Trains are the future

I don’t know much about trains. My only experience riding them is from when my aunt took me downtown on the state fair train — when I was four.

The only other time I’ve come close to trains is during the last two years living in Eigenmann Hall and being woken up by the train that goes through campus blowing its stupid horn after 11 p.m. every night.

Yes, I realize I’m a lame college student for being on bed by 11. But I get up at 6 or 7 a.m. every morning for class, and I’m not one of those people who can stay awake for a 75-minute lecture on five hours of sleep. I’ve tried.

But in England, trains are useful for my sightseeing tours. Some places are too close to take a plane, but would come attached with a VERY heavy taxi fee (such as Canterbury and Stonehenge).

Others are close enough that it’s worth it to spend extra time travelling to avoid dealing with airports (Wales).

And you know what? It’s a pretty cool way to travel. A good look at the landscape (when it’s not being obscured by trees), a relaxing time, plenty of room ... and a very decent price.

When I think of trains, I think of the choo-choo trains in toy sets, but England’s are more modeled on Japan’s bullet trains. Sleek, efficient and don’t give off trails of smoke.

Trains should become more widely used in the U.S. It seems most people don’t use them anymore (when was the last time you were on a train?), and that’s a shame.

Other than being a good way to travel, modern trains are fuel-efficient and faster than cars, plus they reduce congestion. It’s not always the best way to travel (especially if you’re taking a long trip and have plenty of luggage), but an increase in public transportation is always good.

Public transportation within cities isn’t always possible. Depending on the size of the city, the population and the budget, most cities should shy away from trying to create their own subway system. It just won’t work if there aren’t enough people, and if a city is small enough, it’s not worth the cost.

But public transportation between cities can always be improved, and an increase in mass transit is good for the environment and peoples’ wallets. I learned it’s a lot cheaper to take Bloomington Transit to the Indianapolis airport than to have my dad drive all the way down, pick me up and drive all the way back.

And everyone who lives on campus should already know the benefits of the bus system — parking on campus is horrible, and it takes forever to drive through traffic (particularly, I’ve noticed, at Seventh and Jordan streets), but taking a bus is a quick, easy way to get to class, especially when the other choice is slogging through snow and ice for 25 minutes each way.

I’m not an expert of the environment or fuel ratios, but I do know that getting around using mass transit is easier, cheaper and better for the environment than using a car. Trains, buses and underground are all good uses of public transportation that save time and money.

It will take the U.S. time to get better transit systems in place. Current mentions come with tags of “2020” or “2030,” and that’s at the minimum — knowing how quickly the government gets things done, it’ll probably take much longer than that to get anything done on a local or national level.

But when the government finally wakes up to the fact that public transportation is a great way to get around, the results will (hopefully) be amazing.

I’m not saying I’m ready to give up my car. I do like driving, and there are plenty of times when using it will still be faster than taking a bus or a train, particularly in a city. But when I spent a good seven to 10 minutes every day crawling down one street just to sit on a highway ramp for another seven to 10 minutes on the way home from work, I would have appreciated if there had been a better option.

And I’d like to think that within my lifetime, there will be.

Especially if it’s an option that doesn’t come with a loud horn after 11 p.m. every night.


E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu