Historically overlooked, train travel in the US is having a moment. Passenger numbers have hit new records for the past two years. With aviation fuel and gas prices still running well above pre-Iran war levels, even more travelers may be looking to passenger rails to avoid costly airfare and trips to the gas pump this summer travel season.

But those unfamiliar with the country's train network may be disappointed. Many cities don't have good rail connections, or the kind of high-speed services common in European and East Asian countries.

And there's a paradox here, because the US has more railroads than anywhere in the world. So where is the disconnect?

Freight versus passenger trains

The mid-to-late 19th century was something of a heyday for rail travel in the US. Thousands of miles of track were laid to connect the coasts and ferry both people and goods from one side of the country to the other. But it didn't last.

By the middle of the 20th century, the US had prioritized federal funding for highway and airport development over that for railroads, making automobile and plane travel far more efficient than passenger rail lines.

So unlike many European countries, which have long seen passenger trains as a critical public good, the US prioritized more profitable freight trains. That legacy lives on today with much of the nation's track infrastructure now designed for carrying heavy goods rather than passengers at high speeds.

US passenger rail company Amtrak's most popular route is a case in point. Known as the Northeast corridor, it connects cities between Boston and Washington DC, taking around seven hours to cover the full 457 miles (735 kilometers). By comparison, trains can complete the slightly longer route between the Italian cities of Napoli and Milan in just under five hours.

Allan Zarembski, director of the University of Delaware's railroad engineering and safety program, says part of the reason the Northeast corridor's rails cannot accommodate high-speed trains, is because they curve to the shape of the land. And that would be complex to change.

"Straightening out the track is a very expensive proposition," he said. "I have to acquire the land. The land is owned by somebody, and often that somebody doesn't want to sell it…We're talking about going through the most densely populated portion of the United States."

The 'train to nowhere'

While the Northeast corridor is not currently capable of supporting high-speed rail, California had hoped to set a positive example.

In 2008, the state launched an initiative to link Los Angeles and San Francisco by bullet train. Sold as a massive upgrade from the 12-hour non-direct route between the two cities, the idea was to lay new tracks that would cart passengers between the cities in under 3 hours. The state originally said the 800-mile line would be complete by 2020. 

But the project has not left the planning station, causing some to dub it California's "train to nowhere." So what went wrong?

The state initially appropriated $9.95 billion (€8.72 billion) for a project with a $33 billion budget, but they severely underestimated development costs that are now projected to be over $100 billion.

Zarembski believes the project's leaders knew their initial estimates were far too low. "I think they lowballed it for political purposes," he said. "They knew they would never get the highball price through the legislative process."

The project has also met with resistance from communities who don't want the railway running through their neighborhoods.

As the state continues to seek investment, it is currently constructing a smaller section of the route, set to open in the early 2030s. As for the full route, last year the California High-Speed Rail Authority outlined a plan saying it aimed to connect San Francisco to Northern California by 2038 — almost two decades after its initial projection. 

The benefits of good train connections

Shifting to high-speed rail would not only benefit passengers, but the climate. According to Amtrak, its electric trains generate up to 72% and 83% fewer emissions than planes and cars respectively.

Yet turning the US into a country where passenger rail travel is faster and more efficient is an expensive business. And unlike the former US government which invested heavily in Amtrak, the Trump administration has sought to slash federal funding for passenger rail infrastructure since taking office — with proposed cuts of 82% in its 2027 fiscal year budget.

Amtrak says it would need a budget boost of over $100 billion and more than 15 years to complete all planned improvements to the Northeast corridor alone. This would include updating signals systems, rebuilding old tunnels and bridges and introducing modern fleets — among other infrastructure improvements.

Alon Levy, a transportation and land use fellow at New York University's Marron Institute, believes believes necessary updates could be done for significantly less.

Levy was a lead author on a report that found it would be possible to build a high-speed rail on the Northeast corridor for about $17 billion on top of already committed money.

"The Northeast corridor is one of the few lines where, for the most part, the standards of the line are pretty high," he said. Therefore, instead of a complete system overhaul, he said it would make sense to adopt technical and operational standards common in Europe and Asia and implement already proven rail technologies used abroad.

He believes the biggest issue for the US is often not a lack of money, but a failure to import other countries' innovations.

"It's kind of an American mindset, where if you're not the first at something, it's really difficult to learn how to be second or third," he said. "If something is invented in Japan, it can make its way to Europe. It is very difficult to make its way to America, even when they are aware that they are behind."

Edited by: Tamsin Walker