High speed rail! [Archive] - SkyscraperPage Forum

WestCoast

Dec 2, 2007, 10:55 PM

I don't disagree with your sentiment, especially here in the states.

But the plan is for 110mph 15 years from now, in 2023!

The report talks about how 125mph doesn't seem to save much time, but why are we thinking so slow at all? You do 200mph, as is already done in many places, or shoot for 300+ and end up at 220 or something, you've done something major that can change the perception and use of rail.

This is connecting 3 major cities that we all traffic between regularly.
I swear I drive to Seattle twice a month.

Flying is insanely inconvieniet.
And unless the train is going to take under 2 hours, I must drive to be productive at all.

I am the biggest proponent of high speed rail you will ever find, it could save me tons of gas money, wear and tear on my car, time, energy and inconvenience if could get from downtown Portland, to downtown Seattle quickly.

If we are planning 15+ years out, lets not aim for current mediocrity, lets have some ambition, some vision and some drive to do better than move the yard sticks 28%.

zilfondel

Dec 3, 2007, 1:21 AM

This is quite important in my book. Glad to see someone trying to get something done. Maybe by the time I'm about to kick the bucket, trains will be running!

110mph is beyond lame if that's really the plan...... is this europe in the 1980s?:yuck:

If we could match Europe in the 1960s, that would be a start. :sly:

I was just doing a bit of googling... the new Cologne-Frankfurt high speed rail line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne-Frankfurt_high-speed_rail_line) (gen 3 - ICE 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro)) can go 250-300 km/h, is 177 km (110 miles) in length, and cost 6 billion Euros; although was constructed from 1995-2002, so would cost much more today due to inflation. In miles that comes out to 54 million Euros/mile.

However... that comes out to about 34 million Euros/kilometer (54 million Euros/mile), which isn't too bad. This includes the total cost of land, track, stations, and trains. Our MAX system has been right around $55 million/mile (MAX Yellow line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAX_Yellow_Line)).

A system from Portland to Seattle, a distance of 180 miles, they're estimating $6.5 billion (2006 $$) for the Portland - to Vancouver BC section - which comes out to $36 million/mile.

The WSDOT report linked above states that:

The total cost for all the construction and equipment necessary to achieve
WSDOT’s service goals for intercity passenger rail service between Portland,
Seattle, and Vancouver, BC is estimated to exceed $6.5 billion dollars in 2006
dollars.

For a service level of 110 mph for the entire state. Hmm... and the document also states that 125 mph service would cost an additional $500 million, which is less than 10% of the total cost... seems like they should just go for it!

Note that the entire Cascades rail corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC is 466 miles in length - more than 4x the length of the Frankfurt high-speed line.

Although true high-speed rail would be awesome.. I think I could live with this:

Thirteen round trips between Seattle and Portland, OR (headway in
multiples of one hour; travel time two hours thirty minutes).

but I can't believe I will have to wait 15 years for it to happen. :(

unrelated note - interestingly, Amtrak seems to have enacted variable pricing for the Cascades service, depending on what time you travel. Nearly $20 one-way difference between AM/PM travel time.

texastarkus

Dec 3, 2007, 1:34 AM

I find it weird that Houston↹Dallas are not proposed for a route...

What I saw and for the life of me I cannot remember where (it was a TxDOT plan, tho)was a high speed line going from San Marcos to Houston. San Marcos is in the Austin Metro Area kinda-sorta between Austin and San Antonio (but a little closer to Austin). This would help out with those going from DFW to Houston - not really but that's what state planners are thinking.

alexjon

Dec 3, 2007, 6:34 PM

I don't know many people who travel from Dallas to Houston, tbh. It's not an animosity sorta thing, but it seems like it sometimes.

PacificNW

Dec 3, 2007, 7:50 PM

When I lived in both cities (2 years apart) I found there were quite a few cars on the highway....at least comparable to the Seattle↹Portland I-5 traffic. (Not to mention the air traffic between the cities (which was extensive)...as mentioned by rsbear)⇓

rsbear

Dec 3, 2007, 10:54 PM

I don't know many people who travel from Dallas to Houston, tbh. It's not an animosity sorta thing, but it seems like it sometimes.

That statement makes no sense at all. Southwest, American and Continental (combined) have over 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. That's about twice the number of flights as between Portland and Seattle. And most of the flights in Texas use "mainline" equipment, not the regional turboprops Horizon uses in the Northwest.

alexjon

Dec 3, 2007, 10:57 PM

That statement makes no sense at all. Southwest, American and Continental (combined) have over 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. That's about twice the number of flights as between Portland and Seattle. And most of the flights in Texas use "mainline" equipment, not the regional turboprops Horizon uses in the Northwest.

OK.

I was just saying because all the people I know from Dallas, and all but one of the people I know from Houston don't make trips between the two.

pdxman

Dec 20, 2007, 7:02 AM

RED_PDXer

Dec 20, 2007, 3:34 PM

So i took the train from portland to salem tonight. I usually take the amtrak bus but it was running a half hour late so i opted for the train. Bad idea. Anyone care to guess how long it took to get from PDX to salem? 3 HOURS! Haha i am never taking the train again. i gave it a chance and now i know better. Take the bus...as bad as i5 gets its never taken me 3 hours to go 50 miles. Whats funny was that no one really seemed frustrated on the train! Its like they expected it. We sat for an hour in the middle of nowhere. I'm convinced high speed rail will never happen in this country, at least not as long as it shares tracks with freight. Anyways, thats my rant. You just had to be there-it was laughable

Your experience wasn't a high-speed rail issue. The problem with current passenger train service in this country is that Amtrak doesn't own any of the rail lines it operates on. The rails are owned by rail freight companies and thus, freight traffic is given priority. Freight trains can be slow and loooooooong. With the increasing cost of fuel, freight trains, which are more efficient than freight trucks, are getting more use for long haul trips. I have no doubt the extra two hours you endured were responsible by a freight train using the tracks. However, Amtrak (and Greyhound) have horrible customer service and I'm not surprised the conductor or anyone else bothered to explain this issue.

High speed rail would require using new tracks, as most existing tracks have too many sharp turns, which doesn't mesh well with high speeds (100mph+). That, in addition to differences in speed, mean that freight and high-speed passenger traffic wouldn't be mixing like they do now. The only delays you'd ever experience on a high-speed train might be mechanical issues as true high-speed technology is foreign to this country. That could change over time.

EastPDX

Dec 25, 2007, 9:49 PM

... Oregon decides that we need dedicated rail capacity. We are not practicing what we preach. Washington is years ahead of us. We spend all of our State transportation costs on roads that very few people use. We are a big state with many miles of paved roads over many rivers; hills, and over many ranges.

I think the ODOT needs to spend some of their research cash on the cheapest, smoothest , greenish, road design so all county roads can start implementing less costly road maintenance budgets. (Think gravel, sand, and strong, porous brick to move the water off the surface fast. Maintenance on bricks is much cheaper than repaving. Larger trucks are then banned on these county roads and smaller delivery trucks are used on the county roads. More jobs for trucking industry!!! Less money spend on supporting the big rigs.)

