{ "id": "R45783", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R45783", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45783", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2021-03-07T04:03:34.527842", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R45783_4_2021-02-08", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45783/4", "sha1": "fed96bc57c52c435e39b7e41795e7ee761c1d972", "filename": "files/2021-02-08_R45783_fed96bc57c52c435e39b7e41795e7ee761c1d972.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-02-08_R45783_fed96bc57c52c435e39b7e41795e7ee761c1d972.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Improving Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the United States", "date": "2021-02-08" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 601039, "date": "2019-06-25", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T17:55:02.980793", "title": "Improving Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the United States", "summary": "The federal government has been involved in preserving and improving passenger rail service since 1970, when the bankruptcies of several major railroads threatened the continuance of passenger trains. Congress responded by creating Amtrak\u2014officially, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation\u2014to preserve a basic level of intercity passenger rail service, while relieving private railroad companies of the obligation to maintain a business that had lost money for decades. In the years since, the federal government has funded Amtrak and, in recent years, has funded passenger-rail efforts of varying size and complexity through grants, loans, and tax subsidies.\nEfforts to improve intercity passenger rail can be broadly grouped into two categories: incremental improvement of existing services operated by Amtrak and implementation of new rail service where none currently exists. Efforts have been focused on identifying corridors where passenger rail travel times would be competitive with driving or flying (generally less than 500 miles long) and where population density and intercity travel demand create favorable conditions for rail service. \nImproving existing routes: On the busy Northeast Corridor line owned by Amtrak, several projects to modernize or extend the life of existing infrastructure have been completed using federal grants overseen by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Amtrak has also received annual appropriations above authorized levels for use on the Northeast Corridor in recent years, but proposed projects to add capacity or reduce trip times require a level of investment that outstrips existing options for passenger rail funding. Federal grants have enabled state-supported routes off the Northeast Corridor to add additional trains per day and/or to reduce trip times (whether by increasing speeds or rerouting trains onto more direct alignments). Some grant funds have also preserved service on Amtrak\u2019s long-distance lines, which account for under 15% of ridership but incur the largest operating subsidies. \nState-supported and long-distance routes generally operate over tracks owned and maintained by freight railroads (called \u201chost\u201d railroads), which can interfere with existing service and complicate plans to add trains to already congested freight lines. Interference by freight trains has been cited by Amtrak as a major contributor to its trains\u2019 poor on-time performance, although freight railroads sometimes dispute this. A federal law passed in 2008 was designed to hold host railroads to new performance standards, but has been the subject of court challenges for nearly a decade. While legal issues surrounding on-time performance standards may be resolved in the short term, on-time performance has fallen from its system-wide high of 80% (four trains out of five arriving at all stops on time) achieved in 2012 and has been slow to rebound. \nNew rail services: Amtrak has partnered with several states to extend existing routes beyond their former termini to serve new stations, sometimes using additional federal grant money. A high-profile project to build a truly high-speed rail system in California was awarded nearly $4 billion out of the roughly $10 billion appropriated for intercity rail projects in 2009-2010, but projected costs exceed earlier estimates and current funding is sufficient to build only an initial segment. The Trump Administration is now seeking the return of some federal grants. A smaller and less technically complex project to introduce new rail service connecting Chicago, IL, and Iowa City, IA, received federal funding but was delayed at the state level, and it is not clear when or if it will be completed. Meanwhile, several efforts are under way in the private sector to bring intercity passenger rail to major urban corridors. One of these, the Brightline service in Florida, has already begun serving Miami and West Palm Beach on a line that will eventually reach Orlando. While privately funded and operated, these projects do benefit from public assistance in other ways, as Brightline was allowed to issue tax-subsidized qualified private activity bonds to finance construction. Pilot programs to allow private railroads to compete for the right to serve existing Amtrak routes have been less successful.\nRail programs were included in the most recent surface transportation authorization, which expires at the end of FY2020. Issues in reauthorization include whether and how to fund plans to build new infrastructure for improved rail services, especially on the federally owned Northeast Corridor; federal support for operating intercity rail services; the process by which rail lines are planned; the obligations of freight railroads to carry passenger trains; and whether other opportunities exist for the private sector to build or operate passenger rail services.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45783", "sha1": "371be4353e3646834198cbf52c228b15ded79c8e", "filename": "files/20190625_R45783_371be4353e3646834198cbf52c228b15ded79c8e.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45783_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190625_R45783_images_ceb41bf63b88d01f104fa5ecb6c4e8e4a56d07c6.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45783_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190625_R45783_images_3d1662e86c0c119f3618b410ede972d747a5c5df.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45783_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190625_R45783_images_fb5f240ea5a7f8cd28481925d2e2287856410cd0.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45783", "sha1": "2c384afe9b0608769e8a74d18d82c6ec32ff0c16", "filename": "files/20190625_R45783_2c384afe9b0608769e8a74d18d82c6ec32ff0c16.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4800, "name": "Public Transit & Passenger Rail" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Environmental Policy", "Transportation Policy" ] }