Just imagine it — San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes. Dallas to Houston in 90 minutes. Las Vegas to Southern California in just over two hours. No miles-long traffic jams or hours of congestion. No long lines for check-in and security. No money wasted on tolls or egregiously overpriced tickets. And perhaps best of all, running on local, renewable energy.
This is not a highway, and it’s certainly not an airliner. It can’t fly, but it’s the most convenient way to travel. It’s not as flashy as a car, but it’s more state of the art. It brings economic development wherever it goes. This is the transportation of the 21st century.
This is high-speed rail.
High-speed trains have come to dominate domestic travel all over the world, from Spain to China. In the United States of America, however, high-speed rail has yet to make a proper debut. Only recently have projects begun to revitalize America’s once-world-class passenger railroads, and they’re facing staunch opposition across the country. High upfront construction costs, cries of “socialism,” and fossil fuel lobbying groups have given these revolutionary transportation technologies a rough, slow start in America.
Regardless, high-speed rail is a necessity in today’s day and age. The speed, convenience, efficiency, environmental benefits, and development opportunities are all more than enough to justify high upfront costs — especially at a time in our history when roads are falling apart and fossil fuel-reliant technologies can’t be relied on. America is behind the curve for developed nations where high-speed rail is considered — but that needs to change sooner rather than later
First of all, high-speed trains are fast. There is only one high-speed rail line currently operating in the U.S.: the Acela Express, running between Boston and Washington D.C. — and, even then, those speeds can only be reached for a small section of its route, because most of the line was constructed before today’s speeds were a concern. Projects that plan to construct new railroads, such as California High-Speed Rail, linking San Francisco to Los Angeles (and, eventually, San Diego to Sacramento), anticipate cruising speeds around 220 miles an hour — faster than any highway, but slower than an airplane.
But raw speed isn’t the whole story. A quick Google search reveals that flight times from San Francisco to Los Angeles hover around 90 minutes spent in the air. Add to that the distance between San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from their respective cities, and you’ve got yourself nearly a full hour of time driving — and that’s on a good day. Most airlines recommend you arrive at the airport at least 90 minutes before a domestic flight. Soon enough, this 90-minute flight is looking more and more like a four-hour commute. Driving that distance would take at least six hours. And you can forget about taking today’s trains, which would take nine hours. Compared to any of that, two hours and 40 minutes in a quieter, more comfortable, and more sustainable train sounds pretty tempting.
I was born and raised in San Francisco, and even I can count the number of times I’ve been to LA on one hand; it’s just not a convenient commute. But when the high-speed rail line currently under construction is completed, I could conceivably have lunch at home, take the high-speed train to LA for a meeting — a distance nearly as far as traveling from Boston to Washington D.C. — and be home in time for dinner.
Since we’re rolling with the example of California High-Speed Rail, here’s something else to consider: trains running on the route are planned to run on 100 percent solar power. Consequently, they won’t emit any greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and they won’t contribute to climate change. In fact, the project is expected to lower carbon emissions significantly, by reducing reliance on polluting cars and aircraft for longer-distance trips. It’s also important to remember that, even when trains do run on fossil fuels, they burn them more efficiently than other modes of transport, causing them to pollute less per passenger than automobiles and airplanes.
California’s ventures into high-speed rail have also focused on charting a route through historically underdeveloped areas. The project has faced criticism for building a lengthy track through less important regions, perceived as unnecessary detours en route to important areas — but it’s expected that the construction and operation of the high-speed rail network will bring economic development. High-speed rail construction currently employs over 11,000 Californians — and that’s just one project. In China and Europe, high-speed rail has proven its benefits to regional gross domestic product (GDP) figures.
High-speed rail, much like highways and airports, cannot be left to develop as a purely private project. The Biden Administration has been supportive of rail development in America — relatively speaking. The Administration’s laudable infrastructure investments have spent billions on rail, but most of that funding has gone to improving Amtrak’s services in the Northeast. Unfortunately, the possibility of high-speed rail around the United States has gone under the radar for both the Administration and some of the people it would benefit the most. Wealthy fossil fuel lobby groups have a vested interest in staving off the rise of sustainable high-speed rail projects, and they have used their influence in the federal and state governments to prevent investment in trains.
Even so, high-speed rail remains the transportation of the future. We can’t continue to rely on infrastructure as old as our grandparents to get around the country. Our roadways are falling apart. Aviation, while admittedly cooler than rail, is less convenient and almost as bad for the environment as cars are. Our climate can’t suffer the cost of more road trips and flights. And electric cars, more sustainable fuels, and lackluster maintenance aren’t going to solve those problems alone. It’s time for the United States to give trains another chance — because no matter how high upfront costs seem today, the costs of refusing to adapt to the climate crisis will be higher tomorrow.