I think each region (e.g., Willamette Valley, Southeast Oregon) will need to decide what is more important (having pavement everywhere or moving the most people and goods). The State needs to understand that one size doesn't fit all. The planners and management at ODOT might talk about high capacity BUT THEY DO NOT PRACTICE IT. Example of this was when I went to some of the early Columbia River Crossing meeting and spoke about High Speed Rail (HSR) and moving the corridor to the Eastbank (no turns or Willamette River Crossings) and incorporating HSR into the design so we wouldn't have to spend billions later to get the dedicated corridor. I was listened to and then they moved on without much discussion at all. HSR at CRC was dropped early.

What bad planning and vision from my point of view. ODOT is very, very, locked into their view of the World and they know what is best for their citizens. It is a good old boys network base only on road construction with asphalt and concrete.

eP

WestCoast

Jan 4, 2008, 4:20 AM

I e-mailed ODOT, and boy was their response typical.

We have no plans to anything innovative or exciting. No vision and no leadership.

I thanked them for their efforts at all, but asked if there anyone in the pipe who might be a champion for HSR. I didn't hear back from them.

Maybe I should do it, if no one else is going to step up and make this an issue that gets solved quickly and gets infrastructure built before we're all dead.

WestCoast

Mar 30, 2008, 5:31 AM

rode the Cascade train up to B-ham a few weeks ago.

the cars were decent enough, but the train was SLOW, and always trailing a freight train.

It took close to 6.5 hours to do what a car does in 4.5.

Beyond awful

pdxman

Mar 30, 2008, 7:12 AM

I know EXACTLY how you feel westcoast. The train is incredibly unreliable. I will take the amtrak bus anyday over the train. The 3+ hour ride from portland to salem was the last time I will use the train. The train is extremely frustrating if you actually have to be somewhere by a certain time.

Nutterbug

Mar 30, 2008, 8:21 AM

Since it's such a long stretch without a stop between Vancouver BC and Bellingham, they should have a station at Blaine, WA, to serve the residents of the southeastern suburbs of the GVRD, so they don't have to go all the way to Pacific Central Station and back again, and the residents of northern Whatcom county, and in so doing, perhaps revitalize Blaine as a train connection town.

Ideally, White Rock would be the more suitable stop, with its larger population, but due to security and immigration issues, we can't have more than one stop on the Canadian side. With a stop at Blaine, passengers from Canada can cross the land border on their own, and board the train once they've already entered the US.

PacificNW

Mar 30, 2008, 3:34 PM

I ride the Cascades from Portland to Seattle every 3 months for my doctor's appointments. I upgrade to Business so that I normally don't have to deal with small kids/noise. I receive a $3.00 coupon to the diner. I would say that 90% of my trips have been super. I just started making the round trip from Eugene to Seattle with the same positive experience BUT if I plan my trip during flooding, etc. the trip can be a nightmare. The LA to Seattle train I would never even consider boarding..

zilfondel

Mar 30, 2008, 7:17 PM

I prefer riding the train from Portland to Seattle, especially since I always get stuck in 2-hour traffic on I-5 through Olympia and Tacoma. Train does pretty well in that corridor... they are also building a new bypass track from Tacoma to Lakewood, I heard it may shave ~15 or 20 minutes from the trip length, and eliminate delays from the Point Defiance tunnel.

NJD

Apr 9, 2008, 10:19 PM

A Federal panel (Passenger Rail Working Group or PRWG) have made a new recommendation for rail infrastructure improvements in the US, and call for an increase in auto fuel taxes to pay for it. Currently, the tax is at 18.4 cents per gallon, and the panel recommends an increase of 5-8 cents to help pay for these and other unfunded infrastructure discrepancies within the US highway system.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/amtrak-map-proposed-2050_PRWG.jpg

Note the already mentioned Cascade Corridor upgrade to 79-110 mph, but also the new Amtrak service from Portland to Boise, Salt Lake, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

info found from: Susan Pantell With Light Rail Now Project Team · April 2008 www.lightrailnow.org

CUclimber

Apr 9, 2008, 10:43 PM

79-110mph still seems like it's setting the bar awfully low. While any improvement over passgner rail (especially in the Northwest) would be welcome, it would be nice to see a proposal with some more ambition.

Even at a constant 110mph with no stops it would still be 1:45 from Portland to Seattle, and that is a wildly unrealistic best-case scenario. 200mph, on the other hand, would give you a 1hr trip from PDX to Seattle, or an hour and a half from Los Angeles to Las Vegas; in my opinion, those are the sorts of trip times that would get the general population excited about using trains for those trips.

I hate to say it, but for a lot of these lines it sounds like we're finally catching up to 1960s Europe.

NJD

Apr 10, 2008, 12:00 AM

^ agreed, but Talgo trains (110 mph) do not require electrification, new ROW and complete grade separation. California's 700 mile HSR project (shown in red on map) will cost an average of $70 mil a mile or roughly $50 Billion because of these factors (original estimates were $39/mile, $30 bil total, California is still trying to figure out how to pay for it after the last $10 bil ballot failure and only able to get $15 bil from federal grants). So, the 466 mile Cascades corridor would cost $18 to 32 billion with construction costs rising every day. The 187 mile Portland to Seattle segment would cost $7 to 14 billion alone. Talgo tilting trains, upgraded track and crossings to allow up to 110 pmh speeds costs roughly $1-5 million per mile depending on urbanization and geographic features, which makes the entire Cascades route cost $0.5 to 2.5 billion. In a different political and social climate I would be with you all the way, but we have got to start somewhere and upgrading the system later WILL become a priority from those who control funding sources...

costs stated for the Cascades Corridor come from WSDOTs website

zilfondel

Apr 10, 2008, 12:17 AM

But even most high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan aren't even 186mph. I Germany, the fastest the train got that I was on was 150 mph. That is still pretty fast, tho!

I hate to say it, but for a lot of these lines it sounds like we're finally catching up to 1960s Europe.

Very true, but they had damn good rail service in the 60s.

FrijolMalo

Apr 10, 2008, 4:12 AM

Yeah, it's expensive, but how much would building a freeway or an airport cost? We really need to start reinvesting in rail infrastructure the way we invested in streets and freeways in the 50's.

NJD

Apr 10, 2008, 8:12 PM

^ I completely take back my above opinion. I just realized that the federal plan is for year 2050. That is purely asinine. By 2015 we should have 110mph service from Eugene to Vancouver, BC. By 2050 we should have 110-300mph service from BC to San Diego, PDX to Chicago, and so forth...

WestCoast

Apr 14, 2008, 4:12 AM

Pavlov's Dog

Apr 14, 2008, 7:58 AM

I posted a while back that I had contacted ODOT and the rail representatives.

It was clear that there was no vision, and no leadership to do anything great.

