Why not? It's kinda fun, as Barb said. I enjoy discussing Amtrak, even if the topic is pretty absurd!Exactly. Why people bother responding to the nonsense is beyond me.
Why not? It's kinda fun, as Barb said. I enjoy discussing Amtrak, even if the topic is pretty absurd!Exactly. Why people bother responding to the nonsense is beyond me.
I agree. Additional tracks will be needed only in select high traffic routes, provided we can get the freight railroads to behave and agree to do fair dispatching, which is not part of their genetic makeup at present unfortunately.
bEZOS alone could fund a monorail system with $30 billion. Thencharge high fares.
Excuse Me for having ideas.
But you are taking an irrational idea and trying to make it sound rational.Excuse Me for having ideas.
In fact, we already have a well established policy tool that can help with that. It's called property taxes. They helped drive the Penn Central in bankruptcy, and it's part of the reason why there isn't a level playing field with rail and other transportation modes. Just raise property taxes, until they go bankrupt, and then nationalize the infrastructure to pay off the property taxes. I believe that's sort of what the British did in the 1940s.Agreed. If we want trackage for passenger rail with government control, it makes more sense to buy the existing tracks that already exist from their current owners, rather than building all new trackage that's probably overkill for current and short-term future passenger rail needs. The government could then decide how much it wants to prioritize passenger over freight, how much it wants to subsidize rail vs. recover revenue from trackage rights/slot access, etc. - and since it owns the tracks, it could either keep dispatching in-house, similar to air traffic control, or contract it out but hold the contractor to performance metrics that reflect the desires that the government sets out for it.
Yes! if we had 50,000 miles of rail good for 79mph, and connected and with trains running several times per day, that would be very cost effective (cheaper than building new 4 lane interstate per mile), we would make a huge dent in auto traffic, foregoing the need to constantly expand existing hwys, clean the air, even with diesel electrics and also offering a great opportunity to add on site solar powered trains, further greening the system. new track costs.so you want amtrak to build low-speed rail?
That's extremely optimistic. Brightline has spent several billions so far (maybe about 6 billion dollars or more) for a 230 or so mile route, much of which was already there or at least could use ROW that was already there. That puts them at 26 million dollars per mile on average. Building the whole thing from scratch would have been even more costly. Building in mountainous terrain would have been massively more costly. And we're not even talking electrification yet.The basic cost to lay track is about $2 million per mile,
Actually Brightline has built a 125 mph capacity train through some of the most expensive and dense real estate excepting NYC and LA and SF in the USA. leasing track can quickly become as expensive as building.That's extremely optimistic. Brightline has spent several billions so far (maybe about 6 billion dollars or more) for a 230 or so mile route, much of which was already there or at least could use ROW that was already there. That puts them at 26 million dollars per mile on average. Building the whole thing from scratch would have been even more costly. Building in mountainous terrain would have been massively more costly. And we're not even talking electrification yet.
The roughly 30 miles of track on Brightline that is 125mph is not what I would call "dense real estate." It was built using State Road 528 ROW.Actually Brightline has built a 125 mph capacity train through some of the most expensive and dense real estate excepting NYC and LA and SF in the USA. leasing track can quickly become as expensive as building.
One CAN dream, can't one?Yes! if we had 50,000 miles of rail good for 79mph, and connected and with trains running several times per day, that would be very cost effective (cheaper than building new 4 lane interstate per mile), we would make a huge dent in auto traffic, foregoing the need to constantly expand existing hwys, clean the air, even with diesel electrics and also offering a great opportunity to add on site solar powered trains, further greening the system. new track costs.
The basic cost to lay track is about $2 million per mile, stations (stations should be placed 30-40 miles apart in most areas) and rolling stock double that. electrifying and building the onsite solar farms double it again. The biggest expense is urban land acquisition, but we have always made eminent domain the method of acquiring the land.
Somewhere less than $10million per mile would get you fully electric on site powered system with trains running every 30 minutes.
Total cost under $500 billion (plus land costs) to allow 75%-85% of Americans to have access to safe fast comfortable convenient green travel. Travel cost to passengers could be as low as ten cents per mile and travel times would be faster than auto travel. Current auto travel typically costs over ten cents per mile and also requires spending an additional $15-$30 per day in ownership costs, even on days one is not driving.
