If and only if the NEC...

John_Perkowski wrote: So, as far as I'm concerned, if folks on this forum want to have an "Amtrak in the Northeast only," fine. My conditions, which I will gladly share with my Representative (who is a Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) as well as my two Senators, are:

John Perkowski

John, if I recall correctly to quote you, you live in "fly over country".

Well, I for one WANT trains in the Northeast.. as well as "fly-over country".

Right now it's hard to get to enough places there by train and I end up spending more time/money driving, etc.

So you've got my support for Amtrak in "fly-over country".

Mr Moore,

Then you have my support for Amtrak in the NEC!

Isn't quid pro quo a delightful thing?

John Perkowski

John_Perkowski wrote: - Reimburse the US Government for improvements across the past 20 years.

Get a refund for a government boondoggle? That would be a first!

John_Perkowski wrote:Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal
- Los Angeles Coach Yards
San Diego Amtrak Station
Santa Barbara Amtrak Station
San Luis Obispo Amtrak Station
Denver Union Station
Chicago Union Station
Chicago Coach Yards
(not to mention the various major shops as well as other non-NEC termini, stations, and yards)...

When Amtrak shutters, this property WILL BE SOLD OFF. The statistical probability of this real estate remaining as railroad ground is someplace between Zero and ten per cent.

John Perkowski

Of the stations you mention, most (San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Denver) are not owned by Amtrak. The exception is Chicago, which is owned by Amtrak but sees the bulk of its passengers using non-Amtrak rail services. Add to the list of non-Amtrak owned stations: Seattle and Portland (OR). So, if Amtrak goes belly-up, ownership of these stations would not be affected. Amtrak owns very little infrastructure outside the NEC and the Michigan corridor.

Point is this: No amtrak, no need for a full station with baggage/express room complex.

I've seen National Register hysteric buildings come down. It can happen.

Do not bet on these buildings staying up if Amtrak goes away, and at a minimum, the land being allocated to other primary uses, with an appropriate size rail platform being a subsidiary use.

John Perkowski

I have 2 unrelated points on this topic.
1--HSR: If HSR or even higher-speed-than-now-but-not-hsr is built, why would stations have to be infrequent? Why couldn't we have expresses and locals, with connections? Incidentally, EMUs in this country have traditionally been limited in acceleration to 1.5 MPH/sec or less. This isn't a technical limitation of EMUs, it is to prevent standees from being knocked over. Does Japan not worry about this, or do they make sure not to have standees?
2--Any kind of rail infrastructure is fabulously expensive to replace, and usually takes a long time to rebuild. In places around NY, the painful reconstruction of infrastructure for railroad uses always costs a few orders of magnitude more than the original--way, way more than inflation. And how long would it take to re-create the shopcraft skills needed to maintain and service passenger trains? Already, the ability quickly to switch cars in and out of trains seems to have atrophied beyond resurrection...

JoeG wrote:I have 2 unrelated points on this topic.
2--Any kind of rail infrastructure is fabulously expensive to replace, and usually takes a long time to rebuild. In places around NY, the painful reconstruction of infrastructure for railroad uses always costs a few orders of magnitude more than the original--way, way more than inflation. And how long would it take to re-create the shopcraft skills needed to maintain and service passenger trains? Already, the ability quickly to switch cars in and out of trains seems to have atrophied beyond resurrection...

No, Sir, that is not unrelated:

THAT IS THE SIMPLEST SAYING OF MY KEY POINT YET!!!

Thank you!

John Perkowski

JoeG wrote: 1--HSR: If HSR or even higher-speed-than-now-but-not-hsr is built, why would stations have to be infrequent? Why couldn't we have expresses and locals, with connections?

Exactly. A HSR or near HSR line doesn't just have to serve stations far apart. By triple or quadruple tracking it, which probably adds less than 20% to the initial cost, you can bring commuter rail service to places where it doesn't exist at the same time you're offering medium to long distance high-speed service. By using standardizing on the same type of highly aerodynamic, fast-accelerating EMUs for both types of service you decrease equipment costs. You can run commuter trains with stops 3 or 4 miles apart and maintain an overall 60 to 70 mph average speed, or you can have stops 50 miles apart and maintain a 180 mph average speed. In the first case of course you won't come anywhere near the line's 225 mph maximum speed but in the second case you would.

Incidentally, EMUs in this country have traditionally been limited in acceleration to 1.5 MPH/sec or less. This isn't a technical limitation of EMUs, it is to prevent standees from being knocked over.

The Arrows start off at 2.5 mph/sec. This doesn't seem to be a problem for standing passengers. Ditto for the NYC subway. So long as you limit jerk rates (i.e. changes in acceleration), rates up to 3 mph/sec with standing passengers are feasible, and up to 6 mph/sec for seated passengers. The latter is well beyond the limits of EMUs but might well easily be attainable with maglev. You can run very fast schedules even with stops a few miles apart if you have decent acceleration rates. The goal for any new commuter rail service should be 60 mph or better average speed over the entire run.

jtr1962 wrote:A HSR or near HSR line doesn't just have to serve stations far apart. By triple or quadruple tracking it, which probably adds less than 20% to the initial cost

Given the current cost of steel - how does one suggest that adding a third or fourth track cost only 20% or so of the initial cost (ROW and the two tracks)?

The ROW for HSR has to be wide no matter what, but wouldn't a four-track mainline still require more right-of-way than a two-track mainline (just as a freeway or four-lane highway requires more right-of-way than a two-lane road; similarily a limited access, high speed highway requires more right-of-way than a non-arterial country road)?

