High-Speed Trains Described as Costly : Transportation: Federal study says advanced rail systems would cut air and highway traffic but would require government subsidies.

High-speed trains could move passengers quickly along heavily traveled routes between major American cities, without the lengthy delays that occur today in both air and highway travel and with less environmental damage, according to a report released Wednesday.

But such systems are likely to be so costly that government subsidies would be needed to get them up and running.

The report by the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found that high-speed trains traveling up to 200 m.p.h. and magnetic levitation or mag-lev trains capable of traveling 300 m.p.h., while technologically feasible, are not likely to attract enough riders to be self-supporting.

However, the benefits, even for those who do not use the high-speed trains, might justify government subsidies such as those used to help finance the construction of airports and highways, said Lawrence Dahms, director of the Oakland Metropolitan Transportation Authority and chairman of the committee that conducted the study.

Subsidies for the rapid rail systems most likely would come from the federal airport and highway trust funds, he said.

People who were not users of the rail systems presumably would benefit because of reduced traffic in the air and on highways. The report also said that the high-speed trains would be less harmful to the environment than some other forms of transportation because they would not use fossil fuels.

“The only way rapid rail or mag-lev will happen is as part of a larger transportation system,” Dahms said. “Other modes (of transportation) may benefit, so perhaps they should help pay the cost.”

Estimates for building high-speed rail systems have ranged from $10 million per mile to $63 million per mile.

The high-speed train systems are best suited for heavily traveled corridors between major cities, usually of a distance of 150 to 500 miles, the report said. The high-speed trains would be competing mainly with airlines for passengers and would offer comparable rates.

The release of the report comes just after the Bechtel Corp. announced last week that it has withdrawn its support for a proposed $5-billon high-speed rail project connecting Anaheim and Las Vegas, which was intended to be financed exclusively by the private sector. Bechtel cited a downturn in the economy and the “uncertain commitment” by the state to the project as its reasons for withdrawing. Supporters of the Anaheim-Las Vegas train are now hoping to obtain government subsidies for the project to entice investors.

The heavily traveled route between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area also was cited in the report as one of several potential candidates for a high-speed rail system. But Dahms said that neither city has shown much interest in linking the two with a rapid rail system.

The report found that high-speed trains, rather than mag-lev trains, are more economically feasible for the near future because technology for the wheel-less mag-lev trains is still under development.

The high-speed rail systems could be developed by modifying existing rail systems, possibly through the realignment of tracks and electrifying the rail lines.

Dahms said that proposals to subsidize high-speed rail systems with funds set up for air and highway transportation are likely to draw opposition from those industries. But he called for a new approach toward transportation policy decisions.

“It’s now difficult--too difficult--to introduce any new transportation mode,” Dahms said. “Our institutional and financial arrangements for transportation are oriented toward existing modes. We need a way to step back and view the larger picture.”

Transportation Secretary Samuel K. Skinner said Wednesday that the study’s findings and recommendations would be used to help develop an innovative transportation policy.

“The Congress is now considering legislation that would provide such flexibility with respect to the Highway Trust Fund. We must ensure, however, that funds are used in the most prudent manner and the flexibility is fair to those who pay the fees,” he said in a written statement.