This isn't even a 'pie in the sky' type of thing, this is basic infrastructure.

110mph is insanely slow for decades from now. It's just insane.
If I had more free time, I would start a Friends of Trains to promote some of these issues.

I'm not sure why it is so far off the radar. It's infrastructure, investing in our own country and its people.

Why don't our tax dollars do that?It's especially frustrating when you consider that with the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the US could have built true high-speed rail on every corridor on that report and had plenty of money left over. Instead of doing things to decrease our demand for hydrocarbons our policy has been to secure supply. Obviously the policy has gone very wrong.

Nutterbug

Apr 14, 2008, 12:16 PM

It's especially frustrating when you consider that with the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the US could have built true high-speed rail on every corridor on that report and had plenty of money left over. Instead of doing things to decrease our demand for hydrocarbons our policy has been to secure supply. Obviously the policy has gone very wrong.

GM, Ford, Chrysler, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Chevron and Halliburton do not have interests in mass transit.

mSeattle

Apr 14, 2008, 2:42 PM

GM, Ford, Chrysler, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Chevron and Halliburton do not have interests in mass transit.

Well, the American people should hopefully know how to change that now. If not, we're screwed for another 4 years.

electricron

Sep 25, 2008, 5:55 PM

Check out California's HSR web site.
It only approaches 200 mph in rural areas, in urban and suburban cities the fastest it goes is 120 mph or less.

The Talgo train sets can acheive a top speed of 150 mph on non electrified rural tracks design for high speeds. With grade crossings, and sharper curvatures of existing freight tracks, the best one can hope for is 110 mph on average.

The proposed Federal program upgrades mostly existing freight tracks, allowing financing for adding more double tracks, adding grade separations, installing modern CTC systems, and building bypass freight tracks around urban areas to move most freight trains away from out inner cities. It's goal to speed up both passenger and freight trains.

110 mph is still far faster than what Amtrak averages today on its long distance routes, a porkly 45 mph.

To go any faster, States will have to finance high speed rail projects between city pairs.

JordanL

Sep 25, 2008, 8:48 PM

I'm not sure why it is so far off the radar. It's infrastructure, investing in our own country and its people.

Why don't our tax dollars do that?

Becuase it's rail. Any politician is going to be heistant to pay hundreds of billions for infrastructure that most people don't even know exists, let alone register as a travel option when planning trips.

alexjon

Sep 25, 2008, 11:35 PM

Yeah, ridership on Amtrak Cascades is near zero.

puerco

Sep 26, 2008, 12:15 AM

Yeah, ridership on Amtrak Cascades is near zero.

The same can't be said about the Coast Starlight. I'm having to book about a month in advance in order to get a seat to Seattle and back. This country desparately needs high speed rail. Especially between SF and LA and SF and the PNW.

bvpcvm

Sep 26, 2008, 12:55 AM

uh... i think alexjon was being sarcastic.

given the state of our economy, i can't see any HSR happening here for 20 years. have you seen the news? we're fucked. the dollar is doomed and unless we can manufacture the necessary construction materials here in the US, we won't be able to afford to import the materials. i'm not saying it's not needed, but we are just not going to have the resources to do this stuff (here in "the world's last superpower" - how ironic).

electricron

Sep 26, 2008, 1:53 AM

Becuase it's rail. Any politician is going to be heistant to pay hundreds of billions for infrastructure that most people don't even know exists, let alone register as a travel option when planning trips.

True, a nationwide plan will cost hundreds of Billions.
But, for particular city pairs where higher speeds are desired, it'll cost around $10-15 million per mile to upgrade the track, and around $5-10 million per grade separation.

Take for example, Chicago to Milwaukee. That's a distance of approximately 85 miles. So, the brand new tracks will cost around $850 million. There's approximately 90 at grade highway intersections, to upgrade all would cost an addition $900 million. Most of the at grade intersections are in rural areas, so the expense building the grade separation will be much less than in more urban areas. Total including train sets would be around $1.8 billion.
That initially sounds like a lot of cash, but it's not considering how much is spent building commuter rail lines. The stations already exist on this line, the problem will be choosing which ones to pass by.
Amtrak presently runs 14 Hiawatha trains along this route every day, plus two Empire Builder trains a day. Presently it take an hour and a half, averaging around 60 mph, it could be completed in just more than one hour.
The tracks along this route are already in pretty good shape because the Hiawatha makes 5 stops and still averages 60 mph. So, it's probably not necessary to spend much money on new tracks. Half the route is already double tracked. But imagine how eliminating the at grade intersections, and using faster train sets would help speed this route up. Probably for less than one billion dollars.
Other city pairs could be upgraded cheaply too. You also will get more for your tax money investing on tracks with many passenger trains a day already running on them, like the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor. As you complete upgrading city pairs, one by one, you also speed up the longer distance cross country hotel trains piecemeal too. But one has to start somewhere.

electricron

Sep 26, 2008, 2:07 AM

The same can't be said about the Coast Starlight. I'm having to book about a month in advance in order to get a seat to Seattle and back. This country desparately needs high speed rail. Especially between SF and LA and SF and the PNW.

The Coast Starlight route is a problem. I can see spending the money to upgrade the tracks between Portland and Vancouver, and between Sacramento and San Jose, and between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, because more than two passenger trains a day presently run on them.

But that leaves hundreds of miles that have just the two Coast Starlight trains a day. I don't think it's a good investment to spend billions of dollars upgrading relatively unused tracks when there's so many other tracks Amtrak runs far more service on.

Let's upgrade the most use tracks first. Even with upgrades to parts of a long distance Amtrak route, like the Coast Starlight route, significant savings in time can be acheived.

MarkDaMan

Sep 26, 2008, 11:19 PM

How many miles of HSR does $700B buy?

pdxf

Sep 27, 2008, 12:30 AM

Maybe we can get some high speed rail as a New Deal type project to help the stimulate the economy.

electricron

Sep 27, 2008, 3:47 AM

How many miles of HSR does $700B buy?

Per http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/cost-and-payment.htm
The cost to build the 800-mile system is estimated to be about $40 billion.
800 M/$40 Billion x $700 Billion= 14,000 miles. :cheers:

Amtrak operates passenger service on 21,000 miles (34,000 km) of track primarily owned by freight railroads connecting 500 destinations in 46 states.

Therefore, 66% of all Amtrak routes could be converted to 220 mph HSR corridors with the $700 Billion bailout. :tup:

Of course, California probably has underpriced the costs significantly. So let's just say 50% of all Amtrak routes could be upgraded to 220 mph HSR corridors with the $700 Billion bailout. :notacrook:

Now my question, which half would you upgrade, and which half you would not upgrade?

MarkDaMan

Sep 28, 2008, 5:50 AM

^the east coast...no doubt the strongest corridor. There should be enough left over to get an LA to Seattle link in there, and one west coast to east coast line....for starters anyway.

