Electrifying the Railroads - Alan Drake's manual

[phantom power]

This is really pretty cheap. We dumped this much money on the banksters by helicopter in 2008. If it was me, I would probably do the actual electrification part last. Just increasing rail infrastructure and usage would be a big win.

The following are reasonable cost estimates for what is being proposed, given the available information, in 2010 dollars.

• Electrify 36,000 miles of double track railroads - $100 billion.

• Double track 15,000 miles of single track, new rail over rail bridges, better signals, improved curves and grades – $75 to $150 billion.

• Grade Separation (a cost that should be borne by highway budgets) could easily absorb $50 to $100 billion.

• Semi-High Speed “3rd track” on existing ROW - 7,000 to 14,000 miles - $140 to $280 billion.

• Strategic Railcar Reserve – perhaps a couple of billion dollars for mothballed used equipment. New equipment, when used is not available, should be an order of magnitude more expensive.

• Improved Intermodal Centers – a very rough estimate to supplant 85% of existing truck traffic would be $50 billion or so.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7078

[ejpoeta]

1. just think of all the jobs this would create doing infrastructure. we also need to update

electric grids in general. This would be so stimulative to the economy AND help our deteriorating infrastructure.

[kristopher]

2. If you are looking for noncarbon bang for the buck this is not a good plan right now

The heavy transport sector is an important component to address in the move away from carbon, but it is already pretty efficient with current structure when compared to other sectors.

For example, the money spent electrifying the rail system would have a much larger impact if spent accelerating the transition of the far less efficient personal transport sector to electric vehicles.

The conclusions are not well thought out IMO, and I am a big fan of rail.

[Kennah]

3. I very much agree that we need to target our investments ...

... and I suspect that electrification of the rails can certainly wait. More track, better curves and grades, grade separation and high speed rail. I'm a daily train commuter (Sounder Train), and I think one would have to be a danged fool to drive or ride the bus into Seattle when one can ride the rails.

Money spent on EV infrastructure and is certainly needed, but EV infrastructure can come together rather quickly overall. Rail infrastructure takes a lot of years to bring about.

[happyslug]

4. But will the Federal Government Forbid Local Government from Taxing the Electrification?

One of the reasons the railroads de-electrified many of their electrified lines was that the local government ruled that the electrification was an improvement on the land and thus increased the amount of real estate taxes the railroad had to pay. This is often given as one of the reason for the switch from electrification to diesel in the 1950s and 1960s (Conrail was the last to de-electrify and did so about 1980).

Now, I am a follower of Henry George and his push for Real Estate Taxes as the fairest tax, but Henry George only wanted to tax LAND itself NOT the improvements on the lands (i.e. what was built on the land would be tax free, all the taxes would be on the value of the land). Many businesses hate that concept, for the old line of business was there were three reasons for success, Location, Location, Location. Thus the most valuable land, and the land Henry George would tax the most, are the land business want. Most of this value is NOT based on anything the land owner did, but someone else did, for example build a highway, improved an intersection, someone else built housing thus improving the value of the land do to the fact that other housing is near by.

Henry George hated the economic concept know as "Rent", which is the right to money from a piece of property do to "Owning" the land (Which is not to be confused with the concept of paying what most people call "rent", which is actually a "Lease" payment to a landlord for use of a property for a time period). Economic Rent is the right to money from the user of the land to someone else, when the person entitled to Economic Rent did NOTHING in the way to improve the land (all improvements and value added to the land had been done by the occupant of the land). Henry George observed that such economic rent was a drain on development of the land and served no good economic purpose. Henry George thus supported a tax on land so that the STATE would get such rent NOT the technically owner of the land.

Now, Henry George was fully in favor of people being paid for improving the land, he was in favor of people who build housing to lease such units out and get whatever the market would produce for such leases. On the other hand a land owner who did NOTHING to the land, but demand rent payment for just living in a open field on the land was unjust, "what did the landlord do to earn the rent?" if the answer was nothing, then any economic Rent should go to the state who would or did do something to improve the value of the land.

I bring this up, for this is one of the problems with electrification of the Railroads. Under Henry George electrification would NOT increase the real estate taxes on land owned by the Railroad (Neither would installing rails or doing any other improvements to the land or buildings) for he did NOT tax improvements to the land, only the land itself. Most local government tax not only the land but the improvements for the business community never liked Henry George's Ideas of taxing the value of land only, for under a true Henry George System, the highest tax burden fell on those locations that had the highest value otherwise (land that the Business Community wanted). Under a true Henry George System, the owners of the Business on such high value locations, did not get the Economic Rent of that high value location, the State of Local Government did, and the business community opposed that happening.

