This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c) 
It originates from the Evil House of Cheat 
       More essays can always be found at: 
       --- http://www.CheatHouse.com --- 
                ... and contact can always be made to: 
                    Webmaster@cheathouse.com 
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Essay Name       : 389.txt 
Uploader         : 
Email Address    : 
Language         : english
Subject          : Environmental Awareness
Title            : "High Speed Rail to the Future?"
Grade            : 80
School System    : UC Davis
Country          : USA
Author Comments  : 
Teacher Comments : Never got paper back.
Date             : 8-15-96
Site found at    : just surfed on in
--------------------------------------------------------------
Make this field active and press CTRL-V

     Imagine that you had to travel from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles in a hurry.  What mode of transportation would you choose?  You could travel by airplane, but you would likely be forced to deal with the hassle of acquiring tickets, traffic delays to and from the airport, and numerous security delays within the airport.  You could travel by automobile, but that would mean eight hours of time spent sitting behind a steering wheel staring at miles and miles of asphalt.  You could choose a more scenic route and “ride the rails”, but if you took Amtrak’s coastal route, for example, your trek would last nearly twelve hours.  By Amtrak’s inland route, which requires transfer to a bus link in Bakersfield, your trip would take about nine hours (Mahtesian, 27). 
     Dilemmas such as this could soon be abated if the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission is granted its wish.  The commission, created in 1993 by an executive order from the state, hopes to introduce a new generation of super trains that will whisk travelers to and from the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area.  The journey from San Francisco to Los Angeles would drastically be shortened to just two or three hours.  Presently, high-speed railway systems exist in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, and Sweden, among other places.  In the United States, however, the closest thing that we posses is the Amtrak Metroliner, which runs between Washington and New York and achieves a maximum speed of about 130 miles per hour (Ross, 7).
     With highways that were originally designed to carry us into the twenty-first century already filled to capacity, our country is in desperate need of an alternative form of transportation.  Traffic congestion in the areas near our nation’s airports, as well as air and noise pollution, and recent safety concerns show that air travel is far from an ideal means of transportation.  Also, limited space for road construction, alarming numbers of traffic fatalities, and the continuous damage to the environment further emphasize the importance of a movement away from automobiles as our primary sources of transportation.  The high-speed rail system proposed by the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission would employ innovative technology to create a superior form of transportation that would  assist in ushering in a new millennium.
     The high-speed rail system proposed by the Commission utilizes the technology of magnetic levitation, and is consequently often refereed to as “maglev”.  The maglev trains use two different magnetic systems.  One levitates the ninety ton train six inches above the monorail guideway.  The other magnetic system then propels the system forward.  Most of this propulsion system is located in the monorail guideway itself, reducing the weight of the train.  In his article published in the New Hampshire News, Larry Thompson compares the proposed maglev trains to our nations’ current fastest train, the Metroliner.  He writes, “The Maglev is to the Amtrak Metroliner is what a Porsche is to a Pinto”(Hampshire, 70).  
     The California Intercity High Speed Rail Commision has designed most of its work around four separate studies, that are currently being conducted.  One study entailed the selection of the best route from the Bay Area to Los Angeles from three main candidates:  Interstate 5, Route 99 and Highway 101.  Early findings suggest that a higher degree of ridership would be obtained if the Route 99 avenue was used (Hale, 3).  Another study analyzes the potential number of riders based on travel patterns, travel frequency, service quality, and the price charged to the rider.  The other two studies focus on the impact that the system would have on job opportunities, growth effects, land-use issues related to high-speed rail system, and the various methods of funding the project.  