JordanL

Sep 28, 2008, 7:20 AM

Per http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/cost-and-payment.htm
The cost to build the 800-mile system is estimated to be about $40 billion.
800 M/$40 Billion x $700 Billion= 14,000 miles. :cheers:

Amtrak operates passenger service on 21,000 miles (34,000 km) of track primarily owned by freight railroads connecting 500 destinations in 46 states.

Therefore, 66% of all Amtrak routes could be converted to 220 mph HSR corridors with the $700 Billion bailout. :tup:

Of course, California probably has underpriced the costs significantly. So let's just say 50% of all Amtrak routes could be upgraded to 220 mph HSR corridors with the $700 Billion bailout. :notacrook:

Now my question, which half would you upgrade, and which half you would not upgrade?

Just throwing this out there...

It'll be REALLY hard, realistically, to get any sort of HSR system in place via government funding... partly because the airline industry will see it as a $700 subsidy for direct competition. I expect that the lobbying would be tremendous.

IanofCascadia

Sep 28, 2008, 8:40 AM

electricron

Sep 29, 2008, 12:14 AM

:previous: Lobbying wise, getting funding for high speed rail will be difficult but may very well get a MASSIVE bump in just a few months. Let us all remember that Biden is perhaps the biggest advocate for rail in Congress today, and I think that we have all learned that the role of mere beauty modeling for the VP has come to an end. I agree with pdxf that perhaps the best way to get a comprehensive HSR package is to market it as a New Deal type initiative. It has been shown over and over again that putting money into infrastructure is probably the absolute best way to stimulate the economy.

Sen. Biden rides on the NE Corridor twice every day, from Delaware to D.C. He knows the value of transit.

My only worry, is that he'll spend mostly on NE rail Corridor, were the ROW is already owned by Amtrak; the US Government; vs spending that much on privately owned freight ROW.

WestCoast

Nov 6, 2008, 3:05 PM

$10Billion high speed rail bill passed in California.

This will link SF to LA.

Can't find speeds yet, but the trip is supposed to be 2.5hours point to point.

Very exciting step in the right direction, even if it isn't perfect.

northbay

Nov 6, 2008, 10:24 PM

^ cahsr would reach speeds of up to 220 mph

WestCoast

Nov 7, 2008, 2:45 AM

cool, 200mph and up is real high speed rail in my opinion.

At least we aren't look at 90mph amtrak speeds!

Go Cali :whip:

zilfondel

Nov 7, 2008, 3:25 AM

Heck, 186 mph is high speed! 220 is... going to be one of the fastest lines in the world! And in our lifetimes, too. This is incredible!

rsbear

Nov 7, 2008, 3:38 AM

Whoo hooo for us Californians (but Portland natives)! When it's built, I'll be able to walk to the subway, take it to downtown LA, hop the HSR, and get off in San Francisco. That will be cool.

MightyAlweg

Nov 10, 2008, 1:28 PM

This 10 Billion in bond money approved by the voters builds the first leg, from Anaheim and Disneyland Resort to LA Union Station, and then up the San Joaquin Valley to San Jose and San Fran's Transbay Terminal downtown. This will be the main trunk line for the system, and will get it started.

Further bond requests would add in the feeder lines and extensions from Anaheim to Irvine, from LA to Riverside and San Diego, and from San Jose to Oakland and Sacramento.

The Feds still need to chip in their share to the tune of another 10 Billion, and the stations are going to need to involve private investment. In Anaheim the Orange County Transit Authority has already drafted a proposal, blessed by President Bush's Secretary of Transportation during her visit this past summer, for a inter-modal station called ARTIC. Currently the Anaheim station near Disneyland is very busy with several dozen passenger trains per day from the Amtrak Surfliners and the Metrolink commuter trains. The ARTIC station would beef up the Amtrak and Metrolink facilities, be a major hub for the CaHighSpeed trains, and also link in with a proposed monorail extension from Disneyland. The Anaheim and Orange County proposal developed over the past few years under the assumption that High Speed Rail would eventually get built in SoCal, is being used as a model for other cities and counties who now have to come up with station proposals for the high speed trains.

http://www.octa.net/artic.aspx

NJD

Dec 29, 2008, 5:48 PM

High-speed rail would be ultimate efficient addition to Northwest transportation system
by Brad Perkins, Guest opinion
Sunday December 28, 2008, 5:55 PM Oregonian
http://blog.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/2008/12/medium_bullet.JPG

Developing a high-speed rail transit line between Eugene and Vancouver B.C. has now, more than ever, the potential to become a reality in Oregon. The Governors and Congressional delegations of Oregon and Washington need to take a more proactive stance in supporting the kind of high-speed rail projects that are increasingly gaining support nationwide.

In a November 30, 2008 issue of Parade magazine, people were asked if they preferred cash rebates to repairing our nation's infrastructure. 67% percent of Americans preferred focusing on infrastructure improvements that emphasized building faster and better trains, which would help to not only reduce road congestion, pollution, and green house gases but to create much-needed jobs as well.

On November 18, 2008, Senators John Kerry and Arlan Spector introduced a bill that would allow bonds to be issued to raise more than $23 billion for high-speed rail projects in the United States. These funds are a beginning, although it will take substantial funding and collaboration nationwide similar to the efforts expended to build our interstate freeway system that was initiated during the Eisenhower Administration for Defense purposes.

Lifestyle changes dependent on transit would increase our security and comfort level without fear of unpredictable gas price hikes. Less dependence on foreign intervention to preserve our "vital oil interests" will cause greater security at home and thus less justification for the 750 billion to a trillion dollars we spend annually on defense and foreign wars.

With our recent elections, economic crisis and misdirected broken down American auto industry, we are ready for a change that is transformational. We should look beyond spending billions of dollars per year to repair existing roads and bridges. The Honorable Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Congressman Peter DeFazio, understands the fundamental transportation systems changes needed and will work hard in leading Congress to challenge 'big oil' interests and fund alternative transportation needs. Congress needs to allocate funding that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and, at the same time, will make domestic oil more economical to produce.

Governor Ted Kulongoski recently released his "Jobs and Transportation Act for 2009." For the sake of our children's future, the Act should at least contain partial funding for planning and developing separated freight and high speed passenger rail service between Eugene and Seattle by 2019. Maximum travel time of four hours should be the goal. A new high-speed train station built on the east bank of the Willamette River across from the Coliseum would act as the main transportation and tourism hub in the region with great connectivity to bikeways, streetcars and light rail. This same high-speed double track rail system could double as a commuter line from Portland's new station to a new station in Vancouver. A ten-minute non-stop rail commute between Vancouver and Portland could give a new perspective to Columbia River Crossing.

As a part of a larger transportation system, high speed and commute rail would be the ultimate in fuel efficiency and speed, and add to our greener lifestyle goals.

urbanlife

Dec 29, 2008, 11:23 PM

if and when we get high speed rail, we will probably get a new train station out of it that will be built on the east side of the river which would definitely free up the current train station building.

