Amtrak To Spend $117 Billion On High-Speed Rail

PHILADELPHIA — Amtrak on Tuesday unveiled a $117 billion, 30-year vision for a high-speed rail line on the East Coast that would drastically reduce travel times along the congested corridor using trains traveling up to 220 miles per hour.

The proposal, which would require building a new set of tracks from Boston to Washington, D.C., is at the concept stage and there's no funding plan in place, Amtrak President Joseph Boardman said at a news conference at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station.

The project would likely use some combination of public and private investment and hopefully be phased in starting in 2015, he said.

The Next-Gen High Speed Rail line would have hubs in Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington and would cut travel times in half or better. It would reduce the travel time between Washington and New York from 162 minutes to 96 minutes, according to Amtrak. The travel time between New York and Boston would go from 215 minutes to 84 minutes.

About 12 million riders a year use Amtrak along the northeast corridor.

Under the high-speed system envisioned, the trains would be able to accommodate about 33.7 million passengers by 2040. Amtrak officials estimated the high-speed system would generate an $900 million more a year with the added ridership.

High-speed rail would not only help reduce congestion on the rails, but also in the skies, since it would be more enticing to passengers making shorter trips, according to Amtrak officials and others.

"No one should take a plane for a trip shorter than 500 miles," said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, noting that the system would be comparable to service now linking European countries.

The new system would support about 44,000 construction jobs annually over the anticipated 25-year process, as well as about 120,000 permanent jobs, Amtrak said.

But it would be expensive – averaging about $4 billion a year over three decades.

In 2009, Amtrak had a total budget of about $3.5 billion, with about $1.49 billion coming from the federal government. It spent $655 million of that federal funding on capital projects.

Nevertheless, Rendell said, political leaders must generate the will to get the project done before current system is overwhelmed.

"It isn't a dream, it isn't a fantasy, it isn't an illusion," the Democratic governor said. "Can we afford it? ... We can't afford not to do it."

Comments

[shams of tabriz]

11:03 AM on 10/20/2010

How come whenever I go to Europe (or hear about Asia), they have super-fast trains that travel at over 200 mph that link major cities--trains that have been successful for decades; but in the USA, we get sold "Acela" as some sort of legitimate high-speed rail option. We need to make this investment and catch up with the rest of the world. And let's cast Acela into the Edsel pile of bad transportation ideas. High-Speed Rail should mean High-Speed Rail...not slightly faster than normal rail. Let's do this.

[ecrichert12]

11:13 PM on 10/21/2010

Well the obvious answer is that the shear cost is many times greater than the benefit (both the upgront cost and the billions of operating losses that occur on every Amtrak route even during the best of times), but the answer goes beyond that.

The routes that would have demand (basically the current Bos-WashDC Acela route, the Cali coast, and maybe one linking Chicago to one of the eastern cities) are very hard to build. The Acela is slow by Asian standards because the route is very windy (topographical layout) and goes through suburban areas. The cali route is less windy but faces the same density problems. The Chicago route doesnt have either problem, but covers a greater distance and has less demand from the rural areas inbetween.

I travel on the northeast corridor several times a month, often on the Acela. I enjoy the ride and would recommend it - but as someone who crunches numbers for a living there are very good reasons why it hasnt been done. Overtime, its inevitable that some upgrades are due but I don't believe the numbers they promise (the Acela never hits the speeds imagined during its design).

[RAILWAYIST]

10:50 AM on 10/05/2010

$117 Billion US invested 'yearly' would give the USA more of a chance to keep pace with the massive investments pouring into 'energy efficient' railway infrastructures in Europe & Asia.

The existing AMTRAK passenger system total mileage (approx 23,000 miles) is close to what existed in the USA in the year 1856!---not 1956!
The once world's largest US rail-system just vaporized into thin air!
Gee---Now---how did that happen?
Anyone out there with any clues on the 'Great Trains and Streetcars Disappearance' ?

Yearly, the global railway industry is nearly a $200,000,000,000 ( 200 billion dollars US)...
The US economy could be -super-charged- by designing/manufacturing/operating energy efficient locomotives, passenger & freight cars, track, infrastructures, passenger and inter-modal freight facilities on a large scale...

Or...the US could just continue to pump gazzillionz of gallonz of gazzoline valued at close to a $1,000,000,000 (1 billion dollars US) daily into a quarter of a billion automobiles.

