In fiction, trains are by far the best way to travel. From the Hogwarts Express to the Polar Express, trains have a magical, pastoral quality not even attained by the Magic School Bus. And planes? Well, all they get is a crappy Samuel L. Jackson movie.
And yet, trains get the short end of the stick when it comes to the way real people travel, at least in America. They’re convenient for intra-city transportation, but Americans usually travel long distances by car or plane.
But Argentina’s recent announcement of plans to construct a high-speed train connecting Buenos Aires and Cordoba may have implications that carry to the United States. The new rail line would reduce the travel time of the 441-mile journey from 14 hours to three. On top of that, Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner envisions building a railway that would cross Argentina and Chile, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of South America.
The ambitious plan would be the first high-speed rail system in the Americas, finally bringing us the technology that’s succeeded in Europe and Asia. Japan and France have the two most extensive networks. Railways connect all of their major cities and are popular. Both countries also hold records for the fastest train, France for its 351 mph rail-based V150 and Japan for the electromagnetic Maglev that traveled a mind-blowing 361 mph.
Trains are popular abroad because they are cheap, eco-friendly and fast. In terms of convenience they kick air travel’s ass, as explained by this author’s adorably British column in The Guardian. On top of that, you’re not in an airport (a place that anyone will admit is hell on earth), and there’s almost never weather delays.
However, one of the biggest draws of rail travel is its light environmental impact. Planes and cars are notoriously atrocious for Mother Earth because of their pollution-causing emissions. One of the worst examples of emissions abuse came from an American Airlines flight last month that took five passengers from Chicago to London. Yes, five. Though that was probably the most luxurious flight any of them will take, it was also the most wasteful anyone could take. The estimates work out to 43 tons of carbon dioxide per passenger, or the equivalent of driving a car around the world five times.
Modern trains have a much smaller carbon footprint. With the eco-craze overtaking America, it only makes sense that we’d soon be building some trains of our own, right?
But trains just haven’t taken off in the U.S. The current train system, Amtrak, is a joke on wheels (or rails, as it were). The system rarely posts a profit, and has closed lines and cut jobs in recent years. From personal experience, the only types of people who ride Amtrak are people who like to sleep, farmers who like to tell you about farming and Amish families who glare at people using laptops.
Meanwhile, plans for high-speed rail systems in California have met a lukewarm response. The proposed California High Speed Rail would initially connect San Francisco and Sacramento, eventually reaching Los Angeles and San Diego. However, the plans have stalled in the legislature because of funding issues. The same goes for the proposed Desert Xpress, which would link California to Las Vegas.
Still, a successful train project in Argentina could convince U.S. lawmakers that a high-speed train could work here. It might not be long before we’re driving another golden spike to commemorate a new railroad, and a cheaper, cleaner and easier form of travel.