So you'd think no one was riding the rails. Hardly.
In fiscal year 2009 Amtrak had more than 27.1 million passengers, the second-largest annual total in Amtrak history. An average of more than 74,000 passengers ride more than 300 Amtrak trains per day.
The appetite for great rail service is clearly there, especially among business travelers. We just need a better infrastructure. State governors should embrace the funding offered by the federal government -- money already allocated -- to begin building high-speed rail between key cities and states. It's a new year. It's time to hop on board this train idea. At the very least, it will help us down the road, or down the runway.
Related:
How to Avoid All Those Extra Airline Fees
Fasten Your Seat Belts: Airfares Are Going to Rise
What if the Airlines Wanted to Make You Happy? A New Year's Resolution Fantasy
