
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, September 20, 1994                   TAG: 9410170017
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: ROBERT L. WHITELAW
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

RIDING THE `GREAT VALLEY' BY RAIL

MAY I point out that your good editorial of Sept. 6, ``Trying to catch the train,'' on passenger-rail service overlooked a promising alternative - namely, the Great Valley route traversed by Interstates 78, 81 and 59, to which present road traffic in that corridor attests.

Linking New York to New Orleans, the major cities served would be Allentown/Bethlehem, Reading, Harrisburg, Hagerstown, Winchester, Harrisonburg, Roanoke, Chattanooga, Birmingham and Mobile, with ready connections to Atlanta and Nashville at Chattanooga.

Despite not being used for passenger service for more than 50 years, the rails are there, well-maintained for freight service, and the route is more level and direct. So if Amtrak can be aroused from its preoccupation with using only the New York-Washington corridor, its service down this Great Valley route could give seven-hour service, New York to Roanoke, and 12 hours, Roanoke to New Orleans, with the Talgo-type trains now in service between Seattle and Portland, and even less time with high-speed trains now projected.

This rail route would also provide more convenient connections to existing rail service west from Harrisburg and Martinsburg to Pittsburgh, and from Staunton to Charleston and Cincinnati.

Further, it would give Amtrak additional incentive to restore the celebrated Chicago-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-Florida rail service of 50 years ago.

But most important of all, regarding the fundamental question of attracting passengers, this Great Valley route should attract many more than does the daily ``Crescent'' on the New York-Washington-New Orleans via Lynchburg route. Rail-travel estimators forget that few suburbanites of such great cities as Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington will take the time and trouble to go downtown to catch a train rather than drive existing freeways. A route, such as the Great Valley, should attract a much higher number of passengers from smaller cities, where access to the train station is easier and quicker. The Valley route might well attract more rail passengers from the 3 million potential travelers in its cities than those who now use Amtrak's Crescent along its present route via Washington.

As to the short-range view of merely restoring Roanoke-to-Atlanta service, the Chattanooga connection mentioned above would do it. But a shorter route, with existing right of way, would be to restore service Roanoke-to-Winston Salem-to-Salisbury, connecting there with a ``Crescent II'' - i.e., one that passes through Salisbury in the morning to give an easy trip to Atlanta in less than eight hours. (The present ``Crescent'' passes through Salisbury at 2:08 a.m., Charlotte at 3 a.m. and Greensboro about 1 a.m., which is one reason it gets few passengers to Atlanta south of Lynchburg.)

The ``Great Valley,'' as your readers may know, is the title of one of Mary Johston's famous books, beloved almost as much as ``The Long Roll.'' It would be a source of pride for many Virginians to see this historic valley advertised from New York to the Gulf by a new high-speed train-of-the-future bearing that title.

Robert L. Whitelaw of Blacksburg is professor emeritus in mechanical and nuclear engineering at Virginia Tech.

by CNB