Policy Analysis

April 20, 2021 | Number 915

The High-Speed Rail Money Sink

Why the United States Should Not Spend Trillions on Obsolete
Technology
By Randal O’Toole

S
EX EC U T I V E S UMMARY

ecretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s they require a huge amount of infrastructure that must
proposal to make the United States a “world be built and maintained to extremely precise standards.
leader” in high-speed rail would add more than Since the United States is struggling to maintain the
$4 trillion to the federal debt for construction infrastructure it already has—particularly its urban
of new rail lines plus tens of billions of dollars rail transit systems and Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor,
of annual deficit spending to subsidize operating costs. which together have more than $200 billion in main-
In exchange, such a high-speed rail network is likely to tenance backlogs—it makes no sense to build more
carry less than 2 percent of the nation’s passenger travel infrastructure that the nation won’t be able to afford to
and no freight. maintain.
High-speed trains were rendered obsolete in 1958, Buttigieg’s proposal is particularly poorly timed con-
six years before Japan opened its first bullet train, when sidering that the COVID-19 pandemic has made many
Boeing’s 707 entered commercial service; the airliner people question mass transportation in general. One
could cruise at more than twice the top speeds of the lesson of the pandemic is that the most resilient trans-
fastest scheduled high-speed trains today. Air travel cost portation system we have is motor vehicles and high-
more than rail travel in 1964, but average airfares today ways. Rather than funding an obsolete system we don’t
are less than a fifth of the average fares paid by riders of need, Buttigieg and Congress should find ways to relieve
the Amtrak Acela, the only high-speed train operating in congestion, improve safety, and increase people’s access
the United States. to jobs and other economic opportunities by improving
The main disadvantage of high-speed trains, other existing roads and building more highways that could be
than their slow speeds compared with air travel, is that paid for with user fees.

Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, specializing in transportation and land use policy. He is the author of Romance of the Rails:
Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need.
2

“
INTRODUCTION upgraded existing lines capable of going 200
Airfares Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg kilometers per hour (125 mph).11 Amtrak’s
averaged 13.8 wants to make the United States the “global Northeast Corridor, between Boston and
leader” in high-speed rail.1 That’s like wanting Washington, qualifies as “high speed” be-
cents per to be the world leader in electric typewriters, cause it is an upgraded route whose trains can
passenger- rotary telephones, or steam locomotives—all run as fast as 150 mph. Most other Amtrak
mile in 2019, technologies that once seemed revolutionary trains are limited to 79 mph, but the company
while fares but are functionally obsolete today. does have a few routes where trains can run
High-speed trains were rendered obsolete 90–110 mph. A company called Brightline is
on Amtrak’s in 1958—six years before Japan began operat- building a route between West Palm Beach
high-speed ing its first high-speed “bullet” trains—when and Orlando that will be capable of running
Acela were airlines started commercially operating the trains at 120 mph. This paper considers trains
Boeing 707 jetliner, which cruised at 600 that go slower than 80 mph conventional and
more than miles per hour (mph).2 In comparison, Japan’s trains that go at least 80 mph but slower than
90 cents per first bullet trains had a top speed of 130 mph.3 high-speed trains moderate-speed.12
passenger- Today, the world’s fastest intercity trains have This paper looks at the pros and cons

”
top speeds of about 250 mph.4 Since trains
mile. of high-speed rail in general and specific
typically make multiple stops, their average high-speed rail plans for the United States
speeds are much lower. in particular. It also reviews the results of
What made Japan’s trains appear feasible the Obama administration’s high-speed rail
when they were introduced in 1964 was the spending. Finally, it suggests what Congress or
fact that air travel cost more than rail travel: the Department of Transportation should do
in the United States, average airfares per instead of funding high-speed rail lines.
passenger-mile were more than twice average
rail fares.5 In addition, three-fourths of all pas-
senger travel in Japan was by train, so there THE CASE AGAINST
was a ready source of customers.6 HIGH-SPEED RAIL
The situation in the United States today Several high-speed rail plans for the United
is completely different. Airfares averaged 13.8 States have been introduced in the past two
cents per passenger-mile in 2019.7 By compari- decades. Obama’s 8,600-mile plan consist-
son, Amtrak (the only operator of intercity ed of routes in six disconnected networks
passenger trains in the United States) fares av- in the Northeast, South, Florida, Midwest,
eraged 35 cents per passenger-mile while fares California, and Pacific Northwest.13 In 2010,
on Amtrak’s high-speed Acela were more than Obama presented a revised plan that included
90 cents per passenger-mile.8 Amtrak carried several additional routes, including Phoenix–
only 0.1 percent of all passenger travel in the Tucson, Cheyenne–El Paso, and Minneapolis–
United States, so existing rail customers pro- Duluth, for a total of about 12,000 miles.14 In
vide a minimal market for faster trains.9 2020, the U.S. High Speed Rail Association
In 2009, President Barack Obama pro- (USHSR) released a plan consisting of 17,000
posed an 8,600-mile high-speed rail sys- miles of true high-speed rail (220 mph)
tem.10 With 22,000 miles of high-speed rail in a single, fully connected network serving
routes, China is currently the global leader. If 43 states, supplemented by 11,000 miles of
Buttigieg’s idea of becoming the world leader moderate-speed rail (110 mph) reaching those
means building more than China, it would 43 states plus five more.15
take a massive effort. At 22,000 miles of high-speed rail routes,
The International Union of Railways de- China has roughly twice as many miles as
fines “high-speed rail” as new rail lines capable the rest of the world combined.16 For the
of going 250 kilometers per hour (155 mph) or United States to become the world leader,
 3

“
as Buttigieg proposes, it would have to build maintenance costs. The agency’s business
even more miles of high-speed rail routes than plans estimate future capital replacement Costs always
the USHSR proposed. Here are 10 reasons all costs (which it calls “lifecycle costs”), but end up being
these plans are bad ideas. when it projects the future profitability of the
project, it only counts operations and main-
much higher
1. High-Speed Rail Is Too Expensive tenance costs, not lifecycle costs, against the than originally
California has spent an average of more revenues.24 This means taxpayers will be on projected;
than $100 million per route-mile building the hook to cover those costs even in the un-
even Japan’s
220 mph track on flat land.17 The latest esti- likely event that the system manages to cover
mates project that the entire 520-mile route its operations and maintenance costs. original bullet
will cost $100 billion, of which $20 billion is for Passenger revenues probably won’t even train had a
120 miles of flat land and $80 billion is for 400 cover operating costs. Amtrak claims that the nearly 100
miles of hilly or mountainous territory.18 That Acela, its high-speed train between Boston
percent cost

”
works out to $200 million a mile for hilly areas. and Washington, covers its operating costs,
At these costs, Obama’s original high-speed but it doesn’t count its second-largest op- overrun.
rail plan would require well over $1 trillion, erating expense: depreciation. By ignoring
while the USHSR’s plan would need well depreciation, Amtrak has managed to build
over $3 trillion. Building a system longer than up a $52 billion maintenance backlog in the
China’s would cost at least $4 trillion. corridor.25 If Amtrak’s high-speed rail cor-
High-speed rail proponents are likely to ridor through the most heavily and densely
predict lower costs, but costs always end up populated region of the country can’t pay for
being higher than originally projected. In its operating costs, then no other corridor
1999, the 520-mile Los Angeles–San Francisco will be able to do so either.
line was projected to cost $25 billion.19 The Where all this money will come from is
most recent projection is $100 billion.20 Even even more problematic. In 2008, California
after adjusting for inflation, costs have nearly voters agreed to allow the state’s high-speed
tripled. Cost overruns are typical in other rail authority to sell $9 billion worth of bonds
countries as well. Britain’s 345-mile London– without identifying any source of revenues
Scotland HS2 high-speed rail line was origi- to repay those bonds. The authority’s origi-
nally projected to cost £32.7 billion (about nal business plans anticipated that private
$123 million per mile) and is currently expected investors would be willing to offset as much
to cost £106 billion ($400 million per mile).21 as $7.5 billion of the construction costs in ex-
Even Japan’s original bullet train had a nearly change for being able to profitably operate
100 percent cost overrun.22 the line, but no investors have been willing to
Once built, high-speed rail systems are ex- risk their money based on the state’s projec-
pensive to maintain. Long-run capital renewal tions that the line can operate at a profit.26
requirements include replacement of rails The state also hoped to sell carbon cred-
and trainsets as frequently as every 10 years. its to help pay for the line, but revenues fell
Transit agencies in the United States current- well short of expectations.27 Beyond this,
ly have a $176 billion maintenance backlog, California hopes for more federal funding, all
mostly for rail infrastructure.23 A country that of which would come from deficit spending.
can’t keep its urban rail systems in shape is not Proponents often compare their high-speed
likely to keep even more expensive high-speed rail ambitions with the Interstate Highway
rail lines running. System, yet that system cost far less to build
Rail planners often ignore these capital re- and didn’t require any deficit spending. The
placement costs. The California High-Speed 48,500 miles of interstate highways connect
Rail Authority is legally required to earn every state and every major urban area in the
enough revenues to cover its operations and contiguous United States.28 Constructing the
4

