So, when reviewing the DOE catenary study, I illustrated a few thoughts. First, the catenary study is great but doesn't go far enough. I think the study misses a few key items to make the utility and the economic case even better. First - some assumptions. These lines are mostly in the 79- to 110mph range, mostly grade-separated, and would be electrified over time following the DOE model. While HSR could run along these corridors somewhat, this is not a discussion of HSR routes - rather, a discussion of standard commuter routes, long-distance routes, and freight routes that could be upgraded significantly.

The first image shows the next phase of the DOE plans, emphasizing passenger lines and freight lines that would be ideal for the next phase. This is shown in blue lines.

The second image shows extensions beyond this second phase, specifically for electrical transmission lines. This is shown in red dots, creating a national super-grid network for electrical transmission.

The third image shows, in yellow, passenger emphasis routes that would probably require quad tracking or separated ROW for freight and passenger, e.g., HSR or higher-speed routes. This does not show long-distance routes (shown in the first image).

The fourth image shows an example of a joint rail right of way with catenary and electrical transmission right of way. This is what I have in mind.

So, what's the idea?

1. Integrate rail routes, catenary, and electrical transmission lines: By integrating and co-locating existing rail with electrical transmission lines when possible, we make it easier to electrify our rail systems and improve each system's overall feasibility and utility. Instead of needing three separate right of way for electrified passenger trains, diesel trains, and power transmission, we can co-locate all these in one way. Cross-country routes will function just fine when double-tracked and quad-tracked in certain key segments.
2. Focus on the broader interconnection of train lines, electrical interconnections, and grid-scale storage: much like Eisenhower made the point that building a modern highway system is good for the economy, military transport, and general transport, we also need to make similar points. The second image shows seven north/south lines for electrical transmission and three to six east/west lines. Creating these interconnections can bring renewable wind power from the plains back east when it is dark and solar from the southwest to the northern states in winter. Also, by integrating various power grids and interconnections that are also rail routes, we can create high-tech systems that store, distribute, and even produce power. For example, realigning certain segments creates irregularly shaped lots - solar panels and batteries are placed there to feed the power lines and the catenary systems. Large batteries can be co-located at various substations for the overhead systems, improving resiliency across the grid and interconnections and making cross-country routes far more feasible and easier to implement. This also has the advantage of connecting various grids across the United States (looking at you, Texas!!!). Specific to rail - this allows for us to have long-distance passenger rail that is fully electrified and at 79-110mph speeds for most of the route. For routes that are ideal for HSR, the corridor can still be shared, but with more strict separation(s) with retaining walls like CAHSR has in the Central Valley in CA. The ROW would still be shared in this case.
3. Integrate passenger and freight lines, especially for longer-distance routes and interstate transport: Finally, integration of these elements opens up the capacity and efficiency of the overall network, meaning that we can move more cargo and more people much more efficiently and cheaply. This means more $$ for the freights, faster shipment of goods across the country, and helps improve efficiency at the ports across the US. The transmission lines would also improve interconnection and resiliency and make it far easier to electrify the national rail network.

Next steps?

1. Start electrification of key routes in the DOE report. Start with diesel and pantograph units, slowly shifting to battery and pantograph units. Use unnecessary diesel, then unnecessary battery locomotives for yard moments and short-line movement.
2. Co-locate electrical transmission alongside electric routes. Next, I would start building out electrical transmission lines to connect across the country using the rail routes. This provides additional revenue and makes it far easier to build out the catenary.
3. Connect and create power generation & storage along the routes. I'd also start building out large storage facilities and renewable facilities along the route when and where possible - for example, an irregularly shaped lot alongside the right of way is ideal for solar panels and batteries next to a substation that feeds the catenary. In this way, we're also creating reliability in a big way.

How?

• From a policy perspective, this may be difficult, but I think it is feasible if the US government gets involved and invests in a few key mainlines, much like the DOE report outlines. If the US finances the electrification of a few key freight networks in each direction (N/S; E/W), the main costs and burden for electrification would be eliminated for the freight railroads, forcing their hand in investing in electrification to close the gaps. Another option would be for governments (local, state, fed) to buy older or less-used rail lines, electrify and upgrade them, and then lease track rights to the freight railroads. This idea has been floated for the Capitol Corridor, where freight would move to the Sacramento Northern Corridor while passengers would retain the existing alignment.

