Comments on: Op-ed: High Speed Rail – Seattle to Portland

By: Bernie

Bernie — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:52:29 +0000

Without BNSF paying the freight Sounder would have never turned a wheel. If the entire ROW were turned over passenger rail would die because even with the ability to schedule trains as you please the operational and capital costs would bury it. Working with the freight schedule is a challenge but let’s keep in mind that without it there would be no train tracks. Improvements to the tracks should to as great a degree as possible be done to improve both freight and passenger service.

What ever happened to the fast freight combined consist. What improvements in signaling and changes to safety and labor laws would it require to attach passenger and mail service to trains hauling perishable goods?

By: Zane

Zane — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:56:38 +0000

The big problem is BNSF. I agree that we need to have a separate passenger line. And maybe this could be included in the rerouting/expansion of the tracks going through Bellingham.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:06:33 +0000

What kind of math are you using – it’s a difference of about 40 miles, not twice as far, and the drive is almost equal time.

By: Paul Langan

Paul Langan — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:35:59 +0000

Just to let you know that there is a Canadian national citizen's advocacy group that has been established to help educate people about the benefits of high speed rail. We do this through our website http://highspeedrail.ca and through our public symposiums. Please check out our website.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:18:47 +0000

“There are over twice as many scheduled air flights between Seattle and Portland compared to Seattle and Vancouver BC.”

Maybe because it’s twice as far from Seattle to Portland, than from Seattle to Vancouver, BC?

By: Hooray and Halleluiah – Maybe? - Seattle Transit Blog

Hooray and Halleluiah – Maybe? - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:40:42 +0000

[...] to think we’ll out compete California and other large states for a full share. As I have advocated here before our state is in a very competitive position to capture the needed funding to accelerate progress [...]

By: Op-Ed: Hooray and Halleluiah – Maybe? - Seattle Transit Blog

Op-Ed: Hooray and Halleluiah – Maybe? - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:16:20 +0000

[...] we’ll out compete California and other large states for a full share. As I have advocated here before our state is in a very competitive position to capture the needed funding to accelerate progress [...]

By: Leo N. Egashira

Leo N. Egashira — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:20:08 +0000

Engage more governments and access more funding by expanding the high-speed train line (from the originally proposed Bellingham to Portland segment) to encompass Vancouver BC and Eugene OR. This would allow accessing a portion of the economic stimulus funds designated for Oregon, as well as Canadian Federal Government and British Columbian Provincial Government funding.

The Seattle to Portland segment is probably better suited as the starter line: There are over twice as many scheduled air flights between Seattle and Portland compared to Seattle and Vancouver BC. One great side benefit of high-speed trains is the possible elimination of most short-range air traffic among the three major Pacific Northwest cities: Less greenhouse gas emissions and less need for airport capacity expansion.

I’ve traveled on Japan’s Shinkansen several times. They’re extraordinarily fast, but noisy as hell. Anyone know how much noise mag-lev trains generate? In either case, as noted in previous posts, grade-separation is the way to go . . .

By: Report: Ontario Should Invest in 900 Mile High Speed Rail System | ForceChange

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:37:13 +0000

[...] proposed Ontario high speed rail joins Texas, the Midwest, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, and possibly Minnesota, as North American locales that are working towards high speed rail [...]

By: New ‘Very High Speed’ Train Goes 220 mph and Has No Centralized Engine | ForceChange

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:19:35 +0000

[...] Obama, and the continuing development of potential projects in Texas, the Midwest, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, and possibly Minnesota. Hopefully, further developments like the AGV in Europe will inspire the [...]

By: andy

andy — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:52:38 +0000

This is the right idea. Vancouver-Seattle is more important than Portland-Seattle. They way this happens is you bug people about it with pursuasive argument so they bug people.

Andy from CA

By: New York to Washington D.C. high speed rail takes a step forward | ForceChange

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:12:07 +0000

[...] deserves, with high profile proposals outstanding in California, Texas, the Midwest, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, and possibly [...]

By: Brian Bundridge

Brian Bundridge — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:13:25 +0000

It so far has not been a success and nobody has any orders for them. The California Desert Xpress however is looking at this trainset for 150mph running between LAUS and Las Vegas.

The main issue was fuel cost since it used jet fuel.

Bombardier has another version of the Acela but was never produced that would use a Detriot Diesel 5250HP engine for each locomotive and would be capable of 150mph but won’t be possible unless the FRA lessens the weight requirement for passenger trains in the United States.

