HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE US - By Kevin Ballen - HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
HIGH-SPEED RAIL IN THE US
By Kevin Ballen
INTRODUCTION
America is in a transportation crisis. Traffic makes travel difficult
in urban areas, ridership of public transportation is low, and public
transit options are sometimes unreliable and limited in geographic
reach. The United States’ transportation pales in comparison to other
countries, particularly in Asia and Europe, whose systems are more
expansive, sustainable, and used (English, 2018). Additionally,
transportation is one of the largest contributors to the global climate
crisis, accounting for 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions
A high-speed rail (Jehanno, 2011).
train next to a High-speed rail has been proposed as a potential solution to
traditional train. the United States’ transportation challenges. High-speed rail, which
High-speed Rail
Alliance
is defined as train options that reach speeds of over 125 MPH can
potentially move individuals quickly to destinations and divert
consumers away from less environmentally friendly options such as
plane and car travel (High-Speed Rail Alliance, 2021). However,
High-speed Rail high-speed rail comes with a hefty price tag, environmental costs of
– rail that travels production, and the need for multi-decade commitment to
faster than 125 MPH. producing the tracks and cars. New physical rails are also often
needed, in addition to new routes with fewer curves (International
Energy Agency). The only high-speed rail in the United States is
currently a portion of the Acela Express between Providence and
Boston. These segments allow trains to reach up to 150 MPH, but due
to the remaining infrastructure, the average speed for the entire
The only active
route is less than 80 MPH (Josef, 2019).
high-speed rail in The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
the United States is must decide if high-speed rail is still a worthy investment. Do enough
on the Acela from individuals use rail to justify its budget and environmental
Boston to production costs? Are there other sustainable options that cost less?
Providence. How will states and the federal government work together to make
inter-state transportation options a success?
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE
Historical Development
Trains and railroads started surfacing in the United States during
the early 19th century both to transport materials and individuals.
These railroads were sometimes financially supported by states that
approved their production; however, railroads and trains were
usually owned by private companies (The Library of Congress). In
the late 19th century, due to railroad malpractices, the government
created the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interstate
Commerce Commission focused on safety and labor practices within
the rail industry, and the government continued to become
increasingly involved in transportation after the creation of the
Federal Railroad commission (Federal Register). In 1966, Lyndon Johnson created
Administration the Federal Railroad Administration and the Department of
– government agency Transportation (The United States Department of Transportation) to
that oversees rail continue regulating the industry. As rail struggled to make profits,
travel; sits under the government took control and created Amtrak in 1970. Amtrak
Department of is a passenger rail company that is mostly funded and controlled by
Transportation. the federal government (Peterman, 2017).
In 1964, the United States started considering the utilization of
high-speed rail, during this time, only Japan had implemented high-
speed rail. The High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965
Amtrak – largest started allocating funding for high-speed rail, specifically for the
provider of passenger Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington DC. The
rail; largely Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 provided
controlled and funded more funding and support for the Northeast Corridor. However, this
by the federal funding only provided some foundational expenses but not enough
government. for full completion. During the late 1980s, Congress started showing
interest in magnetic levitation technology – a form of magnets that
floats the train off the tracks, reducing friction and increasing speed.
This led to the establishment of the National Maglev Initiative (NMI)
The United States in 1991.
started considering In the early 1990s, the Federal Railroad Administration started
identifying other opportunities for high-speed rail outside the
high-speed rail in
Northeast: Chicago to Detroit to St Louis to Milwaukee, Miami to
1964, but Orlando to Tampa, California to San Diego to Los Angeles to
substantial funding Sacramento, Charlotte to Richmond to DC, and Portland to Seattle
was not dedicated to Vancouver. In the late 90s, more opportunities were identified: the
till 2009. Gulf Coast, Philadelphia to Harrisburg, New York to Buffalo,
Charlotte to Jacksonville, Milwaukee to St Paul, and Chicago to
Cincinnati. Substantial funding was not dedicated until the 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act discussed later in this
briefing (Federal Railroad Administration).
