The Development of High Speed Rail in the
United States: Issues and Recent Events
David Randall Peterman, Coordinator
Analyst in Transportation Policy
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy
June 28, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42584
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Summary
The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated efforts to expand intercity passenger rail
transportation in the United States. The Obama Administration subsequently announced that it
would ask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed rail (HSR) projects. This
initiative was reflected in the President’s budgets for FY2010 through FY2013. Congress
approved $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but
zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations
act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding.
There are two main approaches to building high speed rail (HSR): (1) improving existing tracks
and signaling to allow trains to reach speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), generally on track
shared with freight trains; and (2) building new tracks dedicated exclusively to high speed
passenger rail service, to allow trains to travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. The potential costs,
and benefits, are relatively lower with the first approach and higher with the second approach.
Much of the federal funding for HSR to date has focused on improving existing lines in five
corridors: Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis; Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC);
and Charlotte-Washington, DC. Most of the rest of the money is being used for a largely new
system dedicated to passenger trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles, on which speeds
could reach up to 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states were shelved by political leaders
opposed to the substantial risks such projects entail, particularly the capital and operating costs;
the federal funds allocated to those projects were subsequently redirected to other HSR projects.
Estimates of the cost of constructing HSR vary according to train speed, the topography of the
corridor, the cost of right-of-way, and other factors. Few if any HSR lines anywhere in the world
have earned enough revenue to cover both their construction and operating costs, even where
population density is far greater than anywhere in the United States. Typically, governments have
paid the construction costs, and in many cases have subsidized the operating costs as well. These
subsidies are often justified by the social benefits ascribed to HSR in relieving congestion,
reducing pollution, increasing energy efficiency, and contributing to employment and economic
development. It is unclear whether these potential social benefits are commensurate with the
likely costs of constructing and operating HSR.
Lack of long-term funding represents a significant obstacle to HSR development in the United
States. The federal government does not have a dedicated funding source for HSR, making
projects that can take years to build vulnerable to year-to-year changes in discretionary budget
allocations.
Congressional Research Service
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal Initiatives to Promote High Speed Rail .............................................................................. 2
High Speed Rail Project Grants................................................................................................. 6
Chicago-St. Louis Corridor ................................................................................................. 9
California High Speed Rail ............................................................................................... 10
Options for Building High Speed Rail........................................................................................... 11
Conventional High Speed Rail ................................................................................................ 12
Track.................................................................................................................................. 13
Signal and Communications Networks ............................................................................. 13
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev)................................................................................................. 14
Cost Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................................. 15
Operating Costs and Revenues................................................................................................ 17
Potential Benefits of High Speed Passenger Rail .......................................................................... 19
Alleviating Highway and Airport Congestion ......................................................................... 19
Alleviating Pollution and Reducing Energy Consumption ..................................................... 20
Promoting Economic Development......................................................................................... 21
Improving Transportation Safety............................................................................................. 22
Providing Travelers a Choice of Modes .................................................................................. 22
Making the Transportation System More Reliable.................................................................. 22
High Speed Rail Funding Considerations...................................................................................... 23
High Speed Rail In Other Countries .............................................................................................. 24
Considerations for Congress.......................................................................................................... 25
Figures
Figure 1. High Speed Rail Corridors by Proposed Type of Service ................................................ 7
Tables
Table 1. High Speed Rail Corridors in the United States................................................................. 2
Table 2. Recent Congressional Initiatives Related to High Speed Rail ........................................... 4
Table 3. Statutory Definitions of High Speed Rail .......................................................................... 5
Table 4. Categories of High Speed Rail in FRA’s “Vision for High-Speed Rail in
America”....................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 5. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Funding by State ..................................................... 8
Congressional Research Service
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Appendixes
Appendix. Experience with HSR in Other Countries .................................................................... 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Introduction
The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) reinvigorated the development of high speed intercity
passenger rail (HSR) transportation in the United States. While Congress has been interested in
HSR since the 1960s, the ARRA funding represented an enormous appropriation in historical
terms.1 The $8 billion was included in ARRA largely at the behest of President Obama, and a
subsequent announcement in April 2009 made it clear that the development of HSR is a priority
of his Administration.2 Another $2.5 billion was provided for high speed rail and intercity
passenger rail projects in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). Since then, no additional funding has
been appropriated for this program. The FY2011 THUD appropriations act (P.L. 112-10)
rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances for high speed and intercity
passenger rail projects.
Other than the rescinded amounts, most of the federal HSR funding made available over the past
few years has been obligated and various projects are proceeding. In most places, these projects
entail upgrading existing lines owned and operated by freight railroads to allow somewhat faster
passenger train speeds than are currently possible. On the Chicago-St. Louis line, for example,
funding is being used to increase the maximum speed from 79 miles per hour (mph) to 110 mph.3
Only the HSR project in California is using federal funds for tracks dedicated to passenger trains,
on which speeds could reach 220 mph.
Plans for HSR in some states, including Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, were shelved by political
leaders opposed to the substantial risks such projects entail, particularly the capital and operating
costs.4 Some projects were stopped after federal funds were awarded; these funds were
subsequently redirected to HSR projects in other states. Debate on the merits of HSR is likely to
continue where projects are ongoing because these projects are often only small steps along the
way to providing much faster service in an entire corridor. A key aspect of the debate concerns
prospects for the continued development of HSR if no more federal funds are forthcoming.
1 As one observer has noted, “it is impossible to overstate how big a sea change this represents ... [the] $8 billion is
seventeen times as much money as Congress has provided for these programs over the past 10 fiscal years.”
Transportation Weekly, “President to Sign Stimulus Bill Today,” February 17, 2009, p. 5.
2 At the April announcement, the President released a strategic plan for HSR, including a proposal for budgeting an
additional $1 billion a year for five years. The plan identifies the funding as “a down payment to jump-start a potential
world-class passenger rail system and sets the direction of transportation policy for the future.” U.S. Department of
Transportation, “President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary LaHood Call for U.S. High-Speed Passenger
Trains,” Press Release, Thursday April 16, 2009, DOT 51-09, http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/
hsrpressrelease.pdf.
3 Improvements on the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston will increase speeds on some stretches
from 135 mph to 160 mph. See Department of Transportation, “Transportation U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood
Announces $2 Billion for High-Speed Intercity Rail Projects to Grow Jobs, Boost U.S. Manufacturing and Transform
Travel in America,” Press Release DOT 57-11, May 9, 2011, http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releases/fp_DOT_57-
11.shtml.
4 Timothy Williams, “Florida’s Governor Rejects High-Speed Rail Line, Fearing Cost to Taxpayers,” New York Times,
February 16, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Federal Initiatives to Promote High Speed Rail
Congress has long been interested in the potential benefits of high speed rail. The first high speed
rail act, in 1965, contributed to the establishment of the nation’s fastest rail service, the
Metroliner, on the Washington, DC, to New York City portion of the Northeast Corridor (NEC),
when that line was still under private ownership. In the 1970s, ownership of the NEC was
transferred from the bankrupt Penn Central to Amtrak, a government-controlled company. At the
same time, Congress initiated the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, which has funded
major infrastructure improvements and, in the late 1990s, purchase of new high speed Acela
trains for Amtrak.
Congress has also supported research into various high speed rail technologies and studies of
potential high speed corridors outside of the NEC where speeds are currently slower (see Table
1). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has calculated that Congress provided a total of
$4.17 billion to various high speed rail projects between 1990 and 2007, an average of $232
million annually (not adjusted for inflation).5 Most of that money went to improvements on the
NEC.6 There have also been state and private sector efforts to develop dedicated high speed rail
lines without federal support. But it was only in February 2009, when Congress passed the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), that the federal government
dedicated large sums to a national high speed rail program.
Table 1. High Speed Rail Corridors in the United States
Current
Current
Length
Motive
Top Speed
Average Speed
Corridor
(Miles)
Power
(mph)
(mph)
Los Angeles–San Diego, CA
130
Diesel-electric
90
55
Chicago, IL–Detroit/Pontiac, MI
304
Diesel-electric
110
57
New York City–Albany/Schenectady, NY
158
Diesel-electric
110
56
Philadelphia–Harrisburg, PA
104
Electric
110
66
Northeast Corridor (NEC)
454
Electric
Boston, MA–New York City, NY, segment
229
150 68
New York, NY–Washington, DC, segment
225
135
82
Source: Adapted from Government Accountability Office, High Speed Passenger Rail, GAO-09-317. March 2009,
Table 1; Average speeds from Appendix II, except Chicago-Detroit, Philadelphia-Harrisburg, and New York City-
Albany calculated by CRS based on those corridors’ fastest scheduled trips.
Note: The top speeds listed for these corridors are currently attainable only on portions of the routes. For
example, on the NEC the top speed of 150 mph is attainable on less than 10% of the total route. The New York-
Albany trains rely on electric power while passing through a long tunnel departing New York City.
5 E-mail from Neil Moyer, Chief, Intercity Passenger Rail Analysis Division, FRA, February 1, 2008.
6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on
Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, GAO-09-317, March 2009, p. 10,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
ARRA provided $8 billion specifically for intercity passenger rail projects, including high speed
rail projects. Intercity passenger rail projects were also eligible uses for the $27 billion provided
for highways (at the discretion of individual states) and for the $1.5 billion provided for
discretionary grants for surface transportation projects “that will have a significant impact on the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.” Another $90 million was provided for grants to states
for intercity passenger rail projects in the FY2009 appropriations act (P.L. 111-8), following a $30
million appropriation for such purposes in the FY2008 appropriations act (P.L. 110-161).
In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1
billion annually for high speed and intercity passenger rail projects. This initiative was reflected
in the President’s budgets for FY2010 through FY2013.7 Congress approved $2.5 billion for high
speed rail and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but zero in FY2011 (P.L. 112-10)
and FY2012 (P.L. 112-55). In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million
from prior year unobligated balances of program funding.
There have been several other recent congressional initiatives supporting high speed rail (see
Table 2). The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU; P.L. 109-59), as amended by the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections
Act (P.L. 110-244), made $90 million available for maglev projects.8 In the fall of 2008, Congress
passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Division B of P.L. 110-432).
