High-Speed Rail vs. High-Frequency Rail

With recent support from federal funding, North American countries are planning new high-speed rail projects and upgrading existing conventional rail to serve fast intercity trains. In 2023, the Federal Railroad Administration identified 69 corridors in 44 states for intercity passenger rail expansion in the United States. In Canada, two key projects are underway: Vancouver-Seattle and Québec-Windsor. As generational investments are made to modernize intercity trains, a common debate among decision makers is the cost–benefit of high-speed rail and high-frequency rail. High-speed rail is defined by the International Union of Railways (UIC) as speeds over 250 km/h. When designed for speeds over 300 km/h, trains are capable of providing journey times competitive with air travel for distances within 800 km. Of the 21 countries with high-speed systems in operation, 60 percent offer rail service with speeds competitive with air travel. In order to achieve these results, high-speed rail is typically built as a new railway line with technical specifications that are capital-intensive and have long construction timelines. Some officials have suggested that high-frequency rail could improve travel times on existing rail for less cost. While there is no standard definition for “high-frequency rail,” Canadian officials have described it as adding more frequencies and greater reliability at conventional speeds of 200 km/h or less. To better understand passenger outcomes with high-speed rail and high-frequency rail, this case study explores the advantages, challenges, and opportunities of each option. By comparing and contrasting the Vancouver-Seattle high-speed project and the Québec-Windsor high-frequency project to successful systems in operation, decision makers can gain a better understanding of how their infrastructure investment relates to passenger experience, growth planning, and environmental outcomes.