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 2
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Scope of the Problem
Environmental Impact
Climate change and global warming is an urgent global and
Environmentally national problem, posing threats to wildlife, natural environments,
Conscious and various communities. Fortunately, rail travel has been
Transportation – established as an environmentally conscious form of
low in fossil fuel transportation. Environmentally conscious refers to fossil fuel
emission as well as emission, as well as air and noise pollution. Transportation is
noise and air responsible for 23% of the total national fossil fuel emissions. Rail
pollution. only contributes about 2% of transportation emissions, whereas road
travel accounts for 73% of emissions and air travel for 11%. Models
that examine the emissions per passenger of different forms of
transport find that rail releases two kg of CO2 for each passenger
whereas car releases 89 kg of CO2 per passenger and aircrafts release
97 kg of CO2 per passenger. High-speed rail and conventional rail
have similar environmental impacts. However, because high-speed
rail is quick and attractive, its presence may move more people
towards rail from high emission transport options (Jehanno, 2011)
Energy efficiency of rail transportation depends on what powers
the rail (Jehanno, 2011). While most rail is powered by electricity -
which is very efficient - some rail is still powered by diesel which has
a much higher rate of emission (International Energy Agency, 2019).
One concern around the development of high-speed rail is the
emissions produced by the construction of new railroads. These
emissions from construction can be offset if the new railroads shift
people away from cars and planes. For example, when a new high-
speed train was built between Brussels to London, plane travel on
that route dipped by 55% and this change in transportation patterns
High-speed rail justified the environmental impacts of construction. High-speed rail
construction taking is particularly effective in cutting short flights when passengers
place in California. spend more time navigating through the airport, security, boarding,
[Sheehan, 2021] and more than they do in the air (International Energy Agency,
2019).
Widespread Service
High-speed rail works well in heavily populated areas and across
High-speed rail heavily traveled routes which is why rail is mostly used by those
between Brussels within cities. Europe, which has a more compactly located
and London population, has had great success with high-speed rail (Frost, 2019).
reduced 55% of air However, federal expenditure requires everyone’s tax dollars, even if
travel on that route. they are not using a rail solution. Highways are something that
everyone can relate to, and their public funding has been more
universally supported. However, rail travel may be unfamiliar to
some causing less enthusiasm around federal funding. Some may
even see high-speed rail development as the government attempting
to control Americans and their movement, while highways represent
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 3
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
freedom to transport yourself. Of course, this challenge of who is
being served comes with every federal expenditure (Frost, 2019).
However, this question of who is being served has been mentioned
consistently in the opposition to high-speed rail.
Other Transit Options
While high-speed rail may be a great option, it needs to be
weighed next to other transportation options. Especially given how
ingrained car and air travel are within American culture, some would
advocate for more fuel-efficient cars, electric vehicles, or more
emission regulation on the airline industry (Holthaus, 2015).
Additionally, some may advocate that funding be dedicated to
other rail projects, such as expansion or repairs, rather than the
much larger and more long-term investment in high-speed rail.
Amtrak’s 2021 requests to Congress focused on repairs, new cars,
moving toward all-electric, and creating more flexibility in funding,
such as allowing states to use their highway funds towards other
forms of transport. Amtrak was not as focused on high-speed rail, but
rather better delivering their existing service (Vantuono, 2021).
Perhaps with limited resources and will of the government, Amtrak
has felt the need to prioritize, and high-speed rail is not the primary
priority.
Difficulty of Building
Other countries and regions, such as China or Europe, have built
high-speed rail systems quite quickly while the United States has
struggled. China has built a high-speed rail network at a record speed
of seven years. It cost China only 17-21m per km of track whereas it’s
costing the US 56M per km. This is not only because labor is cheap
in China, but also because moving homes out of the way of tracks is
cheap due to Chinese government dominance. The government can
standardize the development of all tunnels and bridges, whereas the
US may need to follow local rules. China can also regulate the price
of the materials they need (Sweet, 2014).
Infrastructure development was once much easier in the United
States, such as during the building of highways in the 1950s.
