government should sell surplus land they own to high speed rail developers

[MIrailfan]

They own a lot, and it would bring in money and fund high speed rail.

 

[me_little_me]

If you're talking about selling the land for the HSR right-of-way, I don't know of any issues where government has been the problem. Mostly it's private landowners and those that think having usage rights on government land are owed those rights forever.

If you're talking about selling valuable land in one area to private owners so they can make enough big bucks to pay for a HSR project in another location, that's just begging for fraud, theft, and the loss of important land that benefits a few at the expense of the rest of us.

Government can sell land to build HSR itself given that the land is really surplus. But everyone in the country would want that money for their own purposes - more defense, more welfare assistance, more schools, more airports, more roads, more you-name-it.

 

[MARC Rider]

Actually, Amtrak is right now involved in various real-estate deals to sell development rights (mostly air rights over tracks) at some of their major stations, including new York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore. These sorts of deals are really complicated, and the kind of real estate developers who you have to deal with are what you might consider "sharks." Thus, what me_little_me says is absolutely true. You need to watch these guys like a hawk to make sure that the public owners maximize the amount of money they yield from these deals.

 

[user 1215]

Japan Rail - arguably the only profitable transit company - make a good chunk of their money through real estate. They even also own their own powerplants that supply power to their railroads. A lot of third tier rail companies in Japan are department stores. The railroad is their loss leader, getting employees and customers to their stores.

I see Brightline trying to follow this model to a degree. Rail alone is too expensive to be self sustaining. Amtrak's problem is that they are trying - and failing miserably - to make each business unit profitable instead of allowing the profitable sustain the necessary.

 

[me_little_me]

I agree with VentureForth. As I have stated previously in other threads, both Amtrak and transit need to be more businesslike in that they quietly buy the rights to purchase the land for their stations, e.g. along with land around those stations and then announce that the station will be built. Amtrak wants others to take responsibility for building and owning stations and so loses out on the value they are providing by having the train stop there. Of course, in many cases, they don't own the stations already. In those cases, they should consider buying the property as is using eminent domain, then making it and the area around it more valuable.
For air rights over track they own, they should lease it out in many cases, insuring that they get a portion of future profits and not just sell it at give-away prices.
Businesses such as Brightline and big land-owning companies do this on a regular basis. You quietly buy the land at existing value, announce you are putting in the facilities, then make money by leasing or selling it. You lease it if you expect to be a continuing operation because its value will increase if you get riders to use your trains. You sell it if you are looking for short-term profits.

 

[jiml]

It's the McDonald's model. They make their money from real estate; burgers are a sideline - still a profitable sideline, as opposed to "loss-leader", but not their primary source of wealth.

 

[Bob Dylan]

It's the McDonald's model. They make their money from real estate; burgers are a sideline - still a profitable sideline, as opposed to "loss-leader", but not their primary source of wealth.

They also make $$$ from the Franchisees by selling them Supplies,taking a % of the Sales and charging them "Advertising fees",

I've read that to start a McDonalds Franchise now you need to invest a Minimum of $2 Million!

 

[jis]

The bottom line is that rail operations that are unable to recapture the increase in value of properties along its ROW on an ongoing basis, tend to not work out as well financially as those that manage to do so. There are many possible mechanisms to enable capture of the value back into running the thing that maintains the value.

This is not just true of railways. If tax collection in the locality through which a road runs were insufficient to maintain the roads, they would also not be maintained, as has been observed in some inner city areas that have been financially devastated for various reasons and mismanagement.

 

[user 1215]

Many of the Japanese railroads are built elevated to reduce grade crossings. They then rent the space below the tracks for retail. One train line that a friend of mine lived near actually converted the ENTIRE train line into a subway! I don't know how they did it, but the Keio line was moved completely underground over less than 5 years starting in 2009. I think it was similar to what NYC did with the ELs back in the 20's but still, it's an amazing feat to pull off in the modern era. Point is, when there is a will, there is a way. I presume Keio kept all the real estate above ground and lease it.

 

[George Harris]

Many of the Japanese railroads are built elevated to reduce grade crossings.

More importantly, this reduces land takes. No space needed for cut and fill slopes, also reduces trespassing and consequently trespasser fatalities, reduces vandalism and theft of copper, etc., and essentially eliminates the barrier effect. Eliminates drainage and utility crossing issues. In agricultural area it enables continued use of the land, the only negative being reduced sunlight on crops and grasslands, and of course the areas taken by the columns supporting the structure. In Taiwan after getting out of the mountainous areas on the north half of the line, the remainder was elevated in its entirety, including stations, only excluding the approach to the very south end stations. It was proposed that this be done for the California HSR down the Central Valley, but the politicians, and some others that simply did not want a visible structure were not having it. This despite the advantages being carefully explained and that the long term savings far outweighed the higher initial cost.

 

[Cal]

simply did not want a visible structure were not having it.

What is wrong with having an elevated structure??? It's going through farmland, not some amazingly scenic canyon like Glenwood Canyon *where a highway was put in the middle*

 

[Qapla]

You mean they didn't want a structure that would detract from the surrounding - they wanted something attractive to look at like these are

 

[user 1215]

What is wrong with having an elevated structure??? It's going through farmland, not some amazingly scenic canyon like Glenwood Canyon *where a highway was put in the middle*

Honestly, in the absence of the commercial viability of the land that the railroad is built upon, the cost is much much higher than keeping the track at grade. But when you're already spending Bbbbillions of other people's money, why not eh?

 

[Ziv]

Keeping the track at grade may be cheaper to build but it makes traveling from one side of the railway to the other highly problematic since at-grade crossings do not work well with HSR. So it would seem likely that any HSR plan will have sections every mile or two where the tracks are elevated slightly, possibly in conjunction with some tunneling/excavation, and this would probably be in the areas that are natural low spots along the tracks.
We are seeing protests even today over the bulldozing of urban neighborhoods to build the Interstate System. Agricultural land by definition is lower intensity use of the land but the principle is the same.
Try to do as little damage as possible to the area in which the construction is being done.

 

[George Harris]

What is wrong with having an elevated structure??? It's going through farmland, not some amazingly scenic canyon like Glenwood Canyon *where a highway was put in the middle*

The people you would be asking for the most part operate in a partially to completely logic free world. We are not talking a multi-lane, multi-level freeway here, we are talking something that essentially the footprint of a two lane road.

 

[user 1215]

Keeping the track at grade may be cheaper to build but it makes traveling from one side of the railway to the other highly problematic since at-grade crossings do not work well with HSR.

The track can be at grade, and the opposing traffic can be grade separated. Whole line isn't necessary to elevate. You can go up and down off-grade to accommodate wildlife migration and traffic mitigation without having any grade crossings and keeping the track cost minimal.