Let's get our terminology straight. Trains are vehicles, railroads are infrastructure. I think that you mean: "125MPH capable railroad". This is a common mistake in terminology made by the mainstream news media.Actually Brightline has built a 125 mph capacity train through some of the most expensive and dense real estate excepting NYC and LA and SF in the USA. leasing track can quickly become as expensive as building.
The mainstream media might also speak about a 125mph caboose.Let's get our terminology straight. Trains are vehicles, railroads are infrastructure. I think that you mean: "125MPH capable railroad". This is a common mistake in terminology made by the mainstream news media.
So, "just laying new tracks and ties" presumes an intact ROW and no need to do any bridge work, etc. It also probably presumes a pretty low track classification. I once overheard Ed Ellis talking numbers (we were both in the diner of the Hoosier State; I had my back to him and he and Phil Streby were shooting the breeze) and he popped off a number of $5m a mile for Class 5 track.Several years back I had a discussion with a small private railroad branch line operator. He said just laying new tracks and ties would cost $1 million per mile. Amtrak might look at abandoned ROW's for new routes as a starter becuase the real estate is already there. The old National Ltd route has quite a few miles of this and it would provide a straight route into the central Midwest without going through Chicago.
Herein lies the conundrum.So, "just laying new tracks and ties" presumes an intact ROW and no need to do any bridge work, etc.
Very sympathetic to this conundrum. To play devils advocate a little bit however, highway seem to go up in little time, and those high costs don’t bother DOT’s or normies.Herein lies the conundrum.
When talking about Brightline (and other new passenger rail projects) we hear armchair urbanists saying, "they should trench this section" or "heavily upgrade this or that crossing".
The more densely populated an area, the more roads you are likely to need to cross, the more potential conflicts you are likely to have with other land users, including industries, residents, schools, hospitals etc, concerned about access, noise, vibrations, safety, whatever - conflicts that can for the most part only be solved by construction of bridges, viaducts, trenches, tunnels, barriers etc etc, each one of which is going to cost 10s if not 100s of millions. Even upgrading an existing road crossing to a higher safety standard can easily swallow several millions.
Even if the ROW is already there and maybe already in use, these conflicts will still appear because higher speeds and frequencies will fundamentally change the use case.
The ultra low ball figures we discussed really only work when you are crossing sparsely inhabited land where there are not likely to be many such conflicts.
The conundrum being that these "empty land cases" are the situations where restoration of passenger service is going to have the lowest priority and make the least sense. Passenger trains ideally need to serve places where there are lots of people. So even if they do cross some empty bits in between places, they will to a large part be built in densely inhabited and densely utilized areas.
Texas Central tried to side-step this by proposing its Houston terminal in a peripheral location. Brightline got very lucky as the new-built section between Cocoa and Orlando Airport did indeed cross largely empty land (but still features quite a few major bridges, a few short tunnels, and other expensive features).
Not every project is going to get that lucky.
More accurately it used the SR528 related easement plus some land acquired from the Deseret Ranch. Construction was more expensive than basic track because it involved constructing a stable right of way on top of what amounts to miles of swampland, not because it was built through some expensive real estate.The roughly 30 miles of track on Brightline that is 125mph is not what I would call "dense real estate." It was built using State Road 528 ROW.
Most of Brightline's track is 110 and below - and utilizes Florida East Coast mainline.
I am not disagreeing.Very sympathetic to this conundrum. To play devils advocate a little bit however, highway seem to go up in little time, and those high costs don’t bother DOT’s or normies.
All this discussion of grade-separation-woes never seems to happen with roads, with most major highways being grade separated no matter how dense the urban area.
The transportation hypocrisy is pretty big in things like this.
It was not a trivial exercise, but I think there are very few cases anywhere where re-introducing inter-city passenger service to a line that hasn't seen any such thing in decades is going to be a trivial exercise. This is just what it costs and we need to stop fantasizing about some ultra-low cost solutions.Along FECR it uses the FECR right of way, and it basically amounted to restoring the second track in the existing right of way with base for track in place, more or less. They took this opportunity to replace many of the old bridges across creeks and rivers with new structures so that added to the cost but extended the life expectancy of the corridor to as if built new. The pre-existing single track was also rebuilt ground up, in addition to restoring the second track, and the signaling system was completely replaced and enhanced with PTC (I-ETMS). So it was not a trivial exercise.
It is time for grade crossing elimination be paid for at least 90% by highway funds. I have to wonder how much money of the CA HSR project is for grade separation of roads ???
Enter your email address to join: