A few thoughts on (potential) high-speed rail in the U.S.:

Sometimes concepts/ideas/proposals/projects reach critical mass very quickly and then suddenly take off. Look back as little as five years. Would most people have predicted the number of rail transit systems that have just opened or that are under construction? Would most people have had the confidence to predict that the new rail systems have ridership that is running about 30+ per cent above projections? (And, look at all the other metropolitan areas that have seen some of these new rail transit systems and now want their own.)

Would most people have been able to predict who the two nominees for president would be?


Yes, things sometimes move terribly slowly in the U.S., particularly compred to some other countries.

But, I firmly believe, that all it would take would be for ONE true high-speed rail segment to be built and to be successful -- and you would suddenly have lots of other parts of the country wanting to jump on the bandwagon. This presupposes that whoever goes first has the courage to buy proven technology, even if it comes from another country, and not to try to reinvent the wheel, as was the case with Acela.


The cost of projects is all relative. The "Big Dig" in Boston, which produced only a few miles of highway cost well over $10 billion.

Lots of things are unpredictable. We may actually get a federal (and additional state) government that is interested in investing in infrastructure -- and that sees rail infrastructure as a good investment. (Some states already do see investment in rail infrastructure as worth while.)

In Europe, several countries are building (double track -- actually twin-bore) rail tunnels in the 20+ mile range. If a tiny country like Switzerland can afford tens of billions of dollars for these tunnels, then, presumably the U.S. could, too.

But, if you're going to build some long U.S. tunnels, I would also look at new base tunnels that would bypass some current choke points, such as the Moffat, Cascade, and Flathead tunnels.

Yes, there are issues as to who pays for what and who owns what when it gets built, but those issues can be resolved. Who would have predicted five years ago that today gasoline would be above $4 per gallon and headed for $5? (Yes, a few people probably did, but they probably hedged their bets, as no one can predict the future for sure.) What happens if in another five years, gasoline is at $10 per gallon?


One of the strongest positive aspects of rail transportation is that you can propel trains with a variety of sources of energy, particularly if you electrify the lines. I firmly believe that the issue of electrifying additiona segments of main line somewhere in the U.S. is again on the horizon.


So, the bottom line is that while I am not overly confident that we will see true high-speed rail (or additional railroad electrification or additional major rail tunnels) in the next ten years, I also would not bet against it, as none of us know for sure how events will shape developments.

-- Ernest