Bullet Trains: Does High Speed Rail Have a Future?

High-speed rail proponents cling to the dream of so-called Bullet Trains criss crossing America, ferrying millions of passengers.  Despite limited progress in pockets of the U.S., implementation has been derailed by billion dollar cost-tags, titanic deficits, politics and the sheer size of the country.

The clamor for lightning quick rail grows louder each time another country inaugurates service for a Bullet Train, such as the one in Shanghai, China, that reaches speeds of up to 268 m.p.h and averages 143 m.p.h.  Japan is testing a Bullet Train capable of reaching 249 m.p.h.

Proponents point out that public opinion polls document rising support for high-speed rail.  A recent survey released by the American Public Transportation Association found that two-thirds (63%) of Americans would be likely to use high-speed transportation if it was readily available.

Millennials and young people (18-44) are the most ardent advocates of high-speed rail with 71% in favor of building a network.  When researchers informed participants of the benefits of costs and time-savings of high-speed rail, the likelihood of using fast trains climbed by a few percentage points.

In recognition of the public's appetite for speedy trains, the Federal Railroad Administration recently announced it will allow passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 220 m.p.h.  There's only one problem.  The majority of the nation's rail network can't handle those speeds.

That hasn't stopped plans for next generation high-speed rail from being unveiled in California, Florida and Texas.  In each case, progress can be described as tortoise-like. Construction has started on the privately funded route for an Orlando to Miami train, but no launch date has been announced.

Like Florida, the Houston to Dallas route plan in Texas is privately funded.  The line is expected to cost at least $12 to $14 billion, however, the company admits it has raised substantially less than that amount.  The most recent figure released by the firm put the funding at about $200 million.

California's concept of developing a Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Diego was sidelined when Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the plug on the publicly funded project as costs ballooned to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion.  Meanwhile, work continues on a scaled-down route.

Proponents note Bullet Trains are operating over large networks in countries such as Japan, Europe and China.  If those countries can build fast rail, why can't the richest country in the world do it?  The answer is there are daunting obstacles in America that are not factors in those countries.

Perhaps, the biggest hurdle is replacing tracks incapable of handling higher speed trains. America's largest passenger rail firm is Amtrak, operated and funded by the federal government.  It chugs over 21,300 miles of rail, covering most of the nation.  Displacing the network would cost billions.

But changing the existing track isn't the only challenge.  Even the fastest trains must slow down for curvatures in the rail network.  Unfortunately, the aging U.S. track network is stippled with curves.  That means additional land would be needed to build a straight line between stations.

Problems multiply if a plan includes a nationwide system.  High speed rail is efficient in densely populated countries, such as Japan.  After leaving the two U.S. coasts, there is a lot of real estate to cover.  Regional tracks make more economic sense as Amtrak's experience indicates.

Amtrak operates in a sea of red ink.  For decades, passenger revenues have failed to exceed operating costs.  In the latest fiscal year, Amtrak's revenues hit $3.18 billion, but expenses were $4.16 billion.  If you are searching for a glimmer of hope, then look no further than the Northeast corridor.

The 456-mile route running from Boston to Washington, D.C. operates at a modest profit.  Amtrak's Acela Express, the fastest train in the U.S., zips along at speeds of 150-miles per hour for brief stretches.  However, it averages only 68 m.p.h. because the track hugs the jagged coastline.

Although the corridor was retrofitted to accommodate higher speed trains, some areas can only handle speeds of 25 m.p.h.  To fix the issue would required multi-billions of dollars in funding and require decades to complete construction.  Extending it to the entire country is cost prohibitive.

Because of the nation's size, air travel is more attractive for most cross country trips.  Even a high-speed rail train operating between New York and Los Angeles could not compete with airlines,  America has built up a massive air travel infrastructure that rail transportation cannot match.

Of all the hurdles, the steepest is political.  There is a constant struggle between the federal government and states over jurisdiction of interstate infrastructure.  Regionalizing high-speed rail is a thorny issue too because lawmakers in states that don't benefit are less likely to support it.

High-speed rail may just be another idea ahead of its time.  If the economics change for automobile and air travel, then the politics could swing in favor of high-speed trains.  Realistically, that may take decades, maybe even longer.  Intermediate steps, like regional rail, might fast track deployment.