As for stations; what used to be a simple island platform or a pair of outer platforms now becomes a minimum of two island platforms or an island and two outer platforms, along with longer bridges, more stairways and elevators, etc.

I agree that the cost would not double or necessarily increase in an exact proportion, but certainly would be more than just a 1/5th increase in cost.

One note about the cost of infrastructure replacement. The first NYC Subway, built between 1900-1904, was about 9 route miles. Most was 4 track subway, the rest was 3 track. Of the 9 miles, less than 1 was above ground. The cost, including rolling stock, and what was then the world's largest electric power plant, was $35 million. What would this cost today? $20 billion? More? (I guess the recent subway strike got me thinking about the subway.)

There are four reasons that infrastructure costs so much more today.

1. Inflation. This doesn't really count, because as long as all prices rise together relative costs remain the same; but it explains most of the apparent difference. $35 million for the original NYC subway is more than it sounds, when you consider you could have a full meal in fine restaurant for 50c. Today, that would cost easily $100 in NYC. So right there, on a rough guesstimate, your $35 million becomes $7 billion.

2. Increase in property costs. Of course much of this is due to inflation, but there's a lot of relative increase too, as witnessed by the fact that the buildings are taller today - land prices are so high that it's cost-effective to build way way up. Once upon a time people could afford to buy homes in NYC; now they haven't a prayer, they are lucky to rent. Also, much of the original subway system was built on spec. I've seen photos of the subway being built off into empty fields in Upper Manhattan, using a "field of dreams" approach. The company purchased all the land around the new stations, so as to sell it for much higher prices once the line was running to offset the costs. This worked beautifully. It's been done in many places, including Tokyo; I don't know why it isn't done today.

3. Excessive government regulation in labor laws. Consider the standard of living expected of a construction worker then and now. It was possible to hire tens of thousands of people and start them digging a hole. Thanks to increased expectations of the unskilled, and government labor laws, that would be totally prohibitive now. Compare the construction of the original Boston subway, with today's Big Dig.

4. Excessive government regulation in design. The ADA rules are quite inappropriate to a subway system, and make it all but unaffordable to construct. Other safety rules have the same cumulative effect. I'm all for safety, but there is the law of diminishing returns. Also, there's a safety cost to NOT being able to afford to build more subway, forcing people to drive which is inherently much less safe. And of course, all the environmental impact studies add massively to the cost, as if there was any nature in Manhattan anymore.

Here's an inflation calculator, that gives several ways for figuring inflation. If you use the Consumer Price Index, the $35 million becomes $739 million. Other apporaches give different amounts. Only the approach of comparing the cost to the total GDP, which gives a current value of $16 billion, comes close to what would be the actual cost today. Calculating inflation is very tricky because the things people buy change, etc. For example, medical care in 1900 was vastly cheaper by any measure than it is now, but then, in 1900 you were statistically more likely to die if you accepted a doctor's treatment than if you didn't. Medical care now is, obviously, much more effective.
Inflation Calculator

krtaylor wrote:Also, much of the original subway system was built on spec. I've seen photos of the subway being built off into empty fields in Upper Manhattan, using a "field of dreams" approach. The company purchased all the land around the new stations, so as to sell it for much higher prices once the line was running to offset the costs. This worked beautifully. It's been done in many places, including Tokyo; I don't know why it isn't done today.

I'm assuming that "spec." means speculation, rather than specification, just to clarify.

What you describe is being done, but in a slightly different manner. The land is not necessarily being owned and sold by the railroad company - most passenger trains are owned and operated by governmental entities.

Here in Portland, OR - TriMet owns/operates most of the transit system; the Portland Streetcar being an exception (owned and "operated" by the City of Portland Office of Transportation, but the actual operation has been contracted out to TriMet.) So TriMet itself is not a development agency and does not develop land. BUT - the regional government, Metro, is a planning agency. So Metro goes out, makes the plans for both transit and development, and initiates the process of starting light rail lines, gets the initial federal funding - and then turns over final design to TriMet. But it acquires land for development along the light rail lines. The City of Portland did the same, through its Portland Development Commission, for the Portland Streetcar; or facilitated the purchase by an interested third party, and provided some back-scratching to move projects through an otherwise cluttered and congested Planning Department process.

In the end, both Light Rail and Streetcar was designed partially as mass transit, and partially to increase development. Much of the land in Hillsboro was farm land until just a few years ago, now it is business parks, Intel, and apartment/condo complexes. Orenco Station was never a bustling place since the Oregon Electric Railroad stopped interurban trains there (a one time junction) in the early 1930s, except for the occasional game of golf. The north end of the Streetcar route was nothing but rows of vacant, abandoned railroad warehouses which became make-shift homeless camps; now it's home to $600,000+ (for a studio) condos, art galleries, and expensive restaurants - all post-streetcar.

Without the PDC and Metro, many of the developments in the area would not be built, or the development would be so haphazard that light rail would never make sense. (Of course, Metro is also being blamed in part for the increase in housing prices in Portland because of some of its "decisions" in how housing is built.)

If you talk about bucks, you NEED THIS PAGE IN YOUR BOOKMARKS:

http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflate.html

NASA has an array of ways to calculate costs "then for now" and "now for then". I have been introduced to this toolbox. It's part of what I use now.

Merry Christmas,

John Perkowski