True high-speed rail — trains going 150 mph or more on newly built tracks — would be “prohibitively expensive” in the United States, says Amtrak President Joseph Boardman. Testifying before the Illinois House Railroad Industry Committee, Boardman said that it makes more sense to improve existing tracks so trains can run at up to 110 mph.
“It’s really not about the speed,” Boardman reportedly said. “It’s about reduced travel times and more frequency.” He added that 110 mph “is double the national speed limit” of 55 mph on highways. Apparently he hasn’t heard that this national speed limit was repealed a mere 22 years ago. (Or maybe he is privy to a plan to re-establish this limit.)
Few media reports about high-speed rail note that a top speed of 110 mph works out to an average speed, including scheduled stops, of just 60 to 75 mph. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak’s regular Northeast Corridor trains, for example, have top speeds of 110 but average 70 mph, whereas the Acela has a top speed of 135 but averages less than 85 mph.
At today’s speed limits, most people can easily average more than 50 mph on intercity freeways, including stops for gas and food, so rail’s advantage is not that great — especially when you consider that your car will go when you want it, will take you directly to your final destination, and will be available for sidetrips along the way.