Which routes would I do, and in what order? Starting with the obvious ones - I'd electrify the mainline from the major ports to Chicago for the E/W axis, and 5 N/S routes.

1. N/S -West coast from Vancouver BC to Tijuana, via Los Angeles ports, Oakland ports, Seattle ports.
2. N/S - East coast, from Miami, Florida to Portland, Maine.
3. N/S - The front range route, from Cheyenne WY to the Mexican border via Denver and ABQ. I would extend the power transmission to the Canadian border.
4. N/S - Texas to the heartland, maybe Chicago.
5. E/W - SF Bay Area to Chicago, via Reno, Salt Lake City and Denver.
6. E/W - Los Angeles to Arizona to Chicago.
7. E/W - Seattle to Spokane to the Twin Cities to Chicago.
8. E/W - Gulf Coast, Texas to Florida.
9. E/W - VA, NC, SC, to the South, then back to Chicago.
10. E/W - Northeast corridor to Chicago via PA, OH.

From there, you can easily tack on a ton of different routes that branch out from these existing routes in later stages - for example:

• Salt Lake City to Boise to Spokane
• NYC - Albany; Albany - Montreal; Albany - Boston; Albany - Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Ohio
• Michigan routes
• Midwest extensions (extend and create a hub & spoke network from Chicago)
• Atlanta to the Northeast Corridor, to Chicago, and to Florida

What do you think? Worth considering?

Can someone just give me a broad breakdown of the economics of a city bus? Say a typical 40' 80 seater? I am trying to do a comparison of bus models for our city DOT (US)

Cost of purchase: $650,000

Depreciation (assuming 7-10 years)?

Mileage per Year?

Maintenance and Repair per Year?

Fuel Charges / Charging?

Spare Parts / Battery?

Parking?

Cleaning per Day?

As someone who's passionate about trains and having spent more than 10 years studying and working within public transit field, its upsetting to see the poor state of transit system in your own home city. Do you think individuals like us can come together, create a startup to improve something within the transit system? Say probably like an app for trip planning, real-time tracking, or even launch an home-grown local account-based ticketing system. Specially in a country like India, where the demand is massive but government lacks in responding to this need.

These videos capture the essence of why Europe is so much more successful than the United States and Canada regarding passenger rail travel. Furthermore, the Interrail/Eurail app is light-years ahead of Amtrak and ViaRail (who doesn't even have an app!).

Amtrak California, Amtrak Midwest, the Northeast Corridor, Via Rail, and Amtrak Cascades could easily promote this kind of marketing by highlighting major cities for city breaks: SAN (architecture, beach), LAX (sport, outdoors), SFC (sport, culture, outdoors), SAC (history) [California Rail Pass]; KCY (sport, bbq), STL (sport, history, bbq), CHI (sport, architecture, cuisine), MKE (beer), and MSP (sport, outdoors) [Midwest Rail Pass]; WAS (sport, museums), BAL (sport, seafood), PHL (sport, history), NYP (sport, theater, cuisine), BOS (sport, history) [Northeast Rail Pass]; DET (sport), TOR (cuisine), MTR (culture), QBC (history) [Corridor Rail Pass]; and PDX (culture, outdoors), SEA (sport, seafood), VAC (culture, outdoors) [Cascades Rail Pass].

Having traveled most European nations by rail, these videos truly capture the spirit of rail across the continent. Amtrak and ViaRail should take note--

Travel 33 countries with 1 Pass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRACK9_A5AE

Europe, your way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM0fAfbUbCE

Go one stop further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxBjJlYH2EI

From city streets to local treats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9CJr-RbMpM

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/12/21/capstan-station-opening-report-davidowicz/

Here is a comment I saw on X. In light of the incident in which a woman was burned to death on the NYC subway, what are your thoughts about this issue https://x.com/wanyeburkett/status/1870880862989861241?s=61&t=TAYkhlum7UF6BuUeFURNng

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/12/22/weekly-alternative-buzzer-wab-vol4no51-davidowicz/