# How much would it cost Amtrak to build its own tracks/right of way in areas where it gets a lot of pax?



## MIrailfan (Aug 11, 2021)

Just as a ballpark figure.


----------



## Cal (Aug 11, 2021)

We've been through this before, but I guess we're doing it again...


----------



## MIrailfan (Aug 11, 2021)

Cal said:


> We've been through this before, but I guess we're doing it again...
> [/QUOTnot really.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 11, 2021)

I believe there was a thread on the exact topic a couple of months ago.


----------



## Cal (Aug 11, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> I believe there was a thread on the exact topic a couple of months ago.


Yes, @MIRAILFAN started a thread a few months ago on how much it would cost for Amtrak to build new tracks nationwide. This time they've narrowed it down to "where it gets a lot of pax". 

The answer? A lot, or too much.


----------



## MIrailfan (Aug 12, 2021)

See I narrowed it down since they don't need to/would be prohibitively expensive to do it everywhere.


----------



## Cal (Aug 12, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> See I narrowed it down since they don't need to/would be prohibitively expensive to do it everywhere.


Wouldn't it also be prohibitively expensive to do it in major metropolitan areas where there is very little (or no) available land? You'd have to purchase the property. Imagine the expense if Amtrak bought land between Washington and Boston for their own tracks.


----------



## Bonser (Aug 12, 2021)

Cal said:


> Wouldn't it also be prohibitively expensive to do it in major metropolitan areas where there is very little (or no) available land? You'd have to purchase the property. Imagine the expense if Amtrak bought land between Washington and Boston for their own tracks.


Doesn't Amtrak already own most of the tracks between Bos and DC? Save for the track owned by other passenger systems, i.e., MTA.


----------



## jiml (Aug 12, 2021)

Cal said:


> Wouldn't it also be prohibitively expensive to do it in major metropolitan areas where there is very little (or no) available land? You'd have to purchase the property. Imagine the expense if Amtrak bought land between Washington and Boston for their own tracks.


Good point, bad example. (See post above.) However, as has also been discussed in another thread, if they wanted to acquire additional land to straighten out the NEC, then yes it would be prohibitively expensive.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 12, 2021)

Many commuter services use tracks that have either been abandoned or see only residual levels of freight.

Repurposing existing tracks is typically much cheaper and faster to achieve than building from scratch.

Costs can vary, depending on the condition of the track at the start and required upgrades to safety systems etc.

If you want to see what a new line costs when built from scratch, look at California HSR, Texas Central, Brightline West etc. 

I think it's something you would really only want to do as a last resort.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> Many commuter services use tracks that have either been abandoned or see only residual levels of freight.
> 
> Repurposing existing tracks is typically much cheaper and faster to achieve than building from scratch.
> 
> ...


Maybe he can start a GoFundMe for Amtrak.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 12, 2021)

Maybe look at the details of the recent deal between Virginia and CSX. You can probably get some cost estimates for acquiring ROW and adding tracks.


----------



## John Bredin (Aug 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> Repurposing existing tracks is typically much cheaper and faster to achieve than building from scratch.


Along the same lines (pun not intended), there's lots of places where the right-of-way (ROW) of active railroads used to hold more tracks than now. It would still be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as a whole new ROW, for Amtrak to re-lay a track in the empty space where track used to be. The freight railroad would want to be paid for using part of the ROW, of course, but they're not using the land now.

Where's there's enough spare room to put in sidings too, Amtrak could have its own line and dispatch itself, sharing only the ROW with the host railroad. The costs of maintaining the underlying ROW would have to be split with the host, but (1) freight dispatchers wouldn't be sticking Amtrak trains into sidings to expedite their own trains, and (2) hosts wouldn't be able to play the "we need lots of $$ to carry Amtrak because your trains will be in the way of ours" gambit.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 12, 2021)

MIRAILFAN said:


> Just as a ballpark figure.



To summarize what I wrote in other threads, building all new passenger rail lines in the US not a good investment.

There's lots of better ways to spend that money:

1) Eliminate grade crossings wherever possible and beef up barriers where you can't eliminate the crossing. Vehicle and Pedestrian incidents cause the longest delays.

2) Have Amtrak add and own more sidings and double track where there is congestion. As opposed to building new track on host railroads, Amtrak can find willing property owners, smooth out a lot of freight delays and find better ways to partner with host railroads.

3) Actually penalize host railroads for delays. Threaten to nationalize dispatching on host railroads.

4) (Worst case) Nationalize rail dispatching in a manner similar to how Air Traffic Control works.

Eventually, we do want to build from-the-ballast-up High Speed Rail corridors where it makes sense. But not until we know where those corridors are.


