Amtrak Cascades’ Potential

100 Replies to “Amtrak Cascades’ Potential”

1. Cancel TDLE and pour that money into Option E, with track improvements and slots for both Amtrak and Sounder between Tacoma and Seattle.

   Question from the clueless: How can they get away with single-tracked sections like at 10.0 (Puyallup?)?

   Any remaining money should be used to un”pause” BRT on Pac Ave, done right. Taking a general purpose lane, and perhaps making it BAT, to support, rather than aggravate local businesses. And further implement BRT expansion on the priority corridors. https://old.piercetransit.org/brt-expansion-study/

   Far more transit users will benefit.

   1. I’d highly agree with this. The big sales pitch for the Sound Transit in Pierce County vote back in 2016 was … “It will be possible to ride a train from Tacoma to Seattle”. Even that little nugget couldn’t make a majority of Pierce County voters support it.Sound transit needs to keep its promise here. Sounder is cutting it.

      Tacoma has a wonderful old train station….. that they gave away to the Federal government. I’m not sure why Tacoma didn’t get it back and use it for…. an actual train depot again? Yeah, I know getting the train station back from the Feds would have taken some heavy political lifting, but then that’s been the problem with Sound Transit all along. Any political opposition makes the agency change plans and those plans always make transit worse and cost a lot more.

      Measuring the costs and benefits from expanding Amtrak service vs. expanding the airport and continually expanding I-5 is something the region should have looked into long ago. As a general rule, I support a “transit now” view. Are there riders for a project right out of the gate? I’d guess better Amtrak service would mean more riders one day #1. The high investment cost yields immediate rewards.

      Where Sound Transit lost me is the idea of “future transit”….. building things for a future that hasn’t happened yet. Like light rail to Federal Way….. sure, there isn’t enough riders to support it now, but wait until we build a bunch of gawd ugly TOD and pedestrian bridge over I-5! The whole 2nd tunnel is a future boondoggle. We don’t need it now and nobody knows if we’ll need it in twenty years…. or ever.

      1. I love the idea of restoring trains to Union Station but the Tacoma SPUR freeway would have to get ripped out to put the tracks back in and would also mean a return to the coastline route around the peninsula.

      2. I would love for both of those things to happen. It will help restore the city’s connection to the waterfront. Lidding the tracks, with maybe a promenade, ala Brooklyn Heights and the BQE, with improved access the the Foss waterway, would lead to a downtown boom.

      3. It would be a subset of trains that terminate either in downtown Tacoma, or perhaps Dupont or Steilacoom, saving money by canceling the Dupont extension.

         Yes, there is lots of capacity on the bypass. Are we sure freight can’t run on that? The long coal and oil trains are a huge nuisance through Old Town, Ruston and the West End.

      4. Poncho,

         The 705 freeway is maybe the worst idea in Tacoma history. (and that’s saying something because Tacoma is a town that’s had a lot of bad ideas in it’s history).

         Tearing out 705 for redevelopment wouldn’t be politically easy, but it wouldn’t tear down housing to build housing.

      5. Yeah, I agree. First tear down the 705 (Tacoma’s version of the Seattle Viaduct which was not much different than the Embarcadero). Then extend the Sounder trains to Downtown Tacoma. I would also run some trains to Ruston. Everything beyond there seems like a stretch although I could see a few summertime tourist trains running further south (just for the views).

      6. Cam, most of the Bypass would be fine, but there are NASTY grades at each end. NP built the shore line to avoid the grade up through the Nalley Valley. BNSF has zero desire to run freights that way.

      7. Because it’s a long, slow slog? Or because it’s not possible? Or dangerous?

      8. Because they OWN and maintain a somewhat longer, but almost dead level parallel route? I’m sure that they might be very happy that the Bypass has been rehabilitated and is a practical alternative to the Shore Line if some catastrophe took the main out of service for a week.

         But they won’t voluntarily reroute freights that way just to make room for Sounder trains to Steilacoom. Nor should they, because the extra diesel smog generated crawling up the hill will more than overwhelm the tiny emissions reductions that the few riders to Steilacoom would have generated.

