During December 2023 my family and I got to explore Paris and London. Among beautiful cathedrals, enchanting nights, and many fun activities a particular element of this trip sticks with me: The Eurostar Chunnel line, a high speed rail connection between Paris and London. The ride was smooth, boarding was much less of a hassle than flying, the views of the picturesque French countryside were superb, there was constant cellular service, and the ride was quick. On this ride, a question emerged in my mind: Why isn’t high speed rail as prominent in the United States as it is in other developed countries?
While some high speed rail developments exist in the Bay Area and northeast, no national network of high speed rail has been established in the U.S, despite its potential as a way to improve American infrastructure. High speed rail would provide benefits to the U.S. in terms of carbon emissions reduction and economic improvement, but has encountered significant struggles with political opposition.
While repeatedly high speed rail has run into issues with delays and increased costs, it is a valuable piece of infrastructure in a 21st century economy. Despite the history of failure in America we need to find a way to overcome these issues or we will not achieve the benefits.
The benefits of high speed rail are not just a hypothetical: they have proven to be advantageous in terms of economic development and carbon emissions reduction. A relevant comparison is high speed rail in China, which has been developed remarkably quickly and has been beneficial in terms of reducing air pollution, carbon emissions, and providing societal benefit: “[High speed rail in China] is deeply affecting society with its advantages of higher levels of efficiency, comfort, and safety, as well as lower labor costs and overall long term emissions reduction” (Wu). Especially in China, where dense urban centers have frequently struggled with air pollution, the solution of high speed rail as one of the primary methods of transportation in the nation has had significant positive effects. In terms of emission reduction, a key aspect in transportation in a world increasingly wary of the effects of climate change, high speed rail has proven to reduce carbon emissions by being a good alternative to higher emission vehicles like cars and planes: “High-speed rail reduces air pollution in two aspects—a zero-emission power source and the substitute for traditional modes of transportation, thereby decreasing the reliance on the polluting road and air travel” (Yang). High speed rail has been an important alternative to cars and planes for large scale distances, decreasing carbon emissions and air pollution. Another benefit of high speed rail lies in its positive economic impact. Agglomeration economies refers to the economy centered on a city and its surrounding area. “Agglomeration economies are positive externalities that arise from greater spatial concentration of industry and business, resulting in lower costs and higher productivity. Greater proximity results in improved opportunities for labour market pooling, knowledge interactions, specialization and the sharing of inputs and outputs” (Jones and Faiha). High speed rail’s main benefit stems from increased connectivity in urban areas, allowing greater labor mobility and economic productivity. The areas with the most potential are New England and California: They have dense populations and a well developed economy. Speaking on the potential benefit of high speed rail in New England, Zoellner suggests, “High-speed rail can work in the U.S., but only in very specific places and with government paving the way and laying the tracks. The rich urban strip between Washington and New York–a high-density thoroughfare since the era of powdered wigs and beaver hats–is the most obvious place” (Zoellner). High speed rail has been around for decades, and in that time it has been proven that high speed rail provides many benefits. America is undeniably missing out on those benefits with its lackluster network.
America’s high speed rail network is underdeveloped, causing America to lose out on potential benefits. America’s high speed rail network has struggled to build out mileage, leaving it behind in the construction of this technology. Other developed countries have been able to take advantage of this new and important piece of infrastructure: “The potential of passenger rail certainly hasn’t been lost on other countries. Most of the developed world has a head start on high-speed rail transportation. From the bullet trains of Japan to the TGV in France, there have been fast trains around since the 1960s. In China alone, there are 26,000 miles of dedicated high-speed railways. And in the U.S.? The total amount of track where trains can reach 100 miles per hour or more: 375 miles” (“More than”). Because high speed rail is beneficial and America is so lacking in it, it poses both a threat to America’s position and an enormous source of potential. Canada, which has a similar infrastructure profile to America, has also run into significant issues with developing high speed rail. Rapley asserts that Canada’s transportation network is struggling: “The share of the Canadian economy’s output invested in transportation infrastructure, which already sits at the lower end of the range of developed countries, skews toward maintaining existing roads. This still hasn’t prevented Canada from having one of the world’s longest average commute times” (Rapley). Investing in road infrastructure so heavily in Canada (a problem also common in America) is costly over the long term because highways are generally more expensive to upkeep per passenger compared to alternatives like high speed rail. America is at a disadvantage with its lack of high speed rail infrastructure.
