Why Isn't the U.S. Investing In High-Speed Trains?

[William W.]

I was under the impression that true high speed rail would need new tracks anyway. Why bother starting messy fight with the railroads?

To construct an ROW where none exists will require application of eminent domain on someone else to create the easement. So are you just partial to eminent domains not being used against railroads or would your rather that eminent domain was not used at all and no new ROWs were created? Gotta make up your mind.

There is a difference between taking land to create a ROW, and taking existing, in-service track that is essential for a company's operation. In general, taking land to create new ROW is not overly injurious because the loss in property is spread out among many, and won't overly hurt an individual. To take existing ROW (that isn't abandoned or not used) directly harms a single person/organization. If a company puts tons of money, time, and effort into something, it doesn't seem right for the government to then come in a and force a sale (monopoly conditions excluded, of course). This is especially true if the property loss would result in a large loss in revenue.

Perhaps I'm making a bit of a straw man argument, but I'm pretty sure that exactly that has been suggested in previous posts.

 

[George Harris]

At least market value has to be paid under emminet domain. Eminent domain is also a last resort after negotiations to reach a reasonable price for the needed land fails. There are exceptions. There are some corporations (one corporate owner of large tracks of timber and mineral lands in central Alabama comes to mind) that by corporate policy) informs all that we require that the taking go through the eminent domain process, as that way there can be no quibble about either side not getting or being given a fair price for the land. The specific issue with which I am familiar involved an underground telephone cable. For this particular facility (the telephone cable) something like 95% of the right of way needed was purchased through negotiation, not eminent domain. Sometimes when doing the survey of the proposed taking necessary for the eiminent domain process, it must be done in the company of an armed deputy sherrif to protect you from an armed property owner. By the way, quite often survey parties working in remote areas have one or more members armed to protect themselves from unfriendly critters, the most common of concern being rattlesnakes and water moccosins. Going down this same road, there are 22 caliber shells called snake shot that have small pellets instead of a single slug. Doesn't carry very far, but is quite effective in the 6 to 10 feet or so range where the critter is that you are trying to stop.

 

[MattW]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

 

[William W.]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

I wouldn't imagine that they would need to take all the property, just the land needed for the ROW. I'm not sure what the legal history is though around ROW eminent domain.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I'm generally opposed to the use of eminent domain, unless there are no other options. It doesn't seem right to me to use force to seize the long-held property of a company, and in the process, destroy that company. It seems rather Un-American. It would be one thing if they weren't using the tracks, and at the same time were refusing to sell them, but to seize the core of any railway's business, it just seems wrong.

I was under the impression that true high speed rail would need new tracks anyway. Why bother starting messy fight with the railroads?

Chances are most railraoids were funded and built by the government.

 

[George Harris]

Chances are most railroads were funded and built by the government.

NO. This subject could go on and on for a long time to discuss the various ways by which the different railroad lines were built, but only a small proportion of railroad lines were built with government money. This was particularly true for lines east of the Mississippi River.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

But almost all were built on easements given freely or at low cost by the government.

 

[William W.]

I'm OK with the use of public money to fund rail infrastructure improvements. In fact, without public investment, high speed rail is unlikely to happen.

I just stated that I was opposed to the use of eminent domain to take rail lines that are currently maintained and in use. I am OK with using eminent domain to take land for new ROW. Unless you could get every property owner along a proposed route to cooperate, this seems like the only option to me.

 

[George Harris]

But all were built on easements given freely or at low cost by the government.

NO. Suggest that some research be performed before making such statements. There are many miles of railroads built on land purchased from private landowners. I think you are thinking about the western "land grant" railroads. These do not even represent the majority of the railroad mileage west of the Mississippi, much less east of it where much of the land was settled and in private ownership before railroad building started.

 

[jis]

People also mistakenly think that the granting of a government charter to build a line means giving money or other assets like land too. That in General has not been the case. Government charter is to form the company and issue stock and such for a purpose of delivering a public good. Of course the political support that usually comes with it is very useful too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Anderson]

You cannot "take the tracks using eminent domain". You can pay market value for them and buy them using eminent domain. The only thing you get to do is force such a sale at market price even if the owner is not in a mood to sell. And then of course the question is, who is going to come up with the money, and from where?