   2. I agree with both of your points. This would be a better use of money.

      I also agree that it is a shame that the old train station in the middle of Downtown Tacoma isn’t used for trains anymore. It would make an excellent terminus for Sounder trains even if a lot of trains bypass it (on their way to Portland).

      1. You think Amtrak could sell enough seats in Seattle to bypass stopping in Tacoma? That’s the sort of forward thinking missing from Washington State’s transit plans generally, and almost always from Sound Transit. Give travel agencies a great deal on weekend getaway tickets to promote the new service right out of the gate.

         I’d support a bus only lane on I-5 with express busses running from Tacoma and Federal Way. One seat, no stops to the airport OR downtown. What I don’t support is a light rail boondoggle killing bus service and replacing it with a round about light rail line that takes much longer to get to damn airport.

         Transit should have nothing to do with housing or urban renewal schemes.

      2. The train heading to Portland would stop at the Tacoma Dome. The train heading just to Tacoma (typically Sounder) would stop at the Tacoma Dome and the main station. Of course I don’t know if that is practical at all. It seems quite likely that it would be prohibitively expensive to restore the (old) main Tacoma Station and the tracks to it.

   3. One of the big selling points of Link to Tacoma is the direct airport connection but maybe that could be accomplished with Sounder improvements and a high quality transit link to the airport at Tukwila Sounder/Amtrak station.

      Perhaps improving the Rapid Ride F line into a rail line or grade separated busway would enable “last mile” connections to the airport from Tukwila Sounder/Amtrak station with a faster and more direct F route that also was designed to hit SeaTac airport as well as hitting the other major yet disparate nodes in this Renton-Tukwila-Burien area with a faster direct route (hence grade separation with elevated flyovers). The other major nodes being Downtown Burien, Tukwila Intl Blvd Link, Southcenter Mall, Tukwila Sounder/Amtrak, Downtown Renton, The Landing which are currently served by the RR F in a slow, indirect, circuitous route. This infrastructure especially if it was a busway could be part of the Stride S2 line too which is better than as planned as a straight shot on I-405 that misses all/most of these key destinations. Now the RR F line is really about hitting exclusively these nodes listed above and little else in between.

      Imagine a high quality transit route with stations at The Landing, Downtown Renton, I-405/Rainier (South of Downtown), Tukwila Sounder/Amtrak Station, Southcenter Mall, Tukwila TIBS Link Station, SeaTac Airport, Downtown Burien. Maybe Stride buses enter it at The Landing if it was a busway.

      1. One of the big selling points of Link to Tacoma is the direct airport connection

         Except it isn’t really direct. You have to get to the Tacoma Dome (or one of the other Tacoma Stations). You won’t be able to get directly from Downtown Tacoma to SeaTac (unless you call a cab or find some sort of shuttle). We could improve this connection tomorrow by running the 574 more often. It is kind of weird that we don’t. We somehow expect a a ton of Link riders to the airport from Tacoma but we don’t bother to provide 15-minute bus service from Downtown Tacoma to the airport. When Federal Way Link is built people will be asked to make a two-seat ride but this isn’t that different than what people would do if Link gets to the Tacoma Dome. You’ve just moved the transfer point.

         It is worth noting that the highest ridership of the 574 occurs very early in the morning — before Link is running. Thus it is quite likely that the 574 will continue to run even after Link gets to Federal Way (or the Tacoma Dome if that ever happens). It also means that the peak in ridership occurs before traffic gets really bad and riding the train is competitive with a bus. The geography favors the bus/Link combination over Sounder/bus as well. From Tacoma the train has to swing to the east and south before getting up to Tukwila. In contrast the freeway up to Federal Way (and on to SeaTac via Link) is a pretty straight shot. Faster trains would help make up for that, but not entirely.

         I think the best option is to have Tacoma buses stop at Federal Way on their way to Downtown Seattle. Thus Federal Way becomes the transfer point. For a northbound bus some people get off the bus at Federal Way (to get to Link) and some people get on (to get from Federal Way to Seattle). That is what you want. It means that ridership per bus can easily exceed the capacity of the bus.

