We need more light rails

[folivier]

Discussions about EVs are great but as I've said before it's 1350 miles to our cabin and we drive that at least 4 times each year. I won't consider an EV until I can easily make that trip with only 1 stop/day then charge overnight at a hotel.
But I won't rehash that.
Instead what I think our country needs is more passenger light rails. I can drive 60 miles and catch the Sunset Limited to Las Cruces, NM but I'm still 580 miles from our cabin, too far for a single day drive since most of that is in the mountains. I'd love to see a light rail built along I-25 up to Denver then we could get off at Walsenburg, CO and only have a 4 hour drive. It wouldn't be a problem to leave a car in Walsenburg. Or a light rail up to Grand Junction and get off at Montrose, CO. That'd be even closer.
Here in Louisiana there has been on and off talking for years about a light rail along the existing railway from New Orleans to Baton Rouge. But it's never gotten past the talk and study phase.
Then I'd be interested in an EV since we'd use it for short local trips.

 

[braumeister]

Instead what I think our country needs is more passenger light rails.

Nice idea, but every light rail system I've ever seen loses a lot of money based on ridership and has to be heavily subsidized. That's why they are generally only installed around cities for the use of commuters.

 

[folivier]

But lots of other methods of transportation are being subsidized. This is just my opinion of what I'd like to see. There are many areas especially out west and through the mountains where light rails would benefit people whether they are locals commuting or visitors.

 

[jfn111]

It looks like they are finally reviving the Twin Cities to Duluth MN train. I went to college in Duluth, met my wife there and we still have relatives there and, I can't for the life of me see why I'd want to take a train there?
To save a 2.5 hour drive I'd have to rent a car when I got there or rely on friends / relatives to haul me around. No thanks!

 

[COcheesehead]

The problem out west is distances between almost anything are so vast. You couldn’t build enough terminals for the trains to be useful. There are bus services that take up some of the slack. https://ridebustang.com/
I rode light rail in Denver and I paid for my pass. They used to police it. Not so much anymore. So it’s basically free.

 

[OldShooter]

Nice idea, but every light rail system I've ever seen loses a lot of money based on ridership and has to be heavily subsidized. ...

But lots of other methods of transportation are being subsidized. ...

Yes, to an extent other transportation is subsidized, but light rail is IMO a particularly odious cesspool because so much of the cost is deliberately hidden by its promoters.

If we look at capital cost, for every billlion dollars spent, very conservatively there is a hidden million dollars a week cost. This comprises depreciation and capital cost amortized over 20 years. (Do we really think the rolling stock and track will go for 20 years without major replacement and maintenance costs?)

I did an analysis of a local line that cost only one billion $$ in total to build. Using the (always optimistic) numbers from the promoters plus the hidden amortization and depreciation, it worked out that fares were planned to cover only 8% of the total cost. Subtract the cost of administration, selling tickets, and policing for free riders, the net dollars that remained after collecting fares made collecting fares hardly worthwhile.

 

[Chuckanut]

The problem out west is distances between almost anything are so vast. You couldn’t build enough terminals for the trains to be useful. There are bus services that take up some of the slack. https://ridebustang.com/
I road light rail in Denver and I paid for my pass. They used to police it. Not so much anymore. So it’s basically free.

+1 Bingo!

The long distances don't work for sparsley populated areas like much of the American West.

Even in more dense areas like much of California, the train from LA to San Francisco is hugely over budget and behind schedule as I understand it. From the LA Times (emphasis added):

https://www.latimes.com/california/...nia-bullet-train-costs-rise-roughly-5-billion

The 2022 business plan estimates that the full, 500-mile high-speed system between Los Angeles and San Francisco will cost as much as $105 billion, up from $100 billion two years ago. In 2008, when voters approved a bond to help build the railroad, the authority estimated that the system would cost $33 billion.

 

[folivier]

Ok guys, let me clarify my post. I'm NOT talking about light rails within a city. I'm talking about light rails (meaning passenger trains rather than freight trains) connecting cities. In my case I'd like to see a passenger train running from either El Paso or Las Cruces to either Denver or Grand Junction. IMO that would be a nicer and safer alternative to riding a bus. More amenities, fewer stops, less traffic, etc.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Yes, to an extent other transportation is subsidized, but light rail is IMO a particularly odious cesspool because so much of the cost is deliberately hidden by its promoters.

If we look at capital cost, for every billlion dollars spent, very conservatively there is a hidden million dollars a week cost. This comprises depreciation and capital cost amortized over 20 years. (Do we really think the rolling stock and track will go for 20 years without major replacement and maintenance costs?)

I did an analysis of a local line that cost only one billion $$ in total to build. Using the (always optimistic) numbers from the promoters plus the hidden amortization and depreciation, it worked out that fares were planned to cover only 8% of the total cost. Subtract the cost of administration, selling tickets, and policing for free riders, the net dollars that remained after collecting fares made collecting fares hardly worthwhile.

