The high-speed rail conundrum

A study released Monday identified the Iowa Interstate Railroad — which runs through IC, Grinnell, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs — as the best route for a proposed high-speed passenger rail line running between Omaha and Chicago. According to the CRG, the review estimated that the route would “draw up to 935,000 riders a year on five daily trains in each direction operating at speeds up to 110 mph.” Currently, the line is used by 14 freight trains a day and has a 40 miles per hour speed limit, so a ton of upgrading would be necessary to accommodate high-speed passenger service.

Iowa has mixed emotions about high-speed rail. It has many supporters but the red Republicrats in the legislature and Governor Terry Branstad are not among them. They baulk at the upgrade costs and estimated $3 million annual operating subsidy — and I suppose rightly so given the state’s delicate fiscal and economic condition. (The state will, however, have almost $600 million set aside in a “rain day” fund.) Personally I lean toward ambivalence, too.

In 2008 I voted against Prop 1A, California’s high-speed rail initiative. At the time, folks in Sacramento were wrestling with a budget crisis on a daily basis and eventually began issuing IOUs instead of paychecks to state employees. Call me crazy but I did not think it was an ideal time to fork over $10 billion for a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. Sure, it sounded sexy — but, I wondered, how much would tickets cost? Would it be affordable for all or only an alternative for the executive and business class? Nobody was asking those questions and, as far as I know, nobody could provide answers. Regardless, voters gave it their stamp of approval on Election Day. Right now it looks like trains to LA and the Bay Area will start rolling in 2030.

Ha!

While California will begin construction on tracks this fall, no plans for an Omaha-Chicago high-speed line have been approved. Illinois will begin operation of a Moline-Chicago line in a couple years and wants the trains to keep going across the Mississippi. However, us Hawkeyes are at loggerheads.

I like the idea of high-speed and passenger rail in general. It’s sexy, sleek, and efficient. Six years ago I rode an Amtrak train to Chicago and have to say it was enjoyable and relaxing. Looking out my window on the second level, I relished each at-grade crossing: the cars were stopped for us. I arrived in downtown Chicago and did not have to worry about parking or wasting money on a valet. It was cool but not without annoyances: the nearest Amtrak station is in Mount Pleasant and the train shares the track with freight traffic, which is given priority. Heading to Chicago, the train arrived three hours late due to freight-related delays. On the return trip I remember one long lull when we needed to stop and give way to a freight train. The woman sitting in front of me had a small boy named George with her. George cried from the time they boarded in Naperville to just before they got off in Burlington. While the train sat on a siding, she kept saying, almost on the verge of tears herself, “Why won’t you stop crying George? Why isn’t the train moving?” George was also annoying, but Amtrak had nothing to do with him.

The top speed of the California Zephyr is 55 miles per hour, so the trip took just as long as driving — excluding the drive to and from Mount Pleasant. Passenger service directly to IC and Des Moines would be awesome, yet the director of the firm that conducted the recent study told the CRG he assumes a trip between Omaha and Chicago would take “no longer than the present nine-hour schedule…” Huh? To justify public investment I think any kind of high-speed plan should offer some kind of improvements. Don’t get me wrong: five daily trains filled (hopefully) with passengers would take a lot of cars off the road, and that is one thing nobody should dislike (unless you work for Shell, BP, or Goodyear). However, when people are trying to decide whether to drive or take the train, shorter trips would give high-speed rail a major advantage, especially for a $60 ticket.

Also: why spend $60 riding the train when one could take the Megabus for $30. That is the advanced price for a ticket from Iowa City to Chicago. A red-eye return trip costs $18. I have never ridden the Megabus or any commercial bus service, but have thought about snagging a $17 ticket to Des Moines so I can properly enjoy the capital city’s downtown drinking establishments. (The bus driver may be drunk, but at least I won’t have to drive.) Also, trips to Chicago and Des Moines are express trips, directly to each city with no stops between. And not only can I take the Megabus, Greyhound and Trailways also serve the same corridor for similar prices. (Surprisingly, the Trailways ticketing webpage features a special box advertising “Super Low Fares” for “Chicago to Iowa City.”) People talk a lot of smack about commercial buses, and I will admit to having heard awful stories, but they are like trains and planes on rubber. They are cheap and use the existing and publically owned road infrastructure. They are privately owned and operated, too, which means the market will dictate the price (theoretically).

That is the one thing passenger rail lacks in this country: private sector investment. There used to be a lot of private passenger lines, but when ridership fell off a cliff the federal government stepped in and nationalized the whole works, creating Amtrak. (As far as I know, it is the only case of nationalization in American history.) But, speaking of the free market — oh hallowed and supposedly infallible free market — the demand for high-speed rail does not seem to be high enough to interest the private sector. Everybody is too busy burning and getting rich off oil, so why ruin a good thing? When it comes to a model for high-speed rail, though, it seems to me that commercial buses may offer a happy medium: public infrastructure and private operation. However, using a high-speed rail line is not like hopping on Interstate 80; not everybody can use it.

I’m split. High-speed rail has its advantages and possibly represents the future of long-distance travel in the United States. However, given the start-up costs and cheap competition, that future may be pretty far off.