“
system cost about $530 billion in present-day them to drive on.33 As autos became more
Unlike dollars, making the average cost of $11 million popular, gas taxes and other fees paid by auto
highways per mile well below that for high-speed rail.29 users covered the costs of paving roads and
If built today, it might cost a little more but expanding the highway network. Similarly,
and airports, would still be less than a fifth of the cost, per when the first planes went into commercial
which are mile, of high-speed rail lines. air service, they could land in any open field.
shared by Federal gas taxes and other highway user As air travel became more popular, airlines
passenger, fees covered nine-tenths of the cost of inter- used their profits and air ticket fees to im-
state highways; state highway fees paid for prove airports and air terminals.
freight, and the rest. The interstate system was also built In contrast, high-speed trains require that
national on a pay-as-you-go basis, with no bond sales the high-cost infrastructure be put in place
defense or other debt financing.30 Since high-speed first. Moreover, unlike highways and airports,
train ticket revenues are not likely to cover which are shared by passenger, freight, and
vehicles, operating costs, much less capital costs, all of national defense vehicles, high-speed trains
high-speed the construction cost would come from defi- can only be used for passengers, making them
trains can only cit spending. far less cost-effective. The incremental nature
be used for While interstates make up only 1.2 percent of highways and air travel made it possible to
of highway miles in the United States, they build infrastructure as revenues were collect-
passengers, carry close to 20 percent of all passenger-miles ed without a serious risk to taxpayers that the
making them and at least 16 percent, and probably closer projects would fail.
far less cost- to 20 percent, of freight ton-miles.31 In con- The differences in infrastructure require-

”
trast, even the most extensive high-speed rail ments explain why air travel costs so much
effective. networks would carry less than 2 percent of less than rail travel. For most of the lengths
passenger-miles and no freight. One projec- of their journeys, the only infrastructure
tion by high-speed rail proponents estimated modern airliners require is air traffic control.
that Obama’s 8,600-mile high-speed rail plan High-speed trains require extensive infra-
would carry 25 billion passenger-miles per structure that must be built and maintained
year, which is less than 0.5 percent of all pas- to highly precise standards.
senger travel in the country.32 Since the routes The requirement for dedicated, high-cost
in the Obama plan were the ones most likely infrastructure is a problem common to the
to succeed, doubling or tripling high-speed pipe dreams of many mass transportation
rail miles would result in less than double or enthusiasts, whether they are promoting
triple passenger-miles. Thus, it is unlikely light rail, monorails, maglevs, hyperloops, or
that high-speed trains would ever carry as personal-rapid transit. These systems are all
much as 2 percent of passenger travel. Because far more expensive to build than highways and
of the lightweight equipment required for can’t do nearly as much.
high-speed trains, such trains are incompati-
ble with heavy freight trains for safety reasons, 3. It’s an Energy Hog
so such routes would carry zero freight. The USHSR has claimed that a single gal-
lon of fuel can move an entire high-speed train
2. Dedicated Infrastructure 6,600 miles, or all the way from New York to
Is Wasted Infrastructure Los Angeles and back.34 This is nonsense unless
Unlike high-speed trains, motor vehicles the organization means “one gallon of lubricat-
and aircraft required only incremental expan- ing oil plus 250 megawatts of electricity.” Most
sion of the infrastructure they used. In 1900, other claims about high-speed rail’s energy ef-
when the United States had only 8,000 reg- ficiency are similarly misleading or wrong.
istered automobiles, the country already had It takes a lot more energy to move a train
2.3 million miles of road, mostly unpaved, for at 220 mph than to move one at conventional
 5

“
speeds of 60–80 mph. “The power required amount of energy required to build it as well
increases with the cube of the train speed,” as to periodically replace infrastructure such Building
notes engineering professor Alan Vardy.35 To as rails and power facilities. Airports are prac- California’s
partially make up for this cube law, high-speed tically the only infrastructure required for
trains are built especially light, but they still airlines, but high-speed rail lines need mile
high-speed
require more energy to move. The East Japan after mile of roadbed, ties, rails, power sup- rail line
Railway Company, which operates both plies, signals, and stations to operate. Even if would release
high-speed and conventional trains in Japan, high-speed train operations used somewhat
18,650 tons of
says that moving a high-speed train car one fewer BTUs per passenger-mile than airlines,
kilometer requires 57 percent more energy the high energy costs of building and replacing greenhouse
than a conventional train car.36 infrastructure would more than make up for gases per
Most high-speed trains are powered by that savings. mile; any
electricity, which brings up another inher- High-speed rail construction also releas-
ent inefficiency. Because of losses in genera- es a huge amount of greenhouse gases, par-
operational
tion and transmission, electrical generation ticularly for concrete ties, steel rails, and other savings would
plants must consume three units of energy construction materials. One study predicted require 71
(such as British thermal units, or BTUs) to de- that building California’s 520-mile line would
years to repay

”
liver one unit to customers.37 Most estimates release 9.7 million metric tons of greenhouse
of high-speed-train energy consumption are gases, or 18,650 tons per mile. Assuming that this cost.
based on the energy delivered to the train, not California’s high-speed trains would fill, on
the energy required to generate that power. average, 50 percent of their seats, the study
Many comparisons of the energy efficiency estimated that operating those trains would
of high-speed trains with planes assume both reduce greenhouse gases but that it would
are equally full. But, prior to the pandemic, take 71 years to repay the construction cost.40
airlines filled 85 percent of their seats while Since rails, concrete ties, and other infrastruc-
Amtrak filled only 51 percent of its seats.38 ture must be replaced or rebuilt every 30–40
That’s because most airline flights are non- years—and even more frequently on lines with
stop, so the airlines can base the size of the frequent train service—and since such re-
plane on the projected demand for each indi- placements would require the release of more
vidual route. Most passenger trains, however, greenhouse gases, the savings would never
make many intermediate stops, and the trains make up for the cost.
must be sized to meet the maximum demand Even if we ignore construction emissions,
along the route. As a result, many trains tend high-speed rail does not appear to offer any
to be relatively empty for much of their jour- environmental benefits. Outside of the West
neys, greatly reducing their energy efficiency. Coast and a few other states, most of the
Rail proponents also generally assume that electricity that would power U.S. high-speed
competing modes will be no more energy ef- trains is generated by burning fossil fuels, so
ficient in the future than they are today. In rail wouldn’t significantly reduce greenhouse
fact, the Department of Energy says that air- gas emissions at all. While green-energy ad-
liner fuel economy has improved at the rate vocates hope to eventually replace fossil fu-
of 2.9 percent per year since 1970 while inter- els, adding trains to electrical demands would
city passenger trains have improved at only simply increase the time and effort required to
1.7 percent per year.39 Because airplanes are build a non-fossil-fuel electrical system.
not tied to one type of infrastructure the way
high-speed trains are, they can make improve- 4. It’s Slow
ments much faster than railroads. Jetliners typically cruise at 500–600 mph.
The biggest factor working against the en- Of course, takeoffs and landings are slower,
ergy efficiency of high-speed rail is the huge resulting in slightly lower average speeds. But
6

“
high-speed train average speeds are also a lot 5. It Doesn’t Go Where You Want to Go
Asian and lower than the 220 mph or so top speeds that The Obama administration’s 8,600-mile
European proponents like to trumpet. Part of the reason high-speed rail network was really designed
for the slower train speeds is that they need as six different and disconnected systems.
high-speed to slow down in places for safety reasons and Even within each system, the routes were in-
trains gained for intermediate stops. Amtrak’s Acela may complete: travelers could get from Chicago
most of their have a top speed of 150 mph, but between to St. Louis and from St. Louis to Kansas City,
riders from New York and Washington, its average speed but there was no planned direct route from
with stops is barely half that, and even the Chicago to Kansas City.
conventional one nonstop train averages only 90 mph.41 In USHSR’s proposed high-speed rail sys-
trains, not other countries, average speeds are typically tem would correct only a few of these
autos or about 70–80 percent of top speeds, so trains problems. It still doesn’t include, for exam-
with top speeds of 220 mph may have average ple, a 220 mph route from Chicago to Kansas
airplanes. speeds of around 150–175 mph, which is well City. The 220 mph network misses several ur-
The United below the average speed of airliners. ban areas with more than 500,000 people, and
States doesn’t Rail advocates argue that rail downtown- even the 110 mph system skips many urban ar-
have enough to-downtown times are competitive with eas with more than 100,000 people.
planes, but this is only important where People driving on an interstate freeway can
conventional there are lots of downtown jobs. New York get off the freeway at any exit and access the
train riders has 1.9 million jobs near Penn Station, and nation’s other 4.1 million miles of roads. Once
for high- Washington, DC, has more than 400,000 rail passengers arrive at a station, they must
jobs near Union Station, so this argument find some other mode of travel to reach their
speed rail to

