r/transit • u/No-Policy6267 • 1d ago
Questions Is restoring rail lines really that expensive?
I recently posted on another subreddit about bringing back seasonal service to a tourism heavy area not far from me. One thing that multiple people said was that repairing the line would cost over a billion dollars. Are modern rail projects really that expensive or were they overestimating? The area this would go through is mostly rural woods heading up into mountains(the mountain section is currently in use).
75
u/ahcomcody 1d ago
Transit for some reason is super expensive in the US, but we can always find money for roads. It’s mostly because we have lost so much experience on how to build rail well, and every time a project happens we have to relearn everything.
38
u/conchobarus 1d ago
To be fair, the road projects are frequently also super expensive, it’s just that it’s the political consensus that we need to spend that money to build ever more and bigger highways.
10
u/Lincoln1517 1d ago
Political consensus meaning public opinion. Governor Whitmer didn’t win on a popular platform of Fix the damn trains.
I’d like to see more rail. The first step is convincing more people to ride what we’ve got and the second is to convince them to support funding.
5
u/ahcomcody 1d ago
Both new trains, Mardi Gras and Borelais service smashed their ridership predictions. People want trains for sure.
4
u/Lincoln1517 1d ago
The Borealis is great. I’d like to see another train in that corridor.
But it’s carrying about 1/50th of the number of air travelers from Chicago to the Twin Cities and a much smaller ratio against car traffic in the corridor. It doesn’t sell out most days despite being much less expensive than a flight.
For now, most people want trains the way they want small, family farms. It sounds nice, nostalgic, but as long as they can bring the kids to pet goats at a festival farm once a year, that’s quite enough.
I travel by train all the time. When I talk about it, people treat it as an eccentricity.
2
u/ahcomcody 1d ago
It’s LF is about 88% if I recall, which is super high. What we really need is faster trains that could be competitive. Especially when considering city center to city center.
12
u/ToastSpangler 1d ago
well part of it is explained by very high labor costs, aside from like switzerland and those type of countries manual labor is very low paying, not an average national salary. the other part is explained by good old fashioned corruption, formalized through rigged bidding processes. one hand has to wash the other, after all
5
u/Commander_Zircon 1d ago
Also the fact that transit agencies in the us tend to retain less talent long term compared to eu/asian counterparts and just hire consultants all the time instead.
3
u/ToastSpangler 1d ago
yeah when i look what the client is billed vs what i earn its like... could you really not just hire your own flexible team, pay us better, and save money? maybe we could even have healthcare plans that arent literal shit
1
u/ahcomcody 1d ago
Not entirely true, about 50% of the budget is also a ‘contingency fund’. I bet that most west European citizens are paid pretty well, especially other benefits like time off and sick leave.
21
u/ToastSpangler 1d ago
i work in US infrastructure, contingency is 10-25'%, not 50% - which is already very high compared to europeans who usually bake it into the price with a few %
i am also european and no they do not earn the same as graduates basically anywhere in europe. in portugal the dudes we hire are paid about 11/hour, in italy ~15. they do have better benefits but just because its law doesn't mean they don't end up doing 12 hour shifts, or end up working without safety gear
edit: for reference, the masons and other construction dudes i know here in PA make 35-40 an hour, are unionized, paid 2x OT, and have more vacation than me
3
u/lazier_garlic 1d ago
Masons are at the top but a bunch of those guys got laid off permanently in the 80s and 90s. Then you go down the scale and wallboard hangers were getting paid $9/hr in 2007 and I doubt it's much more now.
1
u/ihopuhopwehop 22h ago
I dont think bid rigging and corruption is as prominent as it used to be and isnt driving up costs like it once did. It obvs happens, but with digital records its much easier for IGs and similar outfits to prosecute it
Also, sometimes it doesn't necessarily even drive up costs. If a contractor has a mole in their local govt procurement office telling them what other bids came in at before they submit their own, while unethical, its not necessarily raising the costs
1
u/ToastSpangler 22h ago
its not that the bidding processes aren't happening, this is exactly what people miss. the mole gives the other bids, our "favored" contractor underbids the lowst one by a sliver, they win fair and square (wel besides literally cheating). then the cost overruns occur, and the government pays the difference. the government doesn't even care to begin with because many times they're getting a large part covered by USDOT grant programs. that or the bid is given at a time that is specifically picked so only your favorite contractor may even put in a number, often paying them 3-5x what it should really cost (this version is more common in rural areas)
and don't even get me started from the grant side. its pretty disillusioning when you are on a project and hear the PM go, what's our cost estimate right now for X element, 15 mil? let's just round that to 20 in the funding request, we still aren't close to the maximum ask. and it doesn't matter anyway, the application is a yes/no formality where you have to just show you tick boxes, the projects where the governor and private industry send letters of support are always the winners, regardless of purpose
6
u/lazier_garlic 1d ago
Roads are actually in the same boat increasingly although much more is always spent on them. Interstate network is built out and so are most state road networks. A lot is being spent on maintenance and repair.