I don't think the promoters of light rail have ever claimed that the system would pay for itself, or that it would generate much income. I agree their numbers are wildly optimistic, not just the costs but also the popularity of the light rail.

Plain and simple, light rail is an amenity for city dwellers that don't own vehicles, which means it's largely a benefit to lower income people. The politicians ought to just admit that light rail is a subsidized mode of transportation and not try gloss over the fact it's going to be expensive.

Bus lines are much more flexible in routing and very less expensive. With the advent of electric buses a lot of cities are going to be stuck with expensive, outdated, inflexible light rail lines.

 

[Chuckanut]

Ok guys, let me clarify my post. I'm NOT talking about light rails within a city. I'm talking about light rails (meaning passenger trains rather than freight trains) connecting cities. In my case I'd like to see a passenger train running from either El Paso or Las Cruces to either Denver or Grand Junction. IMO that would be a nicer and safer alternative to riding a bus. More amenities, fewer stops, less traffic, etc.

I understand. But, after seeing the fiasco in California which I mentioned in # 7, I imagine the taxpayers will be very skeptical. It's been 15 years, the rail line is more than 3 time over budget, and it's not done yet. Frankly, I don't see why California did not put a stop this years ago. It seems like a money pit.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Ok guys, let me clarify my post. I'm NOT talking about light rails within a city. I'm talking about light rails (meaning passenger trains rather than freight trains) connecting cities. In my case I'd like to see a passenger train running from either El Paso or Las Cruces to either Denver or Grand Junction. IMO that would be a nicer and safer alternative to riding a bus. More amenities, fewer stops, less traffic, etc.

I wrote my post before I saw this post. I was assuming you were talking about light rail transportation within urban areas.

Isn't there currently an Amtrak route between El Paso and Denver?

Or are you talking about high speed bullet trains?

 

[COcheesehead]

We have Amtrak, Grand Junction - Denver and beyond. I watch the trains go by occasionally, they seem empty and only have four cars or so.
There’s a half way decent breakfast joint at the Grand Junction station. While eating with DW there one morning I overheard someone say the worst 24 hours of their life were on Amtrak to LA.
We can drive to LA in under 12 hours and we have a car when we get there. A train just doesn’t seem that attractive.

 

[Spock]

Ok guys, let me clarify my post. I'm NOT talking about light rails within a city. I'm talking about light rails (meaning passenger trains rather than freight trains) connecting cities. In my case I'd like to see a passenger train running from either El Paso or Las Cruces to either Denver or Grand Junction. IMO that would be a nicer and safer alternative to riding a bus. More amenities, fewer stops, less traffic, etc.

There isn't enough traffic on I25 around Las Cruces/El Paso to justify rail even if 100% of the I25 traffic used the train.
The existing freight rail has been way under utilized even with the "supply chain" shipping constipation in the SoCal ports.
The existing passenger rail in the region running to bigger cites (Sunset Limited) only runs 3 days a week.
It sounds like you want an express rail route built just for you.

 

[folivier]

Q I'd take either option. No Amtrak has nothing between El Paso and Denver. I could go from New Orleans to Chicago then on to Denver. But nothing in between other than buses to connect. NO to El Paso would be the shortest route but that still puts me about a 10 hour drive to our cabin. Just wishful thinking.
https://amtrakguide.com/routes/

 

[jazz4cash]

Discussions about EVs are great but as I've said before it's 1350 miles to our cabin and we drive that at least 4 times each year. I won't consider an EV until I can easily make that trip with only 1 stop/day then charge overnight at a hotel.

But I won't rehash that.

Instead what I think our country needs is more passenger light rails. I can drive 60 miles and catch the Sunset Limited to Las Cruces, NM but I'm still 580 miles from our cabin, too far for a single day drive since most of that is in the mountains. I'd love to see a light rail built along I-25 up to Denver then we could get off at Walsenburg, CO and only have a 4 hour drive. It wouldn't be a problem to leave a car in Walsenburg. Or a light rail up to Grand Junction and get off at Montrose, CO. That'd be even closer.

Here in Louisiana there has been on and off talking for years about a light rail along the existing railway from New Orleans to Baton Rouge. But it's never gotten past the talk and study phase.

Then I'd be interested in an EV since we'd use it for short local trips.

Light rail is extremely expensive and this application is 180 degrees from a practical solution for traveling to a remote private cabin. We can’t even make commuter rail affordable for densely populated traffic congested urban areas. Too many prefer to ride alone (or rather sit in traffic) with the AC and stereo blasting. Many love their individual cars so much they prefer to sit in long drive thru queues over parking to walk inside for their unhealthy fast food, Starbucks, Dairy Queen, etc.