”
may be valid in this corridor. But the jobs in final destinations, greatly reducing the conve-
succeed. most other American cities are far more dis- nience of the system.
persed, with an average of 8 percent of ur-
ban jobs located in central city downtowns, 6. It Won’t Get Many People
where many train stations would be locat- Out of Cars or Planes
ed.42 Many major cities are also served by The most heavily used high-speed rail
multiple airports, and when all the jobs and lines in the world, including those in China,
residences near those airports are counted, Europe, and Japan, gained their riders from
they can greatly outnumber those located conventional trains, not from autos or air-
in or near downtown. The areas around the planes. The United States doesn’t have enough
Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Burbank air- conventional train riders for high-speed rail
ports, for example, have twice as many jobs as lines to succeed.
downtown Los Angeles.43 When Japan opened its first high-speed
The biggest factor slowing down air travel rail line in 1964, nearly 70 percent of pas-
is the time required to get through airport senger travel was by rail and only 12 percent
security. Yet, security systems can be stream- by automobile. Although Japan’s lines are
lined for a lot less than it would cost to build considered highly successful, today only
high-speed rail. For a modest fee, for example, 25 percent of passenger travel is by rail and
the Transportation Security Administration’s nearly 70 percent by auto.46
PreCheck program allows frequent travelers The three European countries with the
to swiftly bypass many security steps.44 most high-speed rail lines are France, which
If high-speed rail ever became a significant opened its first high-speed rail line in 1981;
mode of travel, it also would require security Germany, which opened its first in 1991; and
systems. Wait times to pass through security to Spain, which opened its first in 1992. Since
ride the Eurostar from London to Paris, for ex- then, all three have built many lines, with
ample, can sometimes be 30 minutes or more.45 Spain’s system extending the most miles. Yet,
 7

“
as shown in Figure 1, none have seen rail re- automobile ownership in China is growing
duce automobile or airline travel. At most, much more rapidly than rail ridership. In 2005, High-speed
money-losing high-speed rail lines reduced the China had 21.3 million passenger cars.47 By rail has not
market share of profitable bus lines. 2019, this had increased by more than 10 times
Rail advocates sometimes claim that the to 340 million, a growth rate of 19.2 percent
prevented
opening of high-speed rail lines has led to a re- per year. By comparison, rail ridership has auto owner­
duction of air service in those corridors, as if the been growing at only a third of that rate, or ship in China
replacement of profitable airlines with unprof- 6.4 percent per year. While China still has few-
from growing
itable trains is to be applauded. But the reality is er cars per capita than the United States, it has
that air travel in Europe has massively increased more total motor vehicles.48 The rapid growth at 19.2 percent
thanks to the introduction and expansion of in auto ownership is likely mirrored by a simi- per year while
low-cost air carriers. While data sources are in- lar growth in driving, showing that high-speed rail travel
consistent for earlier years, between 2010 and trains are not reducing auto driving. To en-
2019, air travel grew 260 percent faster than rail able these motor vehicles to travel around
is growing
travel in France, 63 percent faster in Germany, the country, China has built 40 percent more at only 6.4
and 56 percent faster in Spain. miles of freeways than the United States. percent per

”
Information available about China is not In both Asia and Europe, aggressive con-
year.
as detailed as about Japan or Europe, but struction of new high-speed rail lines has failed

Figure 1
Auto, rail, and bus travel share (percentage)
France Germany Spain
90

80

70

60

50
Introduction
Typeofsomething Type something Type something
high-speed rail in 1981 in 1991 in 1992
40

30

20

10

0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2018 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018

Auto Rail Bus

Sources: 1980 data from Panorama of Transport: Statistical Overview of Transport in the European Union, Data 1970–2000 (Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, 2003), pp. 73–75; and later data from “Modal Split of Passenger Transport,” Eurostat,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_rk310/default/table?lang=en.
8

“
to make a dent in driving or flying. At best, it time, driver-assist systems such as adaptive
Driverless has slowed the decline of the importance of cruise control are making driving less stress-
cars will rail travel in those regions. But if the goal is to ful and increasing people’s tolerance for such
save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, long trips. With the livery service Waymo hav-
sharply or achieve other social goals, building cars that ing self-driving cars for hire in the Phoenix
reduce the are more energy efficient would do more than area and Ford, GM, and Tesla working hard to
time-cost of building high-speed rail. catch up, the time-cost of auto travel is likely
auto travel 7. There Is No “Sweet Spot”
to sharply decline before the United States can
build much of a high-speed rail network.
before the A fundamental precept behind high-speed
United rail is that there is a “sweet spot” of distances 8. It Won’t Help and May
States can between cities in which high-speed rail will Hurt the Economy
thrive as the distance is supposedly too long Studies have found that high-speed trains
build much for auto travel and too short for air travel. The can generate new economic development near
of a high- Federal Railroad Administration, for example, the stations where the trains stop. However,
speed rail claims that this sweet spot is between 100 and the same studies show that economic devel-

”
600 miles.49 This claim is entirely speculative,
network. opment slows in communities not served by
and there is no evidence that it is true. On one such trains. On a nationwide basis, high-speed
hand, many short-distance routes are served rail is thus a zero-sum gain: as a study of the
by numerous airliners each day. On the other proposed California high-speed rail line con-
hand, the distances people are willing to rou- cluded, “The economic development impacts
tinely drive continue to grow. of the California HSR project are likely to be
Before the pandemic, at least 35 to 45 flights more redistributive than generative.”52
per day (depending on the day of the week) flew The paper adds that if higher-density devel-
the 240 miles between Dallas and Houston, opment is more productive than low-density
and nearly that many are going today. Most development, then the high densities encour-
of these flights are provided by Southwest aged by high-speed rail might result in a net
Airlines, which doesn’t use a hub-and-spoke gain. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has
model, so many if not most of the people on led people to question claims that high-density
those flights were only going between Dallas development is needed for economic produc-
and Houston.50 Similarly, Alaska Airlines had tivity and whether they want to live and work
about two dozen flights a day each way be- in such densities.
tween Seattle and Portland, whose airports are Realistically, to produce actual economic
less than 170 miles apart. Both Portland and growth, new transportation infrastructure
Seattle are hub cities for Alaska Air, so many must generate new travel or shipping that
if not most travelers on these planes were not wouldn’t have taken place without the infra-
connecting with other planes. structure. The Interstate Highway System, for
Amtrak often brags that it carries more example, stimulated billions of passenger-miles
people than the airlines carry between of new travel and billions of ton-miles of new
New York and Washington, which are 230 shipping that weren’t taking place before the
miles apart. But it admits that it really has highways were built.
only 6 percent of the intercity travel market in To generate new travel, a new transporta-
the Northeast Corridor, with airlines carrying tion system must be faster, more convenient,
about 5 percent and the other 89 percent going and less expensive than existing systems.
by highway.51 High-speed rail fails all these tests, being slow-
The coronavirus has increased people’s er than flying, less convenient than driving,
willingness to take long auto trips as an alter- and more expensive than both. On that last
native to mass transportation. At the same point, airfares average less than 14 cents per
 9

“
passenger-mile,53 and Americans spend an av- Tokyo Imperial Palace was estimated to be
erage of 25 cents a passenger-mile on driving,54 worth more than all the land in California.62 At the end of
while Amtrak fares for its high-speed Acela av- Government plans to sell former railway land 2019, China’s
erage nearly $1 per passenger-mile.55 contributed to the bubble’s collapse, and
Far from boosting the economy, most the government ended up absorbing more
state railway
countries that have built high-speed rail sys- than $400 billion in railway debt. Together, had nearly
tems have gone heavily into debt to do so. these led to at least two decades of economic $850 billion of
stagnation.63
Even if the first lines make economic sense,
debt, mostly
political pressures demand that the countries Despite having to absorb the losses from
build more and more lines that are less and less lines built before 1987, the Japanese govern- due to the cost
sensible. Financing these lines requires huge ment has continued to build more high-speed of building
amounts of debt that can significantly harm rail lines. Typically, the national government and operating
the national economies. pays two-thirds of the cost while local govern-
high-speed

”
China has built more miles of high-speed ments pay a third, and the lines are then leased
rail than any other country and has gone more to private railroads for a fraction of what it trains.
into debt doing it. At the end of 2019, China’s would take to repay those costs.64
state railway had nearly $850 billion worth of
debt, and most of its high-speed rail lines aren’t 9. It Takes Decades to Plan and Build
covering their operating costs, much less their The California legislature created a
capital costs. As a result, China is slowing the high-speed rail commission to study the possi-
rate at which it is constructing new lines.56 bility of a rail line in 1994. Construction didn’t
France’s state-owned railroad has piled up begin until 2015.65 At that time, the authority
debts of more than $50 billion and has been projected it would be able to begin operating
repeatedly bailed out by the government. high-speed trains from Los Angeles to San
About half the debt is due to operating losses, Francisco by 2028.66 However, because of
and half is due to the expense of building new cost overruns and the pandemic, the authority
high-speed rail lines.57 now projects completion no earlier than 2033,
Spain has built its high-speed rail system nearly 40 years after planning began.67 Not all
with an availability-payment public-private high-speed rail lines may take this long, but
partnership. Officially, the private partner has two decades seems a likely minimum.
gone into debt by $18.5 billion.58 While the A lot will happen in two or more decades
country is obligated to pay the private partner that could completely nullify the claimed ben-
enough money to repay its debt, the debt isn’t efits of high-speed rail. The pandemic is likely
on Spain’s books, which allows it to evade euro- to reduce people’s eagerness to use various
zone debt limits.59 If the EU changes its rules, forms of mass transportation even after most
however, Spain would be in serious trouble. people are vaccinated.68 Driverless cars will
Japan provides an object lesson for what reduce the cost of travel time because people
happens when a country has a rail debt cri- will be able to work, socialize, or enjoy enter-
sis. In 1987, state-owned Japanese National tainment while they travel in personal vehi-
Railways had a debt of $550 billion (in today’s cles.69 Electric aircraft could reduce the dollar
dollars), much of it due to political demands and environmental cost of short-distance air
to build money-losing high-speed rail lines.60 travel.70 These and other uncertainties make
The government privatized rail lines that were big-budget, high-risk projects even less likely
profitable, continued to subsidize those that to succeed.
weren’t, and hoped to recover some of the
debt by selling railway property.61 But Japan 10. A Source of Political Corruption
was in the midst of a property bubble—at its As with any megaproject, high-speed rail
peak, the few hundred acres making up the is a tempting target for people who would
10

