Midwest officials are lobbying for high-speed trains similar to this one in Korea. Photo: LWY
By Emma Ogutu and Rachael Gleason
Nov. 5, 2009
High-speed rail advocates expect a Midwest network to cut air emissions and boost the economy.
The federal government is allocating $8 billion in economic stimulus funds for faster passenger train systems. Many states have recently submitted proposals .
The Midwest network, which would connect cities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, will likely see a cut of the money as federal criteria supports multi-state projects.
States are already upgrading rails on two of the main routes from the network hub in Chicago to St. Louis and Detroit, according to state officials.
The Illinois Department of Transportation expects the $12 billion high-speed rail to improve freight and passenger services along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. The 220 mile-per-hour trains will increase the number of round trips from three to eight and reduce travel delays, according to the agency’s application for recovery funds.
The application highlights environmental benefits, such as reduction in vehicle fuel consumption by 83,500 gallons and greenhouse gas emissions by 800 tons.
A 2006 environmental study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology found high-speed trains substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions if trips are diverted from cars and airplanes
If people take 112 million trips on high-speed trains 15 years from now, there would be approximately 30 million fewer automobile trips and 500,000 fewer flights, according to the study.
That equals to 6 billion pounds of carbon, one of the common greenhouse gasses.
“When rail increases speed, it tends to take people off the highways and out of airplanes,” said Joe DiJohn, an urban planning professor at the University of Chicago.
The study found that emissions depend on whether the train is powered by diesel fuel, electricity or magnetic force. Diesel-powered trains, which are more popular, generate pollutant emissions that aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma, according to the study.
But experts say high-speed rail only cuts carbon emissions if commuters forego other modes of transportation.
Passenger rail has been successful in Europe and Japan because of the high population density and mass transit, said Eric Strauss, an urban planning professor at Michigan State University. But he doesn’t think this is the case with Michigan.
“Generally, there is no place in Michigan that has that population density fitting for such a high rail investment,” Strauss said.
Americans also love driving cars. Sixty-seven percent of commuters in Michigan drove their own vehicles in 2000, according to U.S. census records.
“Economic benefits from the high-speed rails would be enormous with the right numbers of commuters, but getting commuters to reduce dependence on cars might be tougher than anticipated,” said Al Johnson, supervisor of the intercity passenger rail and bus programs for the Michigan Department of Transportation.
The federal government invested heavily in the National Highway System and encouraged road transportation, said Eva Kassens, a transportation and urban planning professor at Michigan State University.
“Even as Michigan stands a chance in getting high-speed service, the government has a task ahead in fostering a public ridership to make the rail project economically feasible,” she said.
The strongest incentive to improve mass transit is high gas prices, Kassens said.
“Increase in gas pricing is likely to make driving less competitive,” she said.
Convenience will also help attract riders, said Rick Harnish, director of the Midwest High-speed Rail Association.
“As trains get faster, it makes it possible to have less expensive trips and more trips more often,” he said.
High-speed rail will also change the way commuters think in the long run.
“Because people are using a train for a key portion of their trip, they are more likely to locate near a train station and are more likely to do more trips without the use of a car,” he said.
Still, some urban planners think more infrastructural upgrading needs to be in place before the network can benefit the environment and the economy.
“High-speed rail is the way to go for the future,” said Rene Hinojosa, a transport and urban planning professor at Michigan State University. “But the government still has to find ways to encourage people to think in terms of mass transportation.”
Pingback: CNT Press Mentions November 2009 : Center for Neighborhood Technology
Even if this got built the problem remains that we are a car society. There is a reason that the train, which once was the primary mode of long distance travel, has fallen out of favor. That reason is the car. I’m unconvinced that a new train, even a much faster one, would have any serious draw to the average American traveller.