by photobug56
Only problem - government now owns the ROW again, but as far as I know, not nearby real estate.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
photobug56 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:52 pm I believe the environmental study was completed years ago.If it was done too many years ago they'll want to redo the entire thing all over again, like they did with the Camden-Glassboro light rail line.
...
Expanding passenger rail doesn’t just burden the federal budget. It could also harm the broader economy. On most of its routes, Amtrak pays private freight carriers for access to their tracks. Because passenger trains are (by law) given preference on these routes, they’re likely to slow down the nation’s freight network and hence raise shipping costs. Because they may require improvements (such as longer sidings or safety upgrades), they can also entail huge upfront costs. Amtrak’s proposal to restart its Gulf Coast line could require as much as $1.3 billion, according to a report commissioned by the Florida Department of Transportation — for a service that might carry a few hundred passengers a day, on what one local politician called a “joyride for the affluent.”
You might still argue that passenger-rail expansion is necessary on environmental grounds. But this, too, fails a cost-benefit test. Displacing freight rail means more cargo will likely be carried by trucks, which produce perhaps 10 times more carbon per ton-mile. Moreover, Amtrak’s trains outside of the northeast are diesels, which emit about 167 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-mile, not much better than planes (174 grams) — and that’s before any construction is factored in. Even on optimistic assumptions, a decades-long expansion of passenger rail is a grossly inefficient way to fight climate change.
In fact, the infrastructure bill almost seems designed to maximize inefficiency. It specifically prohibits Amtrak from reducing service on unprofitable rural routes. It requires human ticket agents at every station that serves more than 40 passengers a day. Outraged at Amtrak’s attempts to reduce chronic losses on its dining service — by offering prepackaged meals, for instance — lawmakers demanded that it create a “Food and Beverage Service Working Group” to solicit advice about menu items from nonprofit groups, state agencies, and (of course) organized labor. It’s hard to parody this sort of thing.
Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:01 pm From what I can tell, Bloomberg is stating that adding new lines would only increase Amtrak's financial burden. Once again, I feel this supports my stance of having Amtrak's routes being given to the private sector so that the government doesn't have to worry about giving inadequate funding for more branches and passenger routes due to having too many programs to fund (vive la brightline), but I'll leave the article here for further discussion.There are few routes outside NEC where Amtrak has a significant impact on freight rail traffic. Where it does, it is likely that happens because of poor foresight along with greed from railroads that removed tracks, single tracking or otherwise reducing capacity. Also, this tendency towards longer and longer trains, so long that sidings are a joke - either way too short, or they have to be immensely long, is a problem.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... wTSwxo7Fi8
...
Expanding passenger rail doesn’t just burden the federal budget. It could also harm the broader economy. On most of its routes, Amtrak pays private freight carriers for access to their tracks. Because passenger trains are (by law) given preference on these routes, they’re likely to slow down the nation’s freight network and hence raise shipping costs. Because they may require improvements (such as longer sidings or safety upgrades), they can also entail huge upfront costs. Amtrak’s proposal to restart its Gulf Coast line could require as much as $1.3 billion, according to a report commissioned by the Florida Department of Transportation — for a service that might carry a few hundred passengers a day, on what one local politician called a “joyride for the affluent.”
You might still argue that passenger-rail expansion is necessary on environmental grounds. But this, too, fails a cost-benefit test. Displacing freight rail means more cargo will likely be carried by trucks, which produce perhaps 10 times more carbon per ton-mile. Moreover, Amtrak’s trains outside of the northeast are diesels, which emit about 167 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-mile, not much better than planes (174 grams) — and that’s before any construction is factored in. Even on optimistic assumptions, a decades-long expansion of passenger rail is a grossly inefficient way to fight climate change.
In fact, the infrastructure bill almost seems designed to maximize inefficiency. It specifically prohibits Amtrak from reducing service on unprofitable rural routes. It requires human ticket agents at every station that serves more than 40 passengers a day. Outraged at Amtrak’s attempts to reduce chronic losses on its dining service — by offering prepackaged meals, for instance — lawmakers demanded that it create a “Food and Beverage Service Working Group” to solicit advice about menu items from nonprofit groups, state agencies, and (of course) organized labor. It’s hard to parody this sort of thing.
Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:01 pm From what I can tell, Bloomberg is stating that adding new lines would only increase Amtrak's financial burden. Once again, I feel this supports my stance of having Amtrak's routes being given to the private sector so that the government doesn't have to worry about giving inadequate funding for more branches and passenger routes due to having too many programs to fund (vive la brightline), (snip)If the tracks get sold, whoever buys them is going to want to make money. That means…
photobug56 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:10 am Do European railroads single track and reduce capacity as is so popular in the US?In some instances , if the traffic level warrants it . Generally branch lines I would say . they would leave enough properly spaced sidings to suit the traffic level . And i doubt they would run freight trains that don't fit in the sidings.
TurningOfTheWheel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:01 pm God forbid the government provides a public service that doesn't turn a profit.God forbid the government providing an affordable public service that doe not bust the economy.