Are we a step closer to high-speed rail?

High-speed rail fans envision these IL routes

I got my kicks on Monday not from Route 66, but from the potential future of the railroad tracks that parallel pretty closely to the Mother Road of old in Illinois.

Transportation Department officials distributed another $2 billion to various states meant to pay for work needed to advance local rail systems to the point where they could someday accommodate high-speed rail trains.

OF THAT AMOUNT, Illinois is getting $238 million (or just over 10 percent of the total).

Now a part of the reason our state is getting that extra money is because of the political games played by Republican types who wanted to think they could sandbag this idea with their actions.

They took a pass on accepting a share of the money, saying they’re not interested in having high-speed rail in their states. Perhaps they think they can kill off the concept if they turn the United States into a virtual checkerboard, with certain blotches that can’t accommodate the trains that could turn a Chicago-to-St. Louis trip from a five-hour drive to a two-hour train ride.

One of those states is our neighbor to the north – Wisconsin. But the state that contributed to the latest cash disbursement is Florida.

FOR THOSE OF us whose memories extend beyond the past 15 minutes, Florida is the state that managed to impact a presidential election in favor of the candidate who “lost” the popular vote. Perhaps that kind of action made Florida political people giddy enough to think they could kill off this project.

Instead, Illinois got part of the cash they should have received.  It will go toward upgrades on the tracks between Chicago and St. Louis – particularly the portion between Dwight and Joliet. Although I have to think that the bulk of attention on any high-speed rail route that cuts across Illinois and connects the state’s residents to its two urban areas ought to be in those freight yards in Cook County just outside of downtown Chicago.

Anybody who has ever taken an Amtrak train in its current form knows that is where the trains have to creep along at a turtle’s pace. That is going to be the place that needs a serious reconfiguration if the idea of a Chicago-to-St. Louis journey in just over 2 hours is ever to become reality.

Now I will be honest. It has been just over five years since I last rode an Amtrak train on that particular route.

IT CAN BE a pleasant-enough ride if one has time to spare for leisure. Although the Spartan conditions of contemporary Amtrak trains makes the idea of a “leisurely train trip” through the Midwestern United States seem to be an absurd concept.

My point being that while I like the idea of travel by train in theory, the reality doesn’t live up to the image many of us would like to create in our minds.

Giving a boost to the idea of high-speed rail could be the step that helps move inter-city train travel somewhere in the direction of becoming that mental image we’d like to have.

Heck, perhaps I’d even be tempted to take a train trip up into Michigan (the Chicago-to-Detroit routes could also benefit from some of the federal funding that was awarded by Transportation Department officials on Monday).

IT’S TOO BAD that I can’t contemplate a Chicago-to-Milwaukee or Chicago-to-Madison, Wis., trip in the same way – since Wisconsin state officials are among those who want to play ideological games with the idea of high-speed rail.

Because that is what much of the opposition to the idea has become.

Some people just want to have their automobiles and want to be able to ride up and down Interstate 55 (which is what becomes of the Stevenson Expressway once you get outside of Chicago) and want to instill some sort of ideological purity to the idea of not having to travel on a schedule.

I can almost buy that concept.

THE ONES WHO I find to be most ridiculous are the ones who try to claim that riding trains somehow undermines persona l freedom by having so many people ride together. As though the very concept of mass transit somehow undermines the democratic ideals of the United States of America!

I have even heard some ideological crackpots try citing the fact that high-speed rail is so popular in other countries as evidence that the idea is “too foreign” to work in the United States.

We even get some of that kind of ridiculous rhetoric from the states that tried turning away federal funds.

My guess is that they thought they’d be allowed to keep the money and apply it to some other project of their choice – or at the very least some sort of transportation-related project. Road repairs?

INSTEAD, THE MONEY goes to the people who are willing to play ball, so to speak, on high-speed rail.

Which may mean that Monday’s grants are a purely partisan political move by the current administration. I’m not complaining. If it helps make the experience of a train trip more convenient and pleasant, it may very well let me get out more often.