“
illegally or unethically divert government dol- across fairly flat territory when construction
Even if a high- lars to their own political or economic gains. costs were low and in a corridor with some
speed rail In 2011, a fatal high-speed train crash in China 60 million people who did nearly all of their
was attributed to design flaws and hasty con- intercity travel by train. The United States
line from Los struction.71 This contributed to China’s arrest has no such corridors.
Angeles to and conviction of the state minister of rail- High-speed rail is an obsolete technology
San Francisco ways, Liu Zhijun, for embezzlement, accept- because it requires expensive and dedicated
were ing bribes, and conspiring to murder someone infrastructure that will serve no purpose other
who threatened to expose him.72 than moving passengers who could more eco-
successful, In 1974, Kakuei Tanaka had been prime nomically travel by highway or air. The United
political minister of Japan for only 2.5 years when he States should not make the same mistake as
pressures left office under a cloud of scandal and corrup- China, Spain, and other countries that have
tion and was eventually convicted for accept- gambled their economies on this archaic form
would ing bribes and directing government contracts of travel.
demand that to businesses in his prefecture.73 One of the
more lines biggest projects he promoted was the Jōetsu
be built to high-speed rail line.74 This line cost far more THE OBAMA HIGH-SPEED
than Japan’s first bullet train, yet it carries RAIL EXPERIENCE
places such only a quarter as many passengers.75 Given the growing momentum behind
as Duluth Similar political pressures have already in- high-speed rail, it is instructive to review
where it could fluenced high-speed rail plans in the United how well the last frenzied spending on inter-
States. For example, the Obama administra- city passenger trains worked. In 2009 and
never make

”
tion’s revised, 2010 high-speed rail plan in- 2010, President Obama persuaded Congress
sense. cluded a line to Duluth, Minnesota, which to dedicate $10.1 billion to high-speed rail
has only 120,000 people in its urban area. Not projects around the country. Amtrak also
coincidentally, at the time the map was issued, received $804 million for the Northeast
the chair of the House Transportation and Corridor.79 To this the Department of
Infrastructure Committee was from Duluth.76 Transportation added at least $1.4 billion in
Politics also influenced the California other federal funds, including funds from
rail project. Many people wonder why the Transportation Investment Generating
California started building high-speed rail Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant pro-
in the Central Valley, which has the few- gram.80 State governments, mainly California,
est people along the route. The answer goes added more than $7 billion in matching funds.81
back to 2010, when the Obama administra- Nearly all of this money was spent in 10
tion gave California a high-speed rail grant. different corridors. Outside of California,
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) was running a tough the funds were not expected to produce true
re-election campaign, so Obama required high-speed trains but were expected to in-
that funds granted to California be spent in crease speeds and frequencies of service, lead-
or near Costa’s district and allowed Costa to ing to more riders.
announce the grant instead of the secretary Ten years and nearly $20 billion later, al-
of transportation, who usually makes such most nothing has been accomplished. One
announcements.77 Costa won by only 3,000 corridor saw speeds increase by half a mile
votes, so the grant may have made the differ- per hour and frequencies increase from two
ence to his campaign.78 to four trains per day. A couple other corridors
saw speeds increase by 1–3 mph and service ex-
An Archaic and Obsolete Technology tended to two small towns in Maine. Overall,
The Tokyo–Osaka high-speed rail line the nation has little to show for more than
supposedly made money, but it was built $19 billion in federal and state spending.
 11

“
California billions be expected to actually improve
The California High-Speed Rail Authority service. This makes the corridor little more Washington
began construction on its Los Angeles–San than a giant money pit. Result: $954 million of State spent
Francisco project in 2015 despite knowing that high-speed rail funds wasted.
it only had about $10 billion in hand to com-
more than
plete a project that it then estimated would Chicago–St. Louis $800 million
cost $55 billion.82 Since then, projected costs Before spending high-speed rail funds, to save 10
have risen to as high as $100 billion.83 this route had four trains a day running at
minutes on
The one good thing that has come of the an average speed of 53 mph.90 The state of
project is that it has proven that building Illinois received $1.343 billion from the fed- Seattle–
high-speed rail costs a lot more and takes a lot eral high-speed rail fund, plus $46 million in Portland trips,
longer than experts claimed. The $10 billion TIGER funds, to speed up and increase fre- but the very
spent so far has produced zero results. The one quencies between Chicago and St. Louis.91
Amtrak train connecting Los Angeles with The state spent much of this money
first train
the Bay Area still trundles along at an average double-tracking the line and improving grade crashed due
speed of less than 39 mph.84 Result: $4 billion crossings to allow trains to run at 110 mph. to excessive
in federal funds and at least another $6 billion state This certainly benefited Union Pacific, which
speeding, and
and local funds wasted. owned the tracks and can now run more
freight trains in the corridor. However, pas- the schedules
The Northeast Corridor sengers haven’t seen any benefit: the route still were returned
Amtrak received $2.4 billion for its route has only four trains a day running an average of to the slower

”
between Boston and Washington, DC. Before 53 mph.92 Result: $1.389 billion wasted.
spending this money, the fastest trains in the
speeds.
corridor took 2 hours and 46 minutes to go The Pacific Northwest
between New York and Washington and 3.5 Washington State received more than
hours to go between New York and Boston.85 $830 million to speed up trains between
By 2019, the fastest trains with the same sched- Seattle and Portland.93 The state estimated
uled stops between New York and Washington that it could reduce the 3.5-hour journey by
took 2 hours and 49 minutes, a slowdown from 10 minutes, effectively increasing speeds from
81.7 to 80.2 mph. The fastest trains between 53.4 to 56.1 mph, which is still not anything
New York and Boston still took 3.5 hours, but close to high-speed rail. The state also prom-
there are fewer trains that are that fast.86 ised to increase train frequencies.94
Amtrak did introduce one train a day Most of the time savings would not be
that runs nonstop between New York and from faster trains but from a reroute of trains
Washington in 2 hours and 33 minutes in one over a shorter line in the Tacoma area.95
direction and 2 hours and 35 minutes in the The new line opened on December 18, 2017.
other direction.87 The faster speed was due Unfamiliar with the new route, the engineer of
solely to making fewer stops and not to any the very first train missed a sign telling him to
improvements in the corridor. While that slow down, and the train derailed from an over-
sounds like progress, it is still slower than pass onto Interstate 5, killing three people.96
Penn Central’s nonstop trains in 1969, which The accident could have been prevented by
took 2 hours and 30 minutes.88 the installation of positive train control, which
The real problem is that the Northeast Congress had required, but neither the state of
Corridor has such a huge maintenance back- Washington nor Amtrak had bothered to do so.
log that Amtrak, and the commuter railroads After the accident, Amtrak returned to
that use some of the tracks, need to spend the old schedule and still operates the same
$52 billion just to keep it running.89 Only af- number of trains per day at the same speeds.
ter spending that much could any additional Result: $809 million wasted.
12

“
Charlotte–Raleigh Service average southbound speed to 47.8 mph.105
New York In 2009, the state of North Carolina sub- Result: A trivial benefit for the $334 million cost.
spent $220 sidized part of the cost of operating one
of the two trains a day between Charlotte Chicago–Quincy–Iowa City
million to and Raleigh, the other one of which con- In 2009, Illinois and Iowa received
‘decrease tinued north to New York City. The trains $231 million in federal high-speed rail funds
trip time’ took 3 hours and 12 minutes for an average plus $13 million in other federal funds
speed of 54.1 mph.97
between New to speed up trains between Chicago and
North Carolina received $719 million to Quincy and start new service from Chicago
York City improve this service.98 As of 2019, the state to Iowa City.106 At the time, there were two
and Buffalo; subsidized three trains a day on top of the one trains a day between Chicago and Quincy,
instead, that continued to New York with schedules which required 4 hours and 23 minutes to make
sped up by 2 minutes, for an average speed the 258-mile journey, an average of 58.9 mph.107
average speed

”
of 54.6 mph. While this represented a mod- Today, the two trains to Quincy average
declined. est increase in service, it hardly seems worth 59.3 mph, knocking a whole two minutes off
$719 million, especially since a doubling of their trip. The trains from Quincy to Chicago
service resulted in less than a 50 percent in- are one minute faster than in 2009. There are
crease in ridership between 2009 and 2019.99 still no trains to Iowa City.108 Result: A trivial
Result: A small benefit for the $719 million cost. benefit for $244 million.

