Experts cite cultural, economic, and regulatory reasons. High-speed rail requires significant upfront investment, and the United States already has a robust highway system and a culture of commuting. Meanwhile, China, Japan, and many Western European countries have been developing subsidized high-speed rail networks for decades. Analysts say U.S. policymakers have simply decided not to make such investments.
In the United States, high-speed rail is a particularly controversial component of the infrastructure debate. Proponents cite the potential economic benefits of faster trains, including energy savings, faster travel times than cars, and a potential boom in related industries. Some advocates envision a network that connects all major U.S. cities through high-speed rail corridors. In 2009, President Barack Obama proposed a national high-speed rail network; the plan called for ten interconnected high-speed rail corridors, with Chicago as the main rail hub. As vice president in 2011, Biden announced a six-year plan to build a high-speed rail network that would cover 80 percent of the country within twenty-five years. As of 2023, Congress has not funded any of these proposals.
Opponents argue that high-speed trains are a bad deal. They point out that most rely heavily on government subsidies and charge expensive fares, while remaining slower than air travel and less convenient than cars. Some estimates put the cost of introducing high-speed rail in the United States at up to $3 trillion, plus ongoing maintenance costs. Other critics say that most of the United States is not suitable for such a network, given how scattered major population centers are.
In the absence of a national plan, some states have gone ahead with their own. Brightline, a privately owned intercity passenger rail line in Florida, plans to introduce high-speed rail service between Miami and Orlando in 2023 and expand to western states by the end of the decade. Other plans have run into bureaucratic red tape and significant cost overruns. A high-speed line planned by the state-run California High-Speed Rail Authority to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco quickly became a tangle of local politics.
California’s infrastructure problems reflect a widespread dynamic: building and maintaining any infrastructure in the United States is much more expensive than in other countries. Experts attribute this to many reasons, including local resistance, labor and environmental regulations, and outsourcing of construction to private companies.