don't travel high speed

• Made by History

Why America Still Doesn’t Have Fast Trains

N orth America’s fastest train currently sits in a Philadelphia storage yard. Once slated to enter service in 2021, the next generation Acela Express will not carry passengers for at least another year. That’s according to an October report by Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which found that the train’s hydraulic systems leak, its couplers may corrode from draining water, and its windows sometimes shatter.

The OIG blames the French manufacturer, Alstom, for these problems while the company, whose share prices plunged almost 50% in the wake of the report and amid cash flow worries, faults poor track conditions on the northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C.

The plight of the $2.3 billion Acela replacement program highlights several current policy issues: America’s decaying transit infrastructure, the scope of federal safety regulations, and the role of multinational corporations in an industry subject to 2021’s Build America Buy America Act . Though its trials seem ripped from the headlines , the slick French machine parked in Philadelphia also typifies America’s long, fraught history with fairly fast trains. This history teaches us that the country’s high-speed ambitions have long surpassed its willingness to pay for better railroads.

Over a century ago, U.S. locomotives paced the world. Thomas Edison boasted in 1882 that he could drive his new electromagnetic engine at 180 miles per hour “if I wanted to.” In 1893, the steam-powered Empire State Express actually broke 112 miles per hour on a straightaway near Buffalo. In 1934, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad’s stream-lined Pioneer Zephyr completed an astounding “dawn to dusk” run from Denver to Chicago. 

Trains lost their luster after World War II, when federal legislation favored private cars and commercial jets. In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a Federal-Aid Highway Act that committed $25 billion to building expressways for economic growth and national defense. In 1958, Congress passed legislation that created the Federal Aviation Administration to promote safer, more efficient flight at speeds no train could match.

More From TIME

Read More: Amtrak's Boss Has a Plan to Make You Love Trains Again. Will it Work?

But as train ridership dwindled at home, a rail revolution was fomenting abroad thanks to post-war reconstruction efforts underwritten by loans from the new World Bank. In 1964, Japanese National Railways began firing bubble-nosed electric trains over the Tokaido Shinkansen Line at 130 miles per hour. To Americans tuning into the Tokyo Summer Olympics, footage of bullet trains racing past Mount Fuji came as a revelation—a zero-altitude Sputnik moment that made many rethink the future of domestic transportation. 

In 1965, Congress passed the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act , authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to research new “materials, aerodynamics, vehicle propulsion, vehicle control, communications, and guide-ways” that might bring Japanese-style advances to America. At the signing ceremony , President Lyndon Johnson marveled that “an astronaut can orbit the earth faster than a man on the ground can get from New York to Washington,” and promised to make public transit a “better servant of our people.”

To appease fiscal conservatives opposed to transportation budget increases, Johnson said that the Department of Commerce would work “in cooperation with private industry” to develop train designs at “no cost to the Government.” While this approach limited spending, it did not adequately account for the fact that fast trains needed dedicated tracks, welded rails, and new electrical power systems to tap their full potential. Without these improvements, America’s bullet trains would languish on the northeast corridor, an antiquated rail line already congested with freight and commuter traffic.

Instead of overhauling the corridor, the Ground Transportation Act funded two splashy demonstration projects. The first project resulted in a gasoline-powered Shinkansen look-alike called the TurboTrain. Engineered by the United Aircraft Company (UAC) and named after the Latin word for tornado, the TurboTrain employed the same Pratt and Whitney turbine technology that lifted planes and helicopters. On Dec. 20, 1967, a test Turbo whipped through Princeton Junction at 170.8 miles per hour , setting a North American rail speed record that still stands today.

The aerospace train performed less impressively in regular service between New York and Boston. Though passengers lauded the Turbo’s futuristic look and airline-inspired decors, the train averaged just 63 miles per hour on a winding track bed hampered by worn rails, cracked wooden ties, and many road crossings. Unable to reach full speed, the fuel guzzling turbine technology could not justify its operating cost. By 1976, UAC’s train of the future was rusting away on a spur beside the Providence River.

The Ground Transportation Act’s second demonstration featured the electric Metroliner, a stainless steel tube of a train that promised two-and-a-half hour trips over the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, D.C.. Manufactured by General Electric, Westinghouse, and the Budd Company, the Metroliner reached 164 miles per hour on a trial run. Stuart Saunders, CEO of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s corporate successor, the Penn Central, crowed that the Metroliner’s 32-month development was “considerably shorter than the seven years of research, development, and testing which the Japanese required to initiate the Tokaido high-speed line.”

Saunders ate his words when the Metroliner proved a lemon. Its air compressor coils rattled. Its carriages wobbled on turns and heaved like merry-go-round horses. Metroliners sucked up ballast stones lining the corridor track bed and even ripped the windows out of an adjacent train . The Penn Central began staffing Metroliners with on-board technicians to fix problems en route.

In the end, design flaws, decrepit track, and American impatience doomed the Great Society’s trains. But Johnson’s budget-neutral template survived to guide later projects.

Read More: A Critical New York City Train Artery is in Desperate Need of Overhaul

In 2000, Amtrak debuted Acela Express, a silvery-blue electric trainset that adapted Alstom’s French TGV design to run on the northeast corridor’s rugged tracks. Alstom and its consortium partner Bombardier financed Amtrak’s purchase so that the cash-strapped railroad paid no money down. It even assembled the trains in two economically slumping American cities: Barre, Vt., and Plattsburgh, N.Y.

While these provisions helped sell the project, Acela never lived up to expectations. One problem was that the train needed to be bulked up to meet federal crashworthiness standards. Since Acela shared tracks with lumbering freights, it had to be able to sustain high-force collisions that could not happen on systems dedicated exclusively to passenger trains elsewhere in the world. Alstom engineers took to calling the train “cochon,” French for pig. Critics claimed that Acela trimmed time on routes mostly by skipping stops, noting that the train reached 150 miles per hour only on a short stretch of track in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The 21st-century global boom in passenger rail projects has shown how fast trains can boost perception of the countries that run them. State-of-the-art systems in China, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea have given their builders an air of stylish modernity. The U.S.’s frustrated pursuit of a bullet train, by contrast, reveals the perils of infrastructural compromises that make one set of tracks accommodate freight customers, commuters, and inter-city riders, and one train deliver profits while also serving the public good. Until public officials can decide what U.S. passenger trains should be—and who they must serve—the conditions that produced the star-crossed next-generation Acela project will temper the promise of American high-speed rail.

David Alff is the author of The Northeast Corridor: The Trains, the People, the History, the Region (due out in spring 2024 from the University of Chicago Press). He teaches in the English Department at SUNY-Buffalo. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here .

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• The Revolution of Yulia Navalnaya
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• What's the Deal With the Bitcoin Halving?
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to David Alff / Made by History at [email protected]

The Real Reason The United States Has No High-Speed Rail Network

Like it or not, the United States has a big transportation problem. Yeah, cars are fun, but they're also expensive and inefficient, and every rattle under the hood is like a gunshot to your wallet. Planes? Sure, if you like paying for carrying on a snack that doesn't cost $12.95. Public transport in the U.S. is the pits, and if you want to travel a medium-range distance — say, between Boston and New York — for an affordable price, the options aren't pretty.

You know what would fix that particular issue? It's called high-speed rail , and though Americans have been taught to think of bullet trains as sci-fi futurism, they're just a mundane, everyday reality in some parts of the world. And it's been that way for decades, in some cases. While these speedsters zoom from country to country, the United States only falls further and further behind. Here's why the U.S. is struggling with high-speed rail.

Wait, so what is high-speed rail, exactly?

In the United States, everybody likes the idea of trains ... but U.S. trains are slow, clumsy, and stupidly expensive. Nobody wants to creep down the coast in an Amtrak, and can you blame them?

Meanwhile, countries like Japan , France, Spain, Saudi Arabia, and China run trains that whiz along so fast and so smoothly that, according to Vox , the average person prefers them to airplanes. That's because airports have to be situated a taxi ride away from big cities, and require all that security business. Train stations? Plant it right in the city center, baby. So if you want to travel a mid-range distance — say, 300 miles — a bullet train will get you there faster, cheaper, and more comfortably. No, they're never going to lay tracks across the Atlantic, where planes have a significant advantage. But for shorter distances, high-speed rail closes the gap.

Bullet trains are also dramatically more energy-efficient than planes and automobiles. The International Energy Agency reports that even though the rail sector carries 8% of the world's passengers, and 7% of global freight transport, it only represents 2% of Earth's transport energy demand. Even better, three quarters of passenger rail activity is on electric trains, making the rail industry the only form of transportation that is widely electrified today. So yeah, getting a country on rails is way cooler — and better for the world — than manufacturing billions of electric cars.

Are they really that fast?

Oh yeah, they are. Seriously, these things would give the X-Men's Quicksilver a run for his money. For example, California has spent years trying to build a bullet train between Orange County and San Francisco, according to Curbed , and if they ever finish the project, that speed demon could zoom through in less than three hours. For comparison's sake, a flight is about 90 minutes (just in the air, not counting TSA, taxi rides, etc.). Driving? Better block out the day, because Google Maps says it takes about seven hours when there's minimal traffic. (And there's almost never minimal traffic.)

That sort of distance, right there, is why high-speed rail is the future of public transport. And as futuristic as these things might sound to American ears, the real-life speeds charted by bullet trains are straight out of Star Trek . According to Business Insider , China's CRH380A breaks 300 mph. Germany and Japan both have trains that notch around 270 mph. So, this stuff isn't a utopian dream. The technology already exists!

The bullet heard 'round the world (except the U.S.)

Everybody's got that Instagram friend who backpacks to a different country every week. And when they go on (and on and on) to you about how travel is so much easier in other countries, they aren't lying. While the past few years have seen high-speed rail become increasingly hot in Asia and Europe, it's been around for a long time. How long? Try since 1964, according to Time magazine, when Japan's first Shinkansen started racing between Tokyo and Osaka. Bullet trains came to Europe in 1978, when Italy opened a line connecting Rome and Florence, and these science-fiction trains soon spread across Europe. According to Bloomberg , high-speed rails have seen an especially explosive growth in China, a country that now boasts not only the fastest trains, but also the largest rail network and the biggest plans for future growth.

Meanwhile, U.S. trains look like bumper cars sitting next to the Bugattis of the rest of the world. America's stagnated transit infrastructure now more closely resembles that of a developing country, as opposed to its peers, which is awfully weird for one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Why high-speed rail in the U.S. would be great

If you don't think the U.S. has a transportation problem, well, clearly you've never been stuck in Boston's rush hour traffic. Talk about a headache! As Harvard Political Review points out, if you're an American citizen today, and you want to visit your family for the holidays, your two serious travel options — driving or flying — both suck and are massive fuel-wasters with a negative environmental impact. Yeah, sure, there's Amtrak, and if you don't mind spending two days moving at 40 mph, you can do that. Compared to other countries, though, the picture is embarrassingly dismal.

A high-speed rail network would broaden these options. While there'll always be a place for planes and cars, high-speed rail would revamp the country and connect places that are currently difficult to move between. HowStuffWorks argues that high-speed rail would cut smog, make cities more walkable, lead to less dependence on foreign oil, save lives — no matter good a driver you are, fewer cars equals fewer deaths — and even boost the economy, since it would create new jobs and mean less time wasted on traffic jams. Great! But...

The U.S. has been trying to fix this for a ridiculously long time

Uh, we've been working on high-speed rail for over 50 years, actually. Oof. Renewed efforts make headlines every once in a while and then projects the stagnate; it's all starting to feel like a high school science project that a student is still trying to finish up on their 25th birthday.

To be fair, right after Japan first introduced bullet trains to the world, the U.S. tried to hop onboard (you're welcome) from the get-go. All the way back in 1965, according to Marketplace , President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act. While construction began immediately — and did have some early success on the East Coast — the U.S. attempts ran into frequent mechanical problems, resulting in depleted funds by 1975. Not quite the grand achievement everyone hoped for. While the push for a proper high-speed rail has become more prevalent in the 21st century, and things seem to be amping up, it's not really clear that anything will be different this time around.