Among other things, this act created a high speed rail development grant program with a total
authorization of $1.5 billion over FY2009-FY2013. The act also authorized additional funding for
Amtrak to address some of the backlog of maintenance needed to bring the Northeast Corridor up
to a state of good repair. It included a provision directing the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) to seek private companies to build and operate one or more high speed lines.
In evaluating these efforts, it is important to note that there is no single definition of what
constitutes high speed rail. The European Union defines HSR as
• separate lines built for speeds of 250 kilometers per hour (kph) (150 mph), or
• existing lines upgraded to speeds of 200 kph (125 mph), or
• upgraded lines whose speeds are constrained by circumstances such as
topography or urban development.9
7 In the FY2012 and FY2013 budgets, the Administration’s request combined several rail programs into proposed new
Network Development and System Preservation accounts. Hence, it was not entirely clear how much was being
requested for the formerly titled High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program. In the FY2012 budget the total
request for Network Development was $4 billion of which $3 billion appears to have been requested as part of an
additional upfront investment of $50 billion for economic stimulus. In the FY2013 budget, $1 billion was requested for
Network Development.
8 “Maglev” stands for magnetic levitation, in which superconducting magnets levitate a train above a guide rail.
9 International Union of Railways, “General Definitions of High speed,” available at http://www.uic.asso.fr/gv/
article.php3?id_article=14.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Table 2. Recent Congressional Initiatives Related to High Speed Rail
Programs created and/or amended in the 109th–112th Congresses
Initiative Source Funding
Status
Maglev Deployment
Authorized in SAFETEA
$90 million over FY2008-
Deadline for applications was February
Program
(§1307, P.L. 109-59) and
FY2009. $45 million is for a
13, 2009. All three eligible projects
SAFETEA Technical
line from Primm, NV, to Las
east of the Mississippi applied for
Corrections Act (P.L. 110-
Vegas; $45 million is for one
funding. FRA selected the Pittsburgh
244)
or more of three eligible
and Georgia projects to receive
projects: the Pittsburgh area,
funding, in addition to the Nevada
from Baltimore to DC, and
project. As of June 2012 the grantees
from Atlanta to Chattanooga.
have not used any of the grant funding.
Amtrak Capital Grants
Passenger Rail Investment
$5.315 billion authorized
$5.1 billion provided for capital grants
and Improvement Act of
over FY2009-FY2013.
and debt service FY2009-FY2012,
2008 (PRIIA) (Division B of
including $1.3 billion provided in
P.L. 110-432), §101(c)
ARRA.
NEC High Speed Service
PRIIA §212(d)
Not specified.
Amtrak submitted an interim study to
Study
Congress on Oct. 21, 2009, and later
published two further studies, NEC
Master Plan on June 4, 2010, and A
Vision for High-Speed Rail in the
Northeast Corridor on Sept. 27, 2010.
Intercity Passenger Rail
PRIIA §301 (49 USC
$1.9 billion authorized over
These three programs were provided
Service Corridor Capital
§24402)
FY2009-FY2013.
a total of $8 billion in ARRA and $2.5
Assistance Program
billion in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010. The
High Speed Rail Corridor
PRIIA §501 (49 USC
$1.5 billion authorized over
allocation of that funding among the
Development Program
§26106)
FY2009-FY2013.
programs is determined by DOT. No
Congestion Grant Program PRIIA §302 (49 USC
$325 million authorized over
additional funding has been provided
(to alleviate congestion on
§24105)
FY2010-FY2013.
since FY2010.
passenger rail corridors)
Capital Assistance to
DOT Appropriations Act,
$30 million provided in
Funding awarded in several
States—Intercity Passenger 2008 and 2009
FY2008; $90 million provided
announcements.
Rail Service
in FY2009.
Solicitation for new high
PRIIA §502
$5 million authorized for
FRA issued a request for expressions
speed intercity passenger
planning and preliminary
of interest on Dec. 16, 2008. Deadline
rail system
engineering activities for
for response was Sept. 14, 2009. FRA
projects selected by DOT.
received eight proposals; five were
selected for further review. No
decision has been announced.
Requirement for
Rail Safety Improvement
$250 million authorized for
Affected rail operators were required
implementation of positive
Act of 2008 (Division A of
grants over FY2009-FY2013.
to submit plans for meeting this
train control on main lines
P.L. 110-432), §104 (49
requirement to FRA by April 2010.
where passenger rail
USC §20157)
FRA reports that all affected railroads
service is regularly
are developing implementation
provided by December
plans and are adapting their individual
2015
positive train control systems to
maximize interoperability.
Source: CRS.
Note: ARRA is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
Congressional Research Service
4
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
The U.S. government also has several definitions of what constitutes high speed rail. FRA has
defined high speed rail as service “that is time-competitive with air and/or auto for travel markets
in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles.”10 As FRA notes, this is a market-driven definition
which recognizes that, in choosing a transportation mode, travelers are more interested in total
trip time than in top speed, and that travelers evaluate transportation modes not in isolation, but
by how those modes compare to each other.
Congress has, at different times, established high speed rail funding programs using different
speed-based definitions and eligibility criteria (see Table 3).
Table 3. Statutory Definitions of High Speed Rail
Statute
Speed Component of Definition
High Speed Rail Assistance (enacted 1994)
“reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more
than 125 miles per hour” (49 USC §26105)
High speed rail corridor development program
“reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles
(enacted 2008)
per hour” (49 USC §26106(b)(4))
Railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high
“where railroad speeds of 90 miles or more per hour are
speed rail corridors program (enacted 1991)
occurring or can reasonably be expected to occur in the
future” (23 USC §104(d)(2)(C)
Source: CRS.
In its strategic plan for high speed rail, FRA defined three categories of high speed rail corridors.
These categories differ in terms of top speeds, track characteristics, and service frequency (see
Table 4). A map of the corridors defined by FRA appears in Figure 1.
Table 4. Categories of High Speed Rail in FRA’s
“Vision for High-Speed Rail in America”
Category Speed
Characteristics
Emerging High Speed Rail
Top speeds of 90-110 mph.
Regional High Speed Rail
Top speeds of 110-150 mph on grade-separated track.
Express High Speed Rail
Top speeds of at least 150 mph on grade-separated track
dedicated to passenger service.
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, April 2009, p. 2,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/Final%20FRA%20HSR%20Strat%20Plan.pdf.
As these various definitions show, discussions of high speed rail in the United States can refer to
trains briefly reaching speeds of 90 mph on tracks shared with freight trains or trains traveling
over 200 mph for sustained periods on dedicated track, or both. For clarity, in this report the term
“higher speed rail” will refer to HSR on shared tracks with speeds up to 150 mph (encompassing
both FRA’s “Emerging HSR” and “Regional HSR” classifications), and “very high speed rail”
will refer to HSR on dedicated tracks with speeds over 150 mph (equivalent to FRA’s “Express
HSR” classification).
10 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation for America,
September 1997, p. 2-2.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
High Speed Rail Project Grants
In response to the $8 billion that Congress provided for high speed and intercity passenger rail
capital grants in ARRA, FRA received 45 applications, representing 24 states, requesting a total
of approximately $50 billion.11 Initial funding awards were announced on January 28, 2010, with
the biggest awards going to California ($2.25 billion), Florida ($1.25 billion), Illinois ($1.1
billion), and Wisconsin ($810 million). Applications to FRA for the $2.5 billion appropriated in
FY2010 numbered 132 and amounted to $8.8 billion. Awards for these funds were initially
announced October 28, 2010. California received another $901 million and Florida another $800
million. Iowa received $230 million and Michigan $161 million in this second round of funding.12
Newly elected governors in some states, including Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, subsequently
decided not to pursue the improvements for which their states had sought federal funds. Florida,
for example, dropped plans to build a high speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa. As a
result, these federal funds were reallocated to other projects.13
According to DOT, nearly 85% of the funding awarded over the past few years is concentrated in
six corridors.14 Investments in five of the corridors are aimed at upgrading existing lines. These
five corridors are Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis; Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor
(NEC); and Charlotte-Washington, DC. In the sixth corridor, Los Angeles-San Francisco, the
plans are to build a new very high speed rail line that may allow trains to reach speeds of up to
220 mph. The remaining 15% or so of funding is going toward a multitude of smaller projects
throughout the country, including planning studies and station and track improvements. Table 5
shows obligated funding by state.
11 Testimony of Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, High-Speed Rail in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges, 111th Cong.,
1st sess., October 14, 2009, p. 9.
12 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
Announces $2.4 Billion for High Speed Rail Projects,” Press Release, October 28, 2010, DOT 192-10,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml.
13 Department of Transportation, “U.S. Department of Transportation Redirects $1.195 Billion in High Speed Funds,”
Press Release, DOT 208-10, December 9, 2010, http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/231.shtml; Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, 76 Federal
Register 14443-14457, March 16, 2011, http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/March_2011_HSR_NOFA.pdf.
14 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program:
Federal Investment Highlights,” February 3, 2012, http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/
HSIPR_Federal_Investment_Highlights_20120203.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Figure 1. High Speed Rail Corridors by Proposed Type of Service
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program: Federal Investment Highlights,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/HSIPR_Federal_Investment_Highlights_20120203.pdf.
Notes: CRS modified the original map to highlight the different categories of high speed rail service. In this report the term “higher
speed rail” refers to HSR on shared tracks with speeds up to 150 mph (encompassing both FRA’s “Emerging HSR” and “Regional HSR”
classifications), and “very high speed rail” refers to HSR on dedicated tracks with speeds over 150 mph (equivalent to FRA’s “Express
HSR” classification). There are no proposals for Alaska and Hawaii.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Table 5. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Funding by State
State Funds
Obligated
California $4,238,197,986
Illinois $1,905,133,042
Washington $791,591,702
North Carolina
$546,000,000
New York
$464,422,755
Amtrak (NEC)
$449,944,000
Michigan $400,732,595
Massachusetts $105,300,000
Maryland $91,400,000
Connecticut $70,000,000
Florida $66,660,000
Pennsylvania $66,400,000
Maine $59,807,836
Vermont $53,222,258
Missouri $49,754,545
Minnesota $45,600,000
Virginia $44,308,000
Wisconsin $41,752,955
New Jersey
$38,500,000
Rhode Island
$29,200,000
Texas $24,067,877
Oregon $19,496,630
Iowa $18,709,080
Delaware $13,750,000
District of Columbia
$7,170,500
Georgia $4,850,000
Oklahoma $4,277,843
New Hampshire
$2,240,000
Colorado $1,400,000
West Virginia
$1,000,000
Nevada $640,000
Kansas $337,563
Idaho $200,000
New Mexico
$100,000
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, HSPIR Project Funding, as of June
20, 2012, http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/HSIPR/ProjectFunding.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
As of May 2012, according to FRA, 95% of high speed and intercity passenger rail funding
appropriated since FY2009 had been obligated (not including the $400 million rescinded in the
FY2011 THUD appropriations bill). However, only about 6% of the total funds had been spent.15
Progress on two of the largest HSR projects, in the Chicago-St. Louis and Los Angeles-San
Francisco corridors, illustrates some of the possibilities and challenges with developing HSR.