[ecrichert12]

11:16 PM on 10/21/2010

"The existing AMTRAK passenger system total mileage (approx 23,000 miles) is close to what existed in the USA in the year 1856!---not 1956!"

And what was the plane mileage flown in 1856? Theres no need for long passenger trains that have never shown demand and have cheaper alternatives in the sky. Short regional trips are fine (I take them weekly) but trying to get 2+2 to = 9 is a futile effort.

[battleofmarathon]

10:54 PM on 09/30/2010

If this doesn't turn into a nightmare boondoggle I will be pleasantly surprised.

[finn48]

07:49 PM on 09/30/2010

As a hideously rich Republicans from Greenwich, CT, my wife Muffy and I are against these so called hi-speed trains. I mean, after all, who actually rides a train? All my friends travel by private jet - it's so much more convenient. Let the the little people fly cattle car - I mean coach.

[dcladylaw]

01:24 PM on 09/29/2010

I would love it. I go back and forth from DC to NYC quite a bit and prefer the train vs. flying. Now if they would just add free WiFi access to all trains and not just the stations. As a very tall person, trains are also more comfortable. I had dealing with airport security hassles. I also know a few people who work in NYC and commute from the DC area on the train (part of the week stay in NYC and work from DC say Thursday through the weekend). I often get recruited for jobs in NYC but would not want to live there. It would definitely make working in one city and living in another along the corridor much easier.

[ecrichert12]

11:20 PM on 10/21/2010

thats the problem, you want FREE wifi when the routes lose money as it is! The Acela has 'free' wifi on that route already. Now I know your response is going to be that Acela isn't worth the higher price than the NE Regional to save an hour and you are RIGHT. But even at the higher price the Acela burns money hand over fist and isn't profitable. The routes that cost $150 are much higher if the real price were past onto the consumer and not the taxpayer.

Again, I take both the regional and Acela frequently, and no one would gain more than I would from these new routes, but they dont make sense financially by a long shot.

[mladwig]

11:41 AM on 09/29/2010

Meanwhile the midwest has no amtrak line that doesn't take you to Chicago first and the prices remain insane. Anywhere in the heartland, you are forced to own an automobile if you ever want to leave your surrounding city or town.

[aaronman]

10:08 AM on 09/29/2010

Why has Amtrak never been able to operate without deficits?

Are other countries rail systems managed this poorly?

[totalliberal]

09:33 PM on 09/30/2010

No they are subsidized by their governments, like we do with planes and trucks.

[battleofmarathon]

10:56 PM on 09/30/2010

Population density is really the driving factor for why passenger trains in America are not very effective.

[ecrichert12]

11:22 PM on 10/21/2010

Yea but even on the short routes on both coasts the trains run an operating loss. You're right in principal (BOS-NYC-DC) regional is marginally closest to break even, but if that isn't profitable theres no chance in He11 of making long distance routes work.

Unless you and another 200 people would pay $600 or so to go NY-Chicago it aint breaking even.

[Red Star Rogue]

09:43 AM on 09/29/2010

Public transport generates three times as many jobs as automobiles and airlines. if only we had anyone but bush when 9-11 happened. such a small small point of view. he could of had americans do anything. we would have done it happily joyfully singing effing kumba ya and the star spangled banner while it happened. a national High speed rail network built over the next 15 years to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. a 100mpg car, tripled our funding for education, mass space exploration, anything america would have done anything, and he could have done it all, all. spent every last dime, spilled every drop of ink and sweat in the name of national security. i hope ther is an afterlife, i hope all your delusions and illusions are stripped away there and your life laid bare just so he and his inner circle will realize what they could have done for our country. mearly invading a couple of countries, yea to be honest Afghanistan was probably necessary, but could have been avoided in the 80s with 800milion a year in aid to our allies the mujahadeen. so effing efed up. think i'll go be hermit.

[HCMon]

08:30 AM on 09/29/2010

I am very pleased to see that Amtrak is finally proposing an ambitious plan for high speed rail (even if they could be more aggressive with the timing). This plan is only one tenth the cost of the war in Iraq. I hope we can find the political will to support this effort. In an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning, a Republican Congressman, John Mica, was quoted as being very supportive. If this can really garner bi-partisan support maybe it really does have a chance.

[csuciadams]

02:02 PM on 11/04/2010

Well said! 1/10th the cost of the Iraq War! Billions of dollars in gained efficiencies!

[netzwerg]

07:45 AM on 09/29/2010

"....by 2040."