Chicago–Detroit New York–Buffalo

Amtrak actually owns some of the tracks With the help of subsidies from the state
that it uses between Chicago and Detroit, of New York, Amtrak runs four trains a day
the only place outside the Northeast where it between New York City and Buffalo/Niagara
owns its own infrastructure. In 2009, Amtrak Falls. In 2009, the fastest train in the 460-mile
operated four trains a day between Chicago corridor took 8 hours and 35 minutes, for an
and Detroit that went as fast as 56 mph, mak- average speed of 53.6 mph.109
ing the trip in 4 hours and 59 minutes.100 New York received $187 million in
Michigan received $598 million in high-speed high-speed rail funds plus $33 million in other
rail funds, plus $4 million in other funds, to federal funds to “improve reliability and de-
speed up trains in this corridor.101 crease trip times.”110 Today, the fastest train in
Ten years later, Amtrak still operates four the corridor takes 8 hours and 41 minutes, re-
trains a day between Chicago and Detroit ducing average speeds to 53 mph. Result: $220
that go the same speeds they went in 2009.102 million wasted.
Result: $602 million wasted.
The Downeaster
The Vermonter With the help of subsidies from Massa-
With the help of subsidies from the state chusetts and Maine, Amtrak runs five
of Vermont, Amtrak runs one train a day from trains a day between Boston and Portland. In
Washington, DC, to the town of St. Albans, 2009, the trains took 2.5 hours to go 116 miles,
whose population is less than 7,000. Within the for an average speed of 46.4 mph.111
state of Vermont (St. Albans to Brattlesboro), Maine received $60 million in high-speed
the southbound train took 4 hours and 1 min- rail funds plus $11 million in other funds
ute for an average speed of 45.1 mph south- to extend service north to the small towns
bound.103 Vermont received a $316 million of Brunswick (population: about 20,000)
high-speed rail grant plus $18 million in other and Freeport (population: about 7,000).112
federal funds.104 This allowed it to reduce The trains weren’t any faster in 2020 than
the travel time by 14 minutes, increasing the they were in 2009.113 Amtrak says that
 13

“
about 151 people a day got on or off the mobility, and saved the lives of around 5,000
trains in Brunswick and Freeport in 2019.114 people per year by taking traffic away from After
Result: A trivial benefit for $71 million. more dangerous local roads. For these rea- spending
sons, it has been called “the best investment
Where Did the Money Go? the nation ever made.”117 Unlike many urban
$10.1 billion
After spending $10.1 billion in federal transit projects, whose goal is to get people to in high-speed
high-speed rail funds, plus billions more in use one mode of travel instead of another, the rail funds on
other federal, state, and local funds, the only interstate highways did more than simply get
10 corridors,
train that was sped up by more than 2 mph people to travel by one road instead of anoth-
serves the second-least populated state in the er road: the system produced new travel that the only train
nation. Only one route saw an increase in fre- wasn’t taking place before the highways were that was sped
quencies, and that route gained only 33 percent built. Before the first interstates, Americans up by more
more riders despite doubling from two to four drove an average of about 4,000 miles per
trains a day. It would be hard for anyone to ar- year. After the original system was substan-
than 2 miles
gue that any of this money was well spent. tially completed in 1980, Americans drove an per hour
average of 1,300 miles a year on the interstates serves the
plus 5,400 miles a year on other roads.118 That
second-least
THE REAL GAP new travel represents people accessing more
With growing recognition that China has affordable homes, better jobs, a broader range populated
become the United States’ main economic of consumer goods, and increased social and state in the

”
and political competitor, many people point recreational activities. nation.
to China’s high-speed rail system as evidence Unfortunately, auto opponents have de-
that the United States is “lagging behind.”115 monized those economic benefits, calling
But the real transportation gap between China them “induced demand,” implying that new
and the United States is not high-speed rail; it roads somehow force people to unwillingly
is freeways. China has about the same num- drive on them.119 Even as they insist that
ber of motor vehicles as the United States. spending money on transit or intercity trains
But where the United States has about 67,000 will produce the same $6 in benefits for every
miles of freeways and is adding fewer than 800 dollar spent, they object to new roads precisely
miles per year, China has 93,000 miles of free- because they produce such economic returns.
ways and is growing its system by more than To be fair, since the United States already
5,000 miles a year.116 has 67,000 miles of freeways, there are prob-
China began building freeways before it be- ably diminishing returns to each additional
gan building high-speed rails, and it has built mile. But even if those returns are only twice
more miles each year and spent more money the cost of the roads, they are worth generat-
on new freeway construction (though less per ing if the roads themselves can be financed by
mile) than on high-speed rail. Highway travel highway user fees. In contrast, no one expects
has grown faster than rail travel, and the high- transit projects or high-speed rail lines to pay
way system has become particularly important for themselves, suggesting that they are not
for freight, as it moves about 2.5 times as many likely to return more economic benefits than
ton-miles as rail lines. their costs.

The Value of Freeways China’s Expressways

In 2007, an independent analysis calculated At 3.7 million square miles, China is about
that the United States’ Interstate Highway the same size as the United States, which
System that was built between 1956 and 1992 is 3.8 million square miles.120 As recently as
generated $6 in economic productivity for ev- 1997, China’s transportation network was
ery dollar that it cost, vastly increased personal largely undeveloped. Where the United
14

“
States in 1900—before widespread auto maintenance and non-transportation-related
China has ownership—already had 2.3 million miles of activities.130 Meanwhile, it pays for its high-
about the roads, China in 1997 had only 765,000 miles speed rail lines out of deficit spending. By
of road, 64,000 miles of which were unpaved. the end of 2019, China’s State Railway Group
same land Fewer than 3,000 miles of the roads in China Company had debts of nearly $850 billion
area and were freeways or expressways in 1997, both because of the cost of building and operating
same number terms meaning limited access roads of four or money-losing rail lines.131 As a result, many ar-
more lanes.121
of motor gue that the country should slow or halt con-
In a plan that was directly inspired by the struction of new high-speed rail lines.132
vehicles as the economic success of America’s Interstate
United States, Highway System, China’s Ministry of The United States’ Freeway Shortage
yet it has built Transport decided in 1995 to build 22,000 The United States should not build more
miles of expressways.122 The first ones opened freeways simply because China has more. But
40 percent in 1998, and China achieved the 22,000-mile there are several reasons why this country
more miles of target in 2005. Convinced that highways were has a shortage of freeways. These include con-
freeways and driving the country’s economic growth, China gestion, safety, and finance.
increased the goal.123 By 2014, China’s freeway
is building The Texas A&M Transportation Institute
miles exceeded those in the United States, and estimates that congestion in America’s 494
new ones China continues to build new ones.124 urban areas wasted 8.8 billion hours of travel-
five times China will not stop building freeways any- ers’ time and 3.3 billion gallons of fuel and cost
faster than time soon. The government’s latest plan calls $179 billion in 2017.133 In the post-pandemic
for building 31,000 miles of new expressways world, increased numbers of people work-
the United

”
by 2035.125 Freeways aren’t the only roads ing at home will reduce morning congestion.
States. China is building: by the end of 2019, the However, one study found that telecommut-
country had more than 3.1 million miles of ers drive more miles per day than people who
roads of all types, a quadrupling since 1997.126 drive to work.134 Since they tend to do this
This compares with 4.1 million miles of roads driving in the afternoons, the number of hours
in the United States.127 of congestion in the afternoons may grow.
The urban road network around Beijing Safety is an issue because urban freeways
surpasses that of any American urban area. are the safest of all roads to drive on, and rural
China has built seven expressways radiating freeways are the safest rural roads. Highway en-
from the city center and supplemented them gineers classify roads as arterials, collectors, and
with seven ring roads around the city—no ur- local roads and streets. Freeways are arterials,
ban area in America has more than four. The but so are other major roads, generally includ-
outermost ring around Beijing is more than ing roads with speed limits of 45 mph or more.
600 miles long.128 In contrast to American In 2019, 4.5 people in the United States
highway critics who say that new roads merely died in traffic accidents for every billion
induce more traffic, the Chinese more accu- vehicle-miles traveled on urban freeways,
rately see that the new roads enable more eco- while 7.9 people died per billion miles on rural
nomic activity. freeways. Non-freeway arterials, however, are
China may have more miles of high-speed some of the most dangerous roads in the coun-
rail lines than the rest of the world combined, try: 14.4 people died per billion miles in urban
but it has more miles of expressways than areas and 19.8 people in rural areas in 2019.
the mileage of all the railroads in the country Converting 1,000 miles of urban non-freeway
and four times as many miles of expressways arterials to freeways would save about 70 lives
as miles of high-speed rail.129 China pays for per year, while converting 1,000 miles of rural
road construction with tolls and new vehicle non-freeway arterials to freeways would save
taxes, while it divides fuel taxes between road about 30 lives per year.135
 15

“
The financial reason to build new freeways also says that vehicles moving at 25 mph use
is simple: new freeways, if located in the right 25 percent less fuel per mile as vehicles mov- Roads are
places and priced properly, can pay for them- ing at 15 mph.138 Thus, people living in denser demonized
selves. This is unlike high-speed rail or any pas- areas may actually use more fuel than people in
senger rail in the United States, which require low-density areas. Since greenhouse gas emis-
for generating
both operating and capital subsidies. For the sions are proportional to petroleum fuel con- economic
government to refuse to build new roads that sumption, people in the denser areas also emit growth while
can pay for themselves is to act as a monopolist more greenhouse gases.
rail advocates
with all the negative connotations that implies. Aside from the arguments from anti-
The main argument against building more highway groups, the main obstacle to build- insist we
roads is that such roads supposedly increase ing new freeways or converting non-freeway run trains
driving and so fail to relieve congestion. This arterials to freeways is an obsolete system of that are half