  -30-

High-speed rail a nice dream

It’s nice to hear that President Barack Obama is willing to consider the concept of high-speed railroad connecting our cities. It really would be a better alternative than having to use airplanes for short trips, and more relaxing than having to drive.

Is there really a purpose to catching a flight from St. Louis to Chicago (I can’t envision anyone seriously wanting to make that trip in reverse) when a train on significantly improved tracks could travel that route in not much more time?

SO IT WAS encouraging to learn that Obama wants $8 billion put aside, with the chance of $5 billion more during the next five years. Money will come from the economic stimulus package that is supposed to give the U.S. economy a jolt and put people back to work.

I’m curious to see where in this country the federal government first experiments with the idea. I understand officials in California think a line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco (and potentially shooting north up to Portland and Seattle) ought to be the first, while others would like to see the Washington to New York corridor be the first line for trains that could travel in excess of 100 mph (as opposed to the official Amtrak speed of 79 mph, but in some places on decrepit track they have to slow down to as little as 10 mph).

But let me throw my plug in for Chicago, the one-time hub of the railroad transportation system back in the days when most people took trains and still a significant city due to O’Hare International Airport’s role in U.S. flight connections.

I could easily see Chicago as the center of a railroad spider of sorts, with the arms shooting out in all directions and connecting the city to places such as St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Madison, Detroit and Indianapolis (along with a series of medium-sized towns that lie in between).

MY PERSONAL BIAS would be a route connecting Chicago to St. Louis. That trip (along with visits to places that lie along the route) is one I would make if the travel time factor could be reduced.

Now for those who argue that Amtrak already has service connecting those municipalities, I’d have to ask if you have ever taken that particular trip.

Personally, I haven’t traveled that route on train in about four years – the last time I made the trip to Springfield for a couple of days.

I remember my train left Chicago on schedule and arrived at the train station about one block from the Statehouse in Springfield only about 10 minutes later than the scheduled time. Amtrak worked that day the way it was supposed to.

WHICH MEANS WE are talking about a 3.5-hour-long train ride.

I know from personal experience from the seven years I lived in Springfield that I could make the same trip by car (on an interstate highway that parallels the tracks used by Amtrak for much of the route) in about three hours.

I’d like it if a train ride could cut the amount of time spent en route. And for those who will argue they like to drive, I find hours of driving to be headache inducing. I’d enjoy it if the trip to a place like Springfield were only a 1.5-hour-long ride.

And if a trip to St. Louis only took about two hours (as opposed to the roughly 4.5 hours it now takes on Amtrak), perhaps I’d be more inclined to travel to that city (a personal disclosure: the last time I went to St. Louis was when Pope John Paul II visited there in 1999) and find aspects I’d enjoy.

WHENEVER I HEAR of high-speed rail, I think of it as a nice ideal. But not one in which our political people seem inclined to take the actions that would allow for something to happen someday.

Then again, they don’t act all that quickly on any issue. The idea of a third airport for the Chicago area has been under consideration for nearly three decades, yet we’re not any closer to seeing shovels upturning earth to allow for construction to begin.

High-speed rail is one of those things I would use if someone were to take the initiative to build it. Yet too many political people seem to think that it shouldn’t be built unless people make some sort of commitment to its use.

So in that sense, Obama’s government-speak on Thursday before leaving for a trip to Mexico City was a positive.

NOW, IT’S JUST a matter of figuring out where the federal government will start. Obama would only say that 10 corridors across the country have been identified. Who’s to say what will occur first.

It would be nice to have one of the first high-speed lines (which would require significantly upgraded railroad track from the aging track now in use) in the nation. I’m just hoping this issue is one of those where Chicago gets the benefit of being the president’s “hometown.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Will Barack Obama remember Chicago (and his Springfield days) when (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/16/Obama-pushes-for-high-speed-rail/UPI-70531239879436/) federal transportation officials decide where to put the first high-speed rail line in this country?