Passenger

Think the stimulus package will help with any planned or proposed high speed rail projects? They seem to think so in Illinois, though the Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak-corridor HSL upgrade on or along UP's former GM&O tracks has been proposed for years and years.

Well this has been kind of a shock- Obama has begun to prove his 'change' thing.  I was a bit worried for a while there.

We hear that a lot of the cash goes to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route but I never heard about that before.  I hope some of it goes to Midwest HSR.

lattasnip9:

Well this has been kind of a shock- Obama has begun to prove his 'change' thing.  I was a bit worried for a while there.

We hear that a lot of the cash goes to the Las Vegas-Los Angeles route but I never heard about that before.  I hope some of it goes to Midwest HSR.

California passed there HSR bill in November that approved $10 billion in bonds to get the project started. It is estimated that California will need an additional $30 billion to complete the system over the next twenty years. The feds will earmark a large chunk of the stimulus HSR to California so that project that will employee up to 100,000 directly and indirectly can get started. Recent article in the local paper says that now is the perfect time to get the San Francisco - Los Angeles segment started due to the depressed real estate market that will mean right of way can be purchased for half or less than originally thought. The proposed 220 mph California HSR system should have no trouble selling the 10 billion in bonds beginning in March. The estimates for acquiring the right of way are now put at 8 billion instead of the original 16 billion. It is believed that real estate for large portions of the proposed right of way were already purchased by the state over the last eight years that property being along the Peninsula rail right of way under the guise of expanding the existing commuter rail to four tracks. The proposed HSR will run non stop between San Francisco and San Jose where the Caltrain will act as a feeder system to and from HSR for passengers to and from peninsula communities. 

It is also believed the state already owns the right of way as far as the Central Valley via the Pacheco Pass and also the land over Tehachapi. With the depressed land prices in California at the present time and particularly in the Central Valley those lands between the east side of Pacheco Pass and Bakersfield can probably be had quite cheap. In fact the most expensive real estate will be that in the LA area itself.

Personally I think the Sacramento - Stockton - Merced connector lands ahould be acquired at the same time with real estate the way it is at the present time. The San Diego portion should also be acquired at this time as well so the real estate can be acquired at the cheapest possible prices. I believe the $10 billion in bonds will be snapped up very quickly and that actual construction can begin within two years or less. Most of the concrete will come through the Port of Stockton and this too can be had very cheaply at the present time again due to the economy. I believe that the concrete ties will be built somewhere in the Central Valley and most of the prestressed concrete overpasses and bridges will also be built probably close to the Port of Stockton. My reason for stating this is the Port of Stockton built the new concrete bridge sections for the Bay Bridge and that modern facility is empty doing nothing at the present time but it is certainly capable of building any size concrete bridge sections necessary. At the present time there are at least four tunnel boring machines sitting idle that can be brought to California on short notice for all of the tunnel work necessary for the California HSR. Some estimates say as many as 70,000 to 140,000 well paying jobs can be created if work starts soon.  

Al - in - Stockton   

A "mere" $150 billion of the new stimulus package is meant for infrastucture, and that money will "spend itself" quickly.  Top priorities will be things like replacing Interstate bridges that were never meant to last forty-plus years (remember Mpls?), improving "dead man's curves" on regular, overcrowded roads, and possibly getting a more permanent fix on killer potholes or maybe some levee or dam enforcement.  

There might not even be enough money to build entire new commercial-airport runways (sorry, Mr. Daley), or replace crumbling highway intersections (it now costs $1 billion, all told, to link two eight-lane Interstates), or even upgrade 60- or 75-mph Amtrak routes to 90 mph, though maybe some road-crossing signals can be improved. You'll note that West Coast Al correctly pointed out that $10 is required to get any new CA HST up and running -- has anyone even dared dream what it will cost in total?   Forty, fifty bill? 

Public works just cost a heck of a lot more than they used to.  Just today I read that a man named Hausmann, in the mid-nineteenth century, basically upgraded Paris from a large medieval village to a modern city:  he razed twisty old lanes and replaced them with broad avenues (17 new miles of streets and 40 of pavement), built blocks of flats to a common height, new bridges, etc., and got Paris to where the central area still looks a lot today as it did back then.  This cost over five trillion francs in Second Empire currency, which today has been estimated to be worth $1.5 billion.  IN TODAY'S MONEY!  Amazing.  -  a.s.

Just heard that it's $8 billion for High-Speed Rail.

An explicit limit placed on how much can be allocated for NEC, I think it's 40%.

While rail infrastructure would be a sensible thing to upgrade.  This bill is much more about  nonsensical expenditures than about ones that will be beneficial in the long run.  As mentioned before, only a small slice of the pie is going to be spent on infrastructure. To be perfectly honest I would expect another round of "stimulus" in the not too distant future.  Maybe that one will actually be read before it is passed. Maybe it will have some more rail related monies.

Does anyone know how much it cost the PWA (or maybe the WPA) to electrify the Pennsy from Washington to NYC/Penn Station circa 1935?  The GG-1 IIRC was specifically commissioned to haul passenger trains to higher specs than steam. 

If the proposed California HSR project is built for $40 billion, as claimed by Al, the cost to finance the project (capital and interest) over 30 years, assuming a weighted average cost of capital of 5 per cent, which may be low, will be $178.7 billion.  Few projects of this magnitude come in on time and within budget, so the actual cost of the project could be considerably higher.