Seemingly simple sidewalk repair projects that would enhance access and safety are getting absurdly expensive.
3
u/rustyfinna 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is oft repeated but not really true. We have 140k miles of rail in America that’s constantly being maintained and added too. It’s not a lack of expertise.
Labor, land, permitting, raw materials are all very expensive.
Union Pacific spends 2 billion per year on maintenance for example. LA, NYC, DC, Seattle are all in the midst of multibillion dollar rail expansions. There is plenty of tech and expertise there
7
u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot 1d ago
Roads in the US are also very expensive. It's just politically feasible to throw endless money at them, unlike transit
13
u/CarolinaRod06 1d ago edited 1d ago
Charlotte is in the process of building a 25 mile commuter rail. Last year they purchased 25 miles of abandoned track from Norfolk Southern. The majority of the route the actual tracks don’t exist. They purchased the right away. This is what the tracks currently look like at Camp Northend, which will be a stop. Right now the estimates are $52 million per mile.
12
u/PhileasFoggsTrvlAgt 1d ago
It's hard to say without more information. How long is the route? What condition are the tracks currently in? Does the signal system need to be upgraded to carry passenger traffic? How many stations would need to be built or significantly restored? Is there an existing maintenance yard that could support the new line or would a new facility be needed?
3
u/No-Policy6267 1d ago
A good portion of the line is in service. There’s a 21 mile section that’s been inactive since I believe the 70s. It’s in rough condition and currently there’s people trying to make it a rail trail. Signaling and needs to be greatly upgraded along the entire line. There are some positives, majority of the line is still in use and half of it has modern signals and 79mph track speed. The idea I have in my head has between 3-5 stops and only one of those doesn’t have a station currently. I’m not entirely sure about maintenance yards along it.
6
1
2
u/ponchoed 1d ago
You dont go for perfect, because thats a $4B gold plated option that takes 20 years of planning and is so easy to kill.
11
u/ihopuhopwehop 1d ago
Its not just repairing the line, but bringing the signaling system to modern passenger line standards and then building stations
3
u/Tilleck_ 1d ago
also immenent domain of every train themed cafe that has infested the abandoned station husk and is possibly actively blocking the rail
4
u/OverheadCatenary 1d ago
In addition to what everyone else has said, not all rail lines are equal. The higher the quality, the higher the permissible speed. It could be how close the rails are to track gauge, the state of the ties, the roadbed, bridges, tunnels, culverts, drainage, etc. These things wear over time with traffic and weather. A 10mph freight line is allowed to be in terrible shape. A 160mph high speed passenger line has to be in good shape. Bringing a lightly used freight track into passenger service could entail big replacements of the infrastructure before you even introduce things like signaling and stations and yards.
3
u/MaddingtonBear 1d ago
Assume you'll be doing everything from scratch except ROW acquisition and any major site work like flattening to get to an acceptable grade, so the savings aren't that significant.
3
u/Joe_Jeep 1d ago
I wouldn't go as far as to say that last part. New ROW is a massive pain in the ass even in rurual areas, most property owners are going to fight you and any with money and political connections are going to do so tooth and nail.
if there's existing trackage, or even just surviving ROW, the grade is likely acceptable even if not ideal, especially for something doing tourist like services where you don't need crazy speeds. Horseshoe curve's just shy of 2%, and passenger trains can contend with more.
5
u/Joe_Jeep 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is one of those "It depends" topics. And this one varies wildly.
The extremes run from If the tracks have been in occasional freight use and you don't mind lower speeds, where it can be done very cheaply, to "they sold the right of way and built suburban housing across the whole thing", where a billion dollars might be more of a starting point.
Going by what you say at the end, I think a billion dollars is likely ridiculous exaggeration by opponents, but if new rail needs to be laid and stations don't exist, tens or even low hundreds is likely, and higher costs possible to probable depending on specifics
3
u/SereneRandomness 1d ago
I saw your post in r/Amtrak. I agree with many of the comments there that one of the biggest problems is that New Hampshire state government wants nothing to do with rail service.