”
argument assumes that the highway industry paying for roads. Fuel taxes made sense in 1956
can generate more customers simply by build- because the costs of tolling were very high.
empty.
ing more roads, ad infinitum. That’s obviously Today’s electronic tolling systems are almost
not possible. What is true is that new trans- as economical as fuel taxes and have several
portation facilities can create economic op- major advantages.
portunities. If people take advantage of those First, fuel taxes don’t automatically ad-
opportunities, it generates economic growth. just for inflation, and raising those taxes is
Somehow, roads are demonized for doing this always a political battle. Fuel taxes also fail to
while rail advocates insist we run trains that adjust for electric or other more fuel-efficient
are half empty. vehicles. In addition, existing fuel taxes go
Highway opponents argue that making cit- mainly to the states, while local governments
ies more compact and improving transit and rely heavily on property and other taxes to pay
intercity rail service will give people access to for road and street maintenance. Most im-
the resources they need without as much auto portantly, fuel taxes fail to send appropriate
travel.136 But this is a pipe dream. According signals to drivers about which roads are more
to the University of Minnesota’s Accessibility expensive to drive on and similarly fail to send
Observatory, even in New York, one of the signals to highway agencies about where more
most compact urban areas with the best tran- road capacity may be needed.
sit service in America, the average resident Sending the right signals can help re-
can reach four or more times as many jobs lieve congestion. Highways that use conges-
in a 60-minute-or-less auto drive as a transit tion pricing guarantee that travelers enjoy
trip of the same length.137 free-flowing traffic at any time of the day. Such
One argument against allowing more travel congestion pricing should not be confused
is that it uses energy and produces green- with cordon pricing, which is sometimes
house gas emissions. But compact cities tend called congestion pricing, that simply charg-
to be more congested cities, and that con- es a fee for crossing a line into a city or down-
gestion wastes more fuel. According to the town area. Cordon pricing is a fundraising tool
Department of Energy, people who live in den- that doesn’t really relieve congestion.
sities of 10,000 to 25,000 people per square If fees are set to ensure that roads don’t
mile (densities found in such places as Chicago become congested, then roads that gener-
and San Francisco) drive about 16 percent few- ate more fees than are needed to recover the
er miles than people who live in densities of costs of building and maintaining those roads
1,000 to 2,000 people (typical of low-density send a signal that more roads could and should
suburbs). But the vehicles in the denser areas be built in that corridor out of the excess fees.
average about 17 mph while lower-density ve- One way to build new freeways is to make
hicles move about 26 mph. The department them all toll roads. But if existing roads
16

“
remain untolled, some people will avoid toll funds to the states to give a bonus to states
High-speed roads, thinking they can save money. A much that convert from fuel taxes to mileage-based
trains are better system would be to completely re- user fees, provided that those user fees are
place existing gas taxes, vehicle-registration dedicated to the roads.
slower than fees, and tolls with a mileage-based user fee
flying, less system. Such a system would allow all own-
convenient ers of roads—federal, state, county, city, or CONCLUSION
than driving, private—to charge fees to the people who use High-speed rail is a costly and obsolete
them. Oregon and other states are beginning technology. It is slower than flying, less con-
and more to implement mileage-based user fees systems venient than driving, and more expensive than
expensive that protect people’s privacy even as the sys- both. Its environmental benefits are question-

”
than both. tems earn revenue to pay for roads.139 able at best, especially since both cars and air-
If Secretary Buttigieg or members liners are becoming more fuel-efficient and
of Congress want to make the United less polluting every year. The United States
States a world leader in transportation, they does not need an expensive new infrastructure
should focus on highways, not high-speed system that will take decades to build, carry
rail. One way to do so would be for Congress relatively few passengers, and provide no im-
to adjust the formula for distributing highway provements to freight service.

NOTES of Transportation Statistics, Department of Transportation,

1. Jeremy Blum, “Pete Buttigieg Wants the U.S. to Lead the World 2020, table 1-40.
in High-Speed Rail,” Huffington Post, February 5, 2021.
10. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America (Washington: Federal
2. “707/720 Commercial Transport,” Boeing, https://www.boeing. Railroad Administration, 2009), p. 6.
com/history/products/707.page.
11. “What Is High-Speed Rail?,” International Union of Railways,
3. “The Shinkansen Turns 50: The History and Future of Japan’s https://uic.org/passenger/highspeed/.
High-Speed Train,” Nippon.com, October 1, 2014.
12. Some people describe trains faster than 80 miles per hour but
4. Alex Waltner, “The Fastest Trains in the World (2020),” Swedish slower than high-speed trains as higher-speed trains. However, this
Nomad. could confusingly imply that such trains are faster than high-speed
trains. See William C. Vantuono, “U.S. HSR Accelerates,” Rail-
5. “Average Passenger Revenue per Passenger-Mile,” National way Age, August 27, 2012, https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/
Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, De- intercity/us-hsr-accelerates/#.UHT7PxVuSSo.
partment of Transportation, 2020, table 3-20.
13. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, p. 6.
6. “Japan Passenger Transport by Mode from 1950,” Public Purpose.
14. Eric Peterson, “High-Speed Rail Stimulus Funding,” Mass
7. “Average Passenger Revenue per Passenger-Mile,” National Transit, May 13, 2010.
Transportation Statistics.
15. “US High Speed Rail Network Map,” US High Speed Rail As-
8. Calculated from “Monthly Performance Report: August FY sociation, http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html.
2019,” Amtrak, September 26, 2019, pp. 3, 5, and 8.
16. “Sustainable Development of Transport in China,” State
9. “U.S. Passenger-Miles,” National Transportation Statistics, Bureau Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China,
 17

December 2020, p. 7. 29. Laura Hale, “Happy 60th Birthday, Interstate Highway Sys-
tem!,” Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, American Society of
17. Ralph Vartabedian, “Costs for California’s High-Speed Rail Civil Engineers, June 29, 2016.
Project May Increase by $1.8 Billion,” Los Angeles Times, April 30,
2019. 30. Dan McNichol, The Roads That Built America: The Incredible
Story of the U.S. Interstate System (New York: Sterling, 2006), p. 105.
18. Don Thompson, “California Bullet Train Adds Another $1.3
Billion to Projected Price Tag,” Associated Press, February 12, 31. According to “U.S. Passenger-Miles,” National Transportation
2020. Statistics, 2021, table 1-40, 81 percent of all passenger-miles of
travel takes places on highways, and according to “U.S. Ton-Miles
19. Jeff Davis, “Timeline of California High-Speed Rail Cost Esti- of Freight,” National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transpor-
mates,” Eno Center for Transportation, March 14, 2018. tation Statistics, Department of Transportation, 2020, table 1-50,
39 percent of all ton-miles of freight is moved on highways. Ac-
20. Ralph Vartabedian, “High-Speed Rail to Run on a Single cording to “Highway Statistics 2019,” table VM-1, 24 percent of
Track in Central Valley as Overall Cost Rises,” Los Angeles Times, all passenger vehicle-miles and 42 percent of all heavy truck vehi-
February 10, 2021. cle miles take place on interstates. These numbers imply that 19.4
percent of passenger-miles and 16.4 percent of ton-miles move
21. Graeme Paton, “HS2 Running a Decade Late and with Total on the interstates. Since the average weight carried by trucks on
Cost Unknown,” The Times, January 24, 2020. interstates is likely to be greater than on other roads, interstates
carry an even higher share of ton-miles.
22. Roderick A. Smith, “The Japanese Shinkansen: Catalyst for
the Renaissance of Rail,” Journal of Transport History 24, no. 2 32. High-Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. (Wash-
(2003): 222–37. ington: Center for Clean Air Policy, 2006), p. 13.

23. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions 33. “Highway Statistics 2019,” table VMT-421C; and Highway Sta-
and Performance Report to Congress, 23rd ed. (Washington: Depart- tistics Summary to 1995 (Washington: Federal Highway Adminis-
ment of Transportation, 2019), p. xliv, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ tration, 1996), table MV-200.
policy/23cpr/pdfs/23cpr.pdf.
34. “Energy Efficiency—Passenger,” U.S. High Speed Rail Associa-
24. Revised Draft 2020 Business Plan: Recovery and Transforma- tion, https://ti.org/images/RailEfficiency600.gif.
tion (Sacramento: California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2021),
pp. 138–40. 35. Frank Swain, “The Dream of High-Speed Trains Is Already
Coming off the Rails,” Wired, November 15, 2019.
25. NEC Infrastructure Master Plan Policy Group, “North-
east Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan,” March 24, 2010, 36. Sustainability Report 2019 (Tokyo: East Japan Railway Compa-
p. ES-7. ny, 2020), p. 96.

