Posted 16th June 2008 | 6 Comments
United States Congress votes for high speed rail
WHILE Britain has no firm plans for new high-speed rail lines since the 69-mile long route opened last year between London and the Channel Tunnel, the United States’ Congress has just voted by a huge margin for high speed rail developments, including between Washington DC, New York and Boston.
Public transport in America is now reeling under pressure of demand from commuters who are dumping their cars since the average petrol price rose above $4 per US gallon, almost twice what it was a year ago.
(An American gallon is 83 per cent of an imperial gallon, so the average price of US gasoline at present is equivalent to £2.46 for a UK gallon. A gallon of 4-star petrol in the UK at present typically costs about £5.40.)
The US Congress has now approved funding for Amtrak, the national passenger railroad, over the next five years — just as ridership is at the highest point in Amtrak’s 37-year-history.
The vote in favour of Amtrak’s spending was 311-104 — more than the two-thirds majority needed to prevent a threatened veto by President Bush.
The bill would authorise $14.4 billion (£7.4bn) for Amtrak and individual states to develop intercity passenger rail systems, and would set aside $1.75 billion(£900m) for planning 11 high-speed rail corridors.
Among these, the bill requires the US Federal Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service operating Washington-New York City in two hours or less.
The idea has long been championed by Florida Republican John Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.
In the US the Acela Express — a version of Alstom’s French TGV but built in America by Bombardier Transportation — serves the Northeast Corridor but has an average speed of only 82 mph, although it can reach 150mph on stretches of track in Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Amtrak was pleased by the Congress decision. Spokesman Cliff Black said: "This reflects strong support for intercity passenger rail service, and we look forward to working with Congress as they move forward to reconcile a final authorization bill."
The bill comes just as ridership is hitting a record high. Amtrak saw passengers up 12.3 percent in the past year — and ticket revenue up 15.6 percent — the sixth straight year of record numbers, according to Reuters.
The Bush administration and some Amtrak critics wanted the company to move toward self-sufficiency, but Amtrak supporters say passenger railways around the world require government subsidies and point to the large sums of US federal money spent on highways.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Sylvain, Montreal, Canada
It's about time that the Americans invest in a interstate high speed rail system.
But the 8 billion of dollars is not enough to finance,paying and building a interstate high speed rail for passengers. And this is not a real high speed rail system like Europeans and Asians people have it. Plus,the US high speed rail plan which these future high trains will be running on conventional and existing tracks except California that they plan to build a true high speed rail plan like Europeans and Asians people have it.
Canada plans to study and building an high speed rail system too in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor to connect Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto and Windsor in the Quebec and Ontario provinces.
This project exist only in study and it was never realized and Canada's talked about this project to put on these rails since the 80's about twenty five years ago.
There's another high speed rail project in Canada and he the second. The Edmonton-Calgary corridor is in project too.
In my opinion,Canada and United States and Mexico countries must investing in high speed rail in their territories from coast to coast.
Gareth Miller, Chinnor, UK
I think Paul Withrington neglects to mention that he is head of Transport Watch which is a UK based anti-rail lobbying group, it would only be fair to have mentioned that wouldnt it Paul? Having read your site it would be fair to say you have a capitalist, pro car pro air travel outlook.
I wish to point out before my main comment that I am just a normal member of the public with a mild interest in the modern railways but I own a car and use planes!
What Paul fails to mention is that whilst the proposed new uk high speed line may cost £30 billion to build, the same reports he gets that figure from quote that the economic benefits to the uk economy will total £60 billion plus,
Paul also seemingly fails to realise that whilst some new lines may never make money back at the fare box, the wider economical and social benefits often still make them invaluable additions and help grow the national economy creating new tax revenue for use on schools/hospitals and revitalise areas the new lines/stations serve. If we were to use Pauls methodology we wouldnt invest in anything that didnt pay for itself directly so there would be no schools for example.
Gareth Miller, Chinnor, UK
I think Paul Withrington neglects to mention that he is head of Transport Watch which is a UK based anti-rail lobbying group, it would only be fair to have mentioned that wouldnt it Paul? Having read your site it would be fair to say you have a capitalist, pro car pro air travel outlook.
I wish to point out before my main comment that I am just a normal member of the public with a mild interest in the modern railways but I own a car and use planes!
What Paul fails to mention is that whilst the proposed new uk high speed line may cost £30 billion to build, the same reports he gets that figure from quote that the economic benefits to the uk economy will total £60 billion plus,
Paul also seemingly fails to realise that whilst some new lines may never make money back at the fare box, the wider economical and social benefits often still make them invaluable additions and help grow the national economy creating new tax revenue for use on schools/hospitals and revitalise areas the new lines/stations serve. If we were to use Pauls methodology we wouldnt invest in anything that didnt pay for itself directly so there would be no schools for example.
Bob Lothrope, Resiforoborough, USA
What this article doesn't mention is that existing conventional-speed rail in the U.K. is far faster, and runs far more frequently, than anything in the United States, including the so-called high-speed Acela Express.
Dominic, Manchester, UK
It would appear that the US Congress are starting to realise that the conjunction of Peak Oil and Climate Change is making investment in the railways a very important element in transport policy. At the same time this will bring about economic and social benefits by allowing concentration of economic activity along specific highly accessible transport corridors.
Energy efficiency of electrified high speed rail routes is high and new technology is allowing further gains to be made. A Eurostar journey from London to Paris emits 4 or 5 times less CO2 than the equivalent journey by plane. Similarly Virgin Trains Pendolinos emit 4 times less CO2 than the equivalent car journey from Manchester to London.
Paul F Withrington, Northampton, UK
This illustrates that the desire to waste other people's money is irresistible. What more stupid argument could there be for subsidising rail than that everyone else is doing the same?. The channel tunnel plus the associated links costs circ £30 billion at today’s prices. None of that will ever be recouped from the fare box. Greenguage and others now canvas for a high-speed line to from London to Scotland, likely to cost another £30 billion or £2,500 for every household in the land. That, and similar, is one reason that we are taxed unto death. Further, at least in the UK, high-speed rail is worse some short-haul aircraft with regards to emissions. See Facts sheet 5b in the Transport-watch web site.