By: SR Das

SR Das — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:54:26 +0000

One other issue arises with HSR—electrification. Will Amtrak want to spend extra money for the system’s electrification.

I heard the Bombardier corporation (who made the Acela train sets) had experimented with a HST “jet” train that allowed for high-speed services WITHOUT electrification. Was it successful?

By: Damien

Damien — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:19:18 +0000

Given the drivel and vitriol Mike Skehan (aka PSLRTS) has thrown at light rail supporters in the past, he shouldn’t expect many transit supporters to be jumping on his train anytime soon….

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/piuser/showuser.asp?username=PSLRTS

Moving forward on a truly multi-modal system isn’t about taking your friends out at the knees; this is all Skehan has achieved. The results of his mode wars are posted all over the internet for everyone to see.

http://www.issaquahpress.com/2008/10/14/sound-transit-prop-1-pays-for-more-buses/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=383847

And, no, Lummi Island is not ever going to be part of a regional transit system. Why he thinks it was useful to take potshots at Puget Sound high capacity transit while sitting at his post on Rosario Strait (100 miles away) goes beyond my comprehension.

By: Mike Skehan

Mike Skehan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:49:58 +0000

The lines for stimulus funding will be very long indeed. Our two state universities have already identified 3 Billion in needs to the Governor. The only chance transit and rail have to get into the game over roads and bridges is to have identified projects ready to go, or ’shovel ready’ as it’s being kicked around.
Our state is one of a few HS Rail corridors approved in the nation. We have an adopted plan. [http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AE671CC5-6633-4BF2-9041-FB328ADB1F31/0/LongRangePlanforAmtrakCascades.pdf]
We have good projects that could be made ready to bid that help fulfill the plan.
Sure it’s not 150 mph, or Maglev, but it’s far better than doing nothing. It’s a start. A big one!

By: Portland resident

Portland resident — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:01:09 +0000

Some naive pondering: Would this be an extension of Sounder services (schedule, fare policies)? Would Centralia and Keslo get service at existing stations? Perhaps the route could first extend to Vancouver, Wa? It seems like the whole process would get played out like some bureaucratic battle across state lines involving cost, bridge repairs, and ROWs. Seems like a big headache to expand to the Portland Amtrak station, despite its central location This keeps it within WSDOT’s jurisdiction until ridership dictates. Maybe this could be included with the Columbia River Crossing project?

I figure that this will get built before any sort of HS rail traverses the Willamette valley. The demand would be pretty low in the Eugene-Albany-Salem corridor, even with all the college students. Seems almost like the future of rail in our area is dependent on how the WES does in the next few years, despite it’s awkward route, but I’ve heard whisperings of a 99w route to McMinnville and a possible Forest Grove route.

By: Ryan Guy Cascadia Cabs

Ryan Guy Cascadia Cabs — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:03 +0000

Separated grade is the ultimate goal. Maglev technology as researched by the Federal Railroad Administration in 1998 to build from Eugene to Vancouver, BC for around $11 billion.
In the meantime, let’s push more realistically for triple tracking the BNSF mainline where the right of way allows such an expansion, from Eugene to Seattle. Let’s build this ASAP to gather momentum for working on the Seattle to Vancouver stretch.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:38:22 +0000

The issue of high speed rail on the Amtrak Cascades is clearly an issue that excites all of us on this blog. Coming as I do from Europe, I am especially keen to see high speed rail coming to all parts of the United States, but I don’t see it happening unless the BNSF and the Union Pacific give up more track rights to Amtrak, shorten their train sets so that they can use less of the main line and more of the sidings that they current force Amtrak on to.

Bottom line is that we need more main lines up and down – one for freight and one for Amtrak in each direction. On the London to Brighton route in England, passenger rail has access to two main lines – one for express trains and the other for milk-run trains! That probably won’t happen here but at least, lets build a line each in either direction for Amtrak and one for the freight companies – probably a logistical nightmare for more mountainouss parts of the journey on the West coast (i.e. we are not going to see an express Coast Starlight anytime soon) but at least as far south as Eugene, we could do something to speed up long stretches of the track?

Tim

By: Phillip Duggan

Phillip Duggan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:41:59 +0000

Here’s a question… I like the idea but why go all the way to Bellingham (<75k people) and not just push through to Vancouver (600k or 2.2m people) when it’s only another 50 miles or so. They might even help pay for it.

I think it would be amazing it have a line like that up into Canada. Though the fact that my company has offices in Burnaby probably helps.

Is it something about the border crossing? Do we try to avoid lines like that normally?