----------



## Cal (Aug 12, 2021)

jiml said:


> Good point, bad example. (See post above.) However, as has also been discussed in another thread, if they wanted to acquire additional land to straighten out the NEC, then yes it would be prohibitively expensive.


Alright, switch it for LA to San Diego.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 12, 2021)

Cal said:


> Alright, switch it for LA to San Diego.



Isn't most of that route already owned by Metrolink and Coaster? 

In many metropolitan areas, Amtrak's routes are either owned by Amtrak (such as the approaches to Chicago Union Station) or commuter authorities.
There are some corridors where it would make sense for public authorities to own the track such as the Chicago-St. Louis route (which the state of Illinois should have bought when the Chicago, Missouri and Western went out of business, alas it was picked up by Southern Pacific and is now owned by Union Pacific) and across Northwest Indiana, where abandoned rights of way could be used instead of the highly congested Norfolk Southern, there was once an effort to do this, but it seems to be dead. Michigan and Amtrak already own most of the Porter, IN. to Detroit route. So there are places where Amtrak (or more probably some local government or transit authority) could purchase passenger routes. It some cases it would be easy (CSX seems eager to sell off just about anything), but it would be expensive.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 12, 2021)

This is an "How high is up?" type of question. See discussions above. First question, are you talking on existing right of ways, extra or parallel tracks within same, or new alignment?

There are some examples of silliness, this one in California of course. When it came to adding tracks along the San Francisco to San Jose line for the HSR, which is already owned by a government agency, a political promise was made, by a person, who in my opinion is an idiot who should have known better, that it could be done without need for additional right of way. As a result, either there will be some areas without the additional track(s) or the politically made promise cannot be kept. This would actually have been one of the simplest possible location for an additional track, as a fairly straight alignment already publicly owned. 

For the most part, if you are trying to keep in an existing right of way, you could be increasing reliability, but not likely speed. A prime example would be the Crescent route between Atlanta and Birmingham. The schedule for the 165 mile distance is right at 4 hours which is essentially the best ever. Although it has a nominal 79 mph speed limit, curves keep the speed will below that for virtually the entire distance.

The Brightline where following the Florida East Coast line was fully double track in the past and the second track is being / has been restored. This has been relatively cheap. However you are left with multiple grade crossings.

If you are going to an all new right of way the cost can quickly get astronomical plus needing years for Environmental Impact Studies, satisfying the objections of NIMBY's, etc., etc. which could well result in the route becoming impossible practically.


----------



## Cal (Aug 12, 2021)

MikefromCrete said:


> Isn't most of that route already owned by Metrolink and Coaster?


I'm talking about what the OP had in mind, buying land and making a totally new ROW just for Amtrak. IMagine the expense of it between LA and San Diego.


----------



## neroden (Aug 13, 2021)

Estimate a billion or two in one-time purchase costs per corridor. (Based on the purchases in Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ontario.) Not really very expensive by federal standards. What's lacking is political will.

The cost of construction varies, but that's the cost of ROW acquisition.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 13, 2021)

neroden said:


> Estimate a billion or two in one-time purchase costs per corridor. (Based on the purchases in Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ontario.) Not really very expensive by federal standards. What's lacking is political will.



Do you want a railroad line in your backyard?

There's far more voters who will get motivated to STOP new rail lines than welcome them. 

That being said, there should be a federal program to outline and acquire ROWs for new commuter rail services whose tracks could be used for intercity services.

ALSO: Have there be funding available to bail out the next freight railroad that goes under, purchasing the ROWs.


----------



## west point (Aug 13, 2021)

Maybe $2M per mile for track and signals only. Then the costs of bridges and flyovers are extra..


----------



## Qapla (Aug 13, 2021)

Add in the cost of litigation ... just because they may own the ROW does not mean they won't face legal battles if/when they start to build additional tracks.


----------



## neroden (Aug 19, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Do you want a railroad line in your backyard?


Very, very much so. I can even point to the former railway line which was across the street from me, but that one is not practical to restore (it had a zig-zag or switchback in it).


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 19, 2021)

neroden said:


> Very, very much so. I can even point to the former railway line which was across the street from me, but that one is not practical to restore (it had a zig-zag or switchback in it).



Yes, and I'm sure many folks here wouldn't mind it either--but the point remains that the vast majority of voters in the US do not want new rail running through their backyard (i.e their neighborhoods). This is what makes new rail difficult, beyond the cost.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 19, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Yes, and I'm sure many folks here wouldn't mind it either--but the point remains that the vast majority of voters in the US do not want new rail running through their backyard (i.e their neighborhoods). This is what makes new rail difficult, beyond the cost.



Not only that, but it’s not even necessary.