America's only high-speed rail is a slowpoke

The one great accomplishment of President Johnson's 1965 transportation act was that it did lead to the construction of the Metroliner, a so-called "higher-speed rail" that connected Washington D.C. to New York, according to Marketplace . Though the Metroliner only ran at 90 mph, which was pretty dismal compared to its Japanese competition, it was definitely a step in the right direction. Progress stopped there, unfortunately, and by 2006 the Metroliner was replaced by Amtrak's Acela Express line, which continues to be the closest thing the U.S. has to a bullet train.

Here's the thing about the Acela Express: Sorry, but it's a tortoise. In "bullet" terms, maybe a spitwad. Sure, it can occasionally speed up to 150 mph (which is still quite slow), but according to Fortune , the average speed on the Acela line is ... um, 68 mph. Yeah. Your 1999 Toyota Corolla can go faster than that when you just get a little distracted. Add in the fact that the Acela stops more frequently than the Metroliner did, and it results in America's fastest train actually being slower than it was a few decades ago. Not good. Sure, a tortoise gets where it's going, but in this case, those Eurasian hares just get there faster.

Oh boy, here comes the politics

High-speed rail isn't just achievable: It already exists. However, as with anything else in the U.S. today, the biggest obstacle in the way of American high-speed rail is politics. Speeding up the Acela Express, for example, would require billions in federal funding, according to Fortune . Good luck with that in today's polarized environment. Meanwhile, the political squabbles that have faced California's bullet train ambitions are now legendary, and not in a good way. While the concept of connecting the Golden State's biggest cities via bullet train is brilliant, Vox says the planning has been horrendous, between the addition of pointless and expensive stops, rushed construction, and bad financial decisions. The political battles got even nastier in 2019, when the Trump administration pulled $929 million in federal grants for California's high-speed rail, according to MSN.

The big problem? None of these dumb pitfalls have anything to do with high-speed rail itself. Bullet trains are a proven, established technology that reaps huge benefits across multiple sectors. Mess-ups like what happened in California have unfairly turned a great technology into a ridiculous tangle.

Automobile culture

The United States is absurdly obsessed with cars. Seriously, if you don't believe it, just think of the Fast & Furious movies. (If you're not familiar, the franchise is primarily an ode to Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, but there's also heavy car symbolism hidden in most of the movies.) Due to generations of blaring advertisements and infrastructure built with cars in mind, Americans find gas-guzzlers more comforting than other modes of transportation, according to the Atlantic , even though automobiles are more dangerous, worse for the environment, and a pain in the neck for society at large. In the United States, your car is your friend. It's a rite of passage. This widespread car fanaticism is no accident, either. As Scientific American explains, America's love affair with cars was spurred by the concentrated marketing efforts of the automobile industry, who wanted pedestrians off the streets. By the time Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System was underway, well, cars were king.

The U.S. automobile obsession is an obstacle for high-speed rail dreams, according to Forbes , because cultural mores impact funding decisions. The U.S. has higher car ownership rates than other nations, so these countries are far more open to the idea of putting higher taxes on vehicles to cut demand — sometimes to the point of taxing purchasers an additional 150 percent on the car's base price. You think a tax like that would ever fly in the U.S.? Not in this lifetime.

However, this isn't even the biggest reason the U.S. has no high-speed rail network. There's a bigger (and wealthier) monster in the wings.

Don't fall for the lies: Americans DO want high-speed rail

Here's the thing. Lots of big companies will tell you that Americans don't care about high-speed rail, and they often blame automobile culture. However, surveys from the American Public Transportation Association tell a different story. A 2015 study found that if bullet trains were available, nearly two-thirds of surveyed Americans (63 percent, to be precise) would be happy to use them — and when people were informed of the cost and time-saving benefits of high-speed rail, that number increased a few points. Millennials want it even more, as at least 71 percent of the 18-44 crowd said they would like to ride bullet trains. (That bumped up to 76 percent when they learned about the other benefits.) Furthermore, high-speed rail enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and three quarters of survey participants supported making it easier for real estate developers to put amenities near high-speed rail stations.

So yes, average Americans do want high-speed rail, on both sides of the aisle. It's popular. It's proven. Why not?

The airline industry isn't a fan, and that's a problem

The real enemy foiling the launch efforts of high-speed rail in the United States isn't culture or public opinion, but rather, the billion-dollar industries that stand to take a hit. Want to guess which industry especially hates bullet trains?

Yep: airlines. As Harvard Political Review points out, the airline industry is understandably terrified that high-speed rail might cut into their market share. And it would, of course. Competition is supposed to be the key factor that makes the whole U.S. system work, but the airline industry pours buckets of cash into lobbying against high-speed rail, trying to ensure that the tracks never get built. This hostility has become particularly evident in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune , as the state's attempts to build a 200 mph line between Dallas and Houston have been smashed by aggressive attacks and lobbying by Southwest Airlines. CityLab reports that the airline went so far as to threaten leaving the Lone Star State entirely. Bullying, much? Considering that Southwest has been on the Fortune 500 for over two decades, it feels a little like crocodile tears. After all, nobody's trying to put these increasingly greedy airline industries out of business — just offering a worthwhile alternative.

There are other huge industries lobbying against bullet trains, too

You know what they say: Follow the money. The dearth of bullet trains in the U.S. isn't a coincidence, but rather, the result of gargantuan industries lobbying hard against their development through coordinated propaganda efforts and sometimes blatant lies. SF Gate reports that in 2008, for example, Amtrak spokesman Joseph Vranich referred to high-speed rail as "science fiction." Big oil doesn't like trains anymore than airline corporations, and neither does big highway, according to Manufacturing .

Most of the common negative talking points regarding high-speed rail have come from the Reason Foundation, a self-proclaimed "libertarian think tank" which regularly bashes bullet train efforts. They've heavily targeted California, which is at least a little understandable given the financial fiasco the whole thing has been there. But the Reason Foundation isn't the bastion of "free-thinking" it claims to be, considering the whole enterprise is funded by the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute, Delta Airlines, and others. Thought isn't so free when it's paid for, eh? These corporations recognize that whenever Americans finally wake up to the benefits of electric trains that zoom along at 200 mph or more, nobody is going to put up with the increasingly draconian, classist baggage policies of most major airlines.

Basically, high-speed rail is an existential threat to big oil's market dominance, so whenever a project gains momentum, they pour billions of dollars into lobbyists, propaganda, paid politicians, and the Reason Foundation. That's the main reason the U.S. has no high-speed rail network, and this problem won't go away easily.

Despite pitfalls, high-speed rail is still pushing ahead

The lobbying issue isn't going to vanish overnight, and successfully implementing a high-speed rail network across the entire United States is going to take years — if not decades, depending on how future power struggles go. It ain't easy. Despite these obstacles, there are multiple high-speed rail efforts pushing ahead, according to Afar , fighting for a better, faster future. For instance, Virgin Trains USA (having acquired the smaller company XpressWest) is building an electric train that connects Las Vegas to the outskirts of Los Angeles, a popular route that they hope to make operational as soon as 2022. A similar project is underway in Texas — where they're working on a Houston-to-Dallas line that could even match Japanese bullet train speeds — as well as a Florida line from Miami to Tampa. The infamous California train seems to face new struggles everyday, but there is hope that they might someday pull it together. Fingers crossed.

After languishing on the back burner for decades, the past decade has seen newfound fervor for high-speed rail projects, particularly since investing in electric bullet trains is a key element in the Green New Deal, according to Vox . So don't rule out high-speed rail in the U.S. just yet. There's still a long way to go, but the future might get here some day.

clock This article was published more than  5 years ago

Opinion Why the United States will never have high-speed rail

California likes to think of itself as the state where the future happens, and in 2008, its voters decided the future was high-speed rail. In November of that year, they approved a $9 billion bond issue to begin one of the most ambitious government infrastructure projects in U.S. history: a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, at a cost of $33 billion .

For years, the optimists have spun starry visions of millions of Californians traveling quickly, comfortably and environmentally consciously between the state’s two major population centers. The pessimists, meanwhile, have grimly watched the projected costs mount. At last count, the estimates had traveled northward of $75 billion, and for all anyone could tell, were still climbing.

On Tuesday, during his first State of the State speech, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called for the state to scale back the project to a less costly leg that would run through the Central Valley — much simpler to build in large part because there are relatively few people there who might want to raise objections to the project, or, say, ride a high-speed train. California voters can stop clutching their wallets. But voters elsewhere should pay close attention, because what happened in California illustrates the perils that face any U.S. rail project, or for that matter, any project at all that tries to meaningfully reshape U.S. infrastructure.

Almost anyone who travels abroad comes back wondering why every other country in the world seems to have cheap, speedy rail travel while Americans can barely go out for a cup of coffee without enduring either the tedium of an endless road-trip or the indignities of the TSA. Sadly, there is no one reason; rather, there are many reasons, all of them hard-to-impossible to fix, all of them conspiring to deprive us of the (gee-whiz!) trains that many of us would like to ride.

Distance . In other places of the world, such as China, Europe and Japan, major population centers are much closer to each other . And big cities that are reasonably close together is pretty much a prerequisite for high-speed rail, which is why they have it and we don’t. Imagine what it would take to build a line from New York City to Los Angeles — or to Chicago, Houston or Phoenix.

Wealth. Of course, the United States does have a few clusters that look ripe for rail, notably Texas, and the Eastern Seaboard. And instead of high-speed rail between these cities, we have the Acela, which takes eight hours to travel from Washington to Boston and shakes like a maraca player with a meth habit. Why haven’t we built something better? Because truly high-speed rail needs to travel in a fairly straight line; you don’t want to be taking a sharp curve at 300 miles per hour. Our current rail infrastructure isn’t that straight where it needs to be. Building newer, better, straighter rail lines would require the government to buy all the land between Point A and Point B and tear down anything that happened to be in the way. Because we’re already really, really rich, what’s between Point A and Point B is no longer farmland; instead we have a great deal of highly valuable real estate that will be very expensive to purchase — which we’d have to, because unlike China, our constitution gives the government limited ability to displace inconveniently located people.

Legal Proceduralism . Of course, Europe also has some pretty nice, and pretty pricey, stuff sitting between its cities. What Europe does not have, generally speaking, is the ability to tie up the government for a few decades in eminent domain appeals, environmental reviews and so forth. For historical reasons, the U.S. legal system offers citizens an unparalleled number of veto points at which they can attempt to block government projects. Any infrastructure project bigger than painting a schoolhouse thus has to either fight out the reviews and court cases for years, or buy off the opponents, or more likely, both.

Cost. U.S. infrastructure projects cost way more to build than they do everywhere else. The right likes to blame unions; the left likes to blame pricey consultants. But they’re all arguing about the symptom rather than the disease. The reason U.S. transportation infrastructure costs so much is all the stuff I listed above, plus a healthy dose of federalism.

Read any essay bemoaning the cost of American infrastructure — say Brian Rosenthal’s 2017 behemoth for the New York Times — and don’t just gawk at the inflated numbers; ask yourself why U.S. infrastructure projects use so many consultants, so many union featherbedders and so on.

Answer: They are there to fend off future lawsuits, or to smooth compliance with some other level of government’s regulatory bodies, or to appease some powerful lobby. And because these infrastructure projects involve so many different governments, none of whom has final authority over the project, there are a lot of lobbies that must be appeased.

Other countries have crony capitalism, of course, but the downside of our highly decentralized government, which pushes a lot of power down to smaller, more locally responsive governments, is that almost anyone can get a few cronies together and grab some politician’s ear.

California displays all these pathologies with a vengeance. The part of the rail line that was reasonably cheap to build didn’t go anywhere near where the people were; it ran through the Central Valley where land was reasonably cheap and the lobbies were relatively few. The parts of the line that were actually useful — the endpoints — promised endless legal and political headaches and astronomical costs. And those two endpoints were 400 miles apart — too far, in the end, to be reached.

Read more :

Charles Lane: Democrats are invoking FDR in their Green New Deal. It’s historically misleading.

Hugh Hewitt: What we should ask Democrats about the Green New Deal

Jennifer Rubin: Should Democrats take the Green New Deal literally or seriously?

Megan McArdle: ‘We’re nuts!’ isn’t a great pitch for a Green New Deal

September 5, 2023

Why High-Speed Bullet Trains Won’t Work in the U.S. Right Now

Amtrak will soon get 28 high-speed rail cars. But they won't operate at high speeds because Amtrak tracks are outdated

By Minho Kim & E&E News

Train tracks run through the North River Tunnel on Amtrak's northeast corridor line near New York City on Friday, Jan. 11, 2019. Such tunnels slow trains, making them a barrier to high-speed rail.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

CLIMATEWIRE |  The first U.S.-made high-speed "bullet" trains will start running as early as 2024 between Boston, New York and Washington, with the promise of cutting transportation emissions by attracting new rail passengers who now drive or fly.