High-speed rail in However, as trust in government, particularly the federal
China costs 17- government has radically waned, resulting in less interest in giving
21M/km but costs the government funding for long-term projects (Freemark, 2014).
Given the US’ legal systems, companies and individuals can tie up
the United States the government with lawsuits preventing the acceleration of projects
56M/km. for multiple years (McArdle, 2019). Any infrastructure project in the
United States, particularly one that not everyone agrees on, can take
much longer than originally anticipated.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 4
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Congressional Action
The first major federal investment in high-speed rail was in 2009
with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill
provided eight billion dollars in grants to states to develop high-
speed rail solutions (State of New Hampshire). Eventual grant
winners included California for the development of a train from Los
Angeles to San Francisco, Florida for a line from Orlando to Tampa,
American
and Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas for the development of a high-
Recovery and
speed route from Chicago to St. Louis (Peterson, 2010). 1.3 billion
Reinvestment Act –
was dedicated for Amtrak repairs to move closer to high-speed rail
first and only major
(State of New Hampshire). 2.5 billion in funds were renewed in 2010.
federal investment in
However, governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin rejected the
high-speed rail
federal funding. Proposals for continued federal funding in future
years were rejected (Frost, 2019).
The American Jobs Plan, which has been proposed by President
Biden, includes extensive federal funding for rail. The plan asks for
85 billion dollars to fund public transportation modernization, as
well as 80 billion dollars for Amtrak repairs and advancement
(Sapien, 2021). While high-speed rail is not specifically earmarked,
the funding could be used for its development. The bill has not
passed the House or Senate yet.
Other Policy Action
Amtrak has pursued the expansion of high-speed rail in the
Northeast Corridor. Amtrak and the Federal Railroad
Administration have released plans for new railroads, routes, and
cars totaling $110 billion bringing Boston to D.C. travel time to less
Northeast than four hours. Parts of this project have been funded by the federal
Corridor – track government and Amtrak (Railway Technology).
from DC to Boston; California passed Proposition 1A in 2008, dedicating almost 10
the most heavily billion dollars to delivering service from Los Angeles to San
traveled rail route. Francisco in less than three hours at speeds up to 220 mph. The
project costs have now doubled, and the timeline has been pushed
back dramatically, causing turmoil amongst voters, politicians, and
Proposition 1A – the press (Ayemba, 2021).
California ballot In Florida, publicly funded high-speed rail has been proposed,
initiative dedicated approved, and canceled multiple times (Tampa Bay Times Editorial).
funding to high-speed A private developer then proposed a privately owned rail service
rail. called “Brightline” which was approved. Brightline is working on a
path along the coast of Florida and a small sliver around Orlando will
Brightline – reach high-speed rail rates. A possible extension of the initially
privately developed planned route from Tampa to Orlando would also allow for high-
future high-speed rail speed rail (High-speed Rail Alliance).
line in Florida High-speed rail has been proposed several times in Texas,
connecting San Antonio and Houston to Dallas. Proposals have faced
pushback from other competing industries, notably Southwest
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 5
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Airlines (Batheja, 2014). However, a company recently has proposed
and been approved to pursue a private rail plan (Texas Central).
IDEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS
Conservative View
Conservatives are generally not in favor of large-scale high-speed
rail development funded by the government. However, conservatives
do have some interest in rail as a transportation solution. A poll of
conservative communities in Colorado and Kansas found support for
increased state funding to support Amtrak, especially when it
resulted in more service to their area (Smart Union, 2013). In 2021,
Republican leaders still propose a decrease in funding for
transportation, with less money dedicated to rail and more allocated
for roads and bridges (Snell, 2021).
Despite some interest in transportation, conservatives are still
not in favor of federally supported high-speed rail. Then-Governors
Rick Scott (R-FL) and John Kasich (R-OH) halted federal funding for
high-speed rail in 2011. These governors mostly cited cost as their
Map of high-speed reasoning, worried that this federal funding would not be enough,
rail plain in Texas. and the state may need to chip in eventually (Staggs, 2021). Cost is
[Texas Central] generally a major reason why conservatives oppose rail investments,
along with concern that it will replace the car industry and jobs.