Chicago-St. Louis Corridor
Chicago is the center of a number of higher speed rail projects and proposals in the Midwest. This
includes improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and St. Louis. For the most
part, the existing 284-mile route between these two cities, which is owned and operated by four
different freight railroads, consists of one track with sidings to allow trains to pass. Although the
long-term goal is to double-track the entire route and possibly to provide for speeds up to 220
mph,16 current funding is being used to upgrade much of the existing single track to increase
maximum passenger train speeds from 79 mph to 110 mph. Work includes track improvements,
new sidings, new signals and warning systems, upgraded stations, and new passenger trains.
Illinois secured $1.1 billion in the initial round of ARRA funding and another $42 million in
redirected ARRA funds to improve about 220 miles of the line from St. Louis to Dwight, IL (near
Chicago), and to buy new locomotives and rail cars.17 This is estimated to reduce trip times from
5 hours 30 minutes to between 4 and 5 hours.18 Illinois later received $186 million in FY2010
intercity passenger rail funding to improve about 40 miles of track between Dwight and Joliet, IL.
This is estimated to save another 9 minutes from the overall trip time. By one estimate, building
out the whole route for 110 mph will reduce trip times to 3 hours and 50 minutes.19 Other
expected benefits of the project include improved travel time reliability, improved safety, and
greater capacity.
Construction work in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor supported with federal funds has been
underway since 2010. According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, trains will run at
110 mph on a test segment of the corridor, between Dwight and Pontiac, IL, in 2012.20 Project
completion is scheduled for 2014. Illinois has also received a $1.25 million grant to complete a
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement related to double-tracking the corridor.
15 Data provided to CRS by FRA, May 8, 2012.
16 See Illinois Department of Transportation, “Illinois High Speed Rail: Chicago to St. Louis, Project Overview,”
http://www.idothsr.org/about/overview.aspx; and Illinois Department of Transportation, “Illinois High Speed Rail:
Chicago to St. Louis, Fact Sheet Issue 2,” May 7, 2011, http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/fact%20sheet%20-
%20february%202011.pdf.
17 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “FRA High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR)
Program Funding Selection Summary,” http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/Master_HSIPR_Selection_Sheet.pdf.
18 The application for supplemental projects in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor states that the first round of
improvements, those based on the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD), will reduce one-way trip time from 5 hours and 30
minutes to 5 hours. The 2004 ROD states that trip times would be reduced to between 4 hours and 4 hours and 30
minutes. See Illinois Department of Transportation, Il-Chicago-St. Louis Corridor Supplemental Projects: Service
Development Plan, April 4, 2011, p. 22, http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/
IL_Chicago_St_Louis_Supplement_SDP_COMBINED_APPLICATION_r2.pdf.
19 Ibid., p. 21.
20 Illinois Department of Transportation, “Illinois High Speed Rail: Chicago to St. Louis, Fact Sheet Issue 4,”
December 28, 2011, http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/hsr%202011%20fact%20sheet_issue%204.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
California High Speed Rail
The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is proposing to build a rail line that may
allow trains to reach speeds up to 220 mph. In 2008, California voters approved the sale of $9
billion in bonds to partly finance such a system. The Los Angeles to San Francisco line is phase
one of a two-phase project, with phase two involving extensions to San Diego and Sacramento.
To date, the project has been awarded nearly $4 billion in federal funds. Much of this amount has
been obligated to building a segment of phase one between Merced and Bakersfield in
California’s Central Valley.
Despite the California project’s success in attracting federal funds, it remains controversial.21
Among the main elements of controversy are the project’s cost and its financing. In its 2009
business plan CHSRA estimated the cost of building phase one at $36.4 billion in 2010 dollars.22
In its 2012 draft business plan released on November 1, 2011, the cost of phase one was estimated
for two different systems, a full high speed system and a blended system that would make some
use of existing passenger rail infrastructure. The full high speed rail system was estimated to cost
between $65.4 billion and $74.5 billion and the blended system between $54.9 billion and $66.3
billion (both in 2010 dollars).23 CHSRA attributed about 80% to 85% of the cost increase since
2009 to the need for additional viaducts, tunnels, embankments, and retaining walls. The other
15% to 20% of the increase results from higher expected construction costs.24
The doubling or near doubling of estimated costs for phase one, depending on the proposed
system, led to renewed calls for the project to be reexamined or abandoned.25 Subsequently, a
revised business plan, released April 2, 2012, dropped the full high speed rail system scenario as
too costly. It provided a revised estimate for the blended system at between $53.4 billion and
$62.3 billion (in 2011 dollars).26
The draft 2012 business plan proposed that nearly two-thirds of the construction funding would
come from the federal government, although this share might be somewhat lower depending on
the system built, the amount of private sector investment, and other variables.27 A number of
commentators, including California’s Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) and the California High-
Speed Rail Peer Review Group, have questioned this assumption and have contended that
CHSRA’s financial plan is highly uncertain.28 The revised draft business plan continues to rely on
21 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, California’s High-Speed Rail Plan: Skyrocketing Costs & Project
Concerns, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 15, 2011, http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?
NewsID=1475.
22 California High Speed Rail Authority, California High Speed Rail Program Draft 2012 Business Plan, November 1,
2011, p. 3-5, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/302/c7912c84-0180-4ded-b27e-d8e6aab2a9a1.pdf.
23 Ibid., p. ES-7.
24 Ibid., p. 3-6.
25 See, for example, Dan Walters, “It’s Time to Kill California’s Bullet Train Boondoggle,” Sacramento Bee, January
8, 2012, the http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/08/4170890/dan-walters-its-time-to-kill-californias.html.
26 California High Speed Rail Authority, California High Speed Rail Program Draft Revised 2012 Business Plan, April
2, 2012, p. 3-10, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/Document_Repository/Business_Plans/
Draft%20Revised%202012%20Business%20Plan(2).pdf.
27 California High Speed Rail Authority, California High Speed Rail Program Draft 2012 Business Plan, Chapter 8.
28 Legislative Analyst’s Office, High Speed Rail Authority: The Draft 2012 Business Plan and Funding Plan,
November 29, 2011, p. 7, http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2011/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
the federal government for about two-thirds of the system’s funding, but it states that revenue
from California’s quarterly auctions of greenhouse-gas emissions allowances, beginning
November 2012, could be used instead if federal funding is not forthcoming.29 In response, the
LAO has called this plan “very speculative.”30
Another element of controversy surrounds the choice of the section between Merced and
Bakersfield in the Central Valley to be the first segment built. It appears that this section was
chosen largely because it may face fewer challenges than other sections in the more heavily
populated areas near San Francisco and Los Angeles, increasing the likelihood that California will
be able to spend the ARRA money by the statutory deadline of September 30, 2017.31 Critics,
however, claim that this segment of the phase one project will have little utility if the rest of the
system is not built.32 The revised draft business plan commits to building an initial operating
segment that connects the Central Valley to the Los Angeles Basin within 10 years.33
Options for Building High Speed Rail
There are two options for developing high speed rail service; the option chosen determines the
level of high speed service that can be attained:
• upgrading existing track, signaling systems, and equipment (e.g., tilting trains) to
enable trains to travel somewhat faster over the existing rail network, or
• building new rail lines for the exclusive use of passenger trains enabling trains to
travel at much higher speeds than are possible over the existing rail network,
which is shared with freight rail.34
The advantage of upgrading existing track is its lower cost; one estimate puts the average cost of
such upgrades at around $7 million per mile.35 For example, in the 1990s Amtrak (and commuter
(...continued)
HSRA_Business_Funding_plan_11_29_11.pdf; California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, January 3, 2012, pp.
3-4, http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/CommentsonCHSRA2010FundingPlan.pdf.
29 California High Speed Rail Authority, California High Speed Rail Program Draft Revised 2012 Business Plan,
Chapter 7.
30 Mac Taylor, The 2012-13 Budget: Funding Requests for High-Speed Rail, Legislative Analyst’s Office, April 17,
2012, http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/transportation/high-speed-rail-041712.pdf.
31 U.S. Department of Transportation, Letter from John D. Pocari, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, to Roelef van
Ark, Chief Executive Officer, California High Speed Rail Authority, January 3, 2012,
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/302/9f61175c-f0a9-4bc6-87bd-4e541d558038.pdf.
32 Richard White, “Fast Train to Nowhere,” New York Times, April 24, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/
opinion/24white.html; “California’s High Speed Rail System is Going Nowhere Fast,” Editorial, The Washington Post,
November 13, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/californias-high-speed-rail-system-is-going-nowhere-
fast/2011/11/08/gIQAKni2IN_story.html. See also the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, p. 6.
33 California High Speed Rail Authority, California High Speed Rail Program Draft Revised 2012 Business Plan, p.
ES-2.
34 Either option could entail gaining access to privately owned freight railroad rights-of-way. See CRS Report R42512,
Passenger Train Access to Freight Railroad Track, by John Frittelli.