There's also the claim that local governments can't use eminent domain to gain railroad tracks, under 49 USC 10501. See Soo Line Railroad v City of St. Paul. In that case St. Paul want to condemn part of a right-of-way for a bicycle path, and CP told them to pound sand. A district court agreed. I don't know if this reasoning would have been upheld on appeal, but there you have it.

My guess is also that the bicycle path probably didn't cut it for a "public purpose" in some regard.

As to the point about buying out the freight railroads, the worst part of the point you make is that doing so would be incredibly cheap compared to some HSR plans out there. Come to think of it, it would probably be worth the time of California and Illinois to get into a down-and-dirty control fight with UP in the long run. Even if they couldn't completely take control, a medium-term investment of $20-40bn (which could likely be resold at a profit) should be able to let them "greenmail" UP into a set of covenants on certain lines. Back east, doing so would be even cheaper...and VA and NY would be the candidates for that fight, alongside MD.

Politically, of course, this is almost impossible to see happening. I could see it with a Class II/III road somewhere, perhaps, but not one of the Class Is.

 

[George Harris]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

Just to the needed portion. If you even tried to take more it would not get past a court fight. Of this I know whereof I speak, having been involved in title search to determine ownership of property out of which a right of way easement was needed. (Generally underground and overhead facilities are on easements, not fee simple purchase.) The taking will consist only of the portion necessary for the facility. Sometimes an "orphan" portion may be purchased with the right of way. "Orphan" means a portion of the property rendered inaccessible by the facility. t is either that or provide access. Usually orphan is only factor in roads and railroads as underground/overhead easements or even outright purchases do not eliminate the ability to cross, although if an outright purchase the seller must be given a right to cross to eliminate the orphan portion issue.

 

[Tokkyu40]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

Paul Weyrich mentioned the possibility of condemning access to a railroad rather than the track itself, in cases where the rail company made unreasonable and excessive demands for track rights. In that case the taking would be limited to the hours of operation of a light rail line, with the rails reverting to the freight line during off hours.

I do believe that high speed is vital to the success of long distance service. For rail fans, the train itself can be the destination, but as serious transportation it has to reach destinations as quickly as possible so customers can maximize their time before the return journey. Spending a day and a half each way in a train that only runs three times a week is poor utilization of scarce vacation time.

I've read that most long distance trips average about 700 miles, so a train that averages 80 mph, or 125 mph cruising speed (basic hsr; 200 kph) would make a practical 9 hour trip of the journey, which could be done as an overnight trip. This makes trains more practical and appealing to a larger customer base. The Eagle is basically a series of overlapping corridors, with only a few making the full trip end to end.

While I agree that the first step should be to open up the bottle necks and keep the trains moving at top cruising speed as much as possible, the upgrades should be planned with an eventual 125mph speed in mind. If Amtrak is to survive long term, it has to be a serious transportation option. And high speed is an important part of that.

 

[William W.]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

Paul Weyrich mentioned the possibility of condemning access to a railroad rather than the track itself, in cases where the rail company made unreasonable and excessive demands for track rights. In that case the taking would be limited to the hours of operation of a light rail line, with the rails reverting to the freight line during off hours.

I could potentially see this happening, in certain circumstances. The rail companies have a somewhat different relationship with the government due to the fact that they are a critical infrastructure component. In addition, since almost all of their business is considered to be "Interstate Commerce," they are more able to be regulated than other sectors.

I do see practical problems with the situation that you describe though. Who would dispatch and run operations during the time period that the track is under government control? How would maintenance costs be divided up? How would wear and tear be accounted for? What if a train, controlled by either party, was late and cut into the other's timetable?

It just seems to me that an arrangement such as this may be more trouble than it's worth. Then again, I've been known to be wrong before.

 

[Tokkyu40]

I've often wondered if eminent domain has to be applied to the entirety of the property, or whether it could be applied to the "slots" needed for the passenger trains. Anyone know if this can be the case? I want to say I read somewhere that a government entity wanting to run passenger service over a line would constitute a "taking" as far as the law is concerned which is when I started thinking about this.

Paul Weyrich mentioned the possibility of condemning access to a railroad rather than the track itself, in cases where the rail company made unreasonable and excessive demands for track rights. In that case the taking would be limited to the hours of operation of a light rail line, with the rails reverting to the freight line during off hours.