Conservatives may also be concerned that federally funded rail
represents over-extension of the federal government and federal
dollars. Given that many conservatives are located in more suburban
and rural areas, public transit may be less applicable to them driving
down their support (Weigel, 2021).
Liberal View
Liberals are generally in favor of increased transportation
infrastructure and federal funding (Montanaro, 2021). Liberals are
also more in favor of high-speed rail. Even after 10 years of delays,
the majority of Californians – a very liberal state – are still excited
about the promise of high-speed rail development. Californians do
wish the project would cost less (Brinklow, 2018). A poll found that
Californians are resistant to more state funding dedicated to high-
speed rail (Slowey, 2018). The support for high-speed rail clearly
does have some limits. There is a strong constituency of progressive
young people and organizations strongly in favor of high-speed rail
(Birenbaum, 2021).
Liberals favor high-speed rail because of its protection of the
climate, representation of bold government reform, and, lastly, it
would provide a cost-effective mode of transportation to many
Americans (Birenbaum, 2021).
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 6HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
AREAS OF DEBATE
Create a High-speed Rail Network
A high-speed rail network is the most ambitious proposal.
This is a 17,000-mile-high-speed rail network, spanning the entire
nation, with a goal to finish building by 2030. This model will
integrate inter-city high-speed rail with rail systems in smaller
communities and last-mile transit options like bike systems. The
plan asks for a one trillion-dollar investment which would also create
High-speed Rail 11 million new jobs. The rail networks call for a high-speed rail
Network – national solution for all trips in the 20-to-100-mile range to the 500-2000
network of high-speed mile range, with trips more in the 500-2000 and 2000+ mile range
rail lines. still involving plane travel (US High-speed Rail Association).
This plan would create millions of American jobs, prioritize safety
in transit, decrease traffic, and if well-used, could dramatically shift
environmental impacts of transportation. At the same time, this plan
is costly with a potential price tag of one trillion dollars and runs the
risk of not being well-utilized. Further, the plan relies on long-term
commitment and a shift in political will could waste previously
dedicated dollars (US High-Speed Rail Association).
The US High-speed Rail Association, a membership trade
association, is the main proponent of this plan (US High-Speed Rail
Map of a national Association). Gen-Z activists and progressive organizations, such as
high-speed rail the Sunrise Movement, have shown support for this proposal
network. (Birenbaum, 2021).
Birenbaum, 2021; Political Perspectives on this Solution
photo credits to Alfred
Twu Liberals are more likely in favor of this solution as it prioritizes
large-scale government investment to both solve transportation
challenges and climate challenges. Though, the price tag and
questions of feasibility may be points of concern for some liberals.
Conservatives are likely to oppose this dramatic federal investment,
as it may displace existing jobs and be an overreach and
overinvestment from the federal government. However,
conservatives may be interested in potential job creation. Everyone
is likely to support a reduction in traffic that this solution likely
produces.
US High-speed Invest in Other Transportation
Rail Association
– membership Another solution is to invest in other transportation options
organization leading besides high-speed rail. This may include investment in fuel-efficient
advocacy for high- vehicles, such as electric vehicles. This could include investment in
speed rail network. biking, local subways, carpooling, or increased regulation and
advancement in air travel. Lastly, this investment could involve
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 7HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
expansion and improvement of existing inter-city rail, just not at
high-speed rates.
Some doubt whether high-speed rail investments are worth their
development, questioning the cost and how many individuals will
utilize rail options. Investing in existing transportation options will
focus on what Americans already know, keep and expand jobs in
already existing industries, and not require the same level of lump-
sum investments. On the other hand, these investments are many
times not focused on the most fuel-efficient options and could be
chipping away at a massive climate crisis that needs bold action.
Political Perspectives on this Solution
While liberals are likely to support any investment in public
transportation, there is likely some concern about a lack of bold
government action and investing in non-efficient options.
Conservatives are likely to support a less abrupt approach, however,
it is unclear how much transportation investment conservatives
might be in favor of.