35 Passenger Rail Working Group of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission,
Vision for the Future: U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network Through 2050, December 6, 2007, p. 31.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
railroads)36 spent around $2 billion—an average of around $9 million per mile, in 2003 dollars—
to upgrade the 229-mile north end of the Northeast Corridor (connecting Boston to New York
City), including electrifying the route and replacing a bridge.37 This reduced rail travel time
between Boston and New York City from 4 hours to 3 hours and 24 minutes—an increase in
average speed over the route from 57 mph to 68 mph. However, track upgrades also have
important limitations. One is that many aspects of the rail infrastructure, such as curves and at-
grade road crossings, limit the potential speed improvements. Another is that almost all existing
track is used for freight trains that operate at slower speeds than passenger trains. Freight traffic
may constrain the speed of passenger trains, and FRA regulations limit train speeds on routes that
handle both freight and passenger traffic.
Conversely, building new rail lines, including the train, the track, and the signal and
communications network, makes much higher speeds possible—up to 200 mph or more. One
limitation of that approach is the cost, which is estimated to average $35 million per mile,38 or
more in densely populated areas or difficult terrain. In order to attain such high speeds, freight
trains would have to be prohibited from using the track—which also means that freight operators
would not be contributing to the construction or maintenance costs. New lines can use either
conventional steel wheel on steel rail technology or magnetic levitation (maglev), in which
superconducting magnets levitate a train above a guide rail.
Conventional High Speed Rail
With one minor exception, all current high speed rail systems use conventional steel wheel on
steel rail technology. At speeds up to around 125 mph, these trains can be pulled by diesel-electric
locomotives. For higher speeds, trains powered by externally supplied electricity become
necessary. These trains’ engines draw power from overhead wires (catenaries). This technology
allows for lighter-weight trains, in part because they do not have to carry fuel. Because of their
lighter weight, electric trains can stop and start more quickly and produce less wear on the track.
These trains can operate at very high speeds: in 2007 a French electric-powered train on
conventional tracks reached 357 mph.39 However, because of the greater costs and diminishing
benefits40 of operating at extremely high speeds, the top operating speed of high speed trains in
most countries is around 210 mph.
There are two main reasons why such trains are not widely available in the United States. First,
only a small portion of the U.S. rail network is electrified, so most passenger trains must use
diesel-electric locomotives.41 Second, because passenger trains typically use the same tracks as
36 Amtrak owns only 363 of the 457 miles of the Northeast Corridor; the remainder is owned by a number of states and
commuter rail agencies. Douglas John Bowen, “Amtrak’s NEC: healthy hybrid: the Western Hemisphere’s busiest
passenger rail route delivers a dazzling array of service unequalled by more glamorous global counterparts,” Railway
Age, August 2008.
37 Government Accountability Office, Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak’s Management of Northeast Corridor
Improvements Demonstrates Need for Applying Best Practices, GAO-04-94, February 27, 2004, pp. 19-20.
38 Passenger Rail Working Group, op. cit., p 31.
39 Ariane Bernard, “French Train Breaks Rail Speed Record,” New York Times, April 4, 2007.
40 As train speeds increase, the benefit of even greater speeds diminishes. For example, increasing the average speed on
a 240-mile route from 60 mph to 120 mph reduces the trip time by two hours, from four hours to two; the next 60-mph
increase, from 120 mph to 180 mph, only reduces the trip time by 40 minutes; the next 60 mph increase beyond that,
from 180 mph to 240 mph, would reduce the trip time by only 20 minutes.
41 Freight railroads in the United States commonly operate “double stack” trains hauling containers. These have a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
freight trains (and neither generally uses the most advanced collision avoidance systems), federal
regulations require that passenger trains have a variety of design features to protect passengers in
the event of a train crash. This results in relatively heavy passenger trains, which are thus slower
to get up to speed and take longer to stop.
Track
To make very high speed operation possible, rail track must be substantially flat and straight, with
shallow curves and gentle changes in elevation. As train speeds increase, the risk of crashes
where roads cross the rail line (“at-grade crossings”) increases, so safety dictates that high speed
tracks not have any at-grade crossings.42 This is the standard to which new very high speed lines
in other countries are usually built. The result is the rail equivalent of the Interstate Highway
System, allowing trains to operate at high average speeds without risk from crossing traffic.
A high speed rail system using dedicated track can handle many trains at one time without
compromising safety. For example, the Japanese high speed rail network, which began operation
in 1964, now has trains running at speeds up to 200 mph, with as little as three minutes of
headway (the time separating trains operating on the same track) during peak periods. In almost
50 years of operation, there has never been a fatality due to a train crash on the Japanese high
speed network.43
Signal and Communications Networks
The prevailing train control system on the U.S. rail network relies on dispatchers at central
locations who track the location of trains and signal to train operators when it is safe to proceed
onto a stretch of track. This system is somewhat analogous to the air traffic control system, in that
the dispatchers can see the location of trains but cannot directly control those trains. Thus, when a
train operator does not respond correctly to an operational signal, a collision may occur.
Very high speed rail networks use electronic train control systems (often referred to as “positive
train control,” or PTC). PTC uses communications systems, global positioning systems, on-board
computers with digitized maps, and central control system computers to monitor and control train
movements. This technology is intended to improve efficiency and safety through better
communication and reducing the threat of human error in the operation of trains. Outside of the
NEC, almost none of the nation’s rail network is equipped with positive train control. However,
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires that rail carriers implement positive train
control by December 31, 2015, on main lines over which passengers or poison- or toxic-by-
(...continued)
relatively high elevation, which would interfere with overhead electric catenary systems such as those used on the NEC
and in many other countries. Most countries that use overhead catenaries to power trains do not allow double-stack
freight traffic on such lines.
42 Federal Railway Administration regulations require that rail lines rated for speeds above 150 mph have no at-grade
crossings. 49 CFR 213.347(a).
43 David Barboza and Sharon LaFraniere, “Crash Raises Questions on China’s Push to Build High-Speed Passenger
Rail Lines,” New York Times, July 26, 2011; American Association of State Highway And Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), “Basic Facts About High Speed/Intercity Passenger Rail,” Updated September 7, 2011,
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
inhalation hazardous materials are transported.44 This implementation is underway, though there
are proposals to extend the deadline to allow more time for implementation.45
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev)
Maglev train technology was developed in the United States in the 1960s. It uses electromagnets
to suspend (levitate) the train above a guideway, as well as to propel the train. The lack of direct
contact (and hence friction) between the train and the guideway allows maglev trains to go very
fast. Maglev trains and tracks are expected to experience relatively little wear and tear and hence
to have low maintenance costs, although there is not enough experience with maglev in
commercial operations to verify this.
Many maglev lines have been proposed, but the few that have been constructed, notably a 19-
mile line completed in 2004 connecting a Shanghai subway station to Pudong International
Airport, have been relatively short. As a consequence, the costs of constructing and maintaining
an intercity maglev line are unclear. It is generally believed that such projects are very expensive,
in part because the need for a relatively straight guideway may require costly land acquisition and
tunneling. Japan and Germany have operated maglev test tracks since the 1970s and 1980s,
respectively, but neither country has gone on to build the commercial maglev lines that were
envisioned. Congress established a program to promote maglev in the United States in the 1990s,
but none of the projects that received federal support have advanced beyond the planning stage.
Because conventional train technology is capable of speeds comparable to maglev technology,
and the costs of maglev implementation are probably very high, there is little impetus to adopt
maglev technology. Moreover, maglev trains could not operate over the existing rail network, but
would require an entirely separate network. China reportedly built the Shanghai line in part to
examine maglev technology as a candidate for high speed lines it planned; it subsequently chose
conventional train technology for its high speed rail network.
The Central Japan Railway Company (JR Central) has announced that it will deal with capacity
limitations on its high speed line between Tokyo and Osaka, the most heavily traveled intercity
rail segment in the world, by building a maglev line roughly parallel to the existing line. The
planned train would travel at 300 mph over the 175 miles between Tokyo and Nagoya and would
eventually be extended to Osaka. Due in part to the geographic constraints—as the line would
pass through mountainous areas, as well as densely populated areas, about 80% of the track
would be located on viaducts or in tunnels—JR Central has estimated the cost of building the
Tokyo-Nagoya segment at 5.1 trillion yen (around $60 billion), or a little less than $350 million
per mile.46 The full line is estimated to cost 9 trillion yen (about $110 billion).47 Although the
Japanese government has approved the project it is not certain that the line will be built; estimated
costs have risen, and the need is unclear given Japan’s population decline.
44 P.L. 110-432, Division A, §104.
45 The Senate’s surface transportation authorization legislation, MAP-21, would allow the DOT Secretary to extend the
deadline to 2018 under certain circumstances; the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s proposed
surface transportation authorization legislation, H.R. 7, would extend the deadline to 2020.
46 Philip Brasor, “Japan’s maglev on track for financial crash,” The Japan Times Online, July 26, 2009,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fd20090726pb.html.
47 The Japan Times Online, “Tokyo-Osaka Maglev Gets State OK,” May 28, 2011, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/
nn20110528a8.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Cost Issues
The costs of HSR can be divided into two general categories: infrastructure costs, including the
costs of building the line and maintaining it, and operating costs, such as labor and fuel, which
tend to vary according to the amount of train service offered. Of the many high speed routes in
the world, it is thought that only two have earned enough revenue to cover both their
infrastructure and operating costs.48
Infrastructure Costs
High speed rail requires a significant up-front capital outlay for development of the fixed
infrastructure (right-of-way, track, signals, and stations) and for its upkeep. However, system
costs are highly site- and project-specific. A leading determinant of cost is whether a new right-
of-way is planned or if an existing railroad right-of-way is going to be improved. Another key
cost determinant is speed. Generally, as speed increases, the cost of providing the infrastructure to
attain that speed rises at an increasing rate. The highest speeds will require grade-separated
corridors, limited curvature, and modest gradients so that passengers do not experience extreme
discomfort at high speeds. As speed increases, the signaling and communications system must be
more advanced (and costly) to ensure safe operations. Building a route through mountainous
terrain is more costly than construction on level terrain, and building a route through an urban
area is generally costlier than construction in a rural area.
