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.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
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.
Getting California HSR out of Los Angeles could be expensive; but the project description refers enigmatically to shared facilities with commuter rail. Going up the Central Valley will be a veritable piece of cake. It's unfair to characterize the whole project as being a Big Dig West.
Speaking of construction costs, the "Initial Phase" will take roughly $10 billion each from a Federal grant and State and private bond financing. With expected annual operating profit of $1billion, it could take 30 years just to retire private financing or maybe 100 years for the whole package. Will investors care to see the end or will this be a legacy for great-grandchildren? Samantha calculated well over $100 billion in financing costs! Not surprising if you've ever bought a home.
Could some kind of emission or other credit be sold to finance transit and intercity rail passenger service?
What about a gas-guzzler tax for transit and intercity rail passenger service?
How could the value of increased safety be captured for transit, intercity rail, and airline travel?
Any other ideas?
I'd be kind of shocked to see any true HSR projects get much of the $8B. My impression is that CA is still quite a ways off from moving dirt around and providing many jobs, which is the whole point of the stimulus, no? And, $8B does not buy much HSR, but it buys a whole lot of incremental improvement.
I'd look for IL, WI, MI, OH, VA, WA, NY, PA and NC to get the lion's share of the $8B as they are all much closer to "shovel ready" with incremental improvements to existing (or existing currently frt only) routes.
California should be able to score some more equipment and expand on current service, too.
Everybody else is not far enough along to qualify. The money will be all gone before they can say "boo".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
I know that the track work is the expensive part (the Midwest Rail Initiative was maybe 90 percent track and 10 percent equipment), but if you don't have any railroad cars, people aren't going anywhere.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I am unfamiliar with any plan by the MRI. 90% "track" costs would suggest including curve easement and relocation, grade separation and closing at-grade public and private crossings, almost equally expensive for Chicago - Saint Louis, electrification, and signal and communication as well as the actual track improvement for existing rail lines.
I know that dynamic wheel-rail forces increase exponentially with speed. My engineering stopped short of getting the equations for those calculations based on the combined track modulus (stiffness factor) for rail and ballast. A passenger train car weighing half that of a freight car causes more degradation to the track by going twice as fast, and 2.5-3 times faster (150 mph) is worse still. Currently, the P42 has almost as much weight on axles as freight locomotives. Let's drop how HSR track needs are incompatible with freight. Of course, the combined volumes of freight and passenger traffic will affect maintenance cycles for a given stretch of track. Railroads surface and line tracks to the highest level to minimize the rate of degradation and frequency of resurfacing and relining to maintain Class IV or Class V compliance.
If I could make mention of two items:
[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them.
[2]Danny48JJ: your suggestion that passenger and freight routes should be upgraded is a no brainer. However, should tax $$ be given to for profit freight companies to fix their tracks, with no strings attached? I think not. If tax money should be spent on all rail lines, as I believe it should, the "string" that should be attached is some movement towards an interstate railway system.
We all recognize (and take for granted) the benefits of an interstate highway system. Most of us can picture what America would look like if I-80, I-10, or I-95 were owned by JBHunt, UPS, or FEDEX. With regards to the statement you made that HSR in America is nothing like Europe, Danny, bulls eye! You have hit the nail right on the head. HSR isn't even anything like the interstate highway system in America! Can anyone imagine what would happen if I-80, I-10, and I-95 were the only highways where vehicles could average 65 MPH, and all the rest were below this speed? Or were kept at 50% operational condition? An interstate railway system will allow railroads to hit every part of the country (lower 48), and would allow Amtrak, which is the passenger railroad industry, more mobility and choises as to how, when, and where to offer services. In addition, an interstate railway system would allow current commuter rail organizations to expand their services. Think about it: METRA would be able to run a train or several in and out of the CHI area during a nasty blizzard, [when Ohare and other airports are closed], and connect CHI with DC, NYC, or even DEN. How many people remember the Christmas Blizzard of 2007 that shut down Devner? Yeah, I know there are a lot of miles between DEN and CHI. But, if the people stuck in Denver for 24+ hours had had the opportunity to get on a train and 20 hours later be in CHI, don't you think they would have jumped at the chance? We Americans like to move! We don't like to sit still! We also do not like to use any product or service rthat is considered "slow".
Another interesting topic with regards to Stimulus/HSR/Amtrak is the need to broaden the passenger railroad transportation industry. As mentioned before, Amtrak is the only passenger railroad in America. We all know the reasons why: cheap fuel costs=cheap air fares, cheap auto travel. We also know that the days of cheap fuel are going, going, gone. (1)Should federal stimulus $$ be spent to prop up the air travel industry? How much $$ will the air travel industry then spend to lobby against federal $$ for Amtrak? (2)Over the road companies will get federal stimulas $$. Then they will also lobby to see that Amtrak gets little or no federal $$. Our tax money is wasted! Lets level the playing field once and for all, and allow the capitalistic system to work. We spent how many federal and state tax $$ to build all the airports in America? We spent how many federal and state $$ to build the interstate highway system? Are we sure we can't afford a similar amount for an interstate railway system? I know it's a lot of money, but hey, we should be investing in our country, and its future. What was it the president of the USA Chamber of Commerce said last summer? Transportation is broken in America, and we are going to have to fix it. And, we are going to have to pay for it! A show of hands, please. How many want to spend tax money on an interstate railway system? Now, how many want to spent the money bailing out the dying air travel industry? How about the dying over the road industry? Another nasty overseas war?