Leave Policymaking to the States
Given that many high-speed rail lines would take place within one
state or across just a few states, one solution would be to give more
control to individual states for their transportation choices. This
could involve a federal grant program for states to develop
transportation solutions however they wish, or it could involve no
funding from the federal government and complete reliance on state
support. This solution would avoid federal regulation and
dependence, which could be helpful if there is turnover in
administrations. This solution could also be more directly decided by
the constituents of a specific state based on whom they vote into
power or if the funding is put up to a referenda vote. Constituents
may feel that they will be able to develop these solutions only if they
serve the people of their state. However, this solution would take
away a lot of potential funds that the federal government could
provide and federal pressure and oversight, which could be helpful
in mitigating the climate crisis.
Political Perspectives on this Solution
Conservatives are likely to favor this option since it reduces the
control of the federal government and empowers states to make
choices for themselves. Liberals are likely to favor a federal grant
program but are likely to be concerned about less federal oversight
and investment.
Privatize Public Transportation
A final solution to our transportation crisis could be the
privatization of transportation solutions. Currently, most
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 8HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
transportation is government-supported. Some models suggest that
privatized bussing across the United States would save almost six
billion dollars each year. Companies would not be restricted by
unions in the same way that governments are restricted. Due to
One solution could competition, service would remain cost-efficient and high-quality.
be privatization of The costs saved could be used to still subsidize fairs for lower-income
individuals (Millsap, 2016). Florida’s Brightline development will be
transportation
a good test of this model. Both Florida and Texas resorted to
solutions. privatization due to a lack of state support. However, the funders
clearly saw some vision of profitability.
This solution may come at the risk of fewer, more strenuous jobs
without the presence of unions. Fares may also be less regulated,
making transportation less accessible for lower-income individuals.
Political Perspectives on this Solution
Conservatives are likely to be in favor of this solution, as it
decreases government involvement in daily life operations and
prioritizes the open market. Liberals are likely to be opposed to the
solution as it decreases regulation on companies and may create
challenges around transportation access. However, liberals may be
convinced if there is still some federal oversight.
BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
High-speed rail costs vary based on localities. However,
predictions suggest that high-speed rail costs almost 80 million per
mile in the United States (Sweet, 2014). A national rail system has
been predicted to cost 1 trillion dollars (US High-speed Rail
Meeting of House Association). California’s system will cost close to 100 billion dollars
Committee on (Ayemba, 2021) when it is completed. The costs for high-speed rail
Transportation and appear to be spent on materials and labor – labor both in planning
Infrastructure and physical production.
Georgetown Climate
While expensive, high-speed rail will produce revenues based on
Center
passengers. Further, high-speed rail has already created thousands
of jobs and could create thousands more. The economic development
around stations, as well as the positive environmental impact, should
be considered important in budget conversations.
CONCLUSION
Congress must decide if and how they want to manage the
topic of high-speed rail along with other priorities, such as the
environment, federal oversight, and budget. High-speed rail has
already seen hefty investment both from the federal government and
from the states. Is the continued investment worth it? Is high-speed
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 9HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
rail the best way to tackle the climate crisis? Is there a reason it has
taken the United States so long to achieve the implementation of
high-speed rail? Should we abandon the solution? On the other hand,
the United States is in a transportation and climate crisis. Perhaps,
we need urgent action now more than ever. Individual
congresspeople will have to weigh what they know about the federal
government and the future of the country with their constituents’
desires.
Multiple solutions might be necessary to address the needs of
the entire country and competing priorities. New solutions not
included in this briefing are also encouraged.
GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH
Research for this briefing came from government and
organizational reports produced by agencies related to
transportation and the environment. Websites related to
transportation and rail were also particularly helpful.
Future research should continue to examine institutional reports
produced by the government and trusted agencies. Research may
also compare private investments in high-speed rail and public
investments. Exploration of other countries’ implementation will
likely be helpful, as well. Lastly, polling and congressional voting
history may be insightful.
