High-speed rail systems are found all over the globe. Japan’s bullet train began operating in 1964. China will have 31,000 miles (50,000 kilometers) of high-speed track by the end of 2025. The fastest train in Europe goes almost 200 mph (320 kph). Yet high-speed rail remains absent from most of the U.S.
Stephen Mattingly, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, explains why high-speed rail projects in much of the country so often go off track.
Dr. Stephen Mattingly discusses the problems that come with implementing high-speed rail in the U.S.
The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, edited for brevity and clarity.
How is high-speed rail different from conventional trains?
Stephen Mattingly: With conventional rail, we’re usually looking at speeds of less than 80 mph (129 kph). Higher-speed rail is somewhere between 90, maybe up to 125 mph (144 to 201 kph). And high-speed rail is 150 mph (241 kph) or faster. There’s also a difference in the infrastructure for these different rail lines.
Is there anything in the U.S. that’s considered high-speed rail?
Mattingly: The Acela train operates in the Northeast Corridor and serves Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. In some parts of the corridor, the Acela runs on infrastructure that accommodates the train’s maximum 150 mph (241 kph) speed.
Why has the U.S. been slow to adopt this?
Mattingly: Except for some in the northeastern U.S., not many cities have enough travel between them and are at the correct distance to support an investment in high-speed rail, because it’s not necessarily going to take a huge number of cars off the road. Trains are not a replacement for auto travel; they compete more directly with air.
High-speed rail competes best with air when the trip is between one-and-a-half to three hours. Within that range, a train’s door-to-door travel time is typically faster than air. That’s because of the additional security time required for air travel: sitting around in the airport, the time it takes to load and unload and all of that.
For longer distances – more than three hours – the train’s travel time starts to get noncompetitive with air. That’s because for every three or four hours of high-speed rail travel, air travel only takes one hour.
Go lower than that – a trip of less than an hour-and-a-half – and cars become the more attractive choice.
That said, what are the advantages of high-speed rail?
Mattingly: First, the environmental benefit is an advantage. High-speed rail has lower carbon emissions than air travel, especially on a per passenger basis. You can load more people onto a train than most planes.
Then, of course, its speed makes it a viable way to commute when compared with conventional rail. Our current Amtrak system, outside the Northeast Corridor, is really a leisure travel mode, as opposed…
