To Compete Globally, Biden Must Invest in Trains at Home

Secretary Buttigieg visits Union Station. Photo by United States Department of Transportation

“Why shouldn’t Americans have the best rail in the world?” Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg posed this question last year on the Daily Show, projecting the Biden Administration's train enthusiasm. During his 2020 campaign, President Biden tweeted that his administration would “spark the second great railroad revolution.” Trains have long been on Biden’s agenda; when he first ran for president in 1987, he launched his campaign from the back of an Amtrak caboose. He even earned the nickname “Amtrak Joe” as Senator, garnering attention for taking the train 220 miles every day to work in Washington and back to his family in Delaware.

Yet three years into his presidency, Biden’s radical calls for expansive high-speed trains and railroad improvements have not been translated into policy. Washington's underinvestment in these systems undermines America's competitive edge on the world stage because it denies the national economy a new engine for sustainable growth and integration.

Despite revolutionary promises, President Biden, the “Amtrak rider-in-chief,” has failed to deliver on train policy. While he did include $102 billion in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in rail funding, $1 billion of which was recently directed to railroad projects across 35 states, this was earmarked for railway safety and capacity within aging systems—a far cry from the investment needed to develop new, high-speed train networks. America’s rickety Amtrak remains a low-speed commuter train, and merits rehabilitation, but is not substantially functional for growing American travel needs. Washington must take a more prominent role in planning and financing high-speed projects. The consequences of not doing so are visible in California’s high-speed rail project, where the federal government only contributed 15% in initial expenses; the project has taken exponentially longer than expected, nearly a decade behind schedule.

Admittedly, many of the failures to advance train infrastructure have been out of Biden’s hands. Investment in railroads has been in decline since the 1960s, and Biden’s predecessor certainly did not prioritize rail infrastructure. Former President Trump slashed the Department of Transportation’s Budget, actively opposed railway improvements over partisan spats, and loosened safety regulations. And it certainly doesn’t help that Republicans and centrists in Congress have criticized the Biden Administration’s infrastructure efforts at every turn, whittling down spending on efforts such as the Build Back Better framework.

While the U.S. may be an economic and technological leader on many fronts, its rival China is laying down infrastructure connecting not only its own cities, but other parts of Southeast Asia with high-speed rail. These efforts, part of the Belt and Road Initiative, are key elements of an economic and diplomatic strategy to offer alternatives to an American world order. Biden himself referenced China’s railroad successes in a speech for Amtrak’s birthday, admitting “we’re behind the curve.” The United States is evidently losing the infrastructure competition at home and abroad, denying the country the economic growth that train investment could create and which could be used to fund geopolitical competition overseas. The Biden Administration’s underinvestment in trains, accordingly, is a key shortfall in its grand strategy to construct a new “foundation of American strength” through domestic investment, as the President’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently articulated.

In light of this domestic and international rationale for developing trains, it is imperative that both political parties recognize the gains to be made by developing train systems. Trains could be a part of the answer to speeding up travel, as well as keeping the U.S. at the forefront of infrastructure innovation. For shorter distance inter-city routes, high-speed rail could make a substantial difference in travel times and environmental impact. Rather than build less-lucrative lines connecting every corner of the country, the U.S. can invest in regional routes between major cities that are too short for planes and too long for cars. The economic benefits have been proven by the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak’s most profitable rail network connecting Washington D.C. through Boston. In fact, the Northeast Corridor Commission estimates a shutdown of its service for one day would cost the economy $100 million. Thus, more railways would mean fast routes connecting Americans and economic hubs.

A bill proposed in the House in 2020 estimated that 1.16 million jobs could be created through high-speed rail projects across the country,  a nod to the market expansion of the first railway boom. However, the labor abuses and corruption that facilitated America’s first great railroad expansion (and China’s current efforts) should not be the inspiration for future train ambitions. Secretary Buttigieg acknowledged this “history of harm,” but believes that America can do better this time, generating job opportunities along the way to catching up with other countries. Because of “Buy America” regulations—requiring materials used in federally-financed infrastructure projects to be produced in the U.S.—trains and railroads will largely be constructed and repaired in the U.S. by American workers, creating many high-skilled, high-paying, and unionized jobs. Trains will also create access to affordable housing outside of cities and bring more economic activity to newly connected communities.

A proper train system is not only desirable to keep the U.S. competitive, it is also a necessary element of climate crisis solutions. America is crippled by its reliance on cars and planes, and a high-speed train system could put America back on track on the global stage while significantly reducing emissions. Railroads are certainly not emission-free, but if well-constructed (electrified routes rather than diesel trains, higher capacity for passengers, energy-efficient technology) they can be a better alternative to the pollution from automobiles and airplanes. Expanded rail lines will not suffer from a lack of demand, as evidenced by the fact that ridership on Amtrak has increased in recent years, despite a Covid-driven economic downturn. Evidently, the demand is here to stay and will likely increase in tandem with rising gasoline prices and environmental awareness.

It is hard to discount the benefits of American investment in trains when it not only spurs job opportunity and economic growth, but also provides alternatives to transportation methods propelling the climate crisis.

So, why shouldn’t Americans have the best rail in the world? It seems the more apt question is, why don’t they already? The United States has failed to invest in its railways for decades, and the consequences are evident in the out of date systems which pale in comparison to other countries. America should not build for the sake of building, and should ensure infrastructure projects do not disenfranchise communities, as they have in the past, but rather build them up and unite them. Nonetheless, investment in railroads, particularly those that focus on regional inter-city routes, can improve travel for Americans across the country and provide a more ecological transportation alternative. 

America is often a divided nation, but that need not be literally true—if the government invests in trains, Americans will be more connected, and the U.S. may gain a foothold in the global infrastructure competition.

Gillian Murphy (GS ’25) is a Staff Writer at CPR and a third year in the dual degree program with Sciences Po, studying sustainable development and political science. Her central interests include Southeast Asian politics, the climate crisis, and the never-ending search for the perfect study spot at Columbia.