Investing in Trains: A Good Idea
Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Should the American government invest more in trains?
That's the question Parade magazine recently posed to its readers, and an overwhelming 97 percent said yes. Readers pointed out that investing in trains would benefit us economically and environmentally; would clear some of the congestion in the skies; and are a good alternative to automobiles.
Last year, we were stuck in gridlock about 3.7 billion hours. A study conducted between January and August 2007 indicated that one in four flights was delayed.
With our streets and skies becoming more crowded, some experts are pointing to trains as the answer.
Trains consume 20 percent less energy than cars or airplanes. Yet, the government has directed funding toward highways, not rail, says Parade. "The game is rigged against rail," James RePass of the National Corridors Initiative told the magazine.
Consider this: Federally-funded Amtrak received $1.4 billion last year - the same amount as 25 years ago. For fiscal year 2008, the Bush administration has proposed $800 million for Amtrak. That compares to $40 billion earmarked toward highways and $14 billion for airlines in 2006.
What are other nations doing? France has a 200-mph train that connects Paris to the German border where Germany has its own high-speed train. Spain has been operating high-speed trains between Madrid and southern cities for more than 10 years. A seven-and-a-half train trip between Madrid and Barcelona (the same distance as between Boston and Washington, D.C.) will soon be reduced to a two-hour, high-speed train trip.
Japan, home of the bullet train, has engineered a 360-mph train that glides on a cushion of air. It's called magnetic-levitation. And China has said it will spend a quarter trillion dollars to improve its rail system, eventually making possible a trip from Beijing to Shanghai only five hours. That distance is the same as from Chicago to Baltimore, an 18-hour trip on Amtrak.