I so want to see high speed rail in this country...we have squandered the last 20 years with outdated technology on how to run a country and the Bush Administration has kindly pushed us back to pre 1974 ideals on how to run a country...no wonder why the rest of the world looks at us like we are idiots. I am so hoping for alot of movements forward over the next 8 years cause we have alot to catch up on.

llamaorama

Dec 30, 2008, 2:56 AM

I wonder if the potential for profitability could get private investment on board like what's happened overseas. If the California HSR works out this could be boosted by the experiences and economies of scale related to that project.

Anyways, hopefully the first link would the Seattle-Portland leg. Not too long and hopefully doable.

EastPDX

Dec 30, 2008, 4:30 AM

.... administration on new/improved roads only at places that will bring us new jobs/employments centers for new income tax generation (Springwater/Damascus/Astoria/Coos Bay/etc.) then we can have a higher percentage of the new dollars for HSR.

Getting Oregon and Washington to agree to the rail set and route is priority one for the PDX to SEA corridor. Do we only average 110 mph or do we design and plan for much higher speeds? Do we follow the California model and work and plan along their timeline?

Thank God more and more people are understanding that the Rose Quarter truly needs to be our rail intersection for Oregon (Trails End Transit Station please!). The most important and most expensive section on the Oregon side is from the Columbia River to a new HSR Station. Without this being done first and right the route South isn't even worth worrying about. Moving our main rail station to the East Side will also support a future East/West commuter and HSR to points East.

I hope we get the critical "North Portland" piece done right so that the rest of our section of a WA/OR/CA HSR corridor is so easy and obvious that everything falls into place because the money we spend now will have been spent the most efficiently.

Setting up good commuter rail to Salem/Eugene/McMinnville should come before or during HSR investment South of Portland.

Planning and land purchases for a true HSR route from the WA to CA borders should be the goal of the State of Oregon.

HSR supports our need to lower our carbon footprint; reduce our addiction to oil from nations that don't always agree with our democratic values; support our land use goals since the 1970's of saving forests and farmlands; gives us a better chance to retain our current employee base and to bring in new forward thinking employers; give employees and tourists choices on how to get around our great state and region.

Again, do the critical "North Portland" section right and the rest will follow easier.

Ray Whitford

65MAX

Dec 30, 2008, 4:51 AM

RED_PDXer

Dec 30, 2008, 7:00 AM

I hope Seattle to Vancouver is either first or second. There's not direct rail service to Vancouver from Seattle, is there? At least the Cascades could get us to Seattle in the interim..

zilfondel

Dec 30, 2008, 12:09 PM

Besides the east side transit hub at the Rose Quarter/ Memorial Coliseum (which I agree with), what is the "right" way to do HSR thru North Portland? And how do we get it south without going through established neighborhoods? Same route as Amtrak?

BTW- Oregon City has the official rights to the "End of the Oregon Trail" title.

Probably via a tunnel; there is an existing rail tunnel that separates St Johns from NoPo that probably needs to be expanded to double-tracked.

However, to get to Vancouver, trains have to (right now) traverse the NW Industrial rail yards, and cross over several bridges over the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. These bridges should immediately be double-tracked, upgraded for improved speed and seismic, and the swing spans need to be replaced with modern technology.

I'm not completely sold that a HSR station should be on the eastside, although if it does happen, the Memorial Coliseum would be an excellent building to rehab for it (iconic building, large spaces).

I remember the HSR stations in Brussels were underground, I think they had 2 in the central city. Trains in dedicated tunnels can penetrate right into the city proper and put passengers where they need to be - right in the thick of things. Would be expensive, but potentially worth it.

I don't think there is any room on the surface to place a HSR station on the eastside anyways; it would likely need to be underground anyway. Unless you built it along the waterfront next to Interstate Ave... but the trains might be too long for the site (usually being 800' - 1500' long).

I don't know if MAX service would be able to handle the volume of passengers debarking from a HSR train from Seattle if everyone is trying to go to downtown... could be over 500-1000 people all at once trying to board a MAX. And with the Amtrak Cascades consistently sold out in peak travel periods, like Xmas and Thanksgiving, this could really be a problem.

I don't see whats wrong with the existing Amtrak station in downtown; they are even going to add another track there to allow more trains through it. It just needs some maintenance to fix it up, although it is a bit small... Would be nice if it had a proper train shed to keep passengers dry

NJD

Dec 31, 2008, 1:18 AM

whats wrong with the existing Amtrak station in downtown

-The Steel Bridge is too sharp a turn for HSR, period.

-If we raze the silos there is plenty of room (approx. 2000 ft.) between the Steel and Broadway bridges (and between the Willamette and Interstate Avenue, approx. 200 ft.) for an HSR station. This is the prominent location for an eastside station due to its proximity to all LRT lines, proposed streetcar and the Rose Quarter transit center.

65MAX

Dec 31, 2008, 8:37 AM

I don't know if MAX service would be able to handle the volume of passengers debarking from a HSR train from Seattle if everyone is trying to go to downtown... could be over 500-1000 people all at once trying to board a MAX. And with the Amtrak Cascades consistently sold out in peak travel periods, like Xmas and Thanksgiving, this could really be a problem.

You're assuming that everyone is going downtown at once, but really, they would be going in all directions. Convention Center, Airport, Downtown, E, W, N, S. All of the MAX lines serve the Rose Quarter, now and in the future. It's the perfect place to transfer to MAX. The Red and Blue lines don't even serve Union Station.

Also, how many people arrive and depart at the same time during Blazer games? And how is that any different than a HSR train dumping 1,000 passengers at a time?

I don't see whats wrong with the existing Amtrak station in downtown; they are even going to add another track there to allow more trains through it. It just needs some maintenance to fix it up, although it is a bit small... Would be nice if it had a proper train shed to keep passengers dry

You just answered your own question. Union Station is tiny (by today's standards), nowhere near big enough to handle the capacity of a major HSR station. Memorial Coliseum is much, much larger, and the existing concourse is already capable of moving large crowds of people, which lends itself perfectly for use as a transportation hub. Of course, the 12,000+ seat arena would need to go to make way for supporting uses. This kind of renovation would make a great architectural design competition.

electricron

Dec 31, 2008, 4:44 PM

You just answered your own question. Union Station is tiny (by today's standards), nowhere near big enough to handle the capacity of a major HSR station. Memorial Coliseum is much, much larger, and the existing concourse is already capable of moving large crowds of people, which lends itself perfectly for use as a transportation hub. Of course, the 12,000+ seat arena would need to go to make way for supporting uses. This kind of renovation would make a great architectural design competition.

Cascades high speed rail services already exists. The existing freight railroad ROW is owned privately; not by public agencies. Therefore, I don't expect they will ever upgrade their tracks higher than Class 5.

