Proposed U.S. High Speed Rail Map

There’s been a lot of discussion recently relating to the deployment of regional American high speed rail systems.   The president, via the Recovery Act, has committed an initial $8 billion to the program through which several potential high speed rail corridors have been identified.   And while the thought of “bullet” trains blazing across the U.S. countryside at more than 200mph is alluring to anyone who regularly sits in rush-hour traffic, it’s important to consider this exciting new technology while we still can.

High speed rail technology has existed for decades in other countries.   European and Asian nations spearheaded development and deployment of the technology, using both exotic MagLev and traditional steel rail methods, to buttress their antiquated transportation infrastructures that never anticipated the rise and popularity of the automobile.   At the same time, the U.S. relied on its legacy rail network from a century ago, its highly developed interstate system of roads, and air travel to move people and goods within the country.   America’s vast open spaces and love-affair with cars continually stifled the installation of a next-generation rail system, as politicians privately feared the public backlash from the widespread reclamations of land by eminent domain rulings on which the new rail would be laid.   Ironically, the badly needed expansion of airports is raising similar eminent domain concerns today.

Presently, this aging U.S. transportation infrastructure, coupled with a burgeoning population, has left American roads, bridges, and rails overcrowded and in disrepair.   Increasingly long waits at airport security checkpoints have slowed overall air travel times to the point where a regional high speed rail network may be able to effectively compete in both cost and convenience with regional plane routes.  And whereas existing passenger rail travel times suffer due to forced track sharing with freight trains and speed limits in urban populations, a high speed rail system could operate on dedicated track built with the foresight necessary to avoid unnecessary stops or speed restrictions.

By adding this new form of transportation infrastructure, the load on existing roads, trains, and airports will fall.   Congestion on roads and lines at airports will decrease, thus adding to the overall productivity of society as millions of hours of what would have been “wasted” time are reclaimed.   Besides travelling faster than cars, a high speed rail system operates using up to one third as much energy per mile as cars or planes – due mainly to efficiencies gained from reduced aerodynamic drag, regenerative braking techniques, and modern electric motors.

Operators of a high speed rail line could charge a premium for the service’s value-added features, thus potentially operating at a profit without the government subsidies that currently support America’s existing passenger rail service, Amtrak.   High speed rail trains will carry several times the number of passengers of a typical regional airplane, thus driving down the cost per passenger-mile while using modern, clean fuels to reduce environmental impact.   Demand and thereby the cost to use existing rail lines will fall, thus lowering the overall freight costs associated with transporting goods.  One can hope these reduced costs would be passed on to consumers.

While all these benefits make construction of a high speed rail line seem obvious, what is the true cost to build a robust high speed rail system that can fully realize all of its potential benefits?  $8 billion is not nearly enough.  It’s a fraction of the estimated $40 billion that a single proposed regional high speed rail line in Florida is expected to cost.   And with countries like China expecting to spend $300 billion (that’s not a misprint) in the next couple of years on a new national rail system, America’s investment seems pathetically small.

Given the expense of high speed rail systems, we have to ask if they’re sustainable in this country given our established lifestyle?   Would U.S. citizens be better served by large scale expansion of existing infrastructure like airports and highways, or by development of more advanced airplanes like the Boeing 787?   Our highway system has served us well, and could continue to serve us for generations with continued investment in it and the engines that power the vehicles it ushers.  These highways could even be used as a means of energy generation.  And airport expansions could easily increase the capacity or air travel.   Whereas trains and the tracks on which they travel require maintenance, there is no such associated cost with the air in which planes fly.   Add to that their flexibility to re-route in various situations, and the attractiveness of air travel becomes apparent.

Personally, I’d love to see a U.S. high speed rail system.  I’d also like to see men on Mars, a cure for cancer, inexpensive high speed Internet for all, and dozens of other technological advancements that, although possible, aren’t necessarily practical in our world.  Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that high speed rail isn’t one of these.