5 Myths About High-Speed Rail, Debunked

High-speed rail isn't a perfect form of transportation. What it is, however, is a necessary tool for any developed economy to achieve efficient transport and meet climate goals. In a time defined by a lack of jobs, clogged highways, and the risk of climate collapse, HSR offers fast, low-carbon mobility. The opposition, often funded by the car lobby, often relies on myths that collapse under simple scrutiny.

Myth 1: "High-speed rail doesn't meaningfully cut emissions"

Rail, by far and undeniably, is the fastest way to move a lot of people at high speeds, especially when electrified, and supported by a renewable grid. Implementing high speed rail can reduce air pollutants by up to 90 percent, cut overall carbon emissions, and support growth in the renewable sector. At worst, even when not supported by a renewable grid, high speed rail has around 1/10th of the footprint of planes. At the same time, high speed rail is 10 times more fuel efficient than alternatives. In the U.S., even non HSR-based analyses echo this: electrified segments of American intercity rail dramatically undercut aviation's emissions.

Myth 2: "High-speed rail is too expensive; widening highways and airports is cheaper."

First, making a investment in a country for transportation is known to boost productivity, increase efficiency, and stimulate tourism and the economy. For example, every single year, the U.S. government spends around $400 billion on highways. We've seen this argument, empirically, not be true just be the fac that other developed countries, such as China, have developed substantial networks in around 10 years. The alternative, of adding more road capacity, with every 10% capacity increase leading to ~7–10% higher rate of traffic. After implementing HSR, countries experience an overage increase of 2.7% to GDP, showing that the investment does pay off. The Acela express, the only line in the U.S. that could briefly be said to have HSR(albeit on the slower side,) generates 63% of Amtrak's profit.

Myth 3: "The U.S. can't build HSR; it only works in Europe or Asia."

The biggest thing stopping projects from working has been anti-rail regulations implemented by the car lobby. Recently however, progress on projects such as Brightline West between Southern California and Las Vegas are gaining federal and private funding, showing that projects are working. The problem has constistnyl been political will, not geography. The U.S. has several corridors:the Northeast Corridor, the Texas Triangle (Dallas-Houston-San Antonio), and the Cascadia region (Portland-Seattle-Vancouver), that are dense enough and have inter-city distances (200–500 miles) that are ideal for HSR and are comparable to successful routes in Europe and Asia. However, unlike most HSR systems globally where the track is state-owned and dedicated to passenger service, the U.S. rail network is primarily owned by private freight companies. This means any new HSR must either share congested, slow tracks or build entirely new, dedicated corridors, significantly increasing costs. Government investment into rail, like is commonplace in other areas, would alleviate this issue. The U.S. lacks the coordinated planning and dedicated long-term funding streams that built HSR in France, Japan, or China. As a result, projects are subjected to changing political winds, opposition, and legal battles. However, there still is examples that HSR is feasible. The U.S. already has examples and projects proving HSR is feasible: between DC and NYC Amtrak runs the Acela at 150mph, Brightline is operating at speds up to 125mph in parts of track in Florida, and projects elsewhere are gaining funding.

Myth 4: "HSR drains local economies, and creates gentrification"

High speed rail, if implemented across the U.S., is projected to, for every direct job in the railway supply sector, create 4.2 additional jobs in other industries, supporting 4.87 million jobs in total, and 1.16 million for the project. When creating a more efficient transport system, local economies see the benefits. Spending circulates through small businesses and local suppliers, creating jobs both on and off the tracks. Even in intermediate cities, HSR opened up new opportunities by increasing their accessibility and interconnectivity, like the cases of Cordoba and Zaragoza in Spain.

Any major transportation investment, if done without precautions, could increase a neighborhood's desirability and lead to rising property values. However, the root cause isn't HSR, and at best HSR projects can just add to existing market trends. The true driver of gentrification is the unregulated housing market and a lack of supply of affordable housing in high-demand areas. However, there are several ways to mitigate this. Many cities globally implement "Transit-Oriented Development" strategies that include equity mandates, which plan the surrounding area to include mandatory percentages of affordable housing and create community land trusts before construction begins, to ensure affordabili. Also, the increase in land value created by the public investment in HSR can be taxed or captured by the government to fund anti-displacement measures such as rental assistance and/or property tax freezes for long-term low-income homeowners, and even new affordable housing construction. Lastly, placing stations in already developed, dense downtown areas, can minimize the direct displacement of existing residents and businesses.

Myth 5: "HSR wouldn't be used"

The reason why this notion seems convincing to people in the U.S. is exactly because we have a culture where HSR is so foreign. In cities, like New York City, where investment into public transportation is high, usage of such infrastructure is also high. However even when asking them directly, 63% of Americans sau were likely to use HSR if it were available today, showing high public support. When modern rail service is offered, ridership quickly exceeds projections. Brightline's Miami–Orlando service, for instance, hit over three million riders its 2 years, outperforming many regional airlines on the same corridor. Once systems are implemented, convenience, not "car culture," is the primary determinant of mode choice. When travel time and price are competitive, rail becomes the preferred mode for trips under 500 miles.