         With places like Auburn it is a different story. With enough train service you wouldn’t need a midday express to Seattle. But that has more to do with BNSF than improvements to speed. Meanwhile you also want a connection to Link. The two can be combined (and they are currently with the 578) but I’m not sure if the Federal Way/Seattle part of that route is overkill (assuming we are also running Tacoma/Federal Way/Seattle express buses. Ridership of buses from Auburn/Sumner/Puyallup is also much lower than buses from Tacoma. It seems like just running expresses to Federal Way would be the way to go although I could easily see an Auburn/Kent/Seattle express.

   4. “Cancel TDLE and pour that money into Option E, with track improvements and slots for both Amtrak and Sounder between Tacoma and Seattle.”
      Or just do both, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater when both are realistically feasible to do and needed. People, both airport workers and passangers deserve a much better experience than the godamm lousy 574 that is unreliable, slow af, and isn’t great for schleping luggage onto.

      People on here wanna decry its existence but people in Tacoma deserve a better alternative than our current sad and slow af coaches to the airport that are never on time and unreliable to use.

      Still remember a couple weeks ago that my ride home from Seatac was 25 minutes late because the 574 didn’t arrive on time due to airport traffic. And it’s only going to get worse as arrivals and departures traffic increases from higher passanger numbers.

      We can bitch and whine here till the cows come home that it isn’t the perfect solution for South Sound. But it’s a better solution than what is the 574 right now. People here need to get off their high horse in believing that buses are the solution to a lot of problems for regional transit here when the demand is clearly there for something better than that. To me, looking at the longer term is more important rather than focus on the short term in regards to TDLE, Which a lot of people here wrongly conflate the two to be frank when realistically they’re talking about the short term of how to improve problems but talking about it in a long term context as if busses are the best solution now and forever and nothing will top it.

      1. Still remember a couple weeks ago that my ride home from Seatac was 25 minutes late because the 574 didn’t arrive on time due to airport traffic. …

         We can bitch and whine here till the cows come home that it isn’t the perfect solution for South Sound. But it’s a better solution than what is the 574 right now.

         No one is arguing against Federal Way Link. But to suggest that we need to spend billions on an extension to the Tacoma Dome so that a relative handful of people have a tiny improvement in their trip to SeaTac is just silly. Not that many people will ever take transit to SeaTac. Doubt me? Look at the numbers. SeaTac is currently connected to Downtown Seattle. Downtown Seattle dwarfs Downtown Tacoma in every imaginable way. Link has four stations in Downtown Seattle while Link won’t have any in Downtown Tacoma. The stations in Downtown Seattle are great for business travelers — the type that tend to dominate plane-transit travel. Link also manages to connect to the UW, which again dwarfs Downtown Tacoma (let alone the Tacoma Dome). It also serves several neighborhoods — providing direct, one-seat rides to the airport. People whine about Link from Rainier Valley to downtown but going the other way is great. From Rainier Valley it is essentially an express — it makes no stops for miles until it reaches TIBS, merely one short stop from SeaTac. It also serves numerous stops in the north end (and one to the south) each with its enormous park and ride lot and handy “kiss and ride” stops (which I’ve used more than once) for folks that want to be dropped off at Link (and not the airport).

         So, with all of that, what is the ridership of SeaTac Station? 20,000? 30,000? 50,000?

         No, just 10,000. This is actually quite good for an airport station but it is ridiculous to think that it would get another 10,000 riders from the Tacoma Dome extension let alone enough to justify this very expensive subway. In turn it is ridiculous to think that connecting to an airport — not especially well I might add — should be a priority for Tacoma. I understand your desire for “all of the above” but we don’t live in that world. Transit is expensive. Building a line serving only a few riders means other riders ultimately get screwed. It is only after the entire Pierce County system is built out — with BRT running every six minutes on Pacific Avenue South and buses like the 2, 3, 4 and 48 are running every ten minutes all day long — that it even makes sense to consider a ridiculously expensive subway line to the airport. Even then it is probably a better value to run other buses more often.

      2. “So, with all of that, what is the ridership of SeaTac Station? 20,000? 30,000? 50,000?

         “No, just 10,000.”

         10,000 average weekday boardings. The actual station gets double that in total numbers going through the station or 20,000.