 

[folivier]

Looking at this map I guess I could hop on and off. Like the hobos of yesteryear used to do.
https://www.openrailwaymap.org

 

[38Chevy454]

Two words: light fail

 

[skyking1]

I don't know the whole financial history of the rail system in the US. I know that when I see the highways choked with heavy truck traffic and the roads that are beaten to horrible shape by them, it makes me ill.
The tons per mile cost for rail vs trucks, and the subsequent pollution differences are huge.
I remember riding Amtrak to the World's Fair in Spokane in 1974.
It still worked then. Perhaps the rose colored glasses of youth clouded my vision, but I still have hope we could refurbish and use that infrastructure.

 

[EarlyandLate]

Having lived in Europe and traveled from Italy to Scandinavia and many points in between by train, I grieve the fact that we abandoned our rail infrastructure in favor of the automobile. Many cities and even small towns east of the Mississippi had extensive streetcar systems. The very small town where my dad lives was one of them. He recently recalled how they would take the train 120 miles to a bigger city to shop, just for a day trip. (circa 1940s) The streetcar ran in front of their house and went to the downtown business district. None of that exists anymore. I got to experience that in Europe and loved it.

 

[braumeister]

Having lived in Europe and traveled from Italy to Scandinavia and many points in between by train, I grieve the fact that we abandoned our rail infrastructure in favor of the automobile.

I agree that it's wonderful to be able to take advantage of the trains in Europe. But there's a good reason this country wasn't able to do that -- distances.

Consider that all of Germany is about the size of Montana, France is smaller than Texas, and the UK is about as big as Michigan. In countries that size it makes sense, but a national rail system in the US would be unsustainable.

 

[marko]

Here in Boston, we'd be thrilled just to have the trains run on time, not be catching fire, derailing, driving into cars, be able to go more than 10 mph and without somebody getting stabbed.

Every day, literally, is another adventure with our MBTA. We're just not set up for rail in this country, and yes I lived in Europe and loved the rail system there.

IIRC, "light rail" is not good for long distances but more for inter city or city to city use.

 

[prudent_one]

I worked for a number of years in the transit industry. The hurdles for widespread light rail are massive and numerous.

The cost to acquire property to build the system is astronomical in densely populated areas. Much cheaper where the population is lower, but of course that means it makes no economic sense. Can't compare to Europe where the density of population is much greater than in the US. West of the Mississippi, forget it. Can't even make it work along the west coast where there IS a lot of population.

The high-speed rail transit system in California has exploded in cost and I don't think it will ever be finished. They started construction 8 years ago and only need 6 more years to get the first segment done (Merced to Bakersfield). Not expecting a lot of ridership on that route.

As soon as you get near high-cost areas, the cost to acquire property and do construction is astronomical. And on top of that, the actual build-out cost is anywhere from $15 million to $100 million per mile and up. I did some work on the LA Crenshaw line (some of it is underground), it ended up costing $165 million per mile. Just to build. Washington DC system extension to Dulles Airport cost over a quarter-billion a mile.

If government required passengers to pay what it costs to ride, the ridership would be much lower. Fares don't even cover half the actual cost to operate the system.

These government projects that take eternity to complete are a gold mine for industry. Cost overruns continue to pile up, and the government has to pay because they aren't going to walk away from an inoperable, half-done system.

So that's light rail. What if they use passenger trains? Well, that's Amtrak. Amtrak owns very little trackage (just the Northeast Corridor segment), they "rent" from railroads who own and maintain the tracks. That also means those railroads have priority and Amtrak must wait if there's a freight train wanting to use the same tracks. You could never have reliable passenger service between cities in the western US, too many times Amtrak has to take a seat over there while freight trains use the tracks.

 

[Montecfo]

Candidly all the money spent on light rail would be better spent on busses and improving roads.

 

[check6]

I agree their numbers are wildly optimistic, not just the costs but also the popularity of the light rail.

Plain and simple, light rail is an amenity for city dwellers that don't own vehicles, which means it's largely a benefit to lower income people. The politicians ought to just admit that light rail is a subsidized mode of transportation and not try gloss over the fact it's going to be expensive.

Bus lines are much more flexible in routing and very less expensive. With the advent of electric buses a lot of cities are going to be stuck with expensive, outdated, inflexible light rail lines.

The extension in Minneapolis was to open this year but has been put off until 2027 with massive cost overruns. Ridership is way down due to crime and homeless on board. Rode it for the first time in over two years and I will never ride it again.

 

[Walt34]

Candidly all the money spent on light rail would be better spent on busses and improving roads.

My thoughts too. My experience is limited to seeing D.C.'s Metro built from scratch and frankly I think it's one of the dumbest things ever done, topped only by California's never-ending rail fiasco. It was and is way too expensive for the return, and I for one deeply resented having to pay the excess taxes to support the boondoggle. I escaped as soon as I could.

The D.C. area's inadequate roads and the stupidity of the lack of planning by brain-dead idiotic politicians was THE reason we moved from there within six weeks of retirement.