Does High Speed Rail Have a Future in the US?

The United States lags behind much of Europe and Asia in high speed rail, and today even as developing nations are investing in modern rail infrastructure, a controversial and troubled project in California remains the only true high speed rail project in the US to reach the construction phase. I believe that high speed rail investment should be a bipartisan infrastructure issue rather than the political football that it has become, and having ridden Amtrak extensively both on the Northeast Corridor and on a number of long distance routes throughout the country, I can attest that even with its flaws, Amtrak provides a valuable service. But I have also traveled fairly extensively throughout Europe on conventional trains as well as high speed trains like the French TGV, German ICE, and Italian ETR500, so I have seen firsthand what we're missing on our side of the pond. When you factor in safety, efficiency, and the various forms of subsidy to other transport modes which helped to kill off privately run passenger rail in this country (ultimately leading to the creation of Amtrak in 1971 to preserve the bare bones intercity passenger rail network that remains today), I think there is a strong argument to be made for investing in high speed rail. This nation should boast the type of world class rail service that virtually every other industrialized nation has embraced, and I'm hopeful that the famous quote often attributed to Churchill proves correct here: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities." 

The Washington DC - New York - Boston Northeast Corridor (along with the Philadelphia - Harrisburg Keystone Corridor extension) has proven the potential for high speed rail to succeed in the US and shows the benefits of incremental improvements made over many years to an electrified high density legacy rail line (similar to the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line in England). But the seeds for that were planted by the Pennsylvania Railroad long before Amtrak inherited the route, and no other part of the US offers the same unique combination of population density and pre-existing high speed rail infrastructure. (The southern end of the Northeast Corridor has been electrified since the mid 1930s, while the northern end of the NEC from New Haven to Boston was diesel only until 1999, when the route became fully electrified.) Amtrak's ongoing Northeast Corridor upgrades build upon a 50-year legacy of high speed rail that began with the Budd Metroliner, America's answer to the Japanese Shinkansen. The Shinkansen, known colloquially as the bullet train, debuted with great fanfare in 1964 between Tokyo and Osaka with a top speed of 130 mph. Metroliner service debuted in 1969 between Washington DC and New York and while the trains only hit their intended 160 mph top speed on test runs, they did prove to be a commercial success at more modest speeds in revenue service. Some of the original Metroliner cars are still in use today after half a century, serving as de-powered cab control units at up to 125 mph on Amtrak's Keystone and Springfield Shuttle services, and the only slightly younger Amfleet equipment that was based on the Metroliner design still forms the mainstay of Amtrak’s northeast Regional fleet. Other high speed rail ventures in the Amtrak era included various gas turbine powered trains (both of French and domestic heritage), Spanish Talgo tilt trains, and the Canadian LRC tilt train (which never caught on here but served on VIA Rail Canada's Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa-Quebec City corridors). But none of those experiments had the lasting impact that the Metroliner did.

The commercial success enjoyed by Amtrak's Metroliner service led to plans for a next generation of high speed trains based on new European designs, and in 1993 Amtrak tested a Swedish ABB-built X2000 and a German Siemens-built InterCity Express (ICE) in Metroliner service. Both were a hit with passengers, but in the end both manufacturers lost out to a consortium led by Canada-based Bombardier and France-based Alstom for what would become the Acela Express. The Acela was somewhat of a kludge with some French TGV heritage (notably the propulsion system) and some Canadian LRC heritage (notably the coaches & their active tilt mechanism), and a fair amount of excess weight forced by onerous safety regulations. After some initial teething problems, the fleet of 20 trains finally began to enter service in late 2000 with a top speed of 150 mph, and helped to expand Amtrak's share of the lucrative northeast business travel market.

Today, the Acela Express service has become so popular that Amtrak cannot meet demand. Alstom was recently awarded a contract for a new fleet of 28 trains with a capacity of 378 passengers per train to replace the fleet of 20 first generation Acelas which carry a max of 304 passengers. The next-gen Acela Express represents somewhat of a coup for high speed rail in America, being the first train with TGV-level performance manufactured on US soil (or in the entire western hemisphere for that matter). While it will build on the first generation Acela's success and provide passengers with more of an incremental improvement than a revolutionary change, the train is part of the newest Alstom TGV product line and should be technically superior to the original Acela Express in virtually every respect. It will feature 186 mph (300 kph) capability and will utilize the proven Pendolino active tilt system, enabling passenger comfort to be maintained at higher curve speeds. Max operating speed will be 160 mph (257 kph) on a few stretches of the Northeast Corridor (specifically around Princeton Junction, NJ, Kingston, RI and Attleboro-Mansfield in MA). But more importantly the new fleet will be able to handle curves at higher speeds than the existing Acela equipment while providing a smoother ride.  