         In October 2023 it was 5,300 boardings or 10,600 total activity. It wins the prise for biggest ridership increase among existing stations. It has almost doubled and the only extension was Lynnwood Link.

      3. 10,000 average weekday boardings. The actual station gets double that in total numbers going through the station or 20,000.

         Who cares? You can count boardings. You can count boardings and alightings. You can count the number of heads or the number of feet or toes. It doesn’t matter because it doesn’t add up to that many people.

         Look, I get the whole idea of Link. Connecting Tacoma and Seattle with better transit is certainly justified. The problem is that creating a subway line is not the way to do it. It is extremely expensive and not particularly fast. It is a terrible idea that is uniquely American. So what do they do in other countries (and most cities in the US)? They rely on express buses and commuter rail (using existing tracks). That’s it. So while I understand the rationale behind Tacoma Dome Link it was simply the wrong tool for the job.

         What I don’t understand is why people think Tacoma Dome Link is justified because it would serve the airport. There just aren’t that many people going from the Tacoma Dome to the airport. It doesn’t provide a major improvement over what will exist in a few years (Federal Way Link). Tacoma isn’t big enough to justify a subway line and the airport isn’t the place to put one. The ridership per mile is way too low. The improvement in speed over Federal Way Link for most riders is not that great. It doesn’t even connect to Downtown Tacoma! Absent the connection to Seattle — which we’ve established is *worse* than the combination of express bus service and Sounder — it would be a bizarre project given the density and size of the area.

         Or existing ridership for that matter. I get that the 574 sucks, especially by ST standards. It is infrequent and slow. But the same can be said for just about every Pierce Transit bus. Compared to a typical PT bus the 574 is blazing fast. Yet in terms of ridership per service hour it lags many routes in Pierce Transit’s woefully underfunded system. It gets less than 20 riders per service hour. In 2018 there were nine PT buses with ridership better than that (the 1, 2, 28, 41, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 202). So, given the fact that ridership per mile is higher and the speed increase would be higher as well, should these route be converted to subway lines as well? Of course not. By all means Tacoma should add BRT in various places but it doesn’t need a subway line — especially one that won’t even serve Downtown Tacoma. It is just too damn expensive and not worth it. What Pierce County needs — even more than BRT — is just more service. Run those buses more often.

      4. One thing that I think is missing is a frank analysis of the Seattle-Tacoma segment as a combined Sounder-Cascades corridor. Each service is treated like the other one doesn’t exist for marketing. A good integrated study could really improve both usefulness of both services. Better yet, it could affect where trains stop, how scheduled could be complementary or what kinds of parking rules are needed at each station.

         For example, adding a Cascades stop in Auburn could be then listed on Sounder schedules showing that trains go into Seattle throughout the day rather than just the morning commute.

   5. My idea was always to move the transfer point between T Line and 1 Line to East Tacoma, Fife or South Federal Way l. I also believe that any transfer point should have a level cross platform transfer design. The station platforms could be smaller and the frequency could bile a bit lower holding didn’t construction costs. The top speeds for Tacoma link are 58 mph so a trip from anywhere tin Downtown Tacoma to SeaTac would be about the same as ST3 plans — and the level cross platform would make it slightly faster! Finally it would be a Pierce County spine so extensions and even a second Pierce County line or branches could be added without affecting the 1 Line.

      I get that Tacoma Dome is where regional services but if ST can not blink at losing the King Street connectivity is Tacoma Dome any more safe?

      1. @Al S,

         The current design speed for the T-Line is 25 mph. Max operating speed for the newer T-Line vehicles is 44 mph. So the T-Line is significantly slower than Link.

         Additionally, T-Line vehicles can’t be coupled together like Link. So the max capacity is much, much less than for Link, and the operating economics are not as good.

      2. Admittedly, my Google search initially said 58 mph. I went back to see what specific rail cars the line used to see what their max speed specs are. The Škoda and Brookville Liberty are listed at 43 and 44 mph max speeds. Certainly that limits their speed more than I first thought.

         And to be clear, 1 Line 3-hour peak period peak direction ridership in the 2040 midpoint forecast is 6100 south of South Federal Way. From Fife it’s 5200. Assuming the peak hour is 40% of that that’s about 2400 people an hour. Assuming 8 trains an hour would be 300 average riders per one car train.

