From Coal Trains to Bullet Trains: How China Outbuilt the U.S. in High-Speed Rail

In just over a decade, China has managed to do what few thought possible—build the world’s largest high-speed rail network from almost nothing. Back in 2008, China’s high-speed rail barely existed. Today, it spans over 47,000 kilometers (about 29,204 miles), crisscrossing the country with speeds that rival short-haul flights.

Looking at that map, you can see China’s HSR lines move from isolated corridors into a dense mesh, especially across eastern provinces. Over these years, high-speed rail became a daily reality for millions.

China’s total railway network now covers around 162,000 km (100,662 miles), including freight and conventional lines.

By contrast, the U.S. has had only modest progress. Its eventful rail history started long ago, but modern high-speed rail remains limited mostly to the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak’s Acela Express runs at up to 125-160 mph (201-257 km/h).

You can see high-speed-capable tracks clustered in that corridor. Elsewhere, most routes operate at much lower speeds, often sharing track with freight.

This overlay map gives a sense of scale. China’s network, if transposed onto North America, would cover the eastern U.S. in a dense mesh and push well into Canada. The westernmost line – stretching toward Ürümqi in real life – reaches just shy of the Pacific coast of British Columbia.

To make all this easier to digest, here’s a comparison table:

Feature	China (2024)	United States (2024)
HSR length	~47,000 km (29,200 mi)	~735 km (457 mi)
Start of modern HSR	2008 (Beijing–Tianjin line)	2000 (Acela Express)
Max train speed	350 km/h (217 mph) on major lines	257 km/h (160 mph) over limited Acela segments
Passenger trips (2024)	~4.3 billion total rail trips	~3.5 million on Acela; Northeast Regional ~10 million total
Freight volume (2024)	~5.2 billion tonnes	~1.7 billion tonnes

Looking at the maps and table together makes it clear: China’s expansion was aggressive, systemic, and broad in scale. The U.S., in comparison, has taken a much slower path, with improvements limited to a few corridors and focused mainly on upgrading existing routes rather than building new networks.