{
  "id": "R42584",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R42584",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 426371,
      "date": "2013-12-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:49:50.714795",
      "title": "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\u2019s budgets for FY2010 through FY2014. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), but has provided no funding for the program since then, and in the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding.\nThere are two main approaches to building high speed rail: (1) improving existing tracks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.\nMuch 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 has been allocated to a largely new system dedicated to passenger trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles, on which speeds could reach 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. California\u2019s HSR plans are being challenged in court, and court decisions in the fall of 2013 have put its funding in question.\nEstimates 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.\nLack 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 many years to build vulnerable to year-to-year changes in discretionary budget allocations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42584",
          "sha1": "277ff1e1ba87c1513c0fd8a7c57c47b8ba7122d1",
          "filename": "files/20131220_R42584_277ff1e1ba87c1513c0fd8a7c57c47b8ba7122d1.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42584",
          "sha1": "ef8ee416ed0e3580c9d6effceb42b4883bc32182",
          "filename": "files/20131220_R42584_ef8ee416ed0e3580c9d6effceb42b4883bc32182.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3760,
          "name": "Surface Transportation"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc93945/",
      "id": "R42584_2012Jun28",
      "date": "2012-06-28",
      "retrieved": "2012-07-24T12:39:36",
      "title": "The Development of High Speed Rail in the United States: Issues and Recent Events",
      "summary": "This report looks at the different ways to construct a high speed rail (HSR) in the U.S., including estimates of construction costs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20120628_R42584_dbdac512e81f237ebf807b0877ec93d006bbdfb1.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20120628_R42584_dbdac512e81f237ebf807b0877ec93d006bbdfb1.html",
          "source": "pymupdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Railroads",
          "name": "Railroads"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Highspeed trains",
          "name": "Highspeed trains"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Highspeed ground transportation",
          "name": "Highspeed ground transportation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Transportation",
          "name": "Transportation"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Transportation Policy"
  ]
}