America’s issues with developing high speed rail primarily develop from political opposition and funding issues. High speed rail has constantly faced issues with political opposition, lack of funding in a changing political climate, dramatic delays, and increases in cost. Republicans continue to be opposed to increased rail and high speed rail developments in America, citing Amtrak’s inability to make a profit and repeated issues when it comes to building high speed rail. “Last week [Jan 2025], a key House Republican [Rep. Dan Webster] raised a familiar talking point critical of Amtrak calling for fewer tax dollars to be spent on passenger rail – specifically for “weaning it off government support” – as if trains, tracks, crossings and other infrastructure could be wholly financed by fares” (“More than”). With a Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election, Republicans are in an advantageous position to prevent further funding to high speed rail. Specifically on the role of Donald Trump in preventing additional construction, Shalby states: “Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees and a California congressman have vowed to pull federal funds from the ongoing rail project, now budgeted at roughly $100 billion more than the $33 billion the state’s High-speed rail authority estimated in 2008” (Shalby). The California high speed rail development is a relevant example of the issues that American high speed rail developments face: ballooning costs, receding completion dates, and funding issues caused by political opposition. Specifically the point of ballooning costs gives a lot of support to Republican arguments when it comes to high speed rail. Bohon, a conservative advocate, states: “The reasons passenger service doesn’t work in America are well known. Inter-state highways shorten many trip times; suburbanization has fragmented destination points; air travel is quicker and more flexible for long distances. Against history and logic is the imagery of high speed rail as ‘green’ and a cutting-edge technology” (Bohon). Another interesting element of high speed rail’s struggle in America is competition with airlines. They both fit a similar role of transportation between cities, filling similar times and distances. America invests a significant amount in its air infrastructure, and airlines are viewed as the safer option when it comes to improving American transportation. Bohon argues that air travel is quicker and more flexible in long distances, a common point while criticizing high speed rail. While airlines have disadvantages when it comes to cost and carbon emissions, one can’t entirely fault that perspective. An important contrast in terms of political opposition is Canada’s issues with high speed rail: In America resistance to high speed rail primarily comes from the Republican Party, while in Canada the rural provinces oppose high speed rail developments because they don’t want to fund projects that would mainly benefit urban provinces. American and Canadian rural advocates oppose it on the basis of being a waste of tax dollars and at odds with their interests. It is also important to realize the Democrat party has been reluctant to make high speed rail a talking point: It hasn’t been a major point of political discussion since the Obama presidency.
High speed rail would clearly be beneficial in America; but keeping in mind the current political climate and overall lack of support, combined with current struggles with the Bay Area development, the future of high speed rail in the U.S. seems bleak. Despite these struggles, investing in high speed rail remains a significant source of potential for the future, although we still have to live with missing out on potential benefits in the present. Until we can accept that the cost we pay for high speed rail will always be rewarded, the dream of a cleaner, closer, more connected America will not be realized.
Works Cited
Bohon, Dave. “The Federal Government Should Not Invest in High-Speed Rail.” Transportation Infrastructure, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Detroit, MI, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010841213/OVIC?u=winn16583&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=a371da1e. Accessed 9 Jan. 2025. Originally published as “Obama Administration Proposes $53 Billion for High-Speed Rail” in New American, 2011.
Jones, David, and Tasnim Fariha. “All Aboard: The Benefits of Faster, More Frequent Passenger Trains between Ontario and Québec and the Costs of Delay.” Commentary – C.D. Howe Institute, no. 676, Feb. 2025, pp. 0_1,0_2,1-32. ProQuest Central, newtrier.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/all-aboard-benefits-faster-more-frequent/docview/3175707980/se-2?accountid=36487. Accessed 23 Apr. 2025.
“More than Ever, US Can’t Afford to Derail Amtrak.” The Baltimore Sun, 2025. ProQuest Central, newtrier.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/more-than-ever-us-cant-afford-derail-amtrak/docview/3161416733/se-2?accountid=36487. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
Rapley, John. “The Solution the Canadian Economy Badly Needs: High-speed Rail: The Government Has Announced Plans to Develop and Implement High-frequency Passenger – but Not High-speed – Rail Service.” ProQuest Central, 2024, newtrier.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/solution-canadian-economy-badly-needs-high-speed/docview/3087512141/se-2?accountid=36487. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
Shalby, Colleen. “High-speed Rail Project’s Outlook Darkens; Potential Loss of U.S. Funding under Trump Would Pose One More Setback for the Plan.” Los Angeles Times, 2024. ProQuest Central, newtrier.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/high-speed-rail-projects-outlook-darkens/docview/3149339690/se-2?accountid=36487. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
Wu, Bingyu, et al. “Networked Transport and Economic Growth: Does High-Speed Rail Narrow the Gap between Cities in China?” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 10, 2022, p. 5937. ProQuest Central, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105937. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
Yang, Minhua, et al. “Towards a Low-Carbon Target: How the High-Speed Rail and Its Expansion Affects Industrial Concentration and Macroeconomic Conditions: Evidence from Chinese Urban Agglomerations.” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 19, 2024, p. 8430. ProQuest Central, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198430. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
Zoellner, Tom. “Making High-Speed Trains Work in the U.S.; High-speed Rail Could Work in the U.S., but Planners Need to Follow Some Simple Rules.” ProQuest Central, 2014, newtrier.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/making-high-speed-trains-work-u-s-rail-could/docview/1493073966/se-2?accountid=36487. Accessed 6 Feb. 2025.