Speaking of Amtrak, they are invited to compete for the HSR projects, but the stimulus bill does not say that Amtrak is to be designated to be the owner nor as the operator of any of the HSR projects. They are eligible to bid for the projects in an open competition.
I think that says a lot!
Paul Milenkovic Any rolling stock to come out of that $8B? The story I heard is that the Stimulus Bill is for infrastructure meaning the tracks and would not cover trainsets, whether new or rehabs of the Beech Grove dead line, of which there is a short supply.
The $8 bil is seperate from the $1.8 bil (IIRC) that Amtrak is getting. The $1.8 bil goes to Amtrak for repair/upgrades of both equipment and right of way with a cap on how much of it the NE Corridor can get. Presumably, one of the items Amtrak will accomplish is emptying the dead line at Beech Grove.
New rolling stock is a real problem as the feast or famine nature of Amtrak purchases make it very unattractive for a potential manufacturer. Obama's Chief of Staff seems to be saying that we are at the start of a substantial annual amount for rail infrastructure, but this administration is in its very early days. We'll see.
President Obama was on CNN this morning saying he would like to see high speed rail in this country and mentioning some of the other countries that have it. One of the people in the feature stated that we are 40 years behind the rest of the world in rail technology.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them
Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made
passengerfan P.A.Talbot[1] Will the California HSR project be earthquake proof? May sound like a stupid question, but the Golden State does seem to get a lot of them Experts from California have consulted with the Japanese regarding necessary construction through earthquake prone areas. California already has experience with the BART tunnel and other BART construction regarding earthquakes. The California HSR system will be as earthquake proof as anything can be made Al - in - Stockton
Earthquake proof is a moving target. What is proof at a 6.5 is resistant at 7.5 and lost at an 8.5.! Isn't it better to state any location as earthquake resistant at magnitude ( ? ).
The idea that an Interstate Rail System would allow Metra to run trains out of Chicago to New York, Washington, DC, or Denver is quite impractical. During a blizzard, ridership may plummet because people are unable to reach the station and many schools and businesses will close. While cars could be spared for a day and switched out, the locomotives could not be spared to make up relief trains. By the time the storm hits New York (and how certain would the severity be?), roads will be reopened in Chicago to allow resuming normal activity and demand for Metra services.
Americans may like to move fast; but sometimes just having a way to get somewhere without walking or taking the time to walk 200 miles is important even in this age in the US. Even so, many destinations can be reached by the existing rail network; some may warrant improvements for higher speeds; and a few may be reached affordably with new high speed lines.
Harvey:
I have read your post 3 times and I just don't understand your point. Are you saying that trains can't run during a snow storm? If that was the case, the northern states would have to shut down all winter.
Technically, passengerfan may be more precise in saying "resistant at magnitude #.#;" but even this may not reflect all the variables for a given location for a blanket definition. I think Al-in-Stockton covers the subject adequately with all that has been learned and what has not yet been revealed in "as anything can be made."
The worst train disaster to date occurred in Italy after WWII when a steam train stalled in a tunnel asphixiating 1,300-1,400 passengers and crew.
I didn't think I was implying anything of the sort. My points were intended to be that trains couldn't be spared for use elsewhere because the locomotives were still needed in Chicago to maintain service despite the weather; and that full capacity would be needed before equipment could return.
In Chicago's worst blizzards in 1967 and (1977?) Metra was the only thing running reliably. The CTA rail surface, embankment and median segments were crippled and service interrupted. In '67 I took the L to UIC, was told the school was closed, and took the C&NW to Des Plaines and home cooking. The most frustrating aspect of bad weather is that the North Western would run on time - perhaps because fewer passengers meant fewer delays in boarding.
More recently, Metra has had problems that caused delays and a few cancellations.
Someone thought my avatar was taken on the C&NW Harvard/Northwest line around Park Ridge - not so. By 1959, the only semaphores left in triple track territory were between Clybourn and Keeler. These were replaced by searchlight-type signals c.1977, which in turn were replaces by color light signals c.2003 in the bridge replacement program with some minor realignment. Beyond Keeler, horizontally arrayed color light signals were used to the end of triple track at Barrington. These had been phased out for vertical signals from Seeger northwest 7-8 years ago. Deval was converted last year; and the remaining horizontal signals may be phased out soon.
The photo was actually taken at Ravenswood (Lawrence Av, Chicago) on the Kenosha/North line. The semaphores were replaced with searchlight signals a year or two after the photo was taken. Some years after the third track was removed, mast-mounted color light signals were installed.
The third track remained on the North Line for over twenty years after a half-dozen local stations were closed. Someone finally figured out that service would not suffer with removal and a significant savings in maintenance could be realized.
This too is off-topic; but some folks are asking for additional, relocated, or restored stops on the line and restoration of the third track. A bridge replacement progam for the North Line would realign the tracks and make a third track restoration all the more difficult. The realignment would center the tracks to allow increasing the elevation for improved bridge clearances. This would minimize new or extended retaining walls.
I've posted quite a few photos on the CHICAGOTRANSIT site in UPxx Albums the photos section.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.