|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
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FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year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.
This book is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills
that Congress considers each year. It is designed to supplement the
information provided by the Subcommittees on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. It summarises the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding
levels, and related legislative activity.
|
You may like...
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|