These drivers of cost are evident in the various projects to build higher speed or very high speed
rail in the United States. For instance, a proposed route between Los Angeles (Anaheim) and Las
Vegas would utilize maglev technology, with a top speed of 311 mph, at an estimated cost of
nearly $12 billion, or $48 million per route mile. A proposed alternative would use conventional
steel rail, with a top speed of 150 mph, and, rather than beginning in Anaheim, would start in
Victorville, CA, which is beyond the mountains to the north of Los Angeles. The estimated cost
of this alternative is nearly $4 billion or $22 million per route mile. Much of the decrease in
estimated cost is due to not bringing the line through the mountains into the Los Angeles area,
which in turn may lower its attractiveness to potential riders.49
In contrast to these projects involving acquisition of new rights-of-way, a project to increase train
speeds between Chicago and other Midwest cities would involve improvements to approximately
3,000 miles of existing track at an estimated cost of $7.7 billion, or about $2.5 million per route
mile. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of six projects involving incremental
track improvements found that per-mile costs ranged from $4.1 million to $11.4 million.50 The
DOT Inspector General has estimated that reducing travel time between Washington, DC, and
New York City and between New York City and Boston by a half hour would require corridor
improvements totaling $14 billion (or about $31 million per route mile).51
48 They are Japan’s Tokyo-Osaka route and France’s Paris-Lyon route, cited by Iñaki Barrón de Angoiti, director of
high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways, in Victoria Burnett, “Spain’s High-Speed Rail Offers
Guideposts for U.S.,” The New York Times On the Web, May 30, 2009.
49 GAO, High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges
and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, March 2009, GAO-09-317, p. 24.
50 Ibid., p. 25.
51 DOT Inspector General, Analysis of the Benefits of High-Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor, Report CC-2008-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Since the objective of building or improving a rail line is passenger mobility, rail project costs
could be compared with the costs of alternative methods of increasing mobility, such as
expanding a highway or an airport. The cost of highway or airport expansion is also highly
project- and site-specific. Comparing costs on a per-mile basis is not as useful as comparing costs
on a per passenger-mile basis (the cost of moving one passenger one mile) or comparing the
reductions in total travel time across alternative modal projects. These measures incorporate the
improvement in passenger throughput expected from the construction project. However,
comparing costs and benefits of modal options in this manner is not common because of
institutional and organizational obstacles.52 These include a federal DOT that is organized by
modal segments, congressional authorizing committees organized by mode, earmarking of
projects, prohibitions in state trust fund and federal trust fund financing, and industry advocacy
that is largely organized by mode.53
In addition, there is evidence that transportation project costs are routinely underestimated. One
study examined 258 transportation infrastructure projects around the world and found that in
almost 90% of the cases costs were underestimated, that actual costs on average were 28% higher
than estimated, and that rail projects in particular were the most severely underestimated, costing
on average 45% more than estimated.54
Most U.S. railroad track is owned and maintained by private freight railroad companies whose
trains operate more economically at slower speeds. Improving the quality of this track to allow
for higher speed passenger trains could involve rebuilding track substructure, such as replacing
the ballast, improving drainage, or replacing wood ties with concrete ties, as well as upgrading
signaling and communications systems. Although the host freight railroads might gain some
benefit from such improvements, they may be reluctant to fund them, as they may gain little
advantage from being able to operate freight trains at higher speeds.
More importantly, because intercity passenger and freight trains, as well as commuter trains,
share the track in many corridors where higher speed service is proposed, it will be necessary to
increase capacity on these routes to avoid delays caused by interference from other trains. For
example, Amtrak’s on-time performance on the NEC,55 which has multiple tracks and on which
Amtrak controls the dispatching, was around 83% in FY2011, but its on-time performance
outside the NEC,56 where there is often only a single track and where dispatching is controlled by
freight rail companies, was 78% for short-distance trains and 64% for long-distance trains.57
According to Amtrak, many delays are due to interference from freight trains, and to a lesser
(...continued)
091, June 26, 2008.
52 For further discussion of this issue, see Transportation Research Board, Multimodal Aspects of Statewide
Transportation Planning, NCHRP Synthesis 286, 2000, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/17000/17600/17654/PB2001102765.pdf;
and GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions, GAO-04-744, June 2004.
53 NCHRP Synthesis 286, p. 1.
54 Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Soren Buhl, “Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or
Lie?,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2002, vol. 68, no. 3. Rail projects in this study included
high speed and conventional intercity rail projects as well as rail transit projects.
55 Defined as arriving within 10 minutes of the scheduled arrival time.
56 Defined as arriving within 20 minutes of the scheduled arrival time.
57 Amtrak, Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, p. E-7, http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=
Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
extent, commuter trains. The simplest way to increase capacity is to add sidings to allow slower
trains to make way for faster trains to pass, but significant improvements in speed and reliability
may require installing a second track with high-speed crossovers so trains can shift from one
track to the other, a layout which more than doubles route capacity.58
Operating Costs and Revenues
Once a higher speed or very high speed infrastructure has been completed, operating costs can be
a significant public expense if the train operator cannot generate sufficient revenue from
passenger fares. Operating costs include labor, fuel or electric power, equipment and track
maintenance, track access charges, and other costs that vary depending on the number of trains
that are operated. In the United States, all intercity passenger operations except Amtrak’s Acela
service are subsidized, in the sense that federal and state governments supplement revenues from
ticket sales, as these are insufficient to cover the costs of operating the trains plus a portion of
general administrative expenses. Few if any passenger rail operations anywhere in the world
generate sufficient revenue to cover all capital as well as operating costs.
Some high-speed rail project sponsors have estimated that their services would be able to operate
without public subsidies once construction is complete. Additionally, some supporters of high
speed rail projects have asserted that profit-maximizing private companies could operate rail
services without subsidy, especially in corridors where air and highway congestion are extreme.
The organizational structure of passenger rail is not conducive to a market environment in which
competition among carriers exerts downward pressure on operating costs. The “low-cost carrier”
phenomenon in the airline and intercity bus industries, in which multiple carriers compete with
one another over the same infrastructure, is not practicable in the passenger rail industry.
Airlines and bus lines operate using publicly owned infrastructure to which all carriers have
access on similar terms. Most track suitable for passenger service in the United States, on the
other hand, is controlled by railroads whose main business is operating freight trains rather than
accommodating passenger operations. Indeed, under federal law freight railroads are not
obligated to carry trains of passenger operators other than Amtrak.59 The freight railroads have
little incentive to negotiate access charges favorable to potential passenger operators, especially
where their trains would interfere with freight operations or would necessitate a higher level of
track maintenance. This poses a considerable obstacle to state governments or private companies
seeking to operate high-speed passenger trains in competition with Amtrak or on routes Amtrak
does not serve.60
Operating costs aside, the other key determinant of whether high speed rail can be profitable
without subsidies is fare revenue, which is dependent on ridership levels and how much riders
would be willing to pay for the service.61 The cost-effectiveness of higher speed and very high
58 Andrew Nash, “Best Practices in Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems,” Mineta Transportation Institute, June 2003.
59 See CRS Report R42512, Passenger Train Access to Freight Railroad Track, by John Frittelli.
60 One freight operator, Florida East Coast Railway, is reportedly interested in operating its own passenger service over
track it owns or would build, but it is unclear whether this would be a high speed service or would be viable without an
operating subsidy. See http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-06-04/story/company-offer-passenger-rail-miami-
orlando-possible-expansion.
61 For further information and analysis on economic viability, see DOT IG, FRA Needs to Expand Its Guidance on
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
speed rail depends on achieving high ridership levels. Estimates of the level of ridership needed
to justify the cost of a high speed line similar to those in other countries range from 6 million to 9
million riders in the first year.62 To put that figure in context, Amtrak’s current high speed service,
the Acela, which began operating in 2000 in the most densely populated corridor in the United
States, carried 3.4 million passengers in FY2011.63
Ridership, of course, will depend heavily on the fares charged. Most plans for very high speed
systems are premised on their ability to attract business customers who currently travel by air, as
these are the travelers most willing to pay high fares for premium service. Despite an airplane’s
speed advantage, HSR can be time-competitive with an airplane if distances between cities are
less than about 400-500 miles, given that security screening and pre-boarding wait times
generally are significantly longer for air travelers than they are for train riders. Amtrak has been
competitive with the airlines between certain cities along the Northeast Corridor. It captures 69%
of the air/rail market share between Washington, DC, and New York City and 51% of the air/rail
market share between New York City and Boston.64 However, Amtrak only captures about 5% of
the air/rail market share for trips from Washington, DC, to Boston, a distance of about 440 miles,
which takes nearly seven hours even on the Acela.
It is more difficult for rail to compete with automobile transportation. If a traveler needs to make
multiple stops en route to or around the destination city, a car may be more convenient, especially
if the destination city lacks an extensive mass transit system. Driving is likely to be less
expensive than rail if two or more people are traveling together, since the added cost of each
additional traveler is virtually zero for passenger cars, and if tolls and parking fees are low.
People traveling for leisure or personal reasons are likely to be more price-sensitive than business
travelers, and their willingness to use the train instead of a personal car may depend in good part
on the availability of low-cost fares.
High speed trains are not expected to compete well against intercity buses in many instances
because bus travelers are more concerned about price than about travel time or comfort. Recent
improvements in intercity bus service quality and frequency may reduce demand for high speed
rail in some markets.
Trains depend on population density to operate efficiently. To compete with the airlines, trains
must depart frequently but they also must fill a large proportion of their seats to generate
sufficient ticket revenue if they hope to cover their operating costs. Not only is the population
(...continued)
High Speed Rail Project Viability Assessments, Report no. CR-2012-083, March 28, 2012.
62 Transportation Research Board, In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Intercity Passenger Transport (Washington,
DC: National Research Council, 1991), p. 113.; Ginés de Rus and Gustavo Nombela, “Is Investment in High Speed
Rail Socially Profitable?,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, vol. 41, no. 1 (January 2007), p. 15; Ginés de
Rus and Chris Nash, “In What Circumstances is Investment in HSR Worthwhile?,” chapter 3 of Economic Analysis of
High Speed Rail In Europe, Ginés de Rus (ed.), Bilbao, 2009, p. 70.
63 Amtrak, Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, November 2, 2011, p. A-3.5, http://www.amtrak.com/
servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222. Amtrak’s slower service in the
Northeast Corridor, the Northeast Regional, carried 7.5 million passengers; fares for the Northeast Regional Service are
less than half those charged for Acela service. Only five other Amtrak routes nationwide carried more than 1 million
passengers in FY2011.