HAHAHAHA!

[JScott]

03:07 AM on 09/29/2010

Hope it includes above/below grade road crossings.

[UNLVGOP]

12:58 AM on 09/29/2010

Great...so now we'll be losing money even faster than before!

[chorka]

11:36 AM on 10/20/2010

I.G.N.O.R.A.M.O.U.S

[pinkogirl]

11:54 PM on 09/28/2010

Amtrak is pathetic. misrun for decades and still awful. they can't get a train from NY to DC on time and they can't even assign their tracks at Penn Station more than 10 minutes ahead of time. We lag in mass transit behind all of Europe and now Asia as well. And instead of recognizing the need the know nothing Republicans make fun of high speed rail. I hope everyone has a oil well in his backyard because at this rate we are going to need them much sooner.

[thereisonlyoneparty]

10:14 PM on 09/28/2010

"No one should take a plane for a trip shorter than 500 miles," said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, noting that the system would be comparable to service now linking European countries.

I wonder how many of those short plane trips are by choice?

I have made many sub-300 mile flights because of the hub system.  I would prefer direct travel, but I do not always have that option.  I have made other flights by choice though.  Flying into JFK/LGA/EWR is much more convenient than taking a train most of the time, even with the airport security rubbish.

"It isn't a dream, it isn't a fantasy, it isn't an illusion," the Democratic governor said. "Can we afford it? ... We can't afford not to do it."

Everything is affordable when the federal government is footing the bill.  Plus the governor can take credit for the "jobs" created for this incredibly necessary system.

[pinkogirl]

12:01 AM on 09/29/2010

government built the FDR the Cross Bronx I 95 the brooklyn bridge the golden gate. I don't see the country going bankrupt because of that. Saying we can't afford rail and transit improvements is saying you can't afford to get rid of the termites that are eating your house. Only makes sense if you want to be homeless. Also we have plenty of money so long as you don't throw it away on wars or give it to rich people as some stupid bribe to get them to give you jobs. Wake up they give jobs to people in those countries with good rail systems like China. Countries with a future.

[JScott]

03:10 AM on 09/29/2010

Yup this BS about 'we can't afford it' just means 'no we'd rather spend it on this'.

Interestingly CEO's, private equity and Wall St. seem to have billions and billions of $ and they don't even have to be very good at what they do, they can even run some companies into the ground.

[thereisonlyoneparty]

10:51 AM on 09/29/2010

Infrastructure does need money and improvements, but not all improvements are equally as costly and not all have the same level of benefit.  A bridge or tunnel can increase efficiency and very often requires little modification of existing infrastructure.  A train line requires many changes as it is not as flexible as other methods of transport.

the point is to expand the rail system so it is convenient

The problem is that trains do not work within the current system of infrastructure nor are they easily insertable within it.  A road can be put almost anywhere there is room and can follow pretty much any path (turning radius of most cars is less than 40 feet).  An airplane can fly over pretty much anything.  Trains though require major changes and adaptations of roads and traffic patterns.

It is hard to make trains convenient when society decided not to use them years ago.  We built new structures and infrastructure in ways that did not consider trains for passenger travel and it will be really costly to put them back in.

[ABSORB]

09:58 PM on 09/28/2010

Meanwhile china has built an extensive HSR system in less then 10 years and plans $300 billion in more lines. and plans to complete them in less then 10 years

We are pathetic arn't we

[thereisonlyoneparty]

10:03 PM on 09/28/2010

Because China has better trains?

I am looking for current numbers, but according to five years ago number the US had six times as many passenger miles in the air compared to China.

We move well, just in different ways.

Trains are useless for most of the country.  No one is going to spend a day on a train.  It makes a lot of sense for the Northeast Travel Corridor, but little sense outside of it.  Trains are just not all that useful for the US outside of the most densely popular areas.

[admiralj]

11:23 PM on 09/28/2010

Then obviously, you haven't been to Europe. They travel more by train (HSR) than plane. It's faster and more convenient, it passes thru areas both lightly and highly populated. China recognizes that rail is extremely valuable in any future growth. Therefore the investment in their future.

[pinkogirl]

12:04 AM on 09/29/2010

trains are "useless" because we don't have an extensive high speed rail system. That's what we are talking about creating--- hope you have some jet fuel hidden somewhere.

[BasketWeaver]

12:12 PM on 09/29/2010

Do you know what Chinese labor costs?