Here's the FRA track class speed limitations:

Sec. 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.57(b), 213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b) and (c), the
following maximum allowable operating speeds apply--
[In miles per hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum allowable operating speed operating speed
for freight is....for passenger is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track.................... 10.................N/A
Class 1 track..................... 10.................15
Class 2 track..................... 25.................30
Class 3 track..................... 40.................60
Class 4 track..................... 60.................80
Class 5 track..................... 80.................90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum
allowable operating speeds apply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over track that meets all of the The maximum allowable
requirements prescribed in this subpart operating speed for passenger
for-- trains is-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track............................ 110 m.p.h.
Class 7 track............................ 125 m.p.h.
Class 8 track............................ 160 m.p.h.
Class 9 track............................ 200 m.p.h.

FRA Signal Related Speed Limits
No signals.......................49 mph Freight.......59 mph Passenger
Block signals or TCS..........79 mph Freight or Passenger
Automatic Train Stop.........80 mph or more as determined by characteristics of signal system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the words of Code of Federal Regulations:
49 CFR 236.0 Sec 236.0
(c) Where a passenger train is operated at a speed of 60 or more
miles per hour, or a freight train is operated at a speed of 50 or more
miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of
this part shall be installed or a manual block system shall be placed
permanently in effect which shall conform to the following conditions:
(1) A passenger train shall not be admitted to a block occupied by
another train except under flag protection;
(2) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by a passenger
train except under flag protection;
(3) No train shall be admitted to a block occupied by an opposing
train except under flag protection; and
(4) A freight train, including a work train, may be authorized to
follow a freight train, including a work train, into a block but the
following train must proceed prepared to stop within one-half the range
of vision but not exceeding 20 miles per hour.
(d) Where any train is operated at a speed of 80 or more miles per
hour, an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train
control system complying with the provisions of this part shall be
installed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of Track....Minimum Track Inspection Frequency
Excepted Track...Weekly
Class 1,2, and 3
Mainline and Sidings...Weekly, or twice weekly if the track carries passenger trains or more than 10 million gross tons of traffic during the preceding year.
Class 1, 2 and 3
Not mainline or sidings...Monthly
Class 4 and 5....Twice Weekly
Class 6,7, and 8...Twice Weekly
Class 9....Three Times a Week
_______________________________________________________________

As I understand the FRA rules:
Freight trains aren't allowed to go faster than 80 mph, therefore freight railroads aren't going to rebuild their tracks better than Class 5. It'll be a waste of their money to do so.

Therefore, the Talgo trainsets being used by Amtrak for the Cascades service are as fast and good as practical.
90 mph is pretty fast. The Talgo cars are capable of 110 mph, possibly up to 125 mph, in regular operations. But to go that fast, someone will have to pay to upgrade the track up to Class 7, and I guarantee that someone will not be the freight railroad companies.

EastPDX

Dec 31, 2008, 6:17 PM

... a new HSR hub the Trails End Transit Station or Trails End Rail Station would take anything away from the title given to Oregon City as the "End of the Oregon Trail"?

Remember that Native Americans also came to the Willamette Valley for trade and family. Europeans were not the first human beings to see the value of this region.

(From 65MAX: BTW- Oregon City has the official rights to the "End of the Oregon Trail" title.)
So, 65MAX, if my logic isn't clear let me know.

Ray

65MAX

Jan 1, 2009, 3:18 AM

I'm just saying I think the City of Oregon City would have a BIG problem with it. They fought Vancouver, WA tooth and nail for that distinction. Besides, Portland is not the end of the Oregon Trail. I doubt that they would try to claim it as such.

Anyway, kind of a moot point.... a new station is probably a couple of decades away.

EastPDX

Jan 2, 2009, 5:40 AM

... can be used for an alignment to remove our need to go over the Willamette River twice.

Really hope two to four platforms can go underground near the Memorial Coliseum along Interstate between the Broadway and Steel Bridges.

We just need to increase our average speed through PDX into the fifty to one hundred MPH instead of the current snails pace (Is it like 30 MPH now?). We need to get in and out of PDX in less than one hour with 30 minutes at the platform.

Hopefully this is doable in the next twenty years. The sooner the better for our transportation options.

Ray

llamaorama

Jan 3, 2009, 4:22 PM

I think it must average at least 125 mph including station stops, meaning at least 150 mph, or 250 kph top speed. This wouldn't require anything like a concrete trackbed and we could buy Pendolinos or Velaros instead of a full-out TGV program

Otherwise it wouldn't be time competitive with flying, and 30 minutes isn't enough saved time to lure auto drivers if at the final end another connection has to be made increasing the total travel time. So yeah, something like a cheapo 110 mph rail seems like a huge waste of money to me. I say build a true bullet train, or hold off until such a thing is possible.

Maybe use the same technology and construction as California is?

65MAX

Jan 3, 2009, 7:06 PM

^^^^
Our HSR should be compatible with California's if we're going to have a true west coast line in the future. And I agree, 110 mph would not be much better than driving because with station stops, you're still looking at 2 hours from DT Seattle to DT Portland.

WestCoast

Jan 18, 2009, 7:29 PM

I have posted about this before, but....

yes, anything less than a 150+mph train is just a colossal waste.

It is almost 2010 and our train infrastructure is embarrassingly slow.

Let's catch up to Euruope and Japan in the late '70s. how about it government?!

Strange Meat

Jan 18, 2009, 7:34 PM

Whoo hooo for us Californians (but Portland natives)! When it's built, I'll be able to walk to the subway, take it to downtown LA, hop the HSR, and get off in San Francisco. That will be cool.

Of course, how much are tickets going to run for that?

65MAX

Jan 19, 2009, 1:28 AM

^^^^
Probably comparable to a plane ticket.

zilfondel

Jan 19, 2009, 2:32 AM

^ I've heard between $40-$60 per ticket, and the HSR is predicted to MAKE money.

JDRCRASH

Jan 19, 2009, 4:09 AM

Naturally it will be cheaper than a plane ticket.

65MAX

Jan 19, 2009, 8:37 AM

Naturally it will be cheaper than a plane ticket.
Even better.

electricron

Jan 20, 2009, 6:59 AM

Even California's proposed HSR train isn't going to go 220 mph along the entire route. It'll only reach that top speed in rural areas in the Valley. Every time it approaches urban and suburban areas, it slows down to 100 mph or less.

While the distance between Seattle and Portand is 176 miles, per google maps, it's mostly rural only between Vancouver,WA and Olympia, WA, a distance of 105 miles. There aren't enough rural sectional milage on the rest of the route for any HSR train to get up to full speed before it has to start slowing down.

Driving directions to Seattle, WA from Portland, OR
Distance 176 mi – about 2 hours 52 mins (172 minutes)
Driving directions to Olympia, WA from Vancouver, WA
Distance 105 mi – about 1 hour 37 mins (97 minutes)

I'd say that any train going faster than what the existing Talgo cars are capable of doing is limited to less than 105 miles.

