International peer review positive on Amtrak HSR plan for Northeast Corridor

Leading European and Japanese high-speed rail operators reviewed the Amtrak next-generation high-speed rail vision plan and have expressed support for its phased approach to achieve 220 mph service on the Northeast Corridor. The operators also suggested that while Amtrak's total assessment is sound and reasonable, the proposed service may generate more ridership, revenue and market share and may cost less to build than initially estimated. "The positive feedback from our experienced colleagues around the world is encouraging and demonstrates that Amtrak's high-speed rail plan is a proper response to meet the region's need for increased transportation capacity and is a viable way forward," said Al Engel, Amtrak vice president, high-speed rail. He added, "Amtrak's initial projections of ridership, revenues and costs for this new system were appropriately conservative and we are pleased that many of the world leaders in high-speed rail have offered their ideas to help refine and improve our plans." Amtrak submitted its vision plan for international peer review and invited comments on identifying opportunities to strengthen the business case, improve the operations plan and achieve construction efficiencies, among many other areas. Responses were received from high-speed rail operators in Europe and Asia as well as several railcar equipment suppliers. Most respondents focused on the technical analysis report, in particular sections on conceptual engineering, operational planning, operating and maintenance costs, travel demand/market analysis, ridership and revenue forecasts. Most reviewers agreed with the phased approach as outlined by Amtrak for a clear, structured and coordinated path to achieve 220 mph service on exclusive operational segments between Washington and Boston. The East Japan Railway Company, a major operator of the Shinkansen bullet trains in Japan, said that it is "extremely important to build capital from early project phases so that additional profits can be obtained and invested in future phases" as they did themselves for a previous extension of their service. There also was the recurring theme by the reviewers that the Amtrak plan would likely generate more ridership and revenue than projected in the plan given current market conditions and expected increases in travel demand. Many of the reviewers commented on the initial projected $117 billion cost of the plan. One long-time developer and high-speed operator noted that the capital costs discussed in the report were somewhat higher than their experience and another high-speed operator wrote that the cost for the train equipment may be less than what is proposed if the procurement is similar to their own. Others suggested facilities and structures could be redesigned to reduce their footprint thereby reducing total land acquisition costs. More detailed studies in specific areas to analyze and verify assumptions made in the Amtrak vision plan reports are already underway. The peer review comments will be addressed in these and future study phases that will refine engineering needs, develop a business and finance plan, and embark on a major corridor environmental review and alternatives analysis.