         It does beg the question though about what kind of effort would it take to have faster trains or longer trains for T Line. Even if the transfer stays where it’s at (Tacoma Dome) it would be good to know, T Link is not worth its cost if it’s moving that slowly. It appears to be possible to buy faster trams. Siemens Avenio can reach 80 mph max speed.

      3. “Siemens Avenio can reach 80 mph max speed.”
         80km/h not 80 mph, which is around 50 mph, which is slightly slower than the S70 model. Tho ST should be looking at a similar model for the Link Car V3 i.e. fully walk through open gangway train that is either 1 or 2 car configuration

      4. @Al S,

         “ Assuming 8 trains an hour would be 300 average riders per one car train.”

         I’m not sure I agree with your basic assumptions, but therein lies the problem. Each T-Line streetcar only carries 100 to 115 passengers at crush load. And again, they can’t be coupled into longer trains. So 300 passengers per vehicle would clearly be a clear problem.

         The T-Line has actually been very successful. It has been exceeding ridership expectations (at least when ST used to publish them), and the economics have been good. Tacoma has reason to be proud of the T-Line.

         But streetcar is not a substitute for Light Rail. The two modes have different operating environments, different design standards, and different carrying capacities.

      5. As someone who rides it, I’m struggling to imagine 100 people on the T. Maybe if you removed the seats, and closed Burger Seoul.

   6. You can’t get Option E by canceling TDLE. Sound Transit’s money can only be spent in their taxing district and a lot of the work needed for Option E is outside their district.

      The single track section at MP 10.0 (Lakewood) is on the Sound Transit Lakewood Subdivision, which is basically passenger only except some local freight service to the few remaining shippers on the line. ST is currently working on the conceptual engineering and environmental clearance for double tracking most of the line between TR Junction and DuPont.

      1. Thanks, Railrider. I was struggling to understand that diagram in terms of real geography.

         ST seems content to use Pierce subarea money for the 2nd tunnel in downtown Seattle. Same rules should apply.

      2. “ST seems content to use Pierce subarea money for the 2nd tunnel in downtown Seattle.”

         That’s because it adds capacity for Tacoma. You can’t have a subway network without a center and major interchange. And Pugetopolis travel patterns are a T shape centered on downtown Seattle. Tacoma trains will go directly into DSTT2. Even if they didn’t, it would be unfair to base the cost of DSTT2 on which lines are assigned to it, because that’s an arbitrary assignment. Otherwise West Seattle and Lynnwood would get out of it because they happen to be in DSTT1. Otherwise the board could shove costs onto less-favored subareas. (“The Eastside is politically important, so we’ll put it in DSTT1 so it’s not paying for DSTT2.”)

      3. I understand the reasoning, Mike. Though we could debate whether Seattle is the center of anything associated with Tacoma. I see Tacoma as more of an ugly kid sister, the lesser of two relatively equal cities. We should be thinking of them as two separate cities more than 30 miles apart, and connecting them with what you connect cities with. Heavy rail, i.e. Sounder.

         But in any case, that’s besides the point.

         The point is, if ST can tax Pierce to expand system capacity for a tunnel they will barely use, they can also tax Pierce for capacity on a rail line they will likely use far more. Especially if we can get it to 90 mph and the frequency every hour or less.

2. I think a schedule that supports Seattle-Portland day trips is very important as, once riding the train effectively requires a hotel room, the trip becomes much more expensive. Scheduling express trips for morning and evening is a good step in this direction, as it helps to maximize the time you have to do things in the other city without needing to pay for a hotel.

3. It amazes me that it has been this long without triple-tracking in Kent. Accomplishing that would also open up potential opportunities for Sounder S line as I think that is the only stretch between Seattle and Tacoma that is still only double-tracked.

   1. There isn’t any triple-track south of Auburn currently.

      Closing the gap at Kent would be pretty expensive because a new bridge would be required over the Green River.