This whole topic is kind of needless, as drastically improving rail in this country is feasible without bulldozing a single new foot of ROW.

everyone here I’m sure has a checklist of items to make things better, with new ROW not being on it.

now that’s not to say we shouldn’t be preserving all of the tracks and ROW we have.


----------



## Cal (Aug 19, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Yes, and I'm sure many folks here wouldn't mind it either-


Myself included! A transcon runs very close by (with Amtrak and commuter service). It's nice hearing the trains go by, although I know some neighbors don't love it.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Aug 19, 2021)

An unfortunate case study is the attempt to build a simple siding in Glenview to accommodate additional Hiawatha trips. The opposition to that was fierce, and it has apparently succeeded in halting that project. I am sure where the frequency increase stands at this point.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 19, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Yes, and I'm sure many folks here wouldn't mind it either--but the point remains that the vast majority of voters in the US do not want new rail running through their backyard (i.e their neighborhoods). This is what makes new rail difficult, beyond the cost.


Actually, our political system is set up so that a minority of voters can impose their will on the rest of us. I recently read a book on the 1920s that pointed out that in 1919, a majority of Americans opposed Prohibition, but guess what happened?

And many people don't want change in their neighborhood, but it happens, nevertheless.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Aug 20, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, our political system is set up so that a minority of voters can impose their will on the rest of us. I recently read a book on the 1920s that pointed out that in 1919, a majority of Americans opposed Prohibition, but guess what happened?
> 
> And many people don't want change in their neighborhood, but it happens, nevertheless.



Indeed, there are other, more powerful forces that keep rail infrastructure as a minor transportation form in this country.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 20, 2021)

I believe that track cost for a new route would be $1 million per mile and that is after you acquire the real estate. IMO, this whole "Corridor route expansion plan" by Amtrak won't go very far. We will probably see minor improvements on existing routes but new routes may be a stretch. Many of the freight railroads tracks are already filled to capacity so where will Amtrak run these new corridor routes and who is going to get the frieght railroads to agree? What we may see are new corridor routes by private railroads as what is going on in Florida right now.


----------



## neroden (Aug 20, 2021)

There is plenty of room to reinstate the third and fourth track on most of the Empire Corridor right of way (for example).


----------



## denmarks (Aug 30, 2021)

Too much. For western routes separate tracks would not have enough usage.


----------



## west point (Aug 31, 2021)

Where to start ?
It would seem that getting separate tracks would be WASH <> Richmond. With 2 silvers, Palmetto, Carolinian, Auto train, 2 Norfolk,, 2 Newport, = 9 trains a day one way. .Crescent and Roanoke to ALX. 
Then you have VRE 8 to Spotsylvania and 9 to Manassas. 
That gives 56 a day to / from Alexandria. , 34 <> Spotsylvania : 20 <> Richmond. Then you have the number of freight trains for CSX and NS.

These numbers are impressive. The next route which is Empire service does not even come close does not even come close. There are already plans to make the WASH - ALEXANDRA separate 2 main tracks with the hold up being a second 2 track Long bridge. 

VRE and Amtrak both want to add trips so the line from ALX to Spotsylvania is way in line for the separate 2 main tracks. Manassas as I understand is already 2 main tracks with freight trains but NS does not have much freight traffic.

The west coast routes have some similar numbers but many are already 2 main tracks. Sound transit is even getting some locations with 3 main tracks.
Then you have the CHI - STL HrSR mess that is an example of what happens when not enough though is given to project. that is what happens when freight shares track and the freight RR diverts many trains onto that track without consequences.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 31, 2021)

denmarks said:


> Too much. For western routes separate tracks would not have enough usage.



Isn't this a glass half full versus half empty thing?

On the one hand we are told the freight railroads are running at or beyond capacity and thus cannot handle any additional passenger trains.

On the other hand there is no case for additional tracks because they wouldn't have enough usage.

Am I the only one to see a logical catch here?

It seems to me there must be a case for a smart compromise here. Add additional tracks that are owned and dispatched by Amtrak but that freights can run on in such a manner that they don't get in Amtrak's way, but can still help pay for the infrastructure.

Possibly even using ROW that was once double track but has since been reduced to single. Amtrak could eminent domain the disused half of it and thus avoid legal battles with tens of thousands of individual landowners.

Unlikely to ever happen, I know, but just as a thought.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 31, 2021)

At an estimated cost of $1 million per mile, it is unlikely that we will see very much new Amtrak owned track but in Florida the private Brightline is laying miles of it. We have traveled the West quite a bit and from what I see the track mainlines out there are already loaded to capacity. On a recent visit to Winslow, AZ the BNSF mainline was in the rear of our hotel. A train passed every 10 minutes. When Amtrak talks expansion even on "corridor lines" there is hardly a mention of their plan to acquire track or track rights. Am I missing something?