But Amtrak’s plan to run high-speed rail service on its Northeast Corridor faces a major obstacle — the 450-mile route does not have modern tracks that can handle the speed.

Amtrak, a federally owned passenger-rail company, will have to operate the new trains on tracks that were built more than a century ago for much slower commuter and freight service. The bullet cars will be forced to run slower than 110 mph in most segments.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Many European and Asian countries operate high-speed trains around 200 mph on special tracks designed for faster speeds and closed to slower rail cars.

The old rail infrastructure highlights difficulties the Biden administration faces in bringing high-speed passenger rail service to the United States. President Joe Biden last year vowed to help develop high-speed rail as one of 37 “ game-changing R&D opportunities ” that could help the United States achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

E&E News identified four obstacles that complicate Biden’s efforts to bring to the U.S. a high-speed rail system that can reduce driving and flying — the two most polluting and common transportation modes in the United States. The problems are intertwined, with one issue complicating the next. They include:

Tracks: None of the nation’s rail lines are built for trains to run 200 mph. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor — the busiest intercity U.S. passenger route by a wide margin — is filled with sharp curves, bottlenecks, decaying tunnels, bridges and overhead power lines that slow down trains. The corridor needs billions of dollars for basic improvements and to accommodate high-speed service. 

Buy America: The policy requires federally funded infrastructure including rail cars and tracks to be manufactured domestically. The rules  could slow down high-speed rail projects and increase costs  because U.S.-made parts are generally costlier and manufacturing capacity is limited, although Buy America waivers are possible.

Domestic rail industry: The U.S. lacks a passenger rail industry that can produce all of the parts needed for a high-speed rail system and comply with Buy America. In addition, the tracks, signals, rail cars and software made in the U.S. are costlier than imports, largely because the government has not funded rail the way European and Asian countries have, experts say.

Money: Congress and the White House have not created an annual program that would help establish a domestic rail industry to produce rail cars, tracks and components and meet Buy America requirements.

Building a national high-speed rail network requires decades of annual appropriations similar to the funding stream that built the interstate highway starting in the Eisenhower administration, said Louis Thompson, a former director of the Federal Railroad Administration and a member of the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group. “Until we are serious about high-speed rail in the same way that we were serious about the interstate highways, we’re highly unlikely to see a national high-speed rail system,” Thompson said.

A federal funding program for high-speed rail would encourage U.S. companies to invest in research, engineering and new plants that could produce high-speed rail parts and satisfy Buy America requirements, Thompson said.

The interstate highway system cost  $129 billion — roughly $290 billion in current dollars  — and took 35 years to complete, running from 1957 to 1992. The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill enacted in 2021 has $102 billion for rail, but none of the money is set aside for high-speed rail.

High-speed rail could  reduce emissions from intercity travel  under 600 miles. Bullet trains can take passengers directly to city centers, which makes total travel time on trains similar to or faster than air travel.

Trips on bullet trains emit about 14 to 16 times less carbon per passenger than trips by car or airplane, according to  a report that evaluated the carbon footprint  of transportation options in southern France. Transportation is the largest source of planet-warming gases in the United States, releasing  28 percent of U.S. carbon emissions , according to EPA. Trucks and passenger cars account for 81 percent of transportation emissions.

Samantha Silverberg, a deputy infrastructure implementation coordinator at the White House, said in an email that Biden is delivering “long-overdue projects to modernize Northeast Corridor,” and characterized the administration’s investment as a “game changer” for the rail line.

The U.S. does not have high-speed rail under definitions set by the International Union of Railways, a professional association representing the rail industry. The group defines high-speed rail as trains that travel faster than 155 mph on special tracks. The definition includes trains that run on standard tracks, if trains can cruise faster than 125 mph in most segments.

19th-century tunnels, century-old bridges

On Amtrak’s express Acela service between Boston and Washington, old tracks and overhead power lines will prevent the new high-speed cars from running at high speeds, said Scott Sherin, vice president of Alstom USA. The company, owned by French rail manufacturer Alstom, is building 28 high-speed trains that Amtrak bought in 2016 with a  $2.45 billion federal loan .

In Baltimore, trains crawl through a 150-year-old tunnel at 30 mph, making sharp turns before entering the structure built during Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. The Susquehanna River Bridge in northern Maryland has been operating since 1906 without major overhauls, limiting train speed to 90 mph. In Connecticut, the rail tracks wind through coastal towns, slowing down travel between Boston and New York.

Amtrak’s new rail cars can tilt at curves to maintain high speeds, but many curves are too sharp even for the most modern technology, Thompson said.

“The fact that that stuff will tilt doesn't make any difference,” Thompson said.

Currently, only 32 miles of tracks on the Northeast Corridor can handle speeds up to 160 mph. Amtrak plans to make an additional 100 miles of tracks capable of handling bullet trains in the next 12 years. The expansion would enable bullet trains to hit 160 mph in roughly 30 percent of the rail route by 2035, a full decade after they start operating.

Amtrak decided to buy high-speed rail cars because its Acela trains are “at the end of their useful life” and new cars would cost less than fixing the cars used on its Acela line.

In 2021, Congress increased federal funding for rail improvements and repairs  more than eightfold  to $102 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

But the act, which authorizes funding for five years, provides only about a quarter of the money Amtrak needs for track improvements in the next 15 years,  according to Amtrak’s legislative report  to Congress.

Modernizing tracks in the Northeast Corridor, for example,  would cost $117 billion , mostly to repair tracks and increase capacity. The cost estimate does not include building special high-speed tracks.

“Most of the money (from the act) goes in fixing stuff, which is really not high-speed related,” Thompson said.

Amtrak said that expanding capacity and fixing infrastructure would make “the biggest improvements in trip time.”

The track improvements between Boston and Washington will cut travel time by an hour, to about 5 ½ hours. High-speed trains in Europe and Asia currently take around three hours to travel similar distances.

'Restrictive' Buy America ignores reality of U.S. industry

In California, the state’s high-speed rail authority has yet to secure about two-thirds of the funding required to complete a 520-mile high-speed route between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The entire project is  estimated to cost $128 billion .

Republican opposition in Congress to rail funding is another roadblock for bullet trains. In July, the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a fiscal 2024 spending bill that would  prohibit the Transportation Department  from funding the California project and  cut Amtrak’s funding by $1.5 billion .

Since taking office, Biden has vowed  strict adherence to Buy America  provisions, but rail experts say the U.S. does not have an industrial base that can build all high-speed rail parts.

“Buy America provisions … are restrictive and don’t recognize the reality of the U.S. industrial base for rail equipment,” said Jim Mathews, the president of the Rail Passengers Association. The U.S. “cannot afford to unilaterally shut out (foreign) suppliers” of high-speed rail parts.

The new Amtrak trains are three years behind schedule partly because many of the Alstom U.S suppliers faced supply chain issues with rail parts, Sherin of Alstom said. Buy America requirements “revealed the fragility” of its U.S. supply chain for rail, Sherin added.

Amtrak’s new Alstom trains received  a waiver from Buy America requirements  in November 2015, allowing the company to import parts, including aluminum shells for the cars and brakes that are crucial for safety and speed.

Its waiver from the Transportation Department says none of the six potential U.S. suppliers “currently manufacture brake systems for HSR trains.”

“It’s a great idea,” Thompson said of Buy America. “But nobody then says, 'Oh, by the way, we’re going to increase the money available to the project by 20 percent.'”

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2023. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Speed Kills

Why planes aren’t getting any faster—and won’t any time soon..

Eric Cabanis/Getty Images

This article is part of Future Tense , a collaboration among  Arizona State University , New America , and  Slate . On Wednesday, May 11, Future Tense will host an event in Washington, D.C., on the future of aviation technology. Fore more information and to RSVP, visit the New America website .

Dreams of fast commercial airline travel recur every so often. Over the past year, we’ve seen talk from NASA about a new generation of X-planes to demonstrate technologies needed for a supersonic Concorde replacement. And Lockheed Martin is discussing a commercial transport derivative from its hypersonic weapons and spy plane programs. The world is more than ready to hear such talk; for many, it’s frustrating, even baffling, that airline travel (Concorde excepting) has been stuck at speeds just over Mach 0.8 since the dawn of the jet age.

Alas, the latest dreams are no more real than previous ones. The obstacles to fast jet travel remain very high, and if anything they’re getting higher.

First, supersonics—planes that fly at least Mach 1, typically Mach 2 or faster. * Concorde, the roughly 40-year-old supersonic icon from the jetpack-and-flying-car era, offers a crucial lesson for anyone wishing to follow its footsteps. Thanks to high fuel burn and other high operating costs, supersonic travel calls for first-class ticket prices. Yet the number of those willing to pay the fare needed for supersonic flight is too small to justify such a jet in all but a handful of markets. It made sense for New York to Paris or London, but other markets simply don’t offer the critical mass of high rollers.

Concorde was developed and built entirely with U.K. and French government funding, but only 14 entered service. Even though the airlines that operated them got their planes for almost nothing, they were hard-pressed to make any money with them. Flying from London to New York takes about seven or eight hours today; it took Concorde about three hours and 30 minutes.

Since Concorde entered service, there has been progress in reducing the noise footprint associated with supersonic travel. But the problem with supersonic flight has little do with the boom made by these jets. You could make the boom go away and still be faced with something less sexy: economics. Very little has been done, or could be done, to lower the high costs associated with high-speed flight.

In fact, thanks to the evolution of jet engine design, the economic divergence between conventional jet travel and supersonic flight has increased since Concorde’s day. Bypass ratios—the ratio of air passed around a jet engine core to the air burned in the core—have greatly increased. This ratio is a key determinant of jet engine fuel efficiency, along with noise and emissions reductions.

Supersonic jets, however, need to use relatively low bypass engines. Concorde’s Olympus engines were zero-bypass engines, otherwise known as turbojets (rather than today’s turbofans). A supersonic jetliner today would still need something with a ratio around 1-1 or 2-1.

When Concorde entered service, typical conventional jetliners used turbofans with much smaller bypass ratios, typically around 4-1. The latest generation of engines, now entering service on Airbus’ A320neo and entering service next year on Boeing’s 737 MAX, offer greater than 12-1 bypass ratios. As a result, today’s jets are about 70 percent more efficient than the original jetliner engines of the late 1950s and early 1960s.

So, every time a new generation of high-bypass engines is introduced on a subsonic aircraft, we move further away from supersonic travel economics, in terms of both technology and relative fuel burn. The efficiency difference between the subsonic jetliners of 1976 and Concorde was narrower than the difference would be between a conventional jetliner in 2020 and a next generation supersonic design. In other words, the difference between a subsonic ticket price and a supersonic ticket price will have increased, too.

Another change that has worked against fast jet travel is the level of service and technology provided for premium customers. In Concorde’s time, first-class jet travel involved a reclining chair, a good meal, and a shared screen showing a movie. Today, most quality airlines offer lie-flat seats, personal in-flight entertainment, electrical connections, and perhaps even a small work area. Travelers carry laptops, and most international jets have good internet connections.

In other words, a passenger today has much less incentive to pay more to travel faster. He’s completely connected to his office, can enjoy the latest entertainment on a personal screen, and sleep in a (relatively) comfortable bed. He might even look forward to escaping the office in his well-provisioned cocoon. None of this was true in Concorde’s day. And a new supersonic jetliner, like Concorde, would probably just offer basic reclining seats. Space is at a premium on supersonic jets, due to the need to minimize drag.

Hypersonics, or greater than Mach 5 flight, are even more exciting than Mach 2 supersonic flight. But solving the economic and technological challenges associated with hypersonics has always seemed about 20 years away, making it the cold fusion of the aerospace industry.

The hypersonic airliner dream achieved its greatest fame as the Orient Express , proposed by President Reagan in his 1986 State of the Union address. This was meant to fly 25 times the speed of sound at low-Earth orbit, traveling from Washington to Tokyo within two hours. It was to enter service before 2000. Yet most work associated with this project was abandoned years ago, after almost $2 billion was spent.

