Federal money was recently awarded to California, Illinois, and Florida to assist them in their development of high speed rail projects. Many championed the awards as a significant step towards helping the environment, ending traffic congestion, and reducing pollution. It is true that rail systems can help achieve those goals. But only if they are used.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
No comments:
Post a Comment