Why US trains trips are slower and worse than they should be
As flights get pricier and gas prices stay high, more US travelers are turning to trains — and hitting a system built for freight, not
As flights get pricier and gas prices stay high, more US travelers are turning to trains — and hitting a system built for freight, not people. Historically overlooked, train travel in the US is having a moment. Passenger numbers have hit new records for the past two years. With aviation fuel and gas prices still running well above pre-Iran war levels, even more travelers may be looking to passenger rails to avoid costly airfare and trips to the gas pump this summer travel season. But those unfamiliar with the country's train network may be disappointed. Many cities don't have good rail connections, or the kind of high-speed services common in European and East Asian countries. And there's a paradox here, because the US has more railroads than anywhere in the world. So where is the disconnect? Freight versus passenger trains The mid-to-late 19th century was something of a heyday for rail travel in the US. Thousands of miles of track were laid to connect the coasts and ferry both people and goods from one side of the country to the other. But it didn't last. By the middle of the 20th century, the US had prioritized federal funding for highway and airport development over that for railroads, making automobile and plane travel far more efficient than passenger rail lines. Train travel in the US was historically geared toward carrying heavy goods Image: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA/picture alliance So unlike many European countries, which have long seen passenger trains as a critical public good, the US prioritized more profitable freight trains. That legacy lives on today with much of the nation's track infrastructure now designed for carrying heavy goods rather than passengers at high speeds.
US passenger rail company Amtrak's most popular route is a case in point. Known as the Northeast corridor, it connects cities between Boston and Washington DC, taking around seven hours to cover the full 457 miles (735 kilometers). By comparison, trains can complete the slightly longer route between the Italian cities of Napoli and Milan in just under five hours. Allan Zarembski, director of the University of Delaware's railroad engineering and safety program, says part of the reason the Northeast corridor's rails cannot accommodate high-speed trains, is because they curve to the shape of the land. And that would be complex to change. "Straightening out the track is a very expensive proposition," he said. "I have to acquire the land. The land is owned by somebody, and often that somebody doesn't want to sell it…We're talking about going through the most densely populated portion of the United States." The 'train to nowhere' While the Northeast corridor is not currently capable of supporting high-speed rail, California had hoped to set a positive example. In 2008, the state launched an initiative to link Los Angeles and San Francisco by bullet train. Sold as a massive upgrade from the 12-hour non-direct route between the two cities, the idea was to lay new tracks that would cart passengers between the cities in under 3 hours. The state originally said the 800-mile line would be complete by 2020. Some rails cannot handle high-speed trains, because they curve to the shape of the land Image: Phil Gosney/AP Photo/picture alliance But the project has not left the planning station, causing some to dub it California's "train to nowhere." So what went wrong?
The BriefWire