Thus to make land taxes "Fairer" (for the business community, NOT anyone else) the improvements to the land was included in real estate taxes thus putting a greater share of local taxation onto home owners (Who were less worried about location, as long as the their home was close to work) which had the side result of lowering taxes on business located in the area of town which had the most value do to its central location OR other factor that made it an ideal business location.

Thus a true Henry George System would have no affect on electrification of the Railroads, but the butchered system used on almost all of America today, electrification would lead to increase local taxation unless the Federal Government ruled that electrification (The posts, the wires etc) were NOT subject to any tax, including local real estate taxation.

More on Henry George:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

The Henry George Institute:
http://www.henrygeorge.org/

Other pro-George Groups:
http://commonground-usa.net/
http://www.multiline.com.au/~georgist/econ1.htm

List of his major Writings:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/george.htm

[happyslug]

5. Another Thought, how about electrification of the Interstate High Way system?

One of the advantages of Electric Buses over Streetcars was the ability to move from one lane of traffic to another. The same can be true of Electrified over the road trucks. Now you may say why not a Hybrid/Battery system? The reason is simple, with a direct wire system you do NOT need Batteries thus the overall vehicle is lighter AND as long as you are on Wire you have power i.e. no need to recharge.

Here are some pictures Trucks propelled by overhead electric wire:



Other sources for information on Trolley-trucks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleytruck
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Trolley+Truck&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=LovRTL7yKYS8lQeZvOy3Dg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQsAQwAw&biw=1152&bih=630

http://hutnyak.com/Trolley/trolleyhistory.html#Barrick

Am Article advocating overhead power for Trucks:
http://searchwarp.com/swa358504.htm

Trolley-Buses and Trolley-trucks (both powered by overhead electric wire) have several advantages:

1. As a vehicle, being electric driven, the life span is two to three times as long as a diesel operated vehicle (This they share with Conventional Streetcars/Trams/Trolleys/Light Rail Vehicles, hereafter referred to a LRVs)
2. On hill climbs more power can be provided to the wheels then in a Diesel with the same size engine (Again an advantage they share with LRVs)
4. On a Hill climb have the traction of a rubber tired bus (An advantage such Trolley-Buses and Trolley-trucks have over LRVs, but at the cost of having to use more power to overcome the increase friction do to the increase traction, thus except on steep hillsides, i.e more then 15% grade, not worth it, but on grades over 15% an distinct advantage for the Trolley-bus/Trolley Truck).
5. The ability to switch lanes, even if only one lane has overhead wires (an advantage over LRVs, but of limited usefulness in real life).
6. The need only to maintain the overhead wire NOT the tracks. The main reason trolley-buses came into use starting in the 1920s, replacing LRVs (generally called Trolleys or Streetcars then). The early LRVs saw that by going to Trackless Trolleys the line no longer had to maintain the road in addition to the tracks (And common franchise requirement) and thus save the cost of maintaining the road be in addition to the tracks.
7. Electric Power was cheaper then diesel (an advantage trolley-Buses/Trolley Trucks share with LRVs).

The big DISADVANTAGE of Trolley-Buses is the need to two sets of overhear wires. In LRVs power comes from the overhead wire and the return electric line is one or both of the electric rails. With a Trolley-bus you can NOT do that, thus you must have TWO WIRE, one for power, the other the return. Remember all electricity MUST have a return to where the electricity is produced. Thus the need for two sets of Wires when Trolley-Trucks are being discusses (But only one set of wire on LRVs, do to the return via the rails).


The problem was that the cost of most mass transit is dominated by LABOR Costs NOT energy Costs, About 80% of the cost of providing transit is the cost of labor NOT Diesel or Electricity. Thus Labor Cost was and is an important consideration of any transit system, often more important then what the transit system uses as a source of Energy.

Getting funding for such Electric driven system was the second major problem in the late 1940s and into the 1950s (When a lot of transit system needed to upgrade their equipment, much of it NOT upgraded since the 1920s and by the late 1940s is disparate need of repair). GM was willing to provide funding for buses it made, but nothing else. The Makers of Electric LRVs and Trolley-Buses did NOT have the ability to provide the loans needed to buy their products and most banks were NOT willing to provide the funding either. Thus access on how to pay for what was to replace the 1910-1930 purchased equipment also drove transit away from Electricity and to Diesel.

Anyway, the need for funding since the 1960s has been provided by the Federal Government more then private banks, thus no longer a major concern, but the problem of labor remains.

On the other hand, the advantages of electric overhead wire even for over the road trucking is clear. Whole new trucks would have to be produced and a way to charge the truck for the electric power their use, but with modern computers not much of a problem. Thus electrification of the interstate might be a better Carbon reduction program then the Electrification of the Rail System.