GLOSSARY
High-speed Rail – rail that travels faster than 125mph.
Federal Railroad Administration – government agency that
oversees rail travel; sits under Department of Transportation.
Amtrak – largest provider of passenger rail in the United States;
largely controlled and funded by the federal government.
Environmentally Conscious Transportation – low in fossil
fuel emission as well as noise and air pollution.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act –first and only
major federal investment in high-speed rail
Northeast Corridor – track from DC to Boston; the most heavily
traveled rail route in the United States.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 10HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Proposition 1A – California ballot initiative dedicated funding to
high-speed rail.
Brightline – privately developed future high-speed rail line in
Florida
High-speed Rail Network – national network of high-speed rail
lines.
US High-speed Rail Association – membership organization
leading advocacy for high-speed rail network.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayemba, Dennis. “California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) Project Timeline
and All You Need to Know.” Construction Review Online, 21 Apr.
2021, constructionreviewonline.com/project-timelines/california-high-
speed-rail-chsr-project-timeline-and-all-you-need-to-know/.
Batheja, Aman. “Bullet Train Failed Once, but It's Back.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 7 Mar. 2014,
www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/us/bullet-train-failed-once-
but-its-back.html.
Birenbaum, Gabby. “Gen Z's High-Speed Rail Meme Dream, Explained.”
Vox, Vox, 10 Mar. 2021, www.vox.com/2021/3/10/22303355/gen-z-
high-speed-rail-biden-map-meme-buttigieg.
Brinklow, Adam. “Support for California High-Speed Rail Unchanged
after 10 Years.” Curbed SF, Curbed SF, 30 Mar. 2018,
sf.curbed.com/2018/3/30/17180506/high-speed-rail-california-poll-
train-project-cost-voters.
English, Jonathan. Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit?
Bloomberg, 31 Aug. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-
08-31/why-is-american-mass-transit-so-bad-it-s-a-long-story.
Federal Railroad Administration. High-Speed Rail Timeline.
railroads.dot.gov/passenger-rail/high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail-
timeline.
Federal Register. Agencies - Interstate Commerce Commission.
www.federalregister.gov/agencies/interstate-commerce-
commission#:~:text=The%20ICC%2C%20the%20first%20regulatory,
carriers%20except%20airplanes%20by%201940.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 11HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Freemark, Yonah. “Why Can't the United States Build a High-Speed Rail
System?” Bloomberg, 13 Aug. 2014,
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-13/why-can-t-the-united-
states-build-a-high-speed-rail-system.
Frost, Natasha. A Decade Ago, the US Was Promised High-Speed Rail-so
Where Is It? Quartz, 27 Dec. 2019, qz.com/1761495/this-is-why-the-
us-still-doesnt-have-high-speed-trains/.
Georgetown Climate Center. GCC Exec. Director Vicki Arroyo Testifies
before House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure -
Georgetown Climate Center.
www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/gcc-exec-director-vicki-arroyo-
testifies-before-house-committee-on-transportation-and-
infrastructure.html.
High-Speed Rail Alliance. www.hsrail.org/.
Holthaus, Eric. “High-Speed Rail Is a Waste of Time and Money.” Slate
Magazine, Slate, 6 Jan. 2015, slate.com/technology/2015/01/high-
speed-rail-is-a-waste-of-time-and-money.html.
International Energy Agency. The Future of Rail – Analysis. Jan. 2019,
www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-rail.
Jehanno, Aurélie, et al. International Union of Railways, 2011, High-speed
Rail and Sustainability, www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/High-
Speed-Rail-Sustainability-UIC-2011.pdf.
Josef. “How Fast Does The Acela Go?” Worldwide Rails, 10 Dec. 2019,
worldwiderails.com/how-fast-does-the-acela-go/.
McArdle, Megan. “Why the United States Will Never Have High-Speed
Rail.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Feb. 2019,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/why-united-states-
will-never-have-high-speed-rail/.
Millsap, Adam A. “Privatizing Public Transit Lowers Costs And Saves
Cities Money.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Apr. 2016,
www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2016/04/20/privatizing-public-
transit-lowers-costs-and-saves-cities-money/?sh=1316d9e122e6.