64 Based on FY2010, 3rd quarter data. Amtrak Government Affairs Department, “Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor:
FY2010,” May 2011.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
size of a city important but also the concentration of economic activity in the central business
district or otherwise near the train station(s). Although the nation as a whole is becoming more
urbanized, trends show that employment is steadily decentralizing in almost all U.S. cities, which
may raise questions about the viability of high speed rail as a transportation alternative for many
business travelers.65 It is worth noting that tickets to or from New York City accounted for nearly
30% of Amtrak’s total ridership in 2010.66 New York has an extremely high population density,
has a large concentration of businesses within walking distance of the train station, and is the only
city in the country where more residents (55%) do not own an automobile than do.67
Potential Benefits of High Speed Passenger Rail
With decades of experience from around the world, conventional HSR can be considered a
proven technology that potentially offers a convenient and comfortable way to travel between
major urban centers. However, HSR has come in for criticism based on concerns about its cost-
effectiveness compared to travel by air or highway. Assessments of cost-effectiveness are likely
to depend, in part, on the ability of HSR to provide various social goods whose benefits will not
be reflected in passenger revenues.
Alleviating Highway and Airport Congestion
In heavily traveled and congested corridors, HSR has the potential to relieve highway and air
traffic congestion, and thereby to reduce the need to pay for capacity expansions of roads and
airports.68
With respect to highway congestion relief, many studies estimate that HSR will have little
positive effect because most highway traffic is local and the diversion of intercity trips from
highway to rail will be small. In a 1997 study, FRA estimated that in most cases rail
improvements would divert only 3%-6% of intercity automobile trips, and even less in corridors
with average trip lengths under 150 miles.69 DOT’s Inspector General (IG) found much the same
thing in a more recent analysis of HSR in the Northeast Corridor, estimating that reductions of
one hour in rail trip times from Boston to New York and from New York to Washington would
reduce automobile ridership along the NEC by less than 1%.70 Planners of a high speed rail link
in Florida between Orlando and Tampa, a distance of about 84 miles, estimated that it would shift
65 Ibid., pp. 10-14.
66 Amtrak, National Fact Sheet: FY2010, http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=
am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246.
67 According to U.S. Census 2005 data, 55.1% of occupied housing units in New York City do not keep a vehicle
available at home for personal use. U.S. Census, County and City Data Book: 2007, 14th edition (latest edition
available). The only other cities with at least a third of households not having a vehicle are also in the Northeast
Corridor: Washington, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia.
68 For an argument on this point, see California High Speed Rail Authority, “Moving California Forward: California’s
High-Speed Train System,” http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/MOBILITY_lr.pdf.
69 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation for
America, Washington, DC, September 1997, p. 7-8, http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/cfs0997all2.pdf.
70 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General,
Analysis of the Benefits of High Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor, Washington, DC, June 26, 2008,
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/HSR_Final_7-1-08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
11% of those driving between the two cities to the train, but because most of the traffic on the
main highway linking the two cities, Interstate 4, is not travelling between Orlando and Tampa,
the HSR project was estimated to reduce traffic on the busiest sections of I-4 by less than 2%.71
Since HSR is more comparable to commercial air travel than to automobile travel, it is likely that
in the right circumstances a significant share of air travelers would switch to HSR. The IG’s study
of the NEC estimated that 11%-20% would divert to HSR from air, depending upon train speeds,
concluding that “this would provide congestion relief at NEC airports and in NEC airspace.”72
Such high diversion rates would not necessarily reduce airport congestion. Airlines might
substitute smaller aircraft for larger ones, or replace flights to locations accessible by rail with
flights to and from other locations. The net effects of such changes may be positive, as they may
improve intercity transport links overall. However, it is possible that a smaller airport in a
community served by HSR could suffer a disproportionate loss of its air service.73 Even in
heavily congested areas, HSR may be a more costly way of relieving air traffic congestion on a
per-passenger basis than some combination of measures such as expanding airport capacity,
applying congestion pricing to takeoff and landing slots, and implementing an enhanced air traffic
control system.74
Alleviating Pollution and Reducing Energy Consumption
Another major benefit claimed for HSR is that it uses less energy and is relatively less polluting
than other modes of intercity transportation.75 While the physics of rail do generally provide
favorable energy intensity and carbon emission attributes in comparison with highway and air
travel, such claims tend to rest heavily on assumed high passenger loads and the use of clean
sources of electricity generation to power the trains. Moreover, they tend to ignore the energy and
carbon emission of building, maintaining, and rebuilding the infrastructure that supports each
mode, and they tend to assume automotive and airplane engine technology will not become more
energy efficient in the future.
Completed as part of a wide-ranging review of transportation policy in the United Kingdom, an
analysis of building a high speed rail system connecting London with Glasgow and Edinburgh
(distances of approximately 350 miles and 330 miles, respectively), including its energy use and
carbon emissions profile, concluded:
71 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration and Florida High Speed Rail Authority, Final
Environmental Impact Statement: Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando, May 2005, p. 1-7, 4-119,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/florida_tampa-orlando_feis.pdf.
72 IG, 2008, p. 3.
73 Randal O’ Toole, High-Speed Rail: the Wrong Road for America, Cato Institute, Policy Analysis, No. 625, October
31, 2008, p. 8, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-625.pdf.
74 See, for example, the cost estimates for NextGen in Government Accountability Office, Next Generation Air
Transportation System: Status of Systems Acquisition and the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, GAO-08-1078, Washington, DC, September 2008, p.7, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081078.pdf.
75 See, for example, Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology, High Speed Rail and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S., January 2006, http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf, and
California High Speed Rail Authority, “California High-Speed Train System Environmental Protection,”
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/Factsheetenviro.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
high level analysis of the potential carbon benefits from modal shift from air to high speed
rail suggests that these benefits would be small relative to the very high cost of constructing
and operating such a scheme, and that under current assumptions a high speed line
connecting London to Scotland is unlikely to be a cost-effective policy for achieving
reductions in carbon emissions compared to other policy measures.76
Because HSR will only capture a relatively small share of total passenger trips, it is also unlikely
to make much difference in achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets and in reducing petroleum
consumption. A study of the potential benefits of HSR in Sweden concluded that investment in
rail networks is a less cost-effective climate policy instrument than general policies, such as
increased fuel taxes.77 Similarly, analysis of a proposed line from London to Scotland estimated
carbon savings would be 0.2% of the UK’s current emissions, assuming that all flyers take the
train and HSR emits no greenhouse gases.78
Promoting Economic Development
There is no doubt that HSR projects create employment in planning, design, and construction.
Research shows that infrastructure spending tends to create more jobs than other types of
spending.79 The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) claims that its planned HSR
system will create 100,000 construction-related jobs each year during the building phase.80
The longer-term impact of HSR in spurring economic development and encouraging potentially
beneficial changes in land use around high speed rail stations, by contrast, is disputed. CHSRA
claims that high speed rail in California will create 450,000 permanent jobs due to faster
economic growth.81 Looking at the experience of HSR in Japan, one study argues “the claims that
a multiplier effect (or economic development effect) of 450,000 jobs as a result of the
introduction of CHSR [California HSR] are not likely to be realized.”82 Moreover, GAO pointed
out in 2009 that “while benefits such as improvements in economic development and
employment may represent real benefits for the jurisdiction in which a new high speed rail
service is located, from another jurisdiction’s perspective or from a national view they may
represent a transfer or relocation of benefits.”83 On the question of whether HSR can provide
broader economic benefits by allowing workers greater access to jobs and improving business
76 HM Treasury and Department for Transport, The Eddington Transport Study: Main Report, Volume 3, London,
2006, p. 213, http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/eddingtonstudy/.
77 Jan-Eric Nilsson and Roger Pyddoke, High-Speed Railways—A Climate Policy Sidetrack. VTI (Swedish National
Road and Transport Research) #655, 2009, p. 13, http://www.vti.se/en/publications/high-speed-railways--a-climate-
policy-sidetrack/.
78 Eddington Transport Study, 2006, p. 211.
79 CRS Report R40104, Economic Stimulus: Issues and Policies, by Jane G. Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and
Marc Labonte.
80 California High Speed Rail Authority, “Project Vision and Scope,” http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
project_vision.aspx.
81 Ibid.
82 Jerry Nickelsburg and Saurabh Ahluwalia, “California High-Speed Rail and Economic Development: Lessons from
Japan,” UCLA Anderson Forecast, June 2012, p. 107, http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/forecast/
UCLAForecast_June2012_HSR.pdf.
83 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High Speed Passenger Rail, GAO-09-317, March 2009, Washington, DC,
p. 29, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
travel, the UK study discussed earlier found that “such effects are quite limited in mature
economies with well developed infrastructure.”84
Improving Transportation Safety
HSR in other countries generally has a very good safety record. France’s TGV, for example,
boasts that it has never had a single on-board fatality running at high speed in over two decades of
operation. However, it is unlikely that HSR will significantly reduce the number of
transportation-related deaths and injuries in the United States. Autos are by far the most
dangerous form of passenger travel, in terms of fatalities per passenger-mile, and, as noted above,
the ability of HSR to divert highway travelers to rail is likely to be limited. The diversion of
flyers to trains would make little difference in terms of passenger safety because air transportation
is also very safe.
Providing Travelers a Choice of Modes
There is some value in providing travelers with a choice of modes, particularly for those unable
or unwilling to fly or drive. In congested corridors, frequent and reliable HSR could provide
travelers an attractive alternative to dealing with the frustrations of traffic bottlenecks and airline
delays. Intercity rail can also be a relatively comfortable way to travel, affording travelers more
seating room than airplanes or buses and greater opportunity to walk around. However, while
these benefits accrue to individual users of HSR, it is not apparent that greater comfort and
convenience bring social benefits that would justify public subsidies.
Making the Transportation System More Reliable
Many different types of events can dramatically disrupt a transportation system. These include
floods, snowstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and terrorism. During such events, it can be
very valuable to have extra capacity to handle extra demand or an alternative means of travel
when other means fail. For example, rail service often continues when bad weather grounds air
service.85 Building in redundancy to any system entails added costs, but the availability of
alternatives tends to make the system as a whole more reliable during unusual events and
emergencies.86
84 Eddington Transport Study, 2006, p. 208.
85 See, for example, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics
Annual Report 1997, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 22-23, http://www.bts.gov/publications/
transportation_statistics_annual_report/1997/pdf/report.pdf.