Let's assume Talgo diesel locomotives are bought with a top speed over 125 mph, or Bombardier Jet propelled locomotives are bought with a top speed of 150 mph, or an electric powered TGV locomotives are bought with a top speed of 220 mph, but requiring catenary poles and wires over the entire 176 miles.
Over that 105 miles, the existing Amtrak Cascade's trains could travel the distance in 57.5 minutes; the faster Talgo locomotive could travel the distance in 50.5 minutes a savings of 7 minutes; a Jet engine powered locomotive travels the distance in 42 minutes, a total savings of 15.5 minutes over Amtrak's existing equipment; a TGV train travels the distance in 29 minutes, a total savings of 28.5 minutes over Amtrak's existing equipment.
The Talgo equipment that Washington, Oregon, and Amtrak are using is the best bang for taxpayers bucks. I know the Cascade trains are scheduled to take 84 minutes to travel between Vancouver, WA and Olympia, WA. But with just a little expenditure upgrading the tracks in the BNSF ROW, they could gain 26.5 minutes over the existing schedule using the same Cascade equipment they use now.

Upgrading other slow sections of existing track between Portland and Seattle will add more minutes saved.

I suggest upgrading the tracks in the existing BNSF ROW is the far cheaper solution to gain the first half hour in time savings.
Laying brand new electric power tracks and buying all new equipment will just double the time savings, another half hour, with significantly far more costs.

I disagree that trains have to be competitive with planes to compete. Trains must be faster than driving. Per Google maps, one can drive the entire distance between Portland and Seattle in 180 minutes. Amtrak's existing Cascade service schedule is 210 minutes, 30 minutes longer. In the NE Corridor, Amtrak Acela trains hold 50% market share of ALL transportation modes while averaging less than 100 mph speeds. I believe the same can happen for Amtrak's Cascades service simply by upgrading all the tracks in the existing ROW to 110 mph, and to the highest speeds FRA regulations allow in urban and suburban areas.

EastPDX

Jan 20, 2009, 11:56 PM

^^^^ Spending money right now on the existing ROW for improvements in efficiency is the best way to go right now. We must remember that getting HSR from Eugene to Sacramento will take 30+ years out the way the USA supports our rail system.

Spending our debt and cash on efficiency steps (e.g., East side Rail Station for speed and increased capacity (Union Station is too small for our needs going forward), bridges to separate trains from other transportation assets) is our first step, but ODOT will not do it and are not being tasked to do it. We should be investing on the N/S corridor bridges starting 10 years ago.

Hopefully our new president and local politicians will stop putting off investing in our rail system. I am truly hopeful.:D

Ray

llamaorama

Jan 21, 2009, 5:38 PM

I guess your right, I was thinking along the lines of station stops and how they add to travel time.

Were you thinking something like the Talgo high speed DMU running in Spain that can be modified to meet FRA rules?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo#Talgo_XXI

Either way though it seems a good bit of double/triple tracking would be necessary between E. Portland and Vancouver to seperate it from freight trains

zilfondel

Jan 22, 2009, 12:36 PM

Eugene's never going to have "high speed" rail. There would be no point! Stops are too close together (50 km apart?) and the towns are just way too small.

On the other hand, a frequent service DMU intercity rail service would make more sense. The trains don't need to be high capacity, but they should serve Corvallis (big college town with a rail line running through the middle of downtown) and have a high frequency. Service would be great during Ducks/Beavers game days, when it take 6 hours (or more) to drive from Portland to Eugene.

NewUrbanist

Jan 22, 2009, 5:53 PM

Even California's proposed HSR train isn't going to go 220 mph along the entire route. It'll only reach that top speed in rural areas in the Valley. Every time it approaches urban and suburban areas, it slows down to 100 mph or less.

Has anyone been to the Central Valley in California? The whole place is full of gap toothed suburban sprawl. The HSR will creep along through this route unless they run it through highly producing, highly valuable agricultural lands. I wonder if future higher density TOD developments will locate at the access points?

Growing up in Bakersfield (no cracks, it's not perfect, but it's my hometown), I would love for the HSR to run through the center of it's downtown. It could be a charming area if it had more activity. The worse thing that could happen is if this line created another suburban transit hub surrounded by moats of parking.

electricron

Feb 19, 2009, 10:27 PM

From http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...6/daily30.html
Last year, 774,421 people were carried by the Cascades' train, up 14.4 percent from 2007, which was the service’s second most popular year. The train travels 310 miles between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Eugene, with a one-way trip between those two cities taking around 12 hours, according to an Amtrak schedule.

Not bad for a train averaging ~26 mph. Imagine what it could do if Amtrak could get the trains average speed to 70 or 80 mph?

Are any stimulus funds being spent on the Cascades' tracks?

Well, upon further investigation, I discover the news report was wrong! It's 310 miles between Eugene and Seattle, not Vancouver B.C. The time is 6 hrs and 30 mins, not 12 hours. The actual average speed is ~48 mph not ~ 26 mph. It's also an additional 157 train miles to Vancouver B.C.

How wrong can reporters get? :koko:

Okstate

Feb 19, 2009, 11:52 PM

I thought you couldn't go from Eugene to Vancouver in the same day? (By TRAIN)

CUclimber

Feb 20, 2009, 12:08 AM

The time is 6 hrs and 30 mins, not 12 hours. The actual average speed is ~79 mph not ~ 26 mph.Sure, until the train you're on has to sit for an hour and a half outside of Kelso while waiting for a freight train to pass.

pdxman

Feb 20, 2009, 1:12 AM

^^^Or 3 three hours outside of aurora to wait for a freight train to move.

Okstate

Feb 20, 2009, 6:01 AM

And don't even think about relying on the Coast Starlight while we're on the topic!

electricron

Feb 20, 2009, 8:19 AM

And don't even think about relying on the Coast Starlight while we're on the topic!

I won't. Long distance trains are rarely on time. There's just too much that can go wrong and delay the train.

MR. Cosmopolitan

Feb 20, 2009, 6:56 PM

It would be good if they used faster trains, maybe with 220 mph there could be a possibility to extend it to San Francisco

zilfondel

Feb 20, 2009, 10:52 PM

It would be good if they used faster trains, maybe with 220 mph there could be a possibility to extend it to San Francisco

I would like it if they could at least start by double-tracking the rail south of Salem! I believe a lot of the Oregon line is single-tracked. Just terrible considering how many freight trains they have running.

Recently I ran across a website an engineer did an analysis of how to extend passenger rail service south from Eugene to Ashland, Medford, and to San Fran. The tracks need upgrading, but it wouldn't be all that expensive.

electricron

Feb 21, 2009, 7:51 AM

I would like it if they could at least start by double-tracking the rail south of Salem! I believe a lot of the Oregon line is single-tracked. Just terrible considering how many freight trains they have running.

Recently I ran across a website an engineer did an analysis of how to extend passenger rail service south from Eugene to Ashland, Medford, and to San Fran. The tracks need upgrading, but it wouldn't be all that expensive.

Double tracking a rail line, without building expensive bridges and tunnels, usually costs ~$2 million per mile. ~$1 million for grade work and another ~$1 million for track work. I'll assume the ROW is wide enough to accept the second track. Although, bridges and tunnels will increase the price, how much depends on how many bridges and tunnels are needed.