26. California High-Speed Train Business Plan (Sacramento: 37. Stacy C. Davis and Robert G. Boundy, Transportation Energy
California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2008), p. 21. Data Book, 39th ed. (Oak Ridge, TN: Department of Energy,
2020), p. B–7.
27. Ralph Vartabedian, “State Cap-and-Trade Auction Falls Far
Short, Hurting Bullet Train,” Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2016, 38. “Airline Activity: National Summary (U.S. Flights),” Bureau
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cap-trade- of Transportation Statistics, 2020, https://transtats.bts.gov;
20160525-snap-story.html. and “Monthly Performance Report: August FY 2019,” Amtrak,
p. 5.
28. “Highway Statistics 2019,” Office of Highway Policy Informa-
tion, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transpor- 39. Davis and Boundy, Transportation Energy Data Book, 39th ed.,
tation, table HM-20. p. 2–20, table 2.15.
18

40. Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, “Life-Cycle Assessment 54. Calculated by dividing passenger-miles for light vehicles from
of High-Speed Rail: The Case of California,” Environmental Re- “Highway Statistics 2019,” table VM-1, into personal expendi-
search Letters 5, no. 1 (2010): 014003. tures on motor vehicles (lines 54, 57, and 116) from “Table 2.5.5.
Personal Consumption Expenditures by Function,” National In-
41. “Northeast Corridor Timetable,” Amtrak, January 2, 2020, come and Product Accounts, National Data, Bureau of Economic
https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/timetables_NE_ Analysis, last revised July 31, 2020.
Corridor1_New_York_Washington_20200102.pdf.
55. Calculated from “Monthly Performance Report: September
42. “Demographia United States Central Business Districts FY 2017,” Amtrak, December 27, 2017, p. 7.
(Downtowns),” 4th ed., Demographia, January 2020, table 1.
56. Frank Tang, “China’s Railway Investment Loses Steam as Gov-
43. “Demographia United States Central Business Districts ernment Turns from Debt-Fuelled Building Boom,” South China
(Downtowns),” 3rd ed., Demographia, 2014, table 13. Morning Post, January 12, 2021.

44. “Trusted Traveler Programs,” Department of Homeland Secu- 57. Pierre Zembri and Eloïse Libourel, “Towards Oversized High-
rity, https://ttp.cbp.dhs.gov/. Speed Rail Systems? Some Lessons from France and Spain,” Trans-
portation Research Procedia 25 (2017): 368–85.
45. “What Security Checks Are There at the Station?,” Eurostar,
2021, https://help.eurostar.com/faq/uk-en/question/What- 58. David Burroughs, “Spain Urged to Rebalance High-Speed
security-checks-are-there-at-the-station. and Suburban Rail Investment,” International Railway Journal,
August 7, 2020.
46. “Japan Passenger Transport by Mode from 1950,” Public Pur-
pose. 59. Viktoria Dendrinou, “How Countries Keep Testing the EU’s
Fiscal Rules,” Bloomberg, January 19, 2019.
47. “PC World Vehicles in Use,” International Organization of
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, https://www.oica.net/wp-content/ 60. Koichiro Fukui, “Japanese National Railways Privatization
uploads//PC_Vehicles-in-use.pdf. Study: The Experience of Japan and Lessons for Developing
Countries,” World Bank Discussion Paper no. 172, August 1992,
48. “China Has 340 Mln Vehicles by Mid-2019,” Xinhua, July 4, p. xi.
2019.
61. Kiyoshi Nakamura, “Privatization and Beyond: The JR Case,”
49. Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, p. 1. Japan Railway and Transport Review, no. 8 (September 1996): 4–9.

50. Flight frequencies in this and subsequent paragraphs are 62. Kozo Yamamura, Too Much Stuff: Capitalism in Crisis (Chicago:
based on airline timetables published at Southwest.com and Policy Press, 2018), p. 106.
Kayak.com.
63. Naoki Abe, “Japan’s Shrinking Economy,” op-ed, Brookings
51. A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor Institution, February 12, 2010.
(Washington: Amtrak, 2010), p. 4.
64. “Construction of High-Speed Railways,” Japan Ministry of
52. Jin Murakami and Robert Cervero, “California High Speed Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, https://www.mlit.
Rail and Economic Development,” (working paper presented at go.jp/kokusai/itf/policy_001.html.
symposium, Environmental and Other Co-benefits of Develop-
ing a High Speed Rail System in California: A Prospective Vision 65. “About California High-Speed Rail,” California High-
2010–2050, Berkeley, CA, December 3, 2010), p. 29. Speed Rail Authority, https://hsr.ca.gov/about/high-speed_rail_
authority/.
53. “Average Passenger Revenue per Passenger-Mile,” National
Transportation Statistics. 66. Connecting California: 2014 Business Plan (Sacramento:
 19

California High-Speed Rail Authority, 2014), p. 16. Northwest Region,” Federal Railroad Administration, 2013, p. 2;
and “America’s Rail Network: Southeast Region,” Federal Rail-
67. Revised Draft 2020 Business Plan, p. 129. road Administration, 2013, p. 2.

68. Andy Fell, “Mobility in the Pandemic—and After,” University 81. Revised Draft 2020 Business Plan, pp. 82–83.
of California, Davis, August 18, 2020.
82. Connecting California: 2014 Business Plan, pp. 35, 53.
69. Zia Wadud, “Driverless Cars: How You’ll Use Free Time for
Work and Rest—According to Research,” The Conversation, 83. Thompson, “California Bullet Train Adds Another $1.3 Billion
March 18, 2019. to Projected Price Tag.”

70. Chad Berndt, “Electric Aircraft Could Transform Short- 84. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009 (Washington:
Distance Regional Air Travel,” Teslarati, January 28, 2019. Amtrak, 2008), p. 99, https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/
archive/timetables_National_20081027.pdf.
71. “China Bullet Train Crash Caused by ‘Design Flaws,’” BBC
News, December 28, 2011. 85. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, pp. 27–44.

72. Arno Maierbrugger, “China Ex-Minister Gets Death Sentence 86. “Northeast Corridor Timetable,” Amtrak, November 11,
for Corruption,” Investine, July 9, 2013, http://investvine.com/ 2019, pp. 1–12, https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/
chinese-minister-gets-death-sentence-for-corruption/. timetables_NE_Corridor1_New_York_Washington_20191111.
pdf.
73. Sam Jameson, “Conviction of Former Japanese Leader Tanaka
Upheld,” Los Angeles Times, July 29, 1987. 87. “Northeast Corridor Timetable,” pp. 1, 8.

74. Peter McGill, “Tanaka’s Journey to Court,” MacLean’s, 88. “More News about the Luxurious New Metroliners,” Penn
October 17, 1983. Central Railroad, 1969, p. 2.

75. “Overview of Shinkansen Lines,” International High-Speed 89. NEC Infrastructure Master Plan Policy Group, “Northeast
Rail Association, 2019, https://www.ihra-hsr.org/data/_pdf/18. Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan,” p. ES-7.
pdf.
90. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 74.
76. Eric Niiler, “Oberstar Looks Back on Nearly Four Decades at
the Capitol,” Minnesota Public Radio News, December 6, 2010. 91. “America’s Rail Network: Midwest Region,” p. 2.

77. Matthew Roth, “California High Speed Rail Central Valley 92. “Illinois and Missouri Timetable,” Amtrak, March 23, 2020, pp.
Corridor Gets Federal Grant,” Streetsblog SF, October 28, 2010. 1–2, https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/timetables_
Illinois_Missouri_Service_20200323.pdf.
78. “Democratic Rep. Jim Costa Holds on to Calif. Seat,” Associ-
ated Press, November 23, 2010. 93. “America’s Rail Network: Northwest Region,” p. 2.

79. “High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program: Federal In- 94. WSDOT Summary of Track 2 Projects: High Speed Intercity Passen-
vestment Highlights,” Federal Railroad Administration, Depart- ger Rail Program Funding Application (Olympia: Washington State
ment of Transportation, April 7, 2016, p. 2. Department of Transportation, 2009), p. 10, http://ti.org/pdfs/
WSDOTTrack2Summary.pdf.
80. “America’s Rail Network: Midwest Region,” Federal Rail-
road Administration, Department of Transportation, 2013, 95. WSDOT Summary of Track 2 Projects, p. 3.
p. 2; “America’s Rail Network: Northeast Region,” Federal
Railroad Administration, 2013, p. 2; “America’s Rail Network: 96. Jon Ostrower, Joe Sterling, and Ralph Ellis, “At Least 3 Dead
20

in Amtrak Derailment in Washington State, Official Says,” CNN, 115. Lina Zeldovich, “Will the U.S. Ever Catch a High-Speed
December 19, 2017. Train?,” JSTOR Daily, July 16, 2019.

97. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 67. 116. According to “Highway Statistics 2009,” Office of High-
way Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration,
98. “America’s Rail Network: Southeast Region,” p. 2. Department of Transportation, table HM-20, the United
States had 59,341 miles of freeways in 2009; “Highway Statis-
99. “Monthly Performance Report: FY 2019,” Amtrak, tics 2019,” table HM-20 says it had 67,470 in 2019, thus add-
November 18, 2019, p. 8; and “Monthly Performance Report for ing an average of 813 miles per year. According to Samantha
September 2009,” Amtrak, December 31, 2009, p. A-3.6. Wong, “Total Length of Expressways in China from 2009 to
2019,” Statista, December 23, 2020, https://www.statista.com/
100. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 72. statistics/276050/total-length-of-chinas-freeways/, China’s ex-
pressways grew from 40,423 miles in 2009 to 92,957 in 2019,
101. “America’s Rail Network: Midwest Region,” p. 2. thus growing at 5,250 miles per year.

