If a train leaves Chicago, traveling at 220 mph, and reaches up to 10 other large cities in a matter of three hours or less per trip, will the midwest be set in motion, too? Many economists think so.

  

In fact, some of them believe high speed transit is the ticket to renaissance in America's heartland -- an area devastated by globalization, according to Richard Longworth, author of Caught in the Middle.

 

High speed offers lots of high hopes. For one, construction of the trains would bring back industry to the rust belt by reopening factories in cities like Detroit. And the whole system would create jobs, of course, from technical to service staff. But the real pay-off comes by way of the opportunities created. With easy access to 10 midwest markets, business-to-business exchanges rise, so does tourism, so does rural and urban revitalization and development, and so forth.

 

Environmentally speaking the idea seems a win-win, too. Fewer cars, lower emissions. Which is increasingly important in cities like Chicago where highways have been above traffic capacity for over thirty years. 

 

But there's one major issue that begs some pause (OK, there are many issues ... especially if you are of the school that believes the investment isn't worth the payback). My concern, though, involves the development 'opportunities.'

 

Wouldn't access to other cities and outlying areas encourage massive sprawl? I personally love the idea of expanding public transit, divorcing my car, getting on a train to visit my Pittsburgh friends in just three hours. But how does the battle between economic development vs. environmental justice shake out? Will the big box stores eat up what's left of our open space? Will the flash outside the train window be the red tail of a Staples' sign?