     In the past, the United States has been extremely reluctant to accept the idea of high-speed rail.  A likely cause of this reluctance was the state of Texas’ failed attempts at implementing a network known as the Supertrain.  These plans fizzled out when an American-French partnership announced that it simply could not raise the $170 million necessary to begin the project by its December 1993 deadline (Mahtesian, 25).  Since this time, the question of who will pay for these projects has long been the preventing force for proposed high-speed rail systems.  In Ohio, for example, voters rejected a one cent sales tax increase in 1982 that would have helped pay for a ten billion dollar system connecting most of the state’s more heavily populated cities.  Part of this lack of interest by the public is due to the fact that Americans simply do not feel the need to replace their beloved automobiles.  Former Chairmen of the Ohio High-Speed Rail Authority Robert Boggs articulates this fact by saying, “The opinion of many Americans is that the rail is an obsolete service that is no longer needed...  We’ve had a hard time convincing the public of the need for another alternative in public transportation” (Mahtesian, 27).
     Other detractors of the high-speed rail systems include various airlines and rural communities.  In Texas, for example, Southwest Airlines lobbied vehemently against the Supertrain because they felt that the rail system would detract from their in-state market.  Also, many of Texas’ more rural communities proclaimed that they strongly opposed the idea of high speed trains blazing through the countryside.
     On the other hand, the numerous benefits expected to result from the implementation of high-speed rail systems in California and other parts of the United States greatly outweigh the system’s initial costs and the public’s hesitancy to part from the familiar.  For example, a 1992 study by the New York State Thruway Authority estimated that an intrastate maglev system would carry about five million riders per year and would decrease emissions and fuel use by an amount equivalent to 300 million car miles per year (Ross, 8).  In addition, maglev systems are almost twice as fast as conventional trains;  They can reach speeds close to that of a jet plane, without the danger involved with takeoff and landing.  Meglev trains also contain no moving parts, making “wear and tear” almost negligible.  Unlike the passenger speed trains of other countries,  the rail system proposed by the California Commission would carry freight in addition to passengers.  Transportation experts say that by essentially cutting the transport times in half for various goods, a maglev system could significantly change the “economic dynamics” of a state (Ross, 10).
     Another huge benefit of a high-speed rail system is that the systems riders would be able to use their time in transit more efficiently.  California planners say that passengers would enjoy airline style food service and comfortable seating along with access to conference rooms, fax machines, and telephones.  Instead of wasting the time that Americans would normally spend commuting to work, maglev riders would be able to use their time productively.  David Carol, Amtrak’s Project Director for the Northeastern Corridor Improvement Project in the New England are states, “The goal is to make [these trips] an office on wheels and thereby differentiate ourselves from what airlines provide” (Ross, 9).
     Although much of the general public does not embrace the idea of high-speed rail systems, many transportation planners feel that these systems are not only important but essential to the future of our nation.  Joseph Vranich of the High-Speed Rail Maglev Association says, “We just cannot build new airports in places like San Francisco or Los Angeles anymore, but we do have an ongoing transportation need that has to be met” (Hale, 5).  By not accepting high-speed rail systems, the general public displays a sense of stubbornness much like that of a child who must be force fed something that is beneficial to him simply because he does not like the taste.
     As the new millennia approaches, less and less land becomes available for construction, yet millions of cars are unleashed on our nation’s highways every year.  Overloaded roadways and the gridlock surrounding our nation’s major airports along with increasing safety concerns associated with air travel make the desperate need for an alternate mode of transportation more and more apparent.  In order to ensure a smooth transition into the twenty first century and secure our country’s place at the top  of an increasingly competitive job market, Americans need to “bite the bullet” (or bullet train, if you will} and allow for the implementation of high-speed rail systems. 

 BIBLIOGRAPY


Hale, Lysa.  (1996).  Are There Super Trains on California’s Horizon?  Transactions 42,        
     3-6.

Mahtesian, Charles.  (1994, August).  The Snail’s Pace of High Speed Rail.  Governing,       
     pp. 25-29.

Ross, Elizabeth.  (1994, May).  High-Speed Rail on the Fast Track.  Christian Science
     Monitor.  pp. 7-10.

Thorson, Larry.  (1994, April 17).  Germany Pursues High-Tech Future On Rail.  New
     Hampshire News.  pp. 68.

 
--------------------------------------------------------------