86 See, for example, U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Effects of
Catastrophic Events on Transportation System Management and Operations: Cross Cutting Study, January 2003,
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13780_files/13780.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
High Speed Rail Funding Considerations
The demand for HSR funding is potentially very great. There are many potential projects, and if
currently funded projects result in significantly increased train usage, additional projects are
likely to be put forward. For example, work now underway to improve service between Chicago
and St. Louis may be followed by proposals to double-track the existing line at additional cost,
and there have been studies for a future 220 mph line between the two cities at an estimated cost
of $12.6 billion (in 2012 dollars).87 As noted earlier, the most recent cost estimate for Phase 1 of
the California HSR is now itself around $60 billion.
In 2009, the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee’s proposal for surface
transportation authorization included $50 billion over six years for high speed rail development,
an average of $8.3 billion annually.88 However, the House T&I proposal for high speed rail did
not include a dedicated revenue source. Given that HSR projects can require 10 years or more to
develop, funding projects in the face of changing political priorities will be difficult without a
dedicated funding source.89 Otherwise, rail projects must compete with the programs for limited
discretionary funding. Only about $15 billion of DOT’s funding came from the general fund in
FY2012, with the balance coming from motor fuel taxes dedicated to the highway trust fund.
Providing another $1 billion in general fund money for high speed rail each year, let alone $8.3
billion, would require a significant increase in DOT’s General Fund appropriation.
Several options have been advanced to fund an intercity passenger rail development program:
• Dedicating a portion of the highway trust fund’s revenues. This approach is not
promising, as the highway trust fund’s outlays to highway and transit currently
exceed its revenues.
• Adding a tax onto the tickets of intercity rail passengers, just as the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund is funded in part by a tax on airline tickets. In addition to
raising the price of the rail travel it is meant to support, this proposal would
produce relatively small amounts of revenue: a 10% tax on Amtrak tickets in
FY2011 would have raised $189 million, assuming that ridership would not have
declined as a result of the price increase.
• Dedicating a portion of the revenues from proposed greenhouse gas emissions
reduction programs to a rail trust fund. To date, however, Congress has not
established greenhouse gas control programs that would raise significant sums.
• Using bonds, including tax-exempt bonds and tax-credit bonds, to fund
development of high speed rail lines. Based on the revenue experience of high
87 TranSystems, Chicago to St. Louis 220 mph High Speed Rail Alternative Corridor Study, October 8, 2008,
http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MHSRA_Chicago_StLouis_HSR_Corridor_Study.pdf.
88 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, The Surface Transportation Authorization
Act of 2009: A Blueprint for Investment and Reform, Executive Summary, 111th Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 2009, p. 4,
available at http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/
Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint%20Executive%20Summary.pdf.
89 As noted earlier, congressional support for HSR changed significantly as a result of the 2010 midterm election; in the
two years prior to that election, Congress had appropriated $10.5 billion for passenger rail, including HSR; in the year
after that election, Congress provided no additional funding, and cut $400 million of the funding already appropriated.
Congressional Research Service
23
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
speed lines in other countries, it appears likely that the bonds would have to be
repaid primarily by the federal or state governments, or both.
• Obtaining funding from the private sector. The United States has not seen private
investment in passenger rail infrastructure in many decades; the most notable
proposal now pending, for a privately owned line between Victorville, CA, and
Las Vegas, is dependent upon a $4.9 billion federal loan, meaning that taxpayers
could be at risk if the project fails to generate sufficient revenue.90
High Speed Rail In Other Countries
Proponents of HSR often cite the networks in Japan, France, and other countries, with the
implication that their adoption of HSR demonstrates the feasibility and desirability of building
HSR lines in the United States. This conclusion may not be warranted. The motives that led other
countries to implement very high speed rail lines are varied. Some, like Japan and China, did so
originally in part to meet the demand on already overcrowded conventional rail lines. Others did
so to promote economic development in certain locations or encourage rail travel in the face of
the growing role of car and air travel.
In Europe and Japan, HSR has succeeded in capturing market share from commercial aviation.
For example, rail has captured 85% of the air/rail market between Tokyo and Osaka (a distance of
320 miles, with a fastest scheduled rail travel time of 2 hours 25 minutes), and 74% of the air/rail
market between Rome and Bologna (a distance of 222 miles, with a fastest scheduled rail travel
time of 2 hours 44 minutes).91
The relative efficiency of HSR as a transportation investment varies among countries, depending
upon the interplay of many factors, including geography, economics, and government policies.
For example, compared to the United States, countries with HSR have higher population
densities, smaller land areas, lower per capita levels of car ownership, higher gasoline prices,
lower levels of car use (measured both by number of trips per day and average distance per trip),
and higher levels of public transportation availability and use.
Also, there is a significant difference in the structure of the rail industry in countries with HSR
compared to the United States. In most of those countries, high speed rail was implemented by
state-owned or state-supported rail infrastructure companies and is operated by state-owned rail
companies whose principal business is passenger, rather than freight, transportation. By contrast,
in the United States the rail network is almost entirely owned by private companies specializing
in freight transportation.
90 This would be a grade separated, dedicated double-tracked passenger-only line of approximately 200 miles that
would generally follow the I-15 corridor. The developer, DesertXpress Enterprises, describes the project as a
public/private partnership, since it hopes to use public right-of-way (http://www.desertxpress.com/economics.php).
DesertXpress has applied for a $4.9 billion loan from the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
to help finance the $6 billion project. See “DesertXpress hopes for federal loan, aims for 2012 start on work,” Las
Vegas Sun, October 10, 2011.
91 Prospects for High Speed Rail in the U.S., presentation prepared by Mercer Management Consulting before the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, March 20, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
24
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
The history of HSR development in other countries reveals a recurring tension between economic
analysis and political pressure in HSR development. A country’s initial HSR line is usually built
in a location where the investment makes the most sense economically, in terms of population
density and travel demand. Once that line is built, and if it is considered successful, the desire for
similar benefits in other parts of the country can result in political pressure to build additional
lines, even if economic analysis indicates that these are unlikely to be as successful as the initial
line. Japan is perhaps the best example, in part because it has been building HSR lines for the
longest time: its first HSR line was the most successful the world has seen, but subsequent lines
have carried fewer passengers and had weaker financial performance.
For more information on the development of HSR in other countries see the Appendix.
Considerations for Congress
In considering further initiatives regarding HSR, there are a number of issues Congress may wish
to examine. The first of these is the rationale for building HSR. Proponents of HSR contend that
it provides a number of direct and indirect benefits to travelers and the general public, some of
which may not be apparent until far into the future. The extent of those benefits would depend
largely on the level of ridership, which is difficult to forecast accurately and is likely to be
influenced by the adoption or rejection of policies that would encourage people to use high speed
rail. Other countries with high speed rail systems support HSR use through both incentives (e.g.,
widespread provision of a complementary mode, public transit) and disincentives (e.g., high road
tolls and high taxes on motor fuel to make automobile use more expensive). Without similar
policies in place, HSR ridership in the United States may not fulfill expectations based on the
experiences of other countries.
Many of the benefits ascribed to HSR, such as improved mobility, reductions in imported energy,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and so forth, would come from very high speed rail lines. Yet
very high speed lines are expensive and potentially risky investments. Very high speed rail
competes primarily with commercial aviation, which receives relatively little support from
general Treasury funds compared to the level of funding which would likely be required to
develop and operate a high speed rail network. And while very high speed rail might help to
relieve airport congestion, Congress is supporting improvements which are expected to
significantly expand the aviation system’s capacity.
Should Congress decide to continue federal support for HSR, it would need to address a number
of issues related to program financing:
• Should overall transportation funding be increased to include funding for HSR,
or should some funding from existing highway and transit programs be redirected
to HSR? The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget proposed $1 billion for
what it calls “high-speed rail implementation.”92
• What is the desirable allocation of the costs of high speed rail development
among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector? Congress
specified that the $8 billion provided in ARRA would be provided without
92 U.S. Department of Transportation, Budget Highlights: Fiscal Year 2013, Washington, DC, 2012, p.32,
http://www.dot.gov/budget/2013/dot_budget_highlights_fy_2013.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
requiring any local matching funds, but the HSR development program
authorized in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(PRIIA) provided that the federal share of grants under that program should not
exceed 80%. Most highway construction receives an 80% federal match, but the
federal share of most rail transit projects is less.93
• How should federal funds be allocated among types of HSR? One or two
successful very HSR projects might demonstrate HSR’s potential and build
public support, but they could also consume large amounts of funding.
Incremental improvements to passenger routes in many parts of the country
might bring better rail service to more people, but would probably not achieve
the high density, very high speed operations generally associated with the
concept of HSR.
• Which HSR projects should receive funding? In the HSR development program,
Congress required that projects be part of a state rail plan or the national rail plan
in order to receive funding. The FRA is currently developing a national rail
plan,94 but high speed rail development grants have been awarded prior to the
completion of the plan. The basis FRA has used for selecting projects to be
funded is not always clear. Nor is it clear whether FRA’s national rail plan will
reflect the rail plans of the states or will lay out a national rail vision that may not
coincide with individual states’ priorities.
Beyond the development costs, Congress may wish to consider how to pay for maintaining and
operating an HSR system over the long term. Passenger revenues may not be sufficient to cover
the operating costs of high speed lines, including the maintenance of the new HSR infrastructure.
The federal government has not assumed long-term responsibility for infrastructure, other than
that owned by Amtrak, and has not supported train operations other than those deemed to be part
of Amtrak’s national network. Measures to ensure adequate funding for train operations and
infrastructure maintenance may be desirable to protect the federal investment in HSR.
93 While the federal share for new rail transit projects receiving funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s
New Starts program can, by statute, be up to 80%; in practice the average federal share is lower; FTA has encouraged
applicants to provide a local match of more than 20%, and since FY2002 the Senate Committee on Appropriations has
directed FTA not to provide more than a 60% federal match.