JordanL

Feb 23, 2009, 9:43 AM

-The Steel Bridge is too sharp a turn for HSR, period.

-If we raze the silos there is plenty of room (approx. 2000 ft.) between the Steel and Broadway bridges (and between the Willamette and Interstate Avenue, approx. 200 ft.) for an HSR station. This is the prominent location for an eastside station due to its proximity to all LRT lines, proposed streetcar and the Rose Quarter transit center.

Razing the silos would be... uhhh... difficult...

They are HEAVILY used, and don't underestimate the impact on Portland's economy that having major shipping routes here provides...

I also have a note:

Today I was planning on taking a trip to Lake Charles, LA to visit my sister and brother-in-law. Checking out my travel options, I looked at Amtrak, Greyhound and Airlines.

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

MightyAlweg

Feb 23, 2009, 10:03 PM

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

Only railroad buffs or people afraid to fly.

That Amtrak one-way fare was for Coach, you have to add in buying your own meals and drinks in the Lounge Car or Diner for those three days each way. Greyhound would schedule some meal stops where you would also be buying your own food and drink. If you went First Class on Amtrak you could have a small Roomette and your meals would be included in the Dining Car. So a quick check of Amtrak.com just told me the round trip fare on Amtrak from Portland to New Orleans would be;

Amtrak: Seven and a half days of total travel (Empire Builder to Chicago, City of New Orleans to New Orleans and vice versa)

$572 round trip Coach, (unreserved reclining coach seat, no shower facilities), meals not included

$1,161 round trip Sleeping Car Roomette (28 inch wide berth, shared toilets/shower facilities), meals included

$2,324 round trip Sleeping Car Bedroom (38 inch wide berth, private toilet/shower facility), meals included

There's also an element of society that has no official government ID and thus can not board a plane or get past the ticket agents and TSA checkpoints. Those folks go Greyhound, as even Amtrak does cursory ID checks now. Greyhound does not ask for ID on its domestic bus routes.

But if you have a government issued ID card and aren't afraid to present it to officials in public, then flying is the cheapest and fastest way to go for most American travel.

MightyAlweg

Feb 23, 2009, 10:16 PM

I'll assume the ROW is wide enough to accept the second track. Although, bridges and tunnels will increase the price, how much depends on how many bridges and tunnels are needed.

If we are talking double-tracking from Portland to at least Sacramento, then the answer is "No" as there are hundreds of miles where the ROW is not wide enough for an additional track.

I take Amtrak's Coast Starlight from Los Angeles up to Portland or Seattle about once a year. It's a delightful way to travel if you get a room in the Sleeping Car and then have access to the First Class Lounge Car and the Dining Car. It takes two days to get there, instead of a two hour plane trip. From Eugene the tracks head east into the mountains, then southwest from Klamath Falls past Mount Shasta down to Redding.

The railroad tracks on that route traverse steep grades, many long tunnels, go over slim wooden bridges above roaring rivers, and thread through narrow mountain canyons and passes. That route is truly a marvel of early 20th century railroad engineering, but there is barely enough room for one train, let alone two.

If the current West Coast railroad routes were to be double-tracked between Eugene and the Bay Area, the costs would be in the Billions. Heck, the tracks that cross and hug the Willamette south of Oregon City are narrow and winding and would present a massive engineering challenge just to get another track to Salem.

Okstate

Feb 23, 2009, 10:20 PM

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

Funny, i've always wondered that too. One time in Eugene I saw the coast starlight (from Cali) stop & let the passengers off for a minutes while the Eugenians were loading up & thought to myself...wow, all these people can afford cross country train travel? They looked like they just escaped prison! What gives?

PacificNW

Feb 24, 2009, 12:33 AM

↑ I don't know whether to take your comment "just escaped prison" personally offensive, or not. I take the Cascades to Seattle a few times a year. My step dad worked for Union Pacific so I road the rails, as a kid and teenager, many times. I have never spent time in prison. Riding a train gives me the opportunity to see the scenery at a leisurely pace. :cheers:

NJD

Feb 24, 2009, 1:46 AM

Razing the silos would be... uhhh... difficult...

They are HEAVILY used, and don't underestimate the impact on Portland's economy that having major shipping routes here provides...

^ My source says the city has talked to the new(ish) owners of the silos (and Vulcan who owns the old Red Lion site next door), and that the owners of the silos would be willing to negotiate especially if it involved building new silos further downstream where the river sees less traffic and has fewer bridges to navigate around. No real talks will occur until HSR Cascades is actually approved, which the NARP has tentatively slated for the 2nd run of federally funded HSR lines (which means at least a decade away from design starts). I cannot confirm this, but the source is reliable.

As for ticket prices, they are a prime example of basic business demand pricing. Remember that the French TGV is very modern, reliable, affordable, and a profitable branch of their Department of Transportation. Until there is adequate ridership (and competition) the prices will stay high, and there will be more and more demand as Americans stop subsidizing autos and airplanes and start wanting more comfortable, safer and more modern alternatives to driving and flying. Rail is the most efficient means of transport other than by sea. On an even playing field with autos and airlines, after a comparable system gets built, the railroad will be cheapest, safest and most comfortable means of travel.

electricron

Feb 24, 2009, 3:10 AM

If we are talking double-tracking from Portland to at least Sacramento, then the answer is "No" as there are hundreds of miles where the ROW is not wide enough for an additional track.

I take Amtrak's Coast Starlight from Los Angeles up to Portland or Seattle about once a year. It's a delightful way to travel if you get a room in the Sleeping Car and then have access to the First Class Lounge Car and the Dining Car. It takes two days to get there, instead of a two hour plane trip. From Eugene the tracks head east into the mountains, then southwest from Klamath Falls past Mount Shasta down to Redding.

The railroad tracks on that route traverse steep grades, many long tunnels, go over slim wooden bridges above roaring rivers, and thread through narrow mountain canyons and passes. That route is truly a marvel of early 20th century railroad engineering, but there is barely enough room for one train, let alone two.

If the current West Coast railroad routes were to be double-tracked between Eugene and the Bay Area, the costs would be in the Billions. Heck, the tracks that cross and hug the Willamette south of Oregon City are narrow and winding and would present a massive engineering challenge just to get another track to Salem.

I wasn't talking about going all the way to Sacramento from Portland, just south to Eugene and north to Vancouver, where the existing Cascades trains run.

The distance between Portland and Sacramento, per Amtrak schedules is 637 miles, much too far for a high speed train.
The time it would take a 120 mph train to travel 637 miles is 5 hours and 19 minutes. That's not including the additional 187 miles to Seattle and an additional 157 miles to Vancouver.
The time it would take a 220 mph train to travel 637 miles is 2 hours and 54 minutes. That's not including the additional 187 miles to Seattle and an additional 157 miles to Vancouver.

That's far longer than the 2-3 hours travel time for high speed rail to be competitive with flying. :(