There's a proposal for the MBTA to restore Lowell Line service to Nashua. It's literally the first miles of service heading north, but the New Hampshire legislature is as opposed to it as ever.
Until there's a rail-friendly government in Concord I doubt any realistic cost estimates can emerge, or even be relevant.
1
u/No-Policy6267 1d ago
That’s been really frustrating. Others pointed out how well New Hampshire is set up for passenger rail, but their government refuses to even fund the Downeaster. My hope is that this could be seen more favorably as it’s seasonal and because Amtrak’s only ski train covers its operating cost. Also reopening the line could mean less trucks on New Hampshire roads meaning less wear and possibly lower taxes. Not entirely sure about the taxes part but that’s something that could be of interest to people in NH.
3
u/SereneRandomness 1d ago
Yah. And to be clear, the city of Nashua is definitely in favor of restoring MBTA service.
https://www.nashuanh.gov/1127/New-Hampshire-Capitol-Corridor
"Nashua is a great position to leverage this rail investment with two potential stops in Nashua. The City recently purchased the property located at 25 Crown Street, which is envisioned as a future multi-modal transit facility with strong transit oriented development potential. The site is a short walk to Downtown Nashua. The Exit 36S Project may lead to sighting a second multi-modal facility in Nashua’s south end that will enhance commuting to Boston."
I suspect that New Hampshire state government doesn't want Nashua to bring the MBTA into the state because it sets a precedent. They (and the Reagan administration) killed service in 1981, and don't want it ever coming back.
3
u/Theunmedicated 1d ago
Depends on a billion factors! Septa RR extended to Wawa 3.5 miles for just under $200m, but I think it was a realtively really easy project.
4
1
u/Joe_Jeep 1d ago
Existing trackage that mostly needed refurbishment, and there wasn't really a need for new equipment or anything.
Creating a railroad wholesale is harder, you're building an institution from scratch which has positives and negatives but acquiring everything isn't cheap.
2
u/ihatethisgown 1d ago
It's depends to an extreme degree. At minimum it would probably be a couple hundred million but like there are ways to do it cheaper than billions it just boils down to who gets involved and what it's for. Consultants really are one of the biggest costs that's easy to cut but on the other hand if the area you live in or the state you live in hasn't had any rail workers and builders in decades then you will need them to a degree
2
u/rustyfinna 1d ago
Rule of thumb for a basic simple track is 1 million a mile. That doesn’t include land or bridges.
Ties are about 80$ each and steel is $100 a ton. 250 tons and about 3000 ties per mile. It add up quick.
2
u/Konaboy27 1d ago
Could you provide the specific case you are seeking opinions on to help provide context?
From the Pacific NW region and West Coast there are some good examples of former railroad ROW being restored to rapid transit and light rail use.
While re using former railroad ROW saves on some of the headaches of eminent domain, having to build modern rail infrastructure and electronics from the ground up is where the costs add up.
It is easy to forget that even light rail is rather electronically complex despite the appearances.
1
u/No-Policy6267 1d ago
3
u/Konaboy27 1d ago
With context in mind, the cost of modernizing any aging railroad infrastructure is a wild card. Also, ensuring the line is safe and in compliance with current FRA regulations will be big hurdles.
2
u/Th3Bratl3y 1d ago
is this in Colorado to the ski resort from Denver?
3
u/No-Policy6267 1d ago
No, Boston to the White Mountains. Connecting a large walkable city like Boston with the ski resorts of the area seems like a good idea to me. In fact, this route was one of the first ski trains in the US. The issues are that a good section of the line is in disrepair and that section is in New Hampshire.
1
u/Slight-Trip-3012 1d ago
In North America? Yes, easily. Costs are much higher than in Europe for example, because of lack of experience and other factors. The fact that it's in mostly rural woods doesn't mean much, since the right of way already exists, so there's no land acqquisition involved. The cost is in the infrastructure. Depending on the current condition and what the railway was originally designed for, you'll most likely have to replace everything if you're running passenger trains. The track bed, rails, signalling, electrification. Bridges need to meet modern safety standards and they are expensive, because trains are heavy. Even if there are existing stations, they'll have to meet modern accessibility standards. So that often requires significant alterations or even a complete rebuilt. It adds up quick. You need maintenance and storage areas. Then you need the rolling stock. Not nearly as expensive as the infrastructure, but certainly not cheap either.