----------



## Cal (Aug 31, 2021)

cirdan said:


> Am I the only one to see a logical catch here?


I believe many variations of your idea have been suggested here before.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 31, 2021)

Look no further than the California High Speed Rail conundrum wallowing in endless delays, costs for land acquisition, and more... and projections keep changing as actual 'doable optimism' fades.


----------



## John819 (Aug 31, 2021)

To build a new rail line from scratch will take more than a decade. Environmental reviews, lawsuits, land acquisition, construction.

Adding (or restoring) trackage next to existing lines is far more practical. Amtrak owns or controls the additional trackage, and the freights can operate on it so long as Amtrak gets full priority.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 31, 2021)

20th Century Rider said:


> Look no further than the California High Speed Rail conundrum wallowing in endless delays, costs for land acquisition, and more... and projections keep changing as actual 'doable optimism' fades.
> 
> View attachment 24177



I think the problem with California is that there isn't really the buy-in any more. These projects typically outlast several legislatures and governors. They are almost inter-generational projects in that regard. California went from having a governor who was very supportive to one who is lukewarm at best.

Projects like this should not be the subjects of political ping-pong but need broad support on all levels of government so that they continue to be fully supported even when legislatures and governors change.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 31, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> In Florida the private Brightline is laying miles of it.



They're primarily using existing rights of way owned by the Florida East Coast Railway. They successfully got local municipalities to cover just under $1m in grade crossing improvements.

Absent an existing and cooperative underutilized ROW, the Brightline plan isn't viable.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 31, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> When Amtrak talks expansion even on "corridor lines" there is hardly a mention of their plan to acquire track or track rights. Am I missing something?



No. The plan talks extensively about freight railroads giving passenger rail priority, along with giving the STB new and faster authority to compel priority and improve OTP.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 31, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> No. The plan talks extensively about freight railroads giving passenger rail priority, along with giving the STB new and faster authority to compel priority and improve OTP.


That plan is good in its intention but may be a stretch in its implementation. Many of the freight mainlines are already overloaded. From what I saw in Arizona two weeks ago was a complete logjam on the BNSF mainline. It appeared that BNSF was not even able to prioritize in own freight trains let alone Amtrak. Passenger rail prioritiy has been an issue for a long time and while the freight railroads are already obligated to provide it , sporadic compliance is what we often see. In the end big business always wins over politics.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 1, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> They're primarily using existing rights of way owned by the Florida East Coast Railway. They successfully got local municipalities to cover just under $1m in grade crossing improvements.
> 
> Absent an existing and cooperative underutilized ROW, the Brightline plan isn't viable.



Brightline West is going to be all on new ROW, from what I've understood.

Having said that, so are parts of the Brightline extension to Orlando airport.

Ditto much of the proposed Tampa line.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 1, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> That plan is good in its intention but may be a stretch in its implementation. Many of the freight mainlines are already overloaded. From what I saw in Arizona two weeks ago was a complete logjam on the BNSF mainline. It appeared that BNSF was not even able to prioritize in own freight trains let alone Amtrak. Passenger rail prioritiy has been an issue for a long time and while the freight railroads are already obligated to provide it , sporadic compliance is what we often see. In the end big business always wins over politics.



But a totally logjammed main line cannot be in the interest of business either. It prevents growth and even causes existing shippers to look for alternatives.

There might be conditions under which the railroad would happily pay for more capacity. This is why the transcons for example are being progressively upgraded with additional tracks.

Now if Amtrak could get into the game and offer to pick up some of those costs in return for some level of say in dispatching. Maybe the railroad can keep the slow freights that don't mind the logjam on the old line and pay a bit more for fast freights to use the faster new line. 

Scroll back a few years and a lot of TIGER funds were used to upgrade NS's Crescent Corridor. So it's not as if railroads say no to government money. Now if that could have been done a little more smartly, Amtrak could have had some more privileges written into the contract.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 2, 2021)

cirdan said:


> Brightline West is going to be all on new ROW, from what I've understood.



They're leasing the parts to Victorville from CalTrans at a bargain $850k/year. How Brightline plans to get to Los Angeles proper is still far from decided, but will probably involve tying into California HSR.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 2, 2021)

cirdan said:


> Scroll back a few years and a lot of TIGER funds were used to upgrade NS's Crescent Corridor. So it's not as if railroads say no to government money. Now if that could have been done a little more smartly, Amtrak could have had some more privileges written into the contract.


Not sure of what you are specifically talking about, but if it is the Greensboro to Charlotte segment, the state of North Carolina owns that piece of railroad and NS simply operates over it on long term lease, so the state had a little more than the average amount of leverage on what was done there.


----------