With hypersonics as with supersonics, much depends on the propulsion system. Regular jet engines won’t work beyond Mach 2.5 or so. Instead, a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) is needed, possibly in conjunction with another jet engine needed to accelerate the aircraft to the speed at which a scramjet can work. The scramjet concept has been around since the 1950s, but sustained flight testing has proven difficult. The technology has been compared with lighting a match in a hurricane: It works oh so briefly before failing. The engine tends to fail after a few minutes , and just over six minutes is the all-time world record.

Unlike supersonics, however, hypersonics depend on a host of other new technologies that still need to be developed, particularly thermal management systems and materials that can survive intense heat.

Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors will likely be able master these technologies in time. First, we’ll see hypersonic weapons such as cruise missiles , which are used once and don’t require the elaborate safety systems needed for passenger transport. Then, we’ll see surveillance planes, such as Lockheed Martin’s proposed SR-72. These will be capable of multiple uses but probably still unmanned.

Eventually, after 50 years or so, safe hypersonic passenger transport will be feasible. At that point, we’ll merely have to contend with the enormous costs associated with this technology. And of course conventional jetliners will have continued on their path toward ever greater efficiency, meaning the ticket-to-cost ratio between fast and conventional air transport will be enormous.

Pursuing large supersonic and hypersonic transports may be futile, but some form of fast transport is inevitable. There will likely be a market for a supersonic business jet, such as the one proposed by Aerion ; the top end of the business jet market is virtually price inelastic. There may conceivably even be a market for a small supersonic transport (20-40 seats) that effectively skims off the world’s most elite airline traffic.

The best indicator of the viability of fast transport concepts is a company’s willingness to spend its own cash. Those smaller aircraft involve private-sector money. The bigger concepts, by contrast, are purely funded with government cash. In the case of Lockheed Martin, this makes sense; the company is in the business of making weapons and surveillance aircraft that could use high-speed technology. But neither Lockheed Martin nor any other large aerospace contractor will spend any of its own money on large high-speed transport development. The risk-reward ratio is unattractive, at best.

This raises the difficult question of NASA’s high-speed research. Much of the agency’s aeronautics research involves long-term technologies that potentially enable more efficient and clean flight. But then there’s NASA’s supersonic transport work, which basically aims to subsidize a tool for the wealthiest people in the world. As industry observers have noted before, “Mach 2 … Taxpayers Zero.”

Correction, April 29, 2016: This piece originally misstated the definition of a supersonic plane as flying faster than Mach 2. While supersonics typically fly Mach 2 or faster, technically it’s supersonic if it flies faster than Mach 1. ( Return .)

Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more,  follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Newsletters

Why can’t anything travel faster than light?

Roger Rassool

Roger Rassool is a particle physicist at the University of Melbourne. His outreach programs have switched on a new generation to the wonders of physics.

We all know the number one traffic rule of the universe – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And that happens to be 299,792.458 kilometres per second. But why is it so?

Before the 1600s most people assumed light moved instantaneously. Galileo was among the first to think that light travelled at a finite speed.

In 1638 he tried to measure it. He and an assistant perched themselves on distant mountaintops with covered lanterns. The idea was that as soon as Galileo’s assistant saw the flash, he uncovered his lantern. Galileo would then time how long it took to see the return flash. The experiment failed dismally! To succeed, Galileo would have had to register a time difference of microseconds. He had no such time keeping device and his reaction time would be way slower than that.

Undaunted, Galileo concluded that light’s movement, “if not instantaneous, is extraordinarily rapid”.

But not long after, in 1676, we got a fair estimate of light’s speed from a young Danish astronomer by the name of Ole Römer. One of the ways sailors at sea checked their clocks was to observe the eclipse of Jupiter by its moon Io. The time for Io to make one complete circuit around Jupiter had been measured at 1.769 days. However there was a minor problem.

Römer observed that the time between eclipses varied slightly depending on the time of year. At times when the Earth was moving away from Jupiter, the time between Io’s eclipses gradually increased; as it moved closer the time decreased. The cumulative effect meant the predicted times could be in error by more than 10 minutes.

Römer realised his observations could be explained by the varying distance between Jupiter and Io, and Earth. The different times for Io’s orbit reflected the different distances light had to travel. It also allowed Römer to estimate the speed of light as 214,000 km/s. Not bad!

The first experimental measurement of the speed of light came 150 years later with Hippolye Fizeau. He came up with an ingenious advance on Galileo’s method. In his experiment, a beam of light was projected onto a rapidly rotating cog-wheel. The teeth of the rotating cog chop the light up into very short pulses. These pulses travelled about 8 kilometres to where Fizeau had positioned a carefully aligned mirror. On the return trip, the reflected light pulse could only reach Fizeau by passing back through one of the gaps in the cog-wheel.

What happened? At slow speeds, the light pulse always got back to Fizeau through the same gap in the cog’s teeth. But as Fizeau turned the wheel faster, at a certain speed the pulse was blocked by the following tooth. Knowing the rotational speed, Fizaeau thus could calculate how long it took for light to travel 16 kilometres – and so how fast the light must be travelling. His remarkable result of 315,000 km/s was within about 5% of our most recent measurements using lasers.

The faster something travels, the more massive it gets, and the more time slows – until you finally reach the speed of light, at which point time stops altogether.

OK. We know that light travels at a finite speed. But why is it finite?

This question gave Albert Einstein pause for thought. If light has a finite speed, what if you strapped a torch to the front of a moving rocket? Wouldn’t the light coming from this torch be travelling faster than the speed of light? Einstein puzzled over this issue with several “Gedankens” (thought experiments) and came up with a crazy solution: the motion of an object must somehow make time slow down. Time was no longer constant and so relativity was born.

Many experiments have carefully tested Einstein’s predictions.

In 1964, Bill Bertozzi at MIT accelerated electrons to a range of speeds. He then measured their kinetic energy and found that as their speeds approached the speed of light, the electrons became heavier and heavier – until the point they became so heavy it was impossible to make them go any faster. The maximum speed he could get the electrons to travel before they became too heavy to accelerate further? The speed of light.

In another crucial test, physicists Joseph Hafele and Richard E. Keating flew synchronised, super-accurate caesium atomic clocks on various trips around the world on commercial airliners. After the journeys, all the moving clocks disagreed with each other and the reference clock back in the lab. Time ran slower for the moving clocks just as Einstein predicted. So the faster something travels, the more massive it gets, and the more time slows – until you finally reach the speed of light, at which point time stops altogether. And if time stops, well then, so does speed. And so nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

By the way, the next time you use your smart phone be aware that the GPS satellites orbiting Earth have to take the slowing of time (time dilation) into account. Disable these relativistic corrections and the modern world would be lost forever.

Originally published by Cosmos as Why can’t anything travel faster than light?

Please login to favourite this article.

Why Does The US Have No High-Speed Trains? Should They?

Chinese high-speed rail has surpassed 19,000 miles, making it the largest and fastest in the world. The bullet trains of Japan, which can travel at speeds of up to 200 mph, have been in operation since the 1960s. They have transported almost 9 billion people without losing a single passenger. TGV high-speed train service began in France in 1981, and the rest of Europe followed shortly.

With the exception of the Acela line in the Northeast Corridor, the United States does not have any true high-speed trains. Just 34 out of 457 miles may be traveled at 150 mph on the Acela line. Between New York and Boston, it travels at an average speed of roughly 65 mph. This is very slow compared to what speeds trains are traveling now.

So why the US, which is considered the leader in development and technological advancement, is still “lagging” behind many countries in the high-speed train networks? Is it an economic problem? Or maybe a cultural mindset? It is actually due to many reasons and opinions that kept the US from building its high-speed rail network.

America Is Huge!

In comparison to other countries with high-speed rail networks, such as Germany and Japan, the US is much bigger. Take a look at Russia to see that they have yet to build a bullet train between Moscow and Vladivostok, 3987 miles (6416 km). The distances between America’s largest cities are huge. For example, most of China’s major cities are situated significantly closer to one another than the most populated city regions in the United States, making high-speed rail a more practical option in China.

The distance from Shanghai to Beijing, the largest cities in china by population , is about 819 miles (1318 km) and would take about 4.5 – 6.5 hours to travel by train. Now imagine the following scenario: if we would like to do the same in the US and connect the largest cities by population by rail network, we would be connecting New York with Los Angeles having to build over 2,446 miles (3,936 km) of rail network! Now imagine how long would such a trip take!

Low Population Density

High-speed rail makes sense when there are several densely populated cities close to one another and no large geological constraints to slow down the trains. However, despite having a total population of almost 330 million, much of America is still empty land. Our most populous cities actually have a lower population density than some provinces in China. While a high-speed rail route between New York and Washington, DC may make sense, it’s hard to see more than a handful of people in Missoula, Montana, needing to visit Phoenix, Arizona, or that high-speed rail would get them there quicker and cheaper than a car or an airliner.

If you’re ever flying over the United States on a clear day, you’ll see how very different it is from the overpopulated and similar countries of Asia and Europe below. For example, Dallas, our fourth-largest metro region, has a lower population density than Hebei, a Chinese province that isn’t even particularly populated. This is likely the main element that makes the economics of high-speed trains so problematic.

American Culture

Most Americans value independence and freedom. This means people in the United States care more about events in their own communities than in other areas. They are uncomfortable or opposed to paying the taxes needed to support massive public projects like high-speed rail. The typical American will not be persuaded by your arguments that the country requires high-speed rail and that they should be ready to pay the additional taxes to fund it. No matter how many individuals might profit from it, it goes against our cultural beliefs that we should keep the profits of our work and give them to the government in the form of taxes.

Also, the car plays a significant role in American society. Americans of all ages consider their cars to be major elements of their identities; for young people, owning a car is almost a milestone in their lives. Many working-age persons in the United States cannot bear to be without their vehicles. There are hardly any adults who rely only on public transit to move around, with the exception of those living in densely populated coastal cities with limited land areas. However, things might start changing after the gas costs skyrocket.

Rail Infrastructure vs. Properties

Nowadays, purchasing property along a relatively straight line is one of the most expensive aspects of establishing new rail lines (trains cannot go at high speeds over too sharp a curve). Buying land in the United States is quite expensive because of the country’s strict property laws. When the property was inexpensive, the United States had little trouble laying railroad tracks across the country.

The rails on which we rely currently aren’t always as straightforward as they should be. In order to construct more modern, higher-quality, and more directly routed rail lines, the government would have to purchase all land between A and B and remove any obstacles in the way. What was to be farmland between A and B is now very desirable real estate that will cost a lot of money to acquire.

High-speed rail is an expensive, outmoded technology. Not only is it more costly and inconvenient than flying or driving, but it also takes significantly longer. Given that vehicles and airplanes are getting more energy efficient and less polluting every year, high-speed train advantages to the environment seem to be questionable.

These are some of the reasons that we think are stopping the US from having a high-speed train network like Japan, China, and Europe. What do you think are the main reasons? And do you think the rail network is still an important transportation means for the US? Please share your opinion in the below comments section.

Related Posts

Why don't we feel Earth spinning?

Earth moves around the sun at 67,000 mph and makes a full rotation once every 24 hours. So why can't we feel the Earth's rotation?

When you're going around and around on a carnival ride, you feel it — you're pulled outward, and all you can do is hang on. Our planet is rotating much faster than that, so why aren't we all holding on for dear life? Why can't we feel Earth's rotation?

There are two major reasons. One is that Earth's rotation is smooth.

"If you're in a car and you're going at a constant speed on the highway, if you close your eyes and tune out the road noise, you would feel stationary," said Stephanie Deppe , an astronomer and content strategist for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile.

If that car were hitting the brakes repeatedly, you'd know you were in motion. But because it stays at a constant speed, you feel motionless.

Related: Can you see Earth spin?

Put another way, "we know there's no such thing as absolute motion. The only thing that matters is relative motion," said Greg Gbur , a professor of physics and optical science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

"People like Newton and Galileo pointed this out," he said. "Galileo famously imagined a thought experiment of being in the bowels of a ship. If the ship is sailing on calm water versus the ship being docked at port, you're not going to notice any difference according to the laws of physics."

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

And like being in a car or on a ship, everything on Earth is also moving with us. If you roll down a car window on the highway, you get a face full of wind as the car slams you into millions of air molecules. But inside the car with the window up, the air moves with you and you don't feel the wind.

Likewise, our planet's atmosphere is moving just as fast as we are — so, relative to us, it's stationary.

The other reason we don't feel Earth's rotation is gravity . "The force of gravity holding us to the Earth is much, much, much stronger than the force that would send us flying outward," Deppe said.

The feeling of being pulled outward from a carnival ride, or a car doing doughnuts, is called centripetal acceleration . "It's the feeling of inertia," Gbur said. "Your body wants to keep going in a straight line, but if you're in your car, the car is trying to pull you in a circle."

— Why do magnets have north and south poles?

— How fast does the Earth move?

— If there were a time warp, how would physicists find it?

Earth's spin pulls everything outward in the same way, but the force keeping everything stuck to the ground overpowers that pull.

"The acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 m/s^2 on the Earth's surface, and the reduction of that due to the rotation of the Earth at the equator, where things are moving the fastest, is about 0.03 m/s^2, which is measurable but really tiny compared to what we feel from gravity itself, so we don't notice it," Gbur said.

Ashley Hamer is a contributing writer for Live Science who has written about everything from space and quantum physics to health and psychology. She's the host of the podcast Taboo Science and the former host of Curiosity Daily from Discovery. She has also written for the YouTube channels SciShow and It's Okay to Be Smart. With a master's degree in jazz saxophone from the University of North Texas, Ashley has an unconventional background that gives her science writing a unique perspective and an outsider's point of view.

Largest 3D map of our universe could 'turn cosmology upside down'

Avi Wigderson wins $1 million Turing Award for using randomness to change computer science

NASA Mars samples, which could contain evidence of life, will not return to Earth as initially planned

• Majik I would argue that the statement in the article: "Our planet is rotating much faster than that" is incorrect. Rotation is measured in angular velocity (so degrees per hour, radians per second, revolutions per minute, etc. ) If we use the commonly-used units of rpm, earth is rotating at 0.000694 RPM which is far slower than any roundabout would rotate at whilst being used. It's twice as slow as the hour hand on a clock. Most roundabouts would rotate several times per minute which is over 10,000 times faster than the earth's rotation. Now, if you take tangential velocity as your measurement, that would certainly be more on the earth (at least at most places): the tangential velocity at the equator is over 1,000 mph. But that's a measurement of tangential speed/velocity, not strictly of "rotation". Cheers, Keith Reply

Majik said: I would argue that the statement in the article: "Our planet is rotating much faster than that" is incorrect. Rotation is measured in angular velocity (so degrees per hour, radians per second, revolutions per minute, etc. ) If we use the commonly-used units of rpm, earth is rotating at 0.000694 RPM which is far slower than any roundabout would rotate at whilst being used. It's twice as slow as the hour hand on a clock. Most roundabouts would rotate several times per minute which is over 10,000 times faster than the earth's rotation. Now, if you take tangential velocity as your measurement, that would certainly be more on the earth (at least at most places): the tangential velocity at the equator is over 1,000 mph. But that's a measurement of tangential speed/velocity, not strictly of "rotation". Cheers, Keith

• ClimberT8 I'm not sure what the writer means by "feel". You can certainly  see Earth's rotation, easiest at sunset or sunrise when the horizon is near enough to the sun, or by looking at a shadow near noon time or at a beam spot from a hole. You can sense it thermally, obviously. And if you've experienced a cyclone or anti cyclone you've certainly "felt" the earth's rotation. You can "touch" the earth's rotation via tides. So what is lacking is not the feeling , it is the attribution to a casual model. Reply
• VeryCurious I do not agree to the comparision between smooth motion in car and spinning of Earth. Earth's spinning is a circular motion, which is an accelerated motion, and we should feel acceleration. The spinning produces slightly less effective weight on Equator than on Pole. The reason we don't feel the spinning is because it is just 0.35 % of our weight at maximum. At larger scale, the wind systems do feel the spinning, and the cyclonic storms spin clockwise in Southern hemisphere and opposite in Northern, because the Earth spins. Reply

VeryCurious said: I do not agree to the comparision between smooth motion in car and spinning of Earth. Earth's spinning is a circular motion, which is an accelerated motion, and we should feel acceleration.

• View All 5 Comments

Most Popular

• 2 Underwater mountain range off Easter Island hosts creatures unknown to science, expedition reveals
• 3 'Gambling with your life': Experts weigh in on dangers of the Wim Hof method
• 4 Eclipse from space: See the moon's shadow race across North America at 1,500 mph in epic satellite footage
• 5 Superfast drone fitted with new 'rotating detonation rocket engine' approaches the speed of sound
• 2 32 astonishing ancient burials, from 'vampire' decapitations to riches for the afterlife
• 3 World's fastest camera captures footage at 156 trillion frames per second

Risky Driving

• Distracted Driving
• Drowsy Driving
• Drug-Impaired Driving
• Drunk Driving

Speeding endangers everyone on the road: In 2021, speeding killed 12,330 people. We all know the frustrations of modern life and juggling a busy schedule, but speed limits are put in place to protect all road users. Learn about the dangers of speeding and why faster doesn’t mean safer.

Speeding Catches Up With You

Dangers of speeding, consequences, what drives speeding, dealing with speeding and aggressive drivers.

• NHTSA In Action

For more than two decades, speeding has been involved in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities. In 2021, speeding was a contributing factor in 29% of all traffic fatalities.

Speed also affects your safety even when you are driving at the speed limit but too fast for road conditions, such as during bad weather, when a road is under repair, or in an area at night that isn’t well lit.

Speeding endangers not only the life of the speeder, but all of the people on the road around them, including law enforcement officers. It is a problem we all need to help solve.

Speeding is more than just breaking the law. The consequences are far-ranging:

• Greater potential for loss of vehicle control;
• Reduced effectiveness of occupant protection equipment;
• Increased stopping distance after the driver perceives a danger;
• Increased degree of crash severity leading to more severe injuries;
• Economic implications of a speed-related crash; and
• Increased fuel consumption/cost.

Speeding is a type of aggressive driving behavior. Several factors have contributed to an overall rise in aggressive driving:

Traffic congestion is one of the most frequently mentioned contributing factors to aggressive driving, such as speeding. Drivers may respond by using aggressive driving behaviors, including speeding, changing lanes frequently, or becoming angry at anyone who they believe impedes their progress.

Running Late

Some people drive aggressively because they have too much to do and are “running late” for work, school, their next meeting, lesson, soccer game, or other appointment.

A motor vehicle insulates the driver from the world. Shielded from the outside environment, a driver can develop a sense of detachment, as if an observer of their surroundings, rather than a participant. This can lead to some people feeling less constrained in their behavior when they cannot be seen by others and/or when it is unlikely that they will ever again see those who witness their behavior.

Disregard for Others and For the Law

Most motorists rarely drive aggressively, and some never do. For others, episodes of aggressive driving are frequent, and for a small proportion of motorists it is their usual driving behavior. Occasional episodes of aggressive driving–such as speeding and changing lanes abruptly–might occur in response to specific situations, like when the driver is late for an important appointment, but is not the driver’s normal behavior.

If it seems that there are more cases of rude and outrageous behavior on the road now than in the past, the observation is correct—if for no other reason than there are more drivers driving more miles on the same roads than ever before.

Speeding behavior and aggressive drivers may not only affect the speeder—it can also affect other drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Here are some tips for encountering speeders on the road:

• If you are in the left lane and someone wants to pass, move over and let them by.
• Give speeding drivers plenty of space. Speeding drivers may lose control of their vehicle more easily.
• Adjust your driving accordingly. Speeding is tied to aggressive driving. If a speeding driver is tailgating you or trying to engage you in risky driving, use judgment to safely steer your vehicle out of the way.
• Call the police if you believe a driver is following you or harassing you.

NHTSA is dedicated to eliminating risky behaviors on our nation’s roads

NHTSA works with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration to provide the roadmap, tools, guidance, and resources for state and local governments to use in designing and applying a balanced and effective speed management program. Speed management involves the following:

• Defining the relationship between speed, speeding, and safety.
• Applying road design and engineering measures to obtain appropriate speeds.
• Setting speed limits that are safe and reasonable.
• Applying enforcement efforts and appropriate technology that effectively target crash-producing speeders and deter speeding.
• Effectively marketing communication and educational messages that focus on high-risk drivers.
• Soliciting the cooperation, support, and leadership of traffic safety stakeholders.

To promote this strategy, NHTSA delivers a Speed Management Program course to state and local jurisdictions. The course uses a multidisciplinary approach to address speeding problems in states and local communities.

NHTSA also provides training to law enforcement officers on the use of speed-measuring devices (i.e., radar and lidar) in order to identify and take enforcement action against speeding drivers.

Finally, NHTSA works with national law enforcement partners, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement to heighten awareness of the speeding problem in the United States and deliver effective enforcement countermeasures to combat it.

Search for more resources

Explore other topics in risky driving.

Why Don't We Have Faster-Than-Light Travel?

"Why Don't We Have..." is a PopMech series that quickly explains why some of the technologies promised by science fiction have yet to become fact. Today: faster-than-light travel.

Faster-than-light travel is one of those little necessities of sci-fi . Space is so vast that without such ludicrous speed our heroes would never interact with anyone. So Star Trek 's Enterprise, Star Wars 's Millennium Falcon, and the Battlestar Galactica all travel faster than the speed of light.

Yet plenty of imaginative physicists don't want to take no for an answer, and have turned to innovative (if bizarre) theoretical ways around the problem. In 1994, for example, Miguel Alcubierre imagined a bubble of normal space–time around a spacecraft that would allow for FTL travel by expanding space itself behind the ship and compressing it in front. Normal physics still applies within the bubble, and so the passengers don't feel any acceleration at all. Rather than violating known physics, the Alcubierre drive actually conformed to the General Theory of Relativity.

The problem is, physicist Dave Goldberg tells PM, "there is literally zero experimental evidence that they'd be possible." Outlining the obstacles for io9, Goldberg points to the following:

You can't get in or out of the bubble . Crossing the threshold would probably crush and obliterate a spaceship.

You can't destroy the bubble . One must deform space–time to make the bubble in the first place. How would you re-form it? No one knows.

The Alcubierre drive concept. Credit: NASA

You might destroy your destination . Even if scientists knew how to stop the bubble once it started, decelerating would release high-energy particles from the front-facing side. Anything at the destination "would be high-energy-particle blasted into oblivion," according to a paper from the University of Sydney.

It requires energies that might be impossible (or incredibly difficult) to achieve . In mathematical models, the sides of the bubble would require energy per unit of volume to be less than zero. We're not sure this "exotic energy" exists. And if it does, it would take 10 billion times the mass of the observable universe , converted into negative energy, to power Alcubierre's idea. Recently Chris Van Den Broeck tweaked the model and made it more energy efficient but still just about impossible.

It's a pretty daunting slate of challenges. But that doesn't mean NASA's not trying—the agency announced last fall that its scientists are at work on a way to tweak the design of Alcubierre drive to drastically cut its energy requirements.

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Why Don't We Have? .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

Why Don't We Have Fusion Power?

Why Don't We Have Artificial Gravity?

Why Don't We Have Hoverboards?

Why Don't We Have Holodecks?

Why Don't We Have Food Replacement Pills?

Why Don't We Have Flying Cars Already?

Why Don't We Have Jetpacks?

Similar Planets Could Point Toward Alien Worlds

We May Be Living in a Variable Universe

The Universe Could Be Eternal, This Theory Says

Fugitive Stars Are Heading to Our Galaxy

Why Don’t Airplanes Fly Faster?

Modern aviation has made flying safer and more accessible than it was fifty years ago. Planes can fly further and faster than ever before, and passenger service has come along way as well.

Sadly, with all the advancements in jet technology, one thing that hasn’t changed is the speed we reach our destinations. Have you ever wondered why pilots just don’t fly faster?

Airplanes don’t fly faster because they burn more fuel at higher speeds, meaning that it isn’t economical. In addition, operating at higher speeds puts more stress on the engines as well as the airplane fuselage, which causes them to wear down faster.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that many airlines operate on paper-thin margins, and therefore try to save on the high cost of fuel. As such, flying faster isn’t in their interest if it means that ticket prices must increase. 

The environmental aspect is also at play here. Flying faster means that the airplane incurs more drag, and that fuel consumption therefore increases. Of course, this is not advisable for an industry that already is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases.

Table of Contents

How Fast Do Commercial Airplanes Fly?

Generally, the cruising speed of most commercial jet aircraft is somewhere between 400-500 knots. This equals roughly 750-950 kph, or 460-580 mph. 

Of course, the speed of an aircraft on a particular flight will be affected by not only the airplane’s weight, type, and thrust settings, but also the wind. An airplane with a tailwind will fly faster relative to the ground than one that struggles against a headwind. 

The speed of an airplane is most often measured as the speed that the airplane travels through the air. Unsurprisingly, this speed is called airspeed .

The ground speed, on the other hand, provides a reading of the airplane’s speed relative to the ground, as you would measure it in a car.

So, if the plane has a tailwind of 50 mph, and has an airspeed of 450 mph, it means that the ground speed is 500 mph. 

This also helps explain why a plane might come in earlier or later than the scheduled arrival time. 

Can Airplanes Fly Faster?

Yes, Commercial jets are quite capable of flying faster than they do today. The Boeing 777 has a top speed of 575 MPH but general cruises slower.

So let’s look at why this is the case!

Economic Reasons

Passenger Airlines must offer the cheapest flights with the shortest routes to remain competitive. However, variable expenses such as fuel are calculated into the costs per seat, which dictates the price of plane tickets.

Since the 1960s, the cost of jet fuel has risen dramatically, increasing the overall price of air travel. Since planes operate on a razor-thin margin of 5 percent, they must cut as many costs as they can.

Therefore flying with a full passenger manifest at a slower speed allows the air carrier to turn a small profit. The higher fuel costs mean higher ticket prices, and statistics have shown passengers would prefer to travel cheaper than faster.

Fuel costs are the airline’s most significant expense and are an estimated 40 percent of the total operating expenses. 

The drastic attempts to reduce fuel consumption is paying off since jet fuel consumption in the United States has declined by almost 15 percent since the turn of the century.

Maintenance Costs

When the aircraft flies are closer to its max speed, it can cause premature wear on the mechanical systems. The excess wear can lead to higher maintenance costs or component failure in flight.

Technical Limitations

Although aircraft fuel efficiency has improved leaps and bounds over the past sixty years, there has been little improvement to improve how fast planes can efficiently fly.

Aircraft engines have also improved energy efficiency and power, which can propel an aircraft through the air at faster speeds. However, again, faster speeds don’t imply larger profit margins.

Passenger Preference: Cost vs. Speed

Surveys have shown that passengers would prefer to save money and spend a long time in the air rather than absorb the higher cost of fuel in their ticket prices. Considering that airlines already provide the fastest means of transportation without further increasing their speeds, they are already delivering what the passengers want.

Supersonic Aircraft: Planes That Actually Flew Faster!

Even though modern passenger jets aren’t flying much faster than they did in the old days, there have been attempts at raising the speed at which airplanes operate during normal cruise. 

The perhaps most well-known example is the Concorde. 

Watch the short documentary below, or continue reading to find out more about this spectacular airplane, and why it never made it to the masses!

The Concorde is a British/French supersonic passenger airliner that was jointly developed and manufactured by Sud-Aviation British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty.

The jet was first flown in 1969 and carried its first passengers in 1976. It was operated by British Airways and Air France for over thirty years before retiring in 2003.

Altogether twenty aircraft were built, and  Air France and British Airways were the only airlines to purchase and fly Concorde.

Concorde Design

Designed by  Pierre Satre and Sir Archibald Russell Concorde, the aircraft has a long slender-bodied design and ogival delta wings with a tailless design. It is powered by 4 Olympus turbojet engines and was the first airliner to implement a fly-by-wire flight-control system.

The aircraft also had a drooping nose, which could be lowered to improve visibility while maneuvering on the ground.

Since supersonic flight required higher operating costs, the tickets were costly.

The average price of a ticket for a seat on the Concord would be around 12,000 dollars adjusted for inflation.

The target market for the airline was mainly wealthy passengers. They could afford the high costs associated with traveling at supersonic speeds.

Routes and Flight Speed

The Concorde was well known for its regular transatlantic flights from London and Paris to New York and Washington DC.

It also offered limited flights to Miami and Barbados as well. It had a maximum speed of 1,354 mph/2,180 km/h and could travel at twice the speed of sound (Mach 2.04).

The aircraft could comfortably seat 128 passengers and make the Trans-Atlantic journey in 3.5 hours.

Return to service

In 2015 Club Concorde, a group of Concorde enthusiasts, and ex-Concorde captains, announced that they would be actively trying to restore and return the aircraft to service. The club secured over 160 million British Pounds through donations for the project and had a tentative return date of sometime in 2019.

 In April 2019, Emirates Airlines announced that it would attempt to relaunch the most famous supersonic passenger carrier by 2022.

Of the 20 aircraft built, 18 of them were preserved in excellent condition and put on display in museums throughout Europe and The United States. Emirates announced that they will be flying 4 routes between Dubai, Europe, Asia, and the United States. 

TU-144 Tupolev: The Russian Competitor

The TU-144 Tupolev was a Russian made supersonic airliner and the only direct competitor of the Concorde. The Tupolev looked strikingly similar to its rival, and the designs were alleged to be stolen.

However, the Russian version suffered from a string of structural and mechanical issues during testing. Tragically, the Tu-144  suffered 2 significant crashes before it could be mass-produced, and the project was subsequently scrapped by government officials.

After The Tupolev’s retirement in 1979, the Russian government continued to utilize the aircraft for special training missions. Due to the jets’ ability to reach supersonic speeds and fly at a ceiling of 80,000 feet, it was mainly used to train astronauts.

Challenges of supersonic flight

So, how come that we aren’t seeing more supersonic aircraft today. After all, the technology has been around for quite some time!

Well, the concept proved to not be as viable as was thought in the beginning.

Here are the main challenges of supersonic flight!

Cost and range

Even if the Concorde was a revolutionary aircraft, it wasn’t nearly as efficient as other airplanes. As oil prices surged, the concept of supersonic flight became less and less attractive. 

The high fuel consumption means that supersonic airplanes have significantly shorter range figures than competing aircraft, such as the Boeing 700-series. In fact, the Concorde could barely make it from the UK to the US East Coast.

Due to the aircraft’s flight characteristics, they are prone to structural failure. During banks and turns at high rates of speed, the G-force can distort or crack the airframe of the jet, which can weaken its structure. The added stress can also make the aircraft difficult to control at supersonic speeds.

In addition, pilots will have less time to react to emergency situations. This lead to 

Flying at Mach speeds can lead to a greater chance of mechanical failure. Excessive vibrations and added stress can cause major components to fail in flight. Critical components also need to be inspected and service more often.

Noise Pollution

 Another factor that makes supersonic transport programs less attractive to mainstream use is excessive noise pollution. These aircraft require multiple high-powered engines to produce enough thrust to reach Mach 2  speeds. The sound can be heard for miles, and the vibration can cause damage to surrounding structures.

Some believe that to prevent the sonic boom disturbance, the aircraft should only be restricted to over the ocean flights or routes that avoid populated areas.

The jet was so loud that it faced opposition by scientists, technology experts, and “Anti-Concorde” activists due to noise the aircraft produced.

The environmental and social factors associated with noise pollution started to gain the attention of politicians, particularly in the United States. The introduction of the Concorde into New York’s John F Kennedy airport directly contributed to the cities first Noise Abatement law in 1977.

Safety: Concorde Accidents

Although the challenges discussed above were likely to have brought an end to supersonic flights eventually, there was one particular accident that brought the whole Concorde program, and supersonic flights with it,  to an abrupt halt. 

Air France Flight 4590 departed Paris on the morning of July 25th, 2000. However, it crashed into a hotel in Gonesse a few minutes after it went airborne. All 109 passengers and four people near the crash site were killed instantly.

The incident occurred when a plane that departed before Flight 4590 radioed into ATC that they lost a titanium alloy strip. However, foreign object debris (FOD) search was never conducted as per standard protocol.

During Flight 4590’s takeoff, a piece of this debris ruptured one of the Concorde’s tires, causing it to strike the underside wing’s fuel tank. The aircraft was traveling down the runway too fast and could not stop on the ground. The jet ignited into flames as it left the runway.

The Concorde only had one fatal crash but had several incidents involving structural and mechanical failures throughout its career. As you can expect, this was 

The demand for passenger air travel will double over the next 20 years, while the price of fuel will continue to rise. This means ticket prices will go up for the customer. Since airlines operate on narrow margins, fuel efficiency is its top priority. Even with more efficient power plant systems, the cost of fuel will always dictate how fast you reach your destination. 

Recommended Course!

Highskyflying

Recent Content

Why Do Pilots Say Niner?(How Pilots Count to ten)

In aviation, clear communication is essential to ensure the safe progress of flights, and efficient use of radio frequencies. As aviation English is the accepted standard throughout most of the...

Can Helicopters Fly Above Clouds?

Most of the time when you see a helicopter flying overhead, they are usually not that high up in the sky. But can they go higher? Like above the clouds? If you are wondering, can ...

Your cart is empty

🔥 BUY ONE, GET ONE 25% OFF EUROPE ESIMS 👉 SHOP NOW

How to Get High-Speed Internet While Traveling

In the immortal words of Hans Christian Andersen, "To travel is to live." But in today's world, to travel without high-speed internet is, well, practically medieval. Whether you're live-streaming the neon dazzle of Tokyo's Shibuya Crossing or Zooming into a work meeting from a beach in Bali, high-speed internet has become as essential as your passport. But how do you ensure that your online life doesn't hit a snag when you're hopping from one country to another?

Table of Contents

Understanding your high-speed internet needs while traveling, the role of bandwidth in your internet speed, travel sim cards: a traveler's best friend for connectivity, choosing the right travel sim card, how to purchase and activate your travel sim card, portable wi-fi hotspots: your gateway to high-speed internet, best portable wi-fi hotspots on the market, local sim cards vs. international roaming: what’s best for high-speed internet, tips for purchasing a local sim card abroad, leveraging free wi-fi: tips and tricks for secure, high-speed access, using vpns to secure your internet connection on public wi-fi, advanced tips for consistent high-speed internet while traveling, the future of travel internet: emerging technologies, practical case studies, how can i ensure high-speed internet in a country with poor connectivity, are travel sim cards cost-effective for long-term travel, can i use my regular sim card to get high-speed internet abroad, what are the risks of using public wi-fi for high-speed internet, how does the speed of portable wi-fi hotspots compare to local sim cards.

Fear not, digital wanderers and workation warriors! I'm Bryan Holiday, your cyber-savvy Odysseus in the tumultuous sea of travel connectivity. With over a decade of trotting the globe and staying plugged in, I've mastered the art of maintaining a robust internet connection, no matter where my travels take me. So, buckle up as we embark on a journey to unravel the secrets of high-speed internet for travelers.

Before you start dreaming of seamless uploads of your Sistine Chapel selfies or crystal-clear calls home, let's get down to brass tacks. Understanding your internet needs is crucial. Are you a casual browser, an Instagram influencer in the making, or a remote-working road warrior? Your online activities dictate the speed you need. Streaming "Game of Thrones" in HD is going to gobble up data faster than a Lannister pays his debts, while sending emails is as light on your data as feathers on a Maester's quill.

Bandwidth is the Jon Snow of internet terms – it's much more important than it first appears. Simply put, bandwidth is the volume of information per unit of time that a transmission medium (like an internet connection) can handle. More bandwidth means more data can flow through, akin to how a wider Westerosi road allows more troops to march side by side. When you're traveling, you want a connection that's as wide and as open as the King's Road, ensuring your internet speed is as swift as a raven from the Citadel.

Stay tuned, as in the next sections, we'll dive into the nitty-gritty of travel SIM cards, portable Wi-Fi hotspots, and the eternal debate of local vs. international roaming. We'll also cover how to keep your data safe faster than you can say "Valar Morghulis" when connecting to public Wi-Fi. So, grab your digital swords (smartphones, folks), and let's get you connected with the speed of Hermes himself.

Imagine you're Indiana Jones, navigating through the dense jungles of foreign telecom regulations, looking for that golden idol of uninterrupted connectivity. That's where the trusty travel SIM card swings in, saving the day like a well-placed vine over a pit of snakes.