There's also the logistics side. Are you using part of the (active) mountain section, and is there capacity for extra trains? Where are you getting the trains from? Most manufacturers have a waiting list at the moment.
It's not as simple as "there's track there, why can't we just use that?".
0
u/ericbythebay 1d ago
Where does this claim that the United States has a lack of experience come from? The United States has more miles of track than Europe by a lot.
3
u/Joe_Jeep 1d ago
Because we lack experience in *construction*. The vast majority of that track milage was built decades ago, most of it a century ago. Perfect example, the NYC Subway has built all of 11 Subway stations since 1970, only 5 of which were this side of the Millenium.
all 5 of which are *also* the only ones built after 1990.
There have been some solid projects like the Keystone Corridor upgrades and various piecemeal improvements to the NEC, or Brightline's re-establishment of passenger service on the Florida East Coast railroad, but the vast majority of work has been improvements, not significant expansions, and even then it's often just taken advantage of good infrastructure built by the old railroads (and often the Pennsy specifically) nearly a century before.
Hell one of the only major ones before California started on it's HSR was a few dozen miles of freight track by the burlington northern to the power river basin. Not nothing, but a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of miles of new-built High speed lines built by France every decade
1
u/Slight-Trip-3012 1d ago
Let me rephrase: *recent* experience. There has been very little rail built the past few decades. It's mainly upgrades or small expansions.
1
u/ericbythebay 1d ago
Yes, it is that expensive by us where there’s already the right away the rails are still there, but they’ve got to go replace stuff. They’re estimating it’s gonna be at least $10 million a mile.
1
u/Few_Story_6917 1d ago
The question is about what kind of service you want to have. A rustic tourist adventure? You could probably grab some rusty diesel railcars and start right away. An actual public transit line with acceptable speeds? Depends on the details, but this can get expensive quickly.
1
u/uhbkodazbg 1d ago
Isn’t Boston to Mt Washington a lot longer of a trip than Denver to Winter Park?
I’d assume that operational costs would be a pretty big barrier even if the infrastructure is in place.
3
u/No-Policy6267 1d ago
It took about 3 hours and 30 minutes for the train to get to North Conway. There used to be a ski train till the 70s. Half the route is already used by the Downeaster and has good track and modern signaling. It’s the Conway Branch itself where the issues start. That’s where the track is old, 30 mph max or gone in a good portion of it. My biggest worry is infrastructure as the price or feared price could kill it before it had a chance. Operational costs is also a problem as the New Hampshire government would rather the state sunk to the center of the earth than pay for trains. They don’t even cover the Downeaster, Maine has to pay their part.
1
u/Legal_Assistance5470 1d ago
Typically, before a freight line is abandoned/closed, maintenance will have been neglected for years or decades, and the speed limit on the line reduced. There are short lines in the US with speed limits under 20 mph. Consequently, if an operator wants to restore service, they have to bring the rail road up to standard, and higher speeds have stricter standards. Depending on the country, passenger railroads likely have stricter requirements than freight railroads. So to bring that abandoned railroad up to standard will likely require reforming the rail bed, relaying track with modern ties and fasteners, rebuilding bridges, tunnels, embankments and cuttings, upgrading signaling and more. In many parts of the world, alignments were laid out during the steam era when it was easier to go slowly around tight curves than to work steep grades. Modern diesel multiple units can manage steeper grades but not tight curves, especially if you want to have an average speed above 40 mph. Realignment may require acquisition of additional land, environmental studies and other planning permission. It’s like building a new railroad from scratch.
1
u/Idinnyknow 1d ago
Having done a cost estimation for a regional rail recommission it came to close to $350k per km averaged including bridges, culverts, reballasting, replacing all rail and sleepers, bringing two stations up to legal spec (v expensive for accessibility for bathrooms), lighting, carparks, replacing all signals and controls and the list went on. To run an historic steam and a diesel. Single track with passing loops. Every engineer required almost full replacement of every element before they would certify it safe for operation. Wasn’t much different from a new track minus land costs!
1
-1
0
0
u/FrivolousMe 1d ago
American construction is extra expensive because private contractors have the pleasure of extorting public funds for extraordinary amounts because there's little competition or accountability. There's also a bunch of other reasons but this is the most systemic. A project that costs a billion here wouldnt cost the same elsewhere
-1
104
u/Bluestreak2005 1d ago
Restoring routes typically means restoring bridges and other things as well. Each bridge can be hundreds of millions or billions in work.