This relationship of train speed to severity can be directly related to additional costs since more precautionary measures will need to be taken both in research and development and daily practices to ensure the safest practices are being implemented.
The third drawback of implementing high-speed rail in the US is the potential for low ridership, resulting in low revenues from passenger tickets. As Americans, we have grown comfortable with the prospect of individualized travel. Societal norms have moved away from public transportation and more towards individual car travel when it comes to
short and intermediate distances. However, if there is an economical and sociological advantage for citizens to take HSR over cars and planes such as increased convenience over other transportation options and competitive ticket prices and travel time, the ridership percentage will be high, resulting in an economic and environmental advantage.
United States High-Speed Rail Plan
The 2009 High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has established new transportation goals for the United States: ensure safe and efficient transportation choices; build a foundation for economic competitiveness; promote energy efficiency and environmental quality; and support interconnected livable communities. Through these goals, the President proposes a long-term strategy intended to build an efficient, high-speed passenger rail network of 100-600 mile intercity corridors, as one element of a modernized transportation system (p. 2). One of the major initiatives for HSR implementation is to reduce the carbon footprint of the country as a whole from the transportation sector. Table 5 shows the lessoned energy consumption per passenger mile for HSR (intercity trains) compared to the other major transportation sectors.
| BTU's Per Passenger Mile |
| Energy Efficiency of Passenger | ||
| Transportation Modes | ||
| Trains | ||
| Trains |
Table 5: Intercity Trains (HSR) uses the smallest number of BTU’s per passenger mile. Data from DOT (2009)
Historically, the federal government has done little to fund the development of HSR in the US. However, DOT (2009) argues that there is a direct relationship between federal funding and societal transportation preferences. Table 6 represents the major federal investments in the highway and air sectors, while Table 7 represents the increased amounts of passenger miles. These two graphs show a clear correlation between allocated funds and passenger use. DOT (2009) has made a clear stance that HSR funding will spur a societal preference resulting in an increased percentage of rail ridership.
Table 6: From 1949-2008, the federal investment has had little focus on intercity passenger rail (DOT, 2009)