I could potentially see this happening, in certain circumstances. The rail companies have a somewhat different relationship with the government due to the fact that they are a critical infrastructure component. In addition, since almost all of their business is considered to be "Interstate Commerce," they are more able to be regulated than other sectors.

I do see practical problems with the situation that you describe though. Who would dispatch and run operations during the time period that the track is under government control? How would maintenance costs be divided up? How would wear and tear be accounted for? What if a train, controlled by either party, was late and cut into the other's timetable?

It just seems to me that an arrangement such as this may be more trouble than it's worth. Then again, I've been known to be wrong before.

It's actually not that uncommon. How costs and responsibilities are divided up are open to negotiation during the final settlement, but the time separation is how the San Diego Trolley and the North County Sprinter operate in San Diego County. Passenger rail during the day and freight in the middle of the night, segregated by time rather than separate tracks.

I think the mainline is time segregated as well, with Amtrak and Coasters running during the day. They use overweight FRA equipment, so freight could also use the tracks during the day if they needed to.

I'm sure there are other places where a similar arrangement is used, although I haven't heard of anyone forcing it through imminent domain.

 

[jis]

I'm sure there are other places where a similar arrangement is used, although I haven't heard of anyone forcing it through imminent domain.

The phrase is "eminent domain".
The first use of time separation was on the NJT RiverLINE (between Conrail Shared Asset freights and NJT Stadler DLRTs) where the concept was pioneered. The rest came after that. It was through an amicable agreement without any use of force AFAIR.

Rules have changed since then which would probably make the Stadlers OK to operate with freight without time separation, with a few minor modifications to meet the modified Tier I rules. But so far nothing has been done to move in that direction on the RiverLINE since in general freight traffic is quite sparse anyway.

 

[neroden]

There are several threads and posts on this forum that have discussed using eminent domain or forcing CSX and NS to sell or turn over tracks to give priority for higher speed passenger trains. I think it should be pointed out that the current market capitalization for CSX is $30.6 billion and NS $31.8 billion. If a consortium of states wanted to obtain control of lines for passenger service, it would not really take that much money to buy up CSX and NS, carefully peel off the assets desired for passenger routes while preserving a robust freight network, and then sell the parceled out freight portion of the company back to the private market. The minority shareholders would have to be fully compensated of course for the assets divided off for passenger train service. Of course, any such attempt to do this by the states would be politically impossible, but when one is talking about investing many billions in HSR and HrSR lines, buying the land and ROW by buying up the companies first may be cheaper.

I don't know. It sounds like the sort of audacious move Nelson Rockefeller would have done without blinking. I never say "politically impossible" except about structural problems designed into the election system -- because often it turns out that a tiny shift in the wind makes things politically possible.
It really ought be easier to buy out specific strips of unused right-of-way currently occupied by dirt paths. But if obstructions are being raised to that by, for example, CSX management, it may well be cheaper and quicker to buy the whole company, strip out the bits the states need and then auction off the remainder. It's been done before by corporations, why not have the states do it?

States who could benefit fairly quickly from a CSX buyout in particular are FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, WV, MA, NY, OH, IN, MI, LA, MS, AL... which is honestly a lot of states, and a buyout could be financed by just a couple of those states. At the moment, none of their governments are serious enough about rail to try, though. (Except possibly Massachusetts, which is already buying up all the CSX lines in the state piecemeal anyway).

 

[Anderson]

VA is getting there, but the state isn't in a situation money-wise. Even if we mortgaged the whole of our expected rail revenue for the next 30 years, we'd raise a fraction of what a buyout would take.

VA, FL, NC, and NY could probably manage it together, and those states at least have a chance of getting serious in the long run. The main question by the time everyone would be on board would be whether there was enough the state was doing on its own to still make it worthwhile...after all, if VA has passenger-dedicated tracks RVR-WAS along the RF&P and SEHSR from there south, is it really going to be worth the hassle over the Cardinal and a few Regionals into NPN? This goes double if FEC has decent service going to all four major metro areas...what's the point of upsetting the apple cart with CSX when it would, at that point, probably be cheaper to just get off CSX territory and run sections to ORL/TPA and MIA via the FEC?