	Introduction

The provision of $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ) reinvigorated the development of high speed intercity passenger rail (HSR) transportation in the United States. Only the HSR project in California is using federal funds for tracks dedicated to passenger trains, on which speeds could reach 220 mph. Plans for HSR in some states, including Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio, were shelved by political leaders opposed to the substantial spending such projects entail, particularly for capital and operating costs. Some projects were stopped after federal funds were awarded; these funds were subsequently redirected to HSR projects in other states. In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it would ask Congress to provide $1 billion annually for high speed and intercity passenger rail projects. Congress approved $2.5 billion for high speed rail and intercity passenger rail in FY2010 ( P.L. 111-117 ), but has provided no funding since then. In addition, the FY2011 appropriations act rescinded $400 million from prior year unobligated balances of program funding. These five corridors are Seattle-Portland; Chicago-St. Louis; Chicago-Detroit; the Northeast Corridor (NEC); and Charlotte-Washington, DC. In the sixth corridor, Los Angeles-San Francisco, the plans are to build a new very high speed rail line that may allow trains to reach speeds of up to 220 mph. It consists mostly of one track with sidings to allow trains to pass. To date, the project has been awarded nearly $4 billion in federal funds.. The other 15% to 20% of the increase results from higher expected construction costs. Options for Building High Speed Rail

There are two options for developing high speed rail service; the option chosen determines the level of high speed service that can be attained:
upgrading existing track, signaling systems, and equipment (e.g., tilting trains) to enable trains to travel somewhat faster over the existing rail network, or building new rail lines for the exclusive use of passenger trains enabling trains to travel at much higher speeds than are possible over the existing rail network, which is shared with freight rail. As a consequence, the costs of constructing and maintaining an intercity maglev line are unclear. Of the many high speed routes in the world, it is thought that only two have earned enough revenue to cover both their infrastructure and operating costs. Few if any passenger rail operations anywhere in the world generate sufficient revenue to cover all capital as well as operating costs. Trains depend on population density to operate efficiently. Completed as part of a wide-ranging review of transportation policy in the United Kingdom, an analysis of building a high speed rail system connecting London with Glasgow and Edinburgh (distances of approximately 350 miles and 330 miles, respectively), including its energy use and carbon emissions profile, concluded:
high level analysis of the potential carbon benefits from modal shift from air to high speed rail suggests that these benefits would be small relative to the very high cost of constructing and operating such a scheme, and that under current assumptions a high speed line connecting London to Scotland is unlikely to be a cost-effective policy for achieving reductions in carbon emissions compared to other policy measures. Also, there is a significant difference in the structure of the rail industry in countries with HSR compared to the United States.
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 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.
There 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.
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 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's HSR plans are being challenged in court, and court decisions in the fall of 2013 have put its funding in question.
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 many years to build vulnerable to year-to-year changes in discretionary budget allocations.