94 FRA has published a Preliminary National Rail Plan and a National Rail Plan Progress Report. The preliminary plan
is described as setting forth FRA’s proposed approach to developing the long-range National Rail Plan, including
providing background information and identifying issues that FRA believes should be considered in developing
National Rail Plan. Federal Railroad Administration, Preliminary National Rail Plan: The Groundwork for Developing
Policies to Improve the United States Transportation System, October 15, 2009, http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/
RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf. The progress report is a product of 15 months of study and discussions with partners in the
rail industry. Federal Railroad Administration, National Rail Plan: Moving Forward, A Progress Report, September
2010, http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/NRP_Sept2010_WEB.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Appendix. Experience with HSR in Other Countries
Following are brief accounts of high speed rail networks in selected countries. Except where
otherwise indicated, these countries have lines currently operating at speeds of 186 mph or more.
Japan
Japan may be the ideal country, geographically, for high speed rail; its main island is relatively
long and narrow, so that its relatively large population is concentrated in cities arrayed along a
corridor. Japan opened its first high speed rail line, between Tokyo and Osaka, in 1964.95 That
line was built to expand capacity in an overcrowded rail corridor. From its inception it earned
enough revenue to cover its operating costs, and reportedly earned enough money within its first
few years to pay back its construction costs. The success of the Tokyo-Osaka line encouraged
expansion, and the Japanese government has supported construction of other high speed lines. As
of 2011, the high speed rail network was 1,665 miles in length, with more under construction.96
Currently, new lines are funded by public-private partnerships, with part of the funding coming
from the now-privatized regional rail companies, and the rest from the national and local
governments.
Since 1987, when the government began the privatization of Japan National Railways, all high
speed lines have been operated by private companies. Current information on the profitability of
individual high speed lines is not available, but all of the more recent lines have much lower
ridership than the heavily traveled Tokyo-Osaka line.
France
France opened its first high speed rail line in 1981, between Paris and Lyon. Its high speed trains
are referred to as TGVs (Trains à Grande Vitesse). As of 2011, the system has approximately
1,185 miles of high speed rail line, with more under construction.97 Because of the relatively low
population density of France and the central role of Paris (the nation’s capital and largest
population center), the French high speed rail network has been developed as spokes radiating
outward from Paris. Regional governments are responsible for a significant share of construction
costs. The state-owned rail operating company, SNCF, reports that its TGVs have taken the
dominant share of the air-rail travel market in several of the high speed corridors, taking over
90% in the Paris-Lyon market (with a TGV travel time of less than two hours) and about 60% in
corridors where the TGV travel time is around three hours.98
95 In Japan, high speed rail is referred to as Shinkansen (literally, “New Trunk Line”). The trains are often called “bullet
trains” because of their shape and speed, though the term Shinkansen is often used to refer to the trains as well as the
railway.
96 International Union of Railways, High-Speed Rail Lines in the World, Updated 1st November, 2011,
http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article573.
97 Réseau Ferré de France, [Rail] Network Inventory, http://www.rff.fr/pages/reseau/inventaire_reseau.asp?lg=en.
98 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials, Testimony of Jean Marie Metzler, French National Railroads, 110th Cong., 1st sess., April 19,
2007, http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Testimony/Rail/4-19-07-Metzler.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
Germany
Article 87 of the German Constitution makes rail transport a government responsibility.99
Germany opened its first high speed rail line in 1991. Its high speed trains are called
InterCityExpress (ICE).
Germany’s network varies significantly from that of its neighbor, France. Due in part to the more
geographically distributed political demands of a federal system of government and in part to a
denser and more evenly distributed population, Germany’s high speed rail service has been
developed to connect many hubs rather than centering on a single city. Germany’s high speed
trains also have more stops than those of France, whose system emphasizes connecting distant
city pairs with few intermediate stops. These considerations have led Germany to put more
emphasis on upgrading existing rail lines to accommodate higher speed service, and less
emphasis on building entirely new high speed lines. One result is that Germany’s high speed
trains have longer average trip times than do those of France over comparable distances.
Spain
Spain opened its first high speed rail line in 1992. Like France, its population density is relatively
low by European standards, and, except for Madrid, the capital and largest city, which is located
in the center of the country, the population is largely concentrated near the coasts. Spain’s
conventional rail network was built using a wider gauge (i.e., the distance between the two
parallel rails) than the international standard. Its high speed rail network is being built to the
international standard, producing two separate rail networks. Many trains have special equipment
to allow them to operate on both networks.
Government spending on rail infrastructure (both high speed and conventional) surpassed
spending on roads in 2003. The Spanish government’s Ministry of Public Works has a Strategic
Plan for Infrastructure and Transport for the period 2005-2020.100 The largest portion of the
spending in the Plan—€109 billion (44% of the total)—is for railways, primarily for increasing
the size of the high speed rail network to 6,200 miles by the year 2020, and putting 90% of the
population within 30 miles of a station.101 The high speed rail network is seen as a way of
improving mobility with less environmental impact than automobile or air travel, and as a way of
promoting the development of Spain’s regions, as well as creating transportation-related
employment.
China
China is developing an extensive high speed rail system in part to relieve the pressure of both
passenger and freight demand on its overcrowded existing rail system,102 in part to improve
transportation connections between its different regions, and in part to promote the economy of
99 Heike Link, “German Railway Reform: Chances and Risks,” Japan Railway & Transport Review, June 1994, p. 22.
100 Available at http://www.fomento.es/MFOMWeb/paginas/buscar.aspx.
101 Giles Tremlett, “Spain’s high-speed trains win over fed-up flyers,” The Guardian, January 13, 2009.
102 Though its population is approximately four times larger than that of the United States, China’s railway network is
less than half the size of the U.S. rail network (the same is true of its highway network). EU Energy and Transport in
Figures 2009, p. 105, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2009_energy_transport_figures.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
less developed regions. China is upgrading parts of its existing rail network to achieve speeds of
120-150 mph, and is building new dedicated electrified lines to enable speeds of 180 mph or
more. The national government has announced plans to have approximately 10,000 miles of high
speed lines (including both upgraded existing lines and new dedicated electrified lines) in
operation by 2020.103 China accelerated its HSR construction schedule in 2008-2010, in part to
stimulate the economy. But in the wake of a high-profile collision between two high-speed trains
that killed 40 people in the summer of 2011, China has acknowledged that it expanded the
network too quickly, and has slowed the pace of its HSR construction.104
Taiwan
Taiwan is an island nation slightly smaller than Maryland and Delaware combined, with a
population estimated at around 23 million people, most of whom live on the western side of the
island. The high speed line runs 214 miles north to south along the western side of the country.
Upon its completion in 2007, it cut end-to-end travel times from 4.5 hours to 90 minutes.105
The Taiwanese government executed a build-operate-transfer contract with a private consortium,
the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation, to develop the line at a cost of approximately $15
billion. Some 87% of the line had to be placed either in tunnels or on viaducts.106 Initial ridership
projections were around 65 million passengers annually, based in part on domestic airline
ridership, which had doubled from 9 million passengers in 1992 to 18 million in 1997. However,
subsequent economic difficulties resulted in airline ridership dropping to 9 million in 2005, and
the opening of a new highway also increased the attractiveness of highway travel.107 In 2011, rail
ridership totaled 41.6 million passengers.108 In 2009, the Taiwanese government took control of
the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation, which was on the brink of bankruptcy.109 Reportedly,
reductions in the interest rates on the corporation’s debt (thanks to government guarantees)
combined with increasing ridership resulted in a profit in 2011.110
South Korea
The Republic of Korea is slightly larger in area than the state of Indiana, with a population
estimated at 49 million people. Korea began construction of a 255-mile high speed line in 1992,
connecting its capital, Seoul (population 10 million), with its main port, Busan (population 3
103 Keith Bradsher, “High Speed Rail Poised to Alter China,” New York Times, June 22, 2011.
104 Wall Street Journal, “Rail Line Collapses in China,” March 13, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052702304537904577277200065540834.html.
105 Shima, Takashi, “Taiwan High Speed Rail,” Japan Railway and Transport Review 48, August 2007, p. 40,
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f40_Shi.pdf.
106 http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/taiwan/.
107 Shima, Takashi, “Taiwan High Speed Rail,” Japan Railway and Transport Review 48, August 2007, p. 45,
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f40_Shi.pdf.
108 Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Monthly Statistics of Transportation and Communication, Table 2-
8: Passenger Traffic of High-Speed Rail, http://210.69.99.7/mocwebGIP/wSite/ct?xItem=4882&ctNode=213&mp=2.
109 “Government Takes Over to Keep High Speed Rail on Track,” September 28, 2009, http://www.cens.com/cens/
html/en/news/news_inner_29333.html.
110 “High Speed Rail is a Money Making Venture,” International Railway Journal, September 23, 2011;
http://www.railjournal.com/this-month/high-speed-rail-is-a-money-making-venture-1328.html.
Congressional Research Service
29
The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events
million). This corridor serves 70% of the nation’s population, and was previously serviced by a
conventional line. The project was substantially completed in 2010, with a small amount of new
track in central cities yet to be built. End-to-end travel time was cut from 4 hours to around 2
hours and 20 minutes, and ridership was reported to be 140,000 passengers a day in 2011 (about
51 million passengers, annually).111 Initial cost estimates were around $5 billion, but the ultimate
project cost was around $20 billion.112 The project was costly in part due to the challenging
terrain; nearly half of the line is in tunnels and another quarter on viaducts, with only a quarter at
grade.113
Author Contact Information
David Randall Peterman, Coordinator
William J. Mallett
Analyst in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Transportation Policy
dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
wmallett@crs.loc.gov, 7-2216
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
111 Ahn B.O., Korail director of International Affairs, quoted in “High Speed Rail Boosts South Korea’s Business,”
ABC News, November 15, 2011, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=8433340.
112 Jeong Gwan Lee, spokesperson for the Korean Consul General in San Francisco, cited in “High Speed Rail Boosts
South Korea’s Business,” ABC News, November 15, 2011, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/
assignment_7&id=8433340.
113 Bechtel, Korea High Speed Rail, http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/Rail/Rail_KoreaHSR.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
30