Montanaro, Domenico. “Biden Claims GOP Voters Support His
Infrastructure Plan; Poll Shows They Don't.” NPR, NPR, 15 Apr.
2021, www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987444602/biden-claims-gop-voters-
support-his-infrastructure-plan-poll-shows-they-dont.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 12HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Peterman, David Randall. Congressional Research Service, 2017, Amtrak:
Overview, fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44973.pdf.
Peterson, Eric. “High-Speed Rail Stimulus Funding.” Mass Transit, 13
May 2010,
www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/10113731/highspeed-rail-
stimulus-funding.
Railway Technology. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. 1 June 2021,
www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtraks-northeast-corridor/.
Sapién, Josephine. “What Biden's American Jobs Plan Means for Rail.”
Railway News, 1 Apr. 2021, railway-news.com/what-bidens-american-
jobs-plan-means-for-rail/.
Sheehan, Tim. “Is High-Speed Rail Dying? This Could Be a Crucial Year
for the Troubled Project.” The Fresno Bee, 17 Jan. 2018,
www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-
rail/article195242539.html.
Snell, Kelsey. “Countering Biden, Senate Republicans Unveil Smaller
$568 Billion Infrastructure Plan.” NPR, NPR, 22 Apr. 2021,
www.npr.org/2021/04/22/989841527/countering-biden-senate-
republicans-unveil-smaller-568-billion-infrastructure-pl.
Slowey, Kim. “Poll: 31% of Californians Approve of Bullet Train
Funding.” Construction Dive, 1 June 2018,
www.constructiondive.com/news/poll-31-of-californians-approve-of-
bullet-train-funding/524646/.
Smart Union. “Poll Shows Conservative Support for Amtrak.”
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation
Workers, 9 Oct. 2013, smart-union.org/news/poll-shows-conservative-
support-for-amtrak/.
Staggs, Brooke. “Orange County Republicans Take Aim at California's
Bullet Train.” Orange County Register, Orange County Register, 2
Mar. 2021, www.ocregister.com/2021/03/01/orange-county-
republicans-take-aim-at-californias-bullet-train/.
State of New Hampshire. “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Rail
Programs.”
Https://Www.nh.gov/Dot/Recovery/Documents/rail_programs.Pdf.
Sweet, Rod. “Why China Can Build High-Speed Rail so Cheaply.” Global
Construction Review , 14 July 2014,
www.globalconstructionreview.com/sectors/why-china-can-build-
high-speed-rail34socheaply7365/.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 13HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Tampa Bay Times Editorial. “Florida Should Embrace Biden's High-
Speed Rail Plan.” Tampa Bay Times, Tampa Bay Times, 26 May
2021, www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/05/26/florida-should-
embrace-bidens-high-speed-rail-plan-editorial/.
Texas Central. Building The Texas High-Speed Train. 8 Sept. 2020,
www.texascentral.com/.
The Library of Congress. “The Beginnings of American Railroads and
Mapping.”, www.loc.gov/collections/railroad-maps-1828-to-
1900/articles-and-essays/history-of-railroads-and-maps/the-
beginnings-of-american-railroads-and-mapping/.
United States Department of Transportation. “The United States
Department of Transportation:” The United States Department of
Transportation: A Brief History,
web.archive.org/web/20040717162622/dotlibrary.dot.gov/Historian/hi
story.htm.
US High-speed Rail Association. ushsr.net/.
Vantuono, William. “Amtrak Spells It All Out for Congress.” Railway
Age, 2 May 2021,
www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/amtrak-spells-it-all-
out-for-
congress/#:~:text=Amtrak%20has%20submitted%20its%20FY
22,its%20state%20and%20commuter%20partners.
Weigel, David. “Why Do Conservatives Hate Trains so Much?” Slate
Magazine, Slate, 9 Mar. 2011, slate.com/news-and-
politics/2011/03/why-do-conservatives-hate-trains-so-much.html.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2022 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 14You can also read