Travel SIM cards are the unsung heroes for globetrotters seeking high-speed internet. These nifty little chips are your all-access pass to local networks, usually offering better rates and faster services than your home network could ever hope to provide abroad. They work by slotting into your phone like any other SIM card, but instead of chaining you to one network, they have agreements with multiple carriers across the globe.

Not all SIM cards are created equal, and like Dumbledore's selection of socks, the choices can be overwhelming. When choosing a travel SIM card, consider the following:

• Coverage: Does it cover the Shire, Mordor, and all the lands in between? Jokes aside, check the countries and regions it operates in.
• Data Plans: Are you looking for unlimited data, or are you more of a 'pay-as-you-go' Gandalf? Make sure the plan fits your usage.
• Costs: Compare the costs like a Lannister preparing for a wedding – with meticulous attention to detail.
• Compatibility: Ensure the SIM works with your device. It's like making sure the wand chooses the wizard in the world of Harry Potter.

Purchasing a travel SIM card is easier than convincing a Hobbit to go on an adventure. You can buy them online before you leave, at the airport, or in local shops upon arrival. Activation is usually as simple as inserting the SIM into your phone and following the carrier's activation steps – no need for a convoluted spell or ancient incantation.

For those who find swapping SIM cards as tedious as listening to the Entmoot, portable Wi-Fi hotspots might be your goblet of fire. These devices are like carrying your personal little piece of the internet in your pocket. They work by tapping into cellular networks and creating a private Wi-Fi network just for you – think of it as your personal bubble of internet connectivity.

When choosing a portable Wi-Fi hotspot, you want to look for:

• Battery Life: It should last longer than the final season of "Lost" felt.
• Connectivity: It must provide a strong, stable connection, or it's as useful as a chocolate teapot.
• Size: It should be as unobtrusive as a ninja in the night.
• Price: Ensure the cost doesn't leave your wallet feeling like it faced Thanos.

Some of the top contenders in the market include the Skyroam Solis, the Netgear Nighthawk LTE, and the Huawei E5577Cs. Each has its own set of superpowers, from long battery life to impressive speed capabilities.

When you're crossing borders faster than a Jason Bourne car chase, you need to make a pivotal decision: opt for a local SIM card at each stop or go with the convenience of international roaming? It's the traveler's version of the Matrix's red pill or blue pill dilemma.

Local SIM cards are like getting a new identity in each country you visit. They offer the most cost-effective way to enjoy high-speed internet since you're paying local rates for data – no shocking bills that make you feel like you've just funded a villain's lair. However, the downside is that every time you hop to a new country, you'll need to source a new SIM card, which can feel like you're collecting Infinity Stones.

International roaming , on the other hand, is the superhero of convenience. It's your shield in the battle against the hassle of changing SIM cards. With international roaming, your phone automatically connects to local networks as you travel. But beware, the costs can be as treacherous as a deal with Loki, often resulting in exorbitant fees that can quickly add up.

If you decide to go down the local SIM card route, here are some tips to make the process as smooth as a James Bond pickup line:

• Research Before You Go: Like a good spy, gather intel on the best local SIM options before you land.
• Unlock Your Phone: Ensure your phone is unlocked – it's the key to making new SIM cards work.
• Know Your Size: SIM cards come in different sizes. Know whether you need a nano, micro, or standard SIM.
• Check the Data: Always confirm the amount of data and the validity period. You don't want your internet disappearing faster than a Snapchat message.
• Top-Up Locations: Find out where you can recharge your SIM card. You don't want to be caught out of data like a ship out of wind.

Free Wi-Fi can be as tempting as the One Ring – powerful and convenient, but with risks. It's available in hotels, cafes, and even public spaces, but unlike Frodo's burden, you don't need to go it alone. Here's how to use free Wi-Fi safely:

• Use a VPN: A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is like an invisibility cloak for your online activities, keeping your data safe from prying eyes.
• Avoid Sensitive Transactions: Never access your bank accounts or any sensitive information while connected to public Wi-Fi. It's like giving Sauron your location.
• Keep Your Firewall On: This is your digital fortress against potential threats.
• Forget the Network After Use: Don't let your device get too attached to a network. Always 'forget' the network after use to avoid automatically connecting in the future.

A VPN is your secret weapon, encrypting your data and rerouting it through a server elsewhere in the world. It's like sending your internet traffic on a secret mission, bypassing the surveillance of nefarious networks. When choosing a VPN:

• Select a Reputable Service: Opt for a VPN with a no-logs policy and strong encryption – think of it as choosing a member for your heist crew.
• Ease of Use: The VPN should be as easy to use as a clap-on, clap-off light.
• Speed: Ensure your VPN doesn't slow down your connection to a crawl.

We'll explore advanced tips for consistent high-speed internet while traveling, because let's face it, nobody wants their video call to freeze on an unflattering frame. Stay tuned, as we'll also look into the future of travel internet, where the possibilities are as boundless as the final frontier.

Now, let's talk about keeping your internet faster than a Millennium Falcon on the Kessel Run, even when you're off the beaten path. Here are some advanced tips for those who need to stay connected with the speed and reliability of a Starship Enterprise at warp speed.

Satellite Internet for Remote Locations: If your travels take you to remote corners of the Earth, where the internet is as scarce as a quiet moment in a Tarantino flick, satellite internet might be your holy grail. Companies like Iridium and Globalstar offer devices that connect to satellites instead of terrestrial cell towers, ensuring you can send that important email whether you're on the peak of Everest or the plains of the Serengeti.

Data Compression Tools and Techniques: Data compression is like a magic spell for your internet data. It shrinks the size of the data being transmitted, allowing for quicker upload and download speeds. Use mobile browsers like Opera Mini or Google Chrome, which have data compression features built-in, making your browsing as efficient as Hermione with a time-turner.

Network Extenders and Signal Boosters: These devices can be as crucial as a Swiss Army knife for MacGyver. They amplify a weak signal, giving you a fighting chance at a stable connection in areas where the signal is as elusive as a ninja in the night. It's perfect for those staying in remote villas or rustic cabins where the nearest cell tower is just a distant cousin.

As we look to the horizon, the future of travel internet is as bright as the glow of a lightsaber in a dark room. Emerging technologies promise to make connectivity issues a thing of the past, like floppy disks and dial-up tones.

Developments in Satellite Internet (Starlink for Travelers): Elon Musk's Starlink is set to revolutionize the way we connect. Imagine high-speed internet beamed down from space, covering every corner of the globe. This isn't science fiction; it's the near future, and it's as exciting as the prospect of a new "Star Wars" trilogy.

The Rise of eSIM Technology: eSIM technology is like having a shape-shifting mutant power for your phone. It allows you to switch carriers without swapping SIM cards, all with a few taps on your device. It's still in its early days, but it's poised to make the life of a traveler as easy as a Sunday morning.

To bring it all home, let's look at some practical case studies of travelers who've managed to stay connected against all odds, like a tech-savvy Robinson Crusoe.

Real-life Scenarios of Travelers Maintaining High-Speed Internet Access: From travel bloggers in the jungles of Amazon to photographers in the Arctic Circle, these stories will show you that with the right tools and a bit of know-how, you can stay connected anywhere.

Interviews with Frequent Travelers and Digital Nomads: Hear straight from the horse's mouth how seasoned travelers navigate the challenges of staying online while on the move. These are the Gandalfs and Dumbledores of travel tech, and their wisdom is pure gold.

As we wrap up this digital odyssey, remember that staying connected while traveling doesn't have to be as daunting as a "Mission Impossible" stunt. With the right preparation and a little tech savvy, you can have high-speed internet at your fingertips, ready to tackle whatever your journey throws at you.

So, whether you're a casual traveler looking to share your experiences, a digital nomad earning your living on the go, or just someone who likes to stay in the loop, the world is your oyster, and high-speed internet is the pearl. Go forth and explore, safe in the knowledge that the digital world is just a click away.

Thanks for visiting our blog, are you planing to travel to   Europe ? Check out our   eSIM Europe .

Before you take off make sure to check with   local government   of the travel status.

Before you set off on your next grand adventure, armed with all the internet know-how of a Silicon Valley wizard, let's tackle some of those frequently asked questions that might still be buzzing around your head like a drone over a scenic vista.

Even in countries where the internet crawls slower than a snail on tranquilizers, there are ways to boost your chances of a decent connection. Look for accommodations that boast high-speed internet as an amenity – it's often a sign they've invested in infrastructure like signal boosters. Also, cafes and libraries are often little oases of connectivity; just make sure to secure your data with a VPN.

For the nomadic among us, a travel SIM card can be as vital as a good pair of walking shoes. If you're traveling long-term, they're generally more cost-effective than international roaming – think of it as investing in a quality backpack rather than renting one at every stop. Plus, many offer plans tailored for extended adventures.

You can, but it's like using a map from the '90s – not the best tool for the job. International roaming charges can be exorbitant, and you may find your 'high-speed' internet is throttled to a pace that would lose to a tortoise. Always check with your provider for their roaming policies and consider a local or travel SIM as a more efficient alternative.

Public Wi-Fi networks are like a box of chocolates from a stranger; you never know what you're gonna get. They can be insecure, allowing cyber ne'er-do-wells to intercept your data. Always use a VPN to encrypt your connection, and avoid accessing sensitive information like bank accounts when on public networks.

Portable Wi-Fi hotspots can deliver speeds that rival local SIM cards, provided you're in an area with good coverage. However, the speed can also depend on the number of devices connected and the network traffic. It's like a highway; the more cars (or data), the more potential for traffic jams.

And there you have it, fellow travelers – your compass and map to navigating the world of high-speed internet on the go. If you've found this guide as useful as a Swiss Army knife on a camping trip, remember to share it with your fellow wanderers.

Need more help plotting your course through the digital landscape? Reach out, and let's chart your path to seamless connectivity, no matter where your travels take you. Until then, safe travels and happy streaming!

Leave a comment

All comments are moderated before being published

Why we need activation dates?

• We need these dates to activate your SIM card so you can use them when you’re ready to travel.
• If you don’t give us an activation date, your SIM card will not work when you plug them into your phone.

Not sure on your dates yet?

• You can add in an estimated date for your SIM. Your SIM’s data & validity won’t start until you plug it into your device.
• Once you know your exact dates, please let us know via our live chat or at [email protected] so we can activate it for you at the right time. 

What if you need to change the dates?

• You can reach out to us via our live chat or at [email protected] with your SIM number so we can change it for you.

China successfully tests maglev trains in vacuum tube, eyeing future speeds of 4,000 kph

China's new high-speed train doesn't roll along railways, it flies through tubes.

There are hopes it will one day connect cities and villages across the country, running at speeds of up to 4,000 kilometres per hour.

The magnetic-levitation (or maglev) train can clock speeds of 623 kph in tests — almost 200 kph quicker than the fastest train in service.  

It is yet to be rolled out, but in February it went even faster, during a test of technology crucial to the train's high speed. 

For the first time it travelled stably through the 2-kilometre low-vacuum tube, according to China's state run Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC).

CASIC is yet to reveal the speed it reached, but said it was faster than its previous record of 623 kph. 

How does the train go so fast?

The train is moved and suspended above the ground using magnetic-levitation technology — basically using the push and pull forces of magnets to guide, speed or slow the train.

This means the maglev train is much lighter, as it doesn't need wheels and brakes and other heavy bits of engineered steel to keep it safely on a railway.

To help keep friction down, China's latest superconducting maglev train is suspended, using three types of magnets, in a low-vacuum pipeline to "fly".

This generation is designed to reach up to 1,000 kph — faster than most people will ever travel on an airplane.

Unless you're Taylor Swift, whose private jet can still outpace the maglev train … just.

What are the main challenges?

UK high-speed rail expert Professor Andrew McNaughton told the ABC there were several difficulties in building large maglev networks.

Firstly, all new infrastructure, like the low-vacuum tunnel in China, has to be built and no older trains or railways are compatible. 

Secondly, the energy requirement is "very substantial", Professor McNaughton said.

"The third is that the volume of people between just two destinations is insufficient to justify the cost — unless it is two mega cities," he explained.

"Various studies have suggested that the construction and operational cost of maglev is probably four to five times that of a conventional high-speed railway."

Because of the velocities involved, noise is a big problem and means additional measures, like expensive tunnels and sound barriers, would need to be installed around communities.

