Several European High-Speed Rail Investments Have Proved Ineffective

I have on a number of occasions expressed my scepticism regarding high-speed rails in Sweden.
And here's another post emphasising my view on the matter.
High-speed trains are not necessarily faster, greener, or cheaper.
The construction of a new main railway line in Sweden has a huge environmental impact as all the steel and concrete has to be produced, transported, and installed. When this new main line is operational in 2050, both air and road traffic will already be emission-free.
Why not improve and maintain the railways we already have?

The biggest challenge ahead for us and the rest of the transport sector is to reduce our sector's climate impact while transport is expected to increase. 

Spain, Germany, France, and several other European countries already have a large network of high-speed rail lines. An audit carried out by the European Court of Auditors in 2018 found that many of these lines are considered ineffective.

One of the major attractions of high-speed trains is that they are allegedly very fast. According to the audit however, the trains often run at speeds well below top speed in practice. In the six countries examined by the European Court of Auditors, trains averaged only 45% of top speed. Plus, it can cost up to SEK 4 billion extra for every minute the journey is cut.

In Sweden, there is talk of our new main line being completed as late as 2050. By then, both air and road traffic will have switched to electricity and other zero-emission fuels and be entirely emission-free.

Moreover, it will not be very cost-effective. The single biggest disadvantage of high-speed railways is its construction. The construction itself has a huge environmental impact as all the steel and concrete has to be produced, transported, and installed.

In Sweden, the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) has been investigating the possibility of improving existing railway between Stockholm and Gothenburg/Malmö instead of building a new one. This would cost about half as much.

Not least for the environment.

Thomas