102. “Amtrak Service in Michigan Timetable,” Amtrak, 117. Wendell Cox and Jean Love, The Best Investment a Nation Ever
July 8, 2019, p. 1, https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/ Made: A Tribute to the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate
timetables_Michigan_Service_20190708.pdf. Highways (Washington: American Highway Users Alliance, 1996),
p. 2.
103. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 60.
118. Highway Statistics Summary to 1995, table VM-202.
104. “America’s Rail Network: Northeast Region,” p. 2.
119. Laura Bult, “How Highways Make Traffic Worse,” Vox,
105. Amtrak Vermonter and Valley Flyer Timetable: November 11, 2019 February 12, 2021.
(Washington: Amtrak, 2019), pp. 1-2.
120. “Geography > Land area > Square miles: Countries Com-
106. “America’s Rail Network: Midwest Region,” p. 2. pared,” NationMaster, https://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/stats/Geography/Land-area/Square-miles.
107. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 77.
121. Asian Highway: The Road Networks Connecting China,
108. “Illinois and Missouri Timetable,” p. 3. Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation and the Korean Penin-
sula (New York: United Nations, 2002), p. 35.
109. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, p. 55.
122. Si-ming Li and Yi-man Shum, “Impacts of the National Trunk
110. Amtrak Empire Service Timetable: January 2, 2020, pp. 1–2. Highway System on Accessibility in China,” Journal of Transport
Geography 9, no. 1 (March 2001), 39–48.
111. Amtrak System Timetable: Fall 2008/Winter 2009, pp. 46–47.
123. Andrew Batson, “China Bets Highways Will Drive Its
112. “America’s Rail Network: Northeast Region,” p. 2. Growth,” Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2008.

113. “Downeaster Schedule,” Amtrak, November 2, 2020, 124. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, The Geography of Transport Systems, 5th
p. 2, https://juckins.net/amtrak_timetables/archive/timetables_ ed. (New York: Routledge, 2020); and “Length of the Interstate
Downeaster_20201102.pdf. Highway System and of the Chinese Expressway System, 1959–
2017,” https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/road-
114. “Amtrak Fact Sheet Fiscal Year 2019: State of Maine,” Amtrak, transportation/interstatemileage-2/.
May 2020, p. 1, https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/
dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/ 125. “China’s Transport Plan to Benefit Construction Firms; Le-
MAINE19.pdf. verage to Remain High,” Fitch Ratings, February 28, 2021.
 21

126. 2020 China Statistical Yearbook (Beijing: National Bureau 2019), p. 1.

of Statistics, 2021), table 16-3, http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/
ndsj/2020/indexeh.htm. 134. Sandip Chakrabarti, “Does Telecommuting Promote Sustain-
able Travel and Physical Activity?,” Journal of Transport and Health
127. “Highway Statistics 2019,” table HM-20. 9 (June 2018): 19–33.

128. Du Juan, “Beijing’s ‘7th Ring Road’ Complete,” China Daily, 135. Calculated from “Highway Statistics 2019,” tables FI-220 and
December 9, 2016. VM-2.

129. 2020 China Statistical Yearbook, tables 16-3 and 16-19. 136. Robert Cervero, “Tracking Accessibility,” Access no. 11 (Fall
1997): 27–31.
130. Laney Zhang, “National Funding of Road Infrastructure:
China,” Library of Congress, March 2014. 137. Calculated from Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy, Access
Across America: Auto 2019 (Minneapolis: Center for Transporta-
131. Tang, “China’s Railway Investment Loses Steam.” tion Studies, 2021), p. 6; and Andrew Owen and Brendan Murphy,
Access Across America: Transit 2019 (Minneapolis: Center for Trans-
132. David Fickling, “China Doesn’t Need 125,000 Miles of portation Studies, 2020), p. 4.
Track,” Bloomberg, August 17, 2020; and Shin Watanabe, “China’s
Bullet Trains Barrel Ahead Despite $770bn Debt Load,” Nikkei, 138. Davis and Boundy, Transportation Energy Data Book, 39th ed.,
June 16, 2020. p. 4–42, table 4.34 and p. 9–20, table 9.15.

133. David Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, 2019 Urban Mobil- 139. “OReGO Helps Preserve and Improve Oregon Roads,” Or-
ity Report (College Station: Texas A&M Transportation Institute, egon Department of Transportation, myorego.com.
 RELATED STUDIES
FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE

Zero-Based Transportation Policy: Recommendations for 2021 Transportation

Reauthorization by Randal O’Toole, Policy Analysis no. 913 (March 16, 2021)

Transportation Infrastructure in the United States by Gilles Duranton, Geetika

Nagpal, and Matthew Turner, Research Briefs in Economic Policy no. 242 (December 2,
2020)

Testing the “China Shock”: Was Normalizing Trade with China a Mistake? by
Scott Lincicome, Policy Analysis no. 895 (July 8, 2020)

Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the
Transportation We Need by Randal O’Toole (October 2018)

Privatizing U.S. Airports by Robert W. Poole Jr. and Chris Edwards, Tax and Budget
Bulletin no. 76 (November 21, 2016)

Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways by Randal O’Toole, Policy Analysis

no. 695 (May 15, 2012)

Intercity Buses: The Forgotten Mode by Randal O’Toole, Policy Analysis no. 680
(June 29, 2011)

High-Speed Rail Is Not “Interstate 2.0” by Randal O’Toole, Briefing Paper no. 113
(September 9, 2009)

High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America by Randal O’Toole, Policy Analysis
no. 625 (October 31, 2008)

Rails Won’t Save America by Randal O’Toole, Briefing Paper no. 107 (October 7, 2008)
 RECENT STUDIES IN THE
CATO INSTITUTE POLICY ANALYSIS SERIES

914. Private Schooling after a Year of COVID-19: How the Private Sector Has
Fared and How to Keep It Healthy by Neal McCluskey (April 13, 2021)

913. Zero-Based Transportation Policy: Recommendations for 2021

Transportation Reauthorization by Randal O’Toole (March 16, 2021)

912. Protectionism or National Security? The Use and Abuse of Section 232 by
Scott Lincicome and Inu Manak (March 9, 2021)

911. Reviving the WTO: Five Priorities for Liberalization by James Bacchus
(February 23, 2021)

910. H-2B Visas: The Complex Process for Nonagricultural Employers to Hire
Guest Workers by David J. Bier (February 16, 2021)

909. Espionage, Espionage-Related Crimes, and Immigration: A Risk Analysis,

1990–2019 by Alex Nowrasteh (February 9, 2021)

908. The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations: 2021 Update by Angela Dills,
Sietse Goffard, Jeffrey Miron, and Erin Partin (February 2, 2021)

907. Manufactured Crisis: “Deindustrialization,” Free Markets, and National

Security by Scott Lincicome (January 27, 2021)

906. Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet

Speech by Will Duffield (January 26, 2021)

905. COVID-19 and the U.S. Fiscal Imbalance by Jeffrey Miron (December 8, 2020)

904. Space Force: Ahead of Its Time, or Dreadfully Premature? by Robert Farley
(December 1, 2020)

903. Despite Modi, India Has Not Yet Become a Hindu Authoritarian State by
Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar (November 24, 2020)

902. Government in a Pandemic by Thomas A. Firey (November 17, 2020)

901. Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure by Jay Schweikert
(September 14, 2020)

900. Democrats and Trade 2021: A Pro-​Trade Policy for the Democratic Party by
James Bacchus (August 11, 2020)
899. Health Care Workforce Reform: COVID-19 Spotlights Need for Changes
to Clinician Licensing by Shirley Svorny and Michael F. Cannon (August 4,
2020)

898. How Property and Civil Rights Help Forest Tribes Modernize and Prosper:
Lessons from India by Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar and Neeraj Kaushal
(July 30, 2020)

897. Neo-​Malthusianism and Coercive Population Control in China and India:

Overpopulation Concerns Often Result in Coercion by Chelsea Follett
(July 21, 2020)

896. Tariffs by Fiat: The Widening Chasm between U.S. Antidumping Policy and
the Rule of Law by Daniel J. Ikenson (July 16, 2020)

895. Testing the “China Shock”: Was Normalizing Trade with China a Mistake?
by Scott Lincicome (July 8, 2020)

894. Kicking the Habit: The Opioid Crisis and America’s Addiction to
Prohibition by Josh Bowers and Daniel Abrahamson (June 29, 2020)

893. Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Policy and the Korea Conundrum: Some Policy
Proposals by John Mueller (June 22, 2020)

892. “Money as a Weapons System”: The Promises and Pitfalls of Foreign

Defense Contracting by Renanah Miles Joyce and Brian Blankenship (June 3,
2020)

891. Rightsizing Fed Ed: Principles for Reform and Practical Steps to Move in
the Right Direction by Mary Clare Amselem, Lindsey Burke, Jonathan Butcher,
Jamie Gass, Neal McCluskey, and Theodor Rebarber (May 4, 2020)

890. Illegal Immigrant Incarceration Rates, 2010–2018: Demographics and

Policy Implications by Michelangelo Landgrave and Alex Nowrasteh (April 21,
2020)

CITATION
O’Toole, Randal. “The High-Speed Rail Money Sink: Why the United States Should Not Spend Trillions on
Obsolete Technology,” Policy Analysis no. 915, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, April 20, 2021. https://doi.
org/10.36009/PA.915.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Cato Institute, its
trustees, its Sponsors, or any other person or organization. Nothing in this paper should be construed as an attempt to
aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. Copyright © 2021 Cato Institute. This work by the Cato Institute
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.