"Lastly, whilst a maglev can operate around 500 kph compared with a conventional high-speed train at 350kph, the time saved — unless over a very long distance — is not huge and certainly not enough to justify the cost," Professor McNaughton said.

How will a train this fast change things?

Commuters can come into cities from further away, and the increased speed of logistics will be a boon for most businesses.

Because the train is capable of going up to 1,000 kph, there are other positives too.

When that kind of speed can be reached, trains can basically compete with planes.

A train capable of the high-speeds China is aiming for would likely have a big impact for a large country, said associate professor Jonathan Couldrick from the ANU College of Engineering, Computing and Cybernetics.

"Imagine commuting 400 kilometres in around half an hour — that would be a game changer for the population centres," he told the ABC.

"And so you can actually have growth areas away from the capital cities, and people commute in in the morning."

Mr Couldrick said the fast trains could also be better for the environment.

He has estimated that completely replacing regional passenger aircraft with ultra-high-speed trains in some countries where people have to travel vast distances could reduce carbon emissions by 3 or 4 per cent.

Designers want to push the limits of the train and Mao Kai, the technical chief of the project, told Chinese media it could ultimately reach a blistering 4,000 kph.

That's even faster than the record 3,529.6 kph reached in 1976 by the almighty SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft — the fastest manned aircraft in history.

How does it compare to other high-speed trains?

In places like Japan and France, high-speed trains have been around for decades.

Since 2010, about 10 countries have developed high-speed trains — ones that can travel more than 250 kph.

But they run on railways and can't achieve speeds much beyond 350 kph, railway expert Associate Professor Philip Laird from the University of Wollongong told the ABC.

Except for the TGV in France, which holds the record for the fastest commercial train on steel wheels .

In special test conditions, a modified version can race along at 574.8 kph, but with passengers aboard it usually operates at speeds of about 320 kph.

The Shanghai maglev currently holds the record for the fastest train in service.

At 460 kph, the 30-kilometre journey between Shanghai's Pudong airport and Longyang Road station takes only about seven and a half minutes.

Japan's fastest bullet train can hit a maximum speed of about 320 kph,   Dr Laird said.

But Japan also has a 42-kilometre test track on which it has run a maglev train at 503 kph, but that train is not expected to be in service until 2030 at the earliest, according to Dr Laird.

When Japan's new generation of maglev trains rolls out, they are expected to run at maximum speeds of 500 kph between Tokyo and Nagoya.

In October, Indonesia unveiled a high-speed railway that runs for about 150 kilometres between Jakarta and Bandung.

With maximum speeds of 350kph, the Whoosh is the fastest railway line in South-East Asia and was built by China at a cost of about $7.65 billion.

India has also been hard at work building a high-speed train between Mumbai and Ahmedabad.

It is due to be opened by 2027, Dr Laird said. 

Could maglev connect Australia's distant cities?

Australia has been looking at connecting cities with high-speed rail for about 40 years.

Despite the huge costs involved with acquiring land and building the network, the  High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) was created last June to take the idea from paper to reality.

The federal government has also committed almost $80 million to the greatly anticipated high-speed rail line from Sydney to Newcastle .

Whether they would be keen to take it a step further and build a maglev rail remains to be seen, but Dr Couldrick is sceptical.

He estimated the cost to construct a maglev system in Australia would be, conservatively, about $1,000 per metre — for the magnets alone.

"That's $1 million per kilometre, on top of all the other infrastructure costs" he said.

"The cost–benefit may not be there"

Dr Laird said he was optimistic Australia would one day have a high-speed rail network, but it would take a while to construct.

He also was unsure about the likelihood of a maglev system but believes a high-speed rail network could be built incrementally.

"This has been the case in Japan —  it started off with just over 500 kilometres (of high-speed railway lines) in 1964," he said.

"Now they have about 3,000 kilometres."

Professor McNaughton said the only place where a maglev would make sense would be between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

But, because maglev needs entirely new infrastructure and cannot run on existing lines while its dedicated track is built, the whole network would have to be completed before the first train could run.

"That's one heck of an infrastructure project," he said.

"If there are barely enough people travelling to justify high-speed rail — four planes an hour is one high-speed train, really — then justifying maglev at several times the cost isn't going to be remotely likely."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Virgin claims world's first passenger test ride on super high-speed hyperloop system.

'Move on': Report pours cold water on renewed calls for high-speed east coast rail

Japan's maglev train sets new world record of 603kph

• Community and Society
• Environment
• Government and Politics
• Rail Transport Industry
• Science and Technology
• World Politics

Vacations, planes, and high-speed trains are off limits if you're in too much debt in China

• China is punishing citizens who can't repay their debts by cutting off access to social services.
• So-called deadbeat debtors are blacklisted, facing travel restrictions and government jobs.
• The blacklist is similar to the country's "social credit" system that punishes undesirable behavior.

China wants its citizens to repay their debts — and it is willing to punish those who don't.

That means that delinquent debtors are restricted from accessing some services in the country, like high-speed trains and air travel. Some, according to a Wall Street Journal report , are forbidden from government jobs and denied pricier insurance policies, vacations, and even nice hotels.

Outstanding debtors are placed on a government delinquency blacklist . Informally, these people are referred to as "laolai" — roughly translated, "deadbeat debtors." And the number of names on the list is about 8.3 million, according to the Journal — a jump of nearly 50% since 2019 .

It's not just formal restrictions they face; some phone companies in China have gone as far as assigning special ringtones to debtors to warn other people that they are talking to someone on the brink of insolvency.

However, procedures for personal insolvency in China are few and far between. Unlike most other countries, China doesn't allow most people to write off their debts with bankruptcy, per the Journal.

Instead, the Chinese government can take steps like seizing a debtor's income as restitution, leaving them with a small allowance so they can cover living expenses.

That isn't always enough, though, as one man found when he petitioned to raise his monthly income allowance to help pay for a newborn child. Rather than approving the increase to 12,000 yuan, or approximately $1,600, the Journal reported that the court cut his allowance by nearly 40%. 

In China, a country that traditionally values saving, some consider borrowing money to be taboo . That's backed by a 2021 study, which noted that in Chinese society, "many still view bankruptcy as a vehicle for feckless shirkers to escape their debts."

That's left many debtors feeling trapped by the system, which can make it increasingly difficult for them to pay off seemingly insurmountable liabilities.

China's debtor blacklist is technically separate from its " social credit system ," but both have similar functions — namely, tracking individual behavior and rewarding or punishing people for it.

The system, which is not yet fully implemented, has penalized citizens for everything from social media posts to jaywalking . The worst offenders may face trouble getting loans and travel restrictions — similar to the experience of blacklisted debtors.

The Chinese economy has slumped after exiting the pandemic . Researchers have warned of a "debt-deflation spiral" that could make the situation for Chinese households even worse.

Watch: Thousands of demonstrators erupt in rare protests against COVID-19 restrictions across China

• Main content

Traveling to Europe? Book one of these new train trips.

Europe is in the midst of a great rail revival. An increased awareness of environmental issues , the many hassles of air travel and the mental effort required to drive long distances are all reasons for people to get back onto trains. European passenger numbers are on the rise again, if not quite at pre-pandemic levels .

In response, operators across the continent are investing in new services, tracks and special offers. And it’s only going to get better: Dozens of projects are in motion from the Baltic states to Portugal, with the European Union aiming to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and supporting “10 pilot projects to establish new rail services or improve existing ones” right now .

My family’s summer will involve a train journey from Paris to Barcelona, down the Rhône valley and along the Mediterranean coast, but you don’t have to travel at 200 miles an hour to get the best out of Europe’s rail network.

From slow trains to high-speed bargains, there are plenty of options if you’re traveling in Europe in the next few months.

1. New sleepers from Belgium and Sweden

The sleeper train revival is picking up speed. They seemed to be on the way out in 2016, when the government of France, their last stronghold, decided to cut funding for a number of services. Happily, many of those have since been restored, and other countries around Europe — most notably Austria, under the brand name Nightjet — are investing heavily in night trains.

This summer sees the debut of a service between Brussels and Berlin, two key political centers, run by a new company called European Sleeper . Customers can leave Brussels at 7:22 p.m. (or Amsterdam at 10:34 p.m.) on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and arrive in Berlin at 6:48 a.m. Return trips depart on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. There are three types of tickets, starting at $85: a seat, a bed in a six-berth compartment or a bed in a three-bed compartment.

Other night trains have also recently been introduced, such as Stockholm to Hamburg , which started in the fall, or Paris to Vienna , which began in 2021.

I’ve traveled on night trains from Paris to the south of France on a number of occasions. The experience is not luxurious, but it’s generally cheaper than the cost of a flight and a room — and the beds, while slim, are surprisingly comfortable. Be warned, though: The romance of trundling across Europe in the dead of night can make it hard to sleep.

2. German rail pass for $50 a month

Last summer Germany’s national rail company, Deutsche Bahn, offered monthly passes for the country’s huge network for under $10, a response to cost-of-living problems caused by a sharp rise in costs for electricity, food, heating and mobility. The success of that project has led to the introduction of the Deutschland-Ticket , which will cost around $50 a month and allow unlimited travel on all trains, buses and city subway services, with the exception of the most direct and speedy intercity services.

The possibilities are enticing. Beer lovers, for example, could travel from Düsseldorf to Cologne to Bamberg and onward to Munich, hopping off for distinctive local brews along the way. Those in search of scenery, meanwhile, might prefer the West Rhine Railway, stretching down the Rhine from Cologne in the north to Mainz.

One thing to remember: The Deutschland-Ticket is only available as a rolling, app-based subscription. British train expert Mark Smith, better known online as the Man in Seat 61, recommends canceling by the 10th of the month to avoid being charged for more than a month.

3. The first 100-mph locomotive, in the U.K.

Given locomotives are a British invention, the rail network in the United Kingdom can be a disappointment. Yes, it’ll get you where you need to go, eventually, but services are often late, and there’s only one high-speed line, used by Eurostar and domestic services, from London into the Kentish countryside. The current national debate over ongoing construction of HS2 (High Speed 2) offers a reason: NIMBY -ish attitudes tend to triumph over the greater good.

No wonder Britons are wont to retreat into the past for comfort. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the world’s first fully authenticated 100-mph passenger locomotive, the Flying Scotsman; as a result, a number of special excursions are planned. For those who can afford it, the Centenary Weekender looks like the most appealing trip, from London to York and then Edinburgh, followed by a jaunt up Scotland’s beautiful East Coast.

The Flying Scotsman may be unique, but Europe is full of historical interest. There’s another anniversary, too: The Wuppertal Schwebebahn , a remarkable suspension railway that continues to operate, was completed in 1903 . And then there’s the Beaux-Arts Canfranc Station, opened as the crossing point from Spain to France in 1928, which was revived as a hotel this year .

4. A $7 high-speed train in Spain

Budget services are increasingly common in Europe, but no one is moving so fast as Spain’s Avlo , which runs high-speed, low-cost trains between Madrid and Barcelona, with tickets starting around $7. The network is expanding: From the start of June , there’s a new route from the Spanish capital to Andalusia, taking in Cordoba, Seville and Malaga.

In France, there’s Ouigo , which provides high-speed and standard services from Paris to cities all around the country, including Bordeaux, Marseille and Strasbourg. The advantage of the standard service — which offers tickets starting around $11 — is that prices don’t change, so you can get a last-minute bargain. The U.K., too, has a low-cost service , from London to Edinburgh via Newcastle, although tickets are not always such good value.

5. New subway lines in Turkey and England

Few cities have seen such huge investment and rapid improvement in subway provision as Istanbul. Earlier this year, a line connecting Istanbul Airport to the city opened, while other new lines and extensions are entering service all the time. It’s a remarkable turnaround for a city that had virtually no underground transport until 1989.

It’s not the only capital to be investing in underground trains, though. The experience of visiting Copenhagen has been transformed by the 2019 opening of the City Circle Line . Since last summer, visitors arriving at London Heathrow can reach the city center, and much besides , far quicker courtesy of 2022’s Elizabeth Line.

Paris, meanwhile, is in the foothills of a significant expansion program, Grand Paris Express , which will provide new connections in the city’s long-neglected suburbs. You can expect to see those services start to come online next year, when Paris hosts the Olympics and when Metro Line 14 will be extended to Orly, Paris’s second-largest airport.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.