Outside of the Northeast Corridor, most American high speed rail efforts (such as those underway in Michigan and Illinois) involve upgrading existing routes to allow Amtrak's diesel powered trains to run at up to 110 mph. But incremental improvements aren't always the bargain they appear to be. I expected the Illinois project to be a model success story for the incremental approach to high speed rail, but the Chicago - St Louis project shows that even when the freight railroads are willing to deal (Union Pacific owns the route in this case), it's not always so easy to implement. While Amtrak has succeeded in getting some 110 mph running on track that it owns in Michigan along the Chicago - Detroit route, the UP-owned Illinois route remains stuck at 79 mph - the same max operating speed that existed before nearly $2 billion was spent on track upgrades. A short 110 mph demo stretch between Dwight and Pontiac, IL was short-lived, and is now back to 79 mph along with the rest of the route. Worse yet, the goalposts seem to be moving, with 90 mph now the officially stated goal rather than the promised 110 mph. 

200+ mph speeds will depend upon new dedicated rights of way like the one currently being built in California's Central Valley. A new high speed line is being constructed between Fresno and Bakersfield as a first step in connecting San Francisco with Los Angeles, but beyond that initial phase the project may be dead or at least dormant for now due to cost overruns and growing opposition. I think that given the limited funding available, closing the existing rail gap between Bakersfield and Palmdale would have been a good place to start, rather than building a new high speed right of way parallel to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe route currently used by Amtrak's San Joaquin service in the Central Valley. (Union Pacific's Tehachapi Pass route is slow and circuitous, and effectively off limits to passenger trains, the occasional Amtrak Coast Starlight detour notwithstanding, necessitating a new right of way through mountainous terrain for high speed service south of Bakersfield.) But I still believe that eventually the entire Los Angeles to San Francisco high speed rail link will be completed. In the interim, a re-route of Amtrak's San Joaquin trains onto the new Central Valley line (likely at 110 to 125 mph with existing diesel power), and electrification of Caltrain's commuter line between San Jose and San Francisco are near term benefits of California's high speed rail project.

In Texas, a private venture known as Texas Central aims to build a high speed rail link between Dallas and Houston. I hope that the Shinkansen-based Texas Central project succeeds, as Dallas - Houston is a logical market for high speed rail and I'd like to see the Brazos Valley station serving my birthplace of Bryan/College Station. My recent visits to Texas have involved some traffic nightmares that indicate a need for better transportation infrastructure. But Texas Central may face the same fate as the Texas TGV project of the early 1990s, given the local opposition.  

The more modest Virgin USA (formerly Brightline) venture in Florida will be interesting to watch, as it looks to expand from a demo commuter service to a true intercity rail service with 125 mph diesel propelled trains between Miami and Orlando. Diesel powered trains on upgraded legacy rights of way may seem more within reach than new Shinkansen or TGV style dedicated electrified infrastructure. But the capital costs are still significant and I'm skeptical of the Virgin USA approach outside of the unique Florida East Coast Railway situation, where the owner of the rail infrastructure also owns significant real estate and stands to benefit from using passenger rail as a loss leader. The Class I freight railroads, while obligated by law to host a few Amtrak trains here and there, are not about to let an influx of new passenger trains interfere with their busy freight networks. But where deals can be made, 125 mph diesel propelled trains can certainly provide Northeast Corridor-level service with the right amount of capital investment. Virgin USA's new Siemens trains would look right at home on some of England's non-electrified routes, where those speeds are commonplace.  

Is there a future for maglev technology? Invented in the United States and then largely abandoned here, it has been pursued most notably by Germany and Japan. South Korea deserves a mention too since Incheon Airport has a low speed maglev people mover. The closest the US has is an abandoned maglev guideway at Old Dominion University left over from a failed demo project. Germany's Transrapid magnetic levitation system was exported to China, where the world's only commercial high speed maglev connects Shanghai's airport with the city center at up to 430 kph (267 mph). The German Transrapid consortium has since disbanded, leaving Japan as the only country still pursuing high speed maglev technology - at least until China recently unveiled a new high speed maglev prototype. I would still bet on maglev over Elon Musk's fanciful hyperloop, but time will tell. With the practical limit for conventional steel wheel on steel rail technology well in excess of 200 mph, maglev's speed advantage has diminished somewhat.

High speed rail offers unmatched safety and impressive efficiency when implemented properly, and it provides a logical solution to the problems of congestion and pollution in high density intercity corridors. Despite the resistance to large capital expenditures in our current political climate, at some point we will need to start investing in worthy 21st century infrastructure and I remain bullish on the long-term future of high speed rail in America.