Amtrak has an unamortized investment in right-of-way and property of $8.4 billion.  It also has $4.4 billion of accumulated depreciation on the books.  Although the financial statements don't show how much of this investment was for the Northeast Corridor, it is probably fair to say that 75 per cent of it is worn by the NEC.  This means that Amtrak's cost to upgrade the NEC was in the neighborhood of $9.6 billion, which squares with several other estimates that I have seen.

Although the NEC covers its operating costs and contributes something to the fixed costs, the fare box does not cover the fixed (capital) costs of the NEC.  To cover the total costs of the NEC, Amtrak would have to raise its NEC fares well above the cost of flying or driving.

The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs.  It will probably require large government subsidies forever.   It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments. 

Those who are enthusiastic about the California HSR project might want to keep a few points in mind.  California has a $41 billion budget shortfall.  In 2008, California's venture capitalists invested more than half of their resources outside of California, whereas before hand they had invested more than 50 per cent in California.  What is the reason?  The business community is turning sour on California because of high taxes.  How sour?  Colorado has launched a series of ads inviting California businesses to relocate to Colorado where the tax burden is lower.  Apparently they are getting a significant number of takers.

The plan to electrify the Pennsylvania Railroad from New York to Washington and Philadelphia to Harrisburg was finalized in 1928.  It was the brainchild of William W. Atterbury, who became President of the PRR in 1925.  At the time of its undertaking in 1928, until its completion a decade later, it was the largest capital project of an American railroad.

According to Michael Bezilla, Pennsylvania State University, in a paper that was included in Railroad Electrification Stragegy; the cost to electrify the aforementioned lines was approximately $250 million.  It does not include the cost of the locomotives.  This translates into approximately $4.09 billion in 2008 dollars.

Portions of the railroad had been electrified prior to 1928.  This cost is not included in the $250 million, which appears to be an estimate as opposed to a an audit of the actual construction costs. 

The electrification in the New York area, which was a third rail scheme, could not be used for the wire that was strung between New York and Washington.  The electrification of the Philadelphia commuter system prior to 1928 was with overhead wire.  Some of it may have been incorporated into the electrification of the NYC to Wahsington line.  Whether these costs are included in the $250 million is unknown.

By 1928 the railroad had cleaned up its balance sheet, and management believed it could fund the project with private capital.  However, it had not reckoned with the 1930s depression.  Utimately, the railroad had to borrow $100 million from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Public Works Administration to complete electrification of the line between Philadelphia and Washington and Philadelphia to Harrisburg.   

I don't know . Like the TRAINS artical says, in order to see change in Amtrak first you will have to reform transportaion polliceys. That is unless a non government subsadised company builds the line and operates it not Amtrak. I wouldn't mind a high speed rail system in the mid west if it doesn't look to futureistic like those butt ugly things called the Maglev, witch I don't think is a train at all, or what ever else looks remnacent of a duck with it's head smashed in.

I did notice that 1.3 billion was going to Amtrak. I'm not sure if that is included in the 8 billion stimulus or not. I think that not only passenger, but freight routes should be upgraded. I mean, except for the Transcon, The Central Corridor in Nebraska, the Northeast Corridor and a few others, we don't have a lot of high capacity, high speed lines in the U.S. Certainly nothing like what Europe has for high speed lines. I think the stimulus will help, but so much more is needed. I am encouraged with what Norfolk Southern is doing with its Piedmont Sub and Heartland Corridor. Since in my mind, the economy will only recover, 1. If God wants it to and Second, if Obama will pour plenty of resources into railroad lines. Let's face it. Some of American rails have not been improved much since the 1950's and 1960's.

Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!

danny48JJ:

Oh by the way, in Norfolk, VA where I'm familiar with, Norfolk is building one of those futuristic rail lines!

The one good thing about the much longer Los Angeles - Bakersfield proposal for the California HSR Corridor, even if it is somehow cheaper, is its use for Los Angeles - Las Vagas trains.  LA-BA would seem to be a priority first phase with interim 150 mph non-electrified service to enable auto-competitive routes from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Chico, and Oakland.  Existing lines from Bakersfield to Stockton, Oakland, and Sacramento would be upgraded to 110 mph where possible for pre-HSR and regional services.

I suppose the next priority would be the section between Fairmead and Gilroy with interim 150 mph non-electrified service for Los Angeles - San Francisco and Los Angeles - Oakland services.

Interim services would take advantage of phased implementation rather than wait twenty years with completed sections idle.  From what we heard from Assemblywoman Fiona Ma last Friday, the HSR Corridor could take twenty years to build, so seven years for a first phase would be pretty good - two years for engineering and bid letting, three years for grading, bridging and tunneling, and another two years for track and signaling would seem reasonable.  In ten years time the second phase could be completed.  Even if an intitial stimulus of two concurrent phases came to pass, the project could still spread over 13-15 years with 6-8 years of interim service.  

Sam1:

The California HSR project, which could cost 18.6 times the cost to upgrade the NEC, will probably never cover its operating costs and its capital costs.  It will probably require large government subsidies forever.   It will be a perpetual drag on California and federal governments. 

I think Sam is correct.  My mental image of California high speed rail construction is a Boston "Big Dig" being executed by surfers!  In any event, I don't think anyone expects it to cover capital costs.