By Michael Schofield
WASHINGTON — Exasperated passengers waiting for the on-again, off-again Amtrak Acela express trains recently in Washington, New York and Boston were luckier than they knew, according to an editorial in the Washington Post. Unlike most of the country, the region at least has a rail alternative to air travel.
Most Americans still rely on planes and automobiles, not just for long-distance travel but also for trips within their regions. But as the Northeast Corridor shows, air and road routes soon may not be enough for those parts of the country where large neighboring cities are relentlessly expanding toward each other. Congestion on highways and in and around airports was already a problem in these areas before Sept. 11, and for air travelers security checks have now added further delays.
It’s not just delays that are making air travel more arduous. As the financially ailing industry regroups, analysts foresee higher fees, more airport down time for passengers, and fewer and more crowded planes. Other options are sorely needed — especially in the most heavily traveled corridors. The good news is that one exists. Despite Acela’s recent setbacks, a network of Acela-like regional rail links may be the best answer to the looming transportation crunch.
Trains used to be a dominant mode of transportation in America. However, the once reliable and efficient rail network languished after air travel and highway construction took off in the 1950s and ’60s. The nation may have revered the idea of railroads in its music, literature and folklore, but when it made the leap to newer, faster modes of transportation, trains were left behind. The argument for reviving them now, however, has nothing to do with nostalgia. It is strictly practical.
In the early ’70s, about 20 years before the advent of the Acela, I wrote an article on a Department of Transportation high-speed rail demonstration project, the Turbotrain, which operated between Boston and New York. The train was capable of doing 130 mph but was seldom able to approach that speed. I recall the crew in the cab complaining that the Turbo would never realize its potential because of railbed, traffic and signal problems. Its high fuel consumption and costly upkeep eventually led to its abandonment, but it provided a glimpse of the potential of high-speed passenger rail.
When mass high-speed rail finally appeared, though, it was in Japan and Europe, not the United States. On vacations or work trips overseas, I took it wherever I could — riding the TGV in France, for instance, and the ICE in Germany. As a confirmed rail enthusiast, I enjoyed riding such superb trains, which were much easier to take than planes over short distances.
On vacation in the late ’80s, my wife and I marveled as the TGV whisked us from Paris to Geneva to see friends, and then into southeastern France for a side trip to Carcassonne. On the return trip to Paris, we also came to appreciate the extent of Europe’s essentially regional inter-city rail network as we boarded a conventional Spanish train for its regularly scheduled run north through France. The TGV, it turned out, was just one component of a cooperative and integrated network of both high-speed and conventional trains linking the cities of Europe.
Surely there is a lesson for Americans here. While the greater distances separating the United States’ largest cities (New York and Los Angeles or Chicago and Miami, for example) would seem to make the European model impractical in this country, the concept of high-speed rail corridors works if you think of the United States as a network of smaller regions. And in fact the idea has found some eloquent U.S. proponents. Both Amtrak President David L. Gunn and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) favor development of inter-city high-speed rail links.
Biden, a Wilmington resident who commutes daily to Washington when Congress is in session, believes “we should be thinking of high-speed passenger-rail corridors the way we were thinking of highways in the 1950s.” He cites 13 potential corridors, such as Oakland-to-San Diego, Chicago-to-Detroit, Jacksonville-to-Miami and Portland-to-Seattle. Gunn goes further, seeing high-speed rail links as part of an integrated nationwide transportation network. “There should be a rational approach for most effectively using each mode of transportation and integrating them,” he said.
As an example of this, Gunn cited the new Newark International Airport station. Continental Airlines, which flies into Newark, sells an Amtrak ticket from Newark to Philadelphia, among other Northeast Corridor destinations. On a recent trip from his home in Nova Scotia, Gunn said he was able to leave the plane, clear customs and be on the station platform for his train in 17 minutes. He did add, though, that the plane had to circle Newark for half an hour on a cloudless day before landing, a complication that wouldn’t have arisen traveling only by train.
Even with such inconveniences and delays, of course, air travel for most of the country will never be superseded, and Americans will never stop driving. The airline industry is already adapting to changing circumstances with lower business and walk-up fares and plans to use smaller aircraft on some routes. Less populous and more remote cities may need to find innovative solutions of their own, like the one adopted recently in Wichita (see box). The national network envisaged by Gunn may never be truly comprehensive. However, this much is beyond argument: As both air and road travel come under increased pressure, expanded high-speed inter-city passenger rail holds the promise of much-needed local relief. The Northeast Corridor’s experience proves it.
Amtrak’s 65 percent share of all air and rail travel between Washington and New York came in the wake of Sept. 11 and the closure of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. After the airport reopened, Amtrak was able to hold onto 56 percent of the market, according to its figures for the first quarter of this year. For those riders and the more than 3 million people a year who use the Acela/Metro Express trains, the case for high-speed rail has already been made.
Think of it this way: Back in 1970 when Steve Goodman wrote the song later made famous by Arlo Guthrie, he had “the train they call the ‘City of New Orleans'” traveling 500 miles in a day. Given the opportunity, an Acela could cover that distance in about 3 hours, 20 minutes — a lot better than either road or air travel in many parts of America today.
Freelance writer Michael Schofield was a journalist with UPI and the Voice of America. He retired from the State Department in 1996.