Why the U.S. and Washington Should Not Build High-Speed Rail
June 2009
The following Policy Note is a summary of an in-depth Policy Brief on High Speed Rail.
In February 2009, Congress dedicated $8 billion of stimulus funds to highspeed rail projects. In April, President Obama released his high-speed rail “vision” for America, which includes 8,500 miles that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had identified as potential high-speed rail routes in 2001. In June, the FRA announced its criteria for states to apply for high-speed rail grants out of the $8 billion in stimulus funds.
Yet the FRA has no estimates how much high-speed rail will ultimately cost, who will ride it, who will pay for it, and whether the benefits can justify the costs. A realistic review shows that high-speed rail will be extremely costly and will add little to American mobility or environmental quality.
The best available data indicate that the FRA plan will cost about $90 billion, or roughly one-fifth the inflation-adjusted cost of the Interstate Highway System that was approved in 1956. This plan will provide trains with average speeds of 140-150 miles per hour (mph) in California, 75-85 mph in Florida, and moderate-speed trains averaging 55-75 mph in Washington and 30 other states.
Key Findings
• Initial funding commits the nation to a program whose eventual costs could exceed $1 trillion.
• Outside of the Boston-to-Washington and Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg routes, Amtrak shortdistance
trains lose an average of
$37 per passenger and Amtrak
expects the states to cover most
of these operating losses.
• A hidden cost of rail is that it must be rebuilt about every 30 years. This means construction could leave states obligated to fund billions of dollars in rehabilitation costs.
• The fact that American freight railroads are profitable while European passenger lines are not suggests that freight, not passenger, is the highest and best use of a modern railroad in most places.
• It is far more cost-effective to save energy by encouraging people to drive more fuelefficient cars than to build and operate high-speed rail.
• Considering the energy required for rail construction, improvements in auto and airline energy efficiencies, and the high energy cost required to move trains at higher speeds, highspeed rail will have little to no environmental benefit.
• Upgrading the 280 rail miles in Washington to 110-mph standards would cost nearly $1 billion.
• The average Washingtonian will take a round trip on high-speed rail once every 8.5 years.
