Railways for the future

Admittedly, I'm a train nut. There, I've stated my bias. Although rapid transit is coming along nicely in many American cities, passenger railways still remain -- for the most part --more tourist novelty than a serious travel option.

I spent 42 hours traveling by Amtrak from Seattle to Los Angeles at Christmas. Even subtracting seven hours that snow conditions added to the normally scheduled 35, a trip of that length is analogous to an ocean cruise, not to air travel. Fun, but not an option when you're in a hurry.

But for shorter distances -- for example San Francisco to Los Angeles -- rail travel should be competitive with the airlines. Trains travel from city center to city center. All the time wasted getting to and from airports and finding parking once there, is eliminated. Furthermore, because trains remain grounded solidly on terra firma, security measures can be far less intense and intrusive than for the airlines.

The key to a successful passenger rail system is construction of dedicated rails between major cities -- tracks built exclusively for high speed trains, with no competing freight or commuter traffic and with no grade crossings. For distances up to about 500 miles, most passengers would prefer such trains to air travel, based on factors of both speed and comfort. The Eurostar train from London to Paris, passing under the English Channel, makes its journey in 2 ¼ hours. It has drawn away a significant portion of the airline traffic between those cities.

President Obama indicated today that he plans to actively promote development of high speed passenger rail travel in this country. His stimulus package, enacted in February, already contains $8 billion in initial seed money. As commentators have scoffed, this amount is only a drop in the bucket relative to the amounts that eventually will be required. But every journey begins with a single step. Our highway system has taken nearly a century to develop -- it was not all contemplated and funded in one dazzling moment of inspiration.

A 2 ½ hour rail journey between San Francisco and Los Angeles will be cheaper, more comfortable, and far less polluting than a flight from SFO to LAX. Initial funding for this line has already been approved by California voters. Closer to home, the corridor from Eugene, through Portland and Seattle, to Vancouver, is another prime candidate for high speed rail. Seattle is already served through this corridor by five trains a day in each direction, a rail service supported in part by state governments. High speed rail would greatly increase passenger traffic on a route that already thrives despite aging and crowded tracks.

The president faces many crises, and is actively supporting many new programs. I hope that passenger rail service does not fall off the administration's radar as his first term progresses. It should be one major component of the infrastructure of the future for which he campaigned. It will also put to good use the technology and talents of American engineers and workers.