4. I have enjoyed Reece’s videos because he gets how all the parts of a transit network fit together. He is very conscious about things like equipment specs, station layouts and staffing needs. These are major factors that many armchair transit planners miss. He will be missed — and I worry that his holistic perspective won’t be embraced in future videos made by others.

   Having a YouTube channel is a heavy lift for someone. It’s a labor of love!

   I don’t know how to make a channel a team effort but I would love to see a video blog channel with five different transit experts taking a field trip or critiquing a transit proposal in the field together. A video camera captures basic truths that writing text-based posts can’t convey well.

   1. I’ve sometimes thought STB could have a video outlet for things that are better expressed visually or authors who prefer that communication style. But when I’ve asked occasionally whether anyone wants to start one, it seems that none of the staff or commentators have the skills or interest in making videos. So it would have to be a new team or a third-party one.

      It may be a generational thing. I think most of the STB staff is GenX or Millenials, so we didn’t grow up with videos or social media, and are more used to text-based idea sharing (books, letters, email, newsletters, web articles) beyond our immediate in-person circle.

      Most YouTube channels I’ve seen have one narrator/producer/owner, with or without a staff. And it’s so easy to create your own channel that everybody with video inspirations does so. And then they guest-appear on each other’s channels or cross-promote them or collaborate with them, so it ends up being a community of channels rather than a channel of multiple producers/narrators. If a multi-producer volunteer channel does develop, some of its producers would probably have their own channels too. You see that with husband-and-wife teams, where the team channel is focused on one topic, but they each also have their own channel for another topic or general things.

      This raises another idea I’ll put in a separate thread.

      1. Sadly, I’m seeing more and more YouTube videos with AI narration. They are riddled with mispronunciations. They often miss obvious words.

         The worst ones are those that say things like Seattle is losing population because we did in just one year between 2020 and 2021 — but not since. Excluding more recent data to present a biased view of any left-leaning city is tantamount to lying.

         I even watched a video yesterday that trashed Seattle while showing the Paramount theater in Portland as part of the video clip. That was followed by a shot of homeless around palm trees. Click bait is bad enough, but when video clips are obviously somewhere else it leaves me both laughing and concerned.

   2. I think the bar is lower for videos. The writing can be a lot sloppier. I wouldn’t say videos are harder — just different. You have to like splicing together videos and often filming them yourself. Writing an article is a different skill. Most people know how to write to a certain degree but most do not write well (myself included). Many can improve their writing with a lot of work but a lot of people don’t have the time or patience for it.

      Most of the time the videos don’t really add anything that can’t be expressed just as well in article form. There are exceptions — areas where video is essential for understanding something — but that is rare. You get more out of reading the New York Times for an hour than watching even the best network news hour.

      I do hope Reece continues to write even though I think is more skilled as a videographer. He has an extraordinary, almost encyclopedic knowledge of transit. He has an understanding built on subtlety — he understands the trade-offs that are inherit in transit. So do other transit writers (like Walker) but it is good to get a different take.

      1. “ Most of the time the videos don’t really add anything that can’t be expressed just as well in article form. ”

         I disagree at this being a universal fact. There are many transit topics that are better shown in a video than described in text.

         Take something like making rail-rail transfers. We can all write about why easy transfers are important with level cross platform transfers being the best by far. But the importance can only really be understood by a real life experience. Videos are the next best thing to show what that experience is like — with bonus points for showing a running stopwatch on the time it takes to transfer.

         I’m convinced that a video simulation of transferring at the preferred Pioneer Square Megastation that Dow and Bruce want would make the idea DOA. We can write about how terrible transferring would be there — but a video would drive the point home quickly and more dramatically. As it is, few readers lose the impending awfulness because it’s only verbally or maybe just diagrammatically described. Most interested folks can’t envision how bad it is with seeing how it works.

      2. I wrote most of the time — obviously there are exceptions. But quite often the difference between text/pictures and video is minimal. For example here is the Wikipedia page for a cross-platform interchange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform_interchange. I don’t believe there is any video on that page. There are plenty of diagrams and a few pictures, but no video. I don’t think the video would help that much (if at all) in understanding the various concepts. I can tell which way the trains are coming and going (they have arrows) and which way the people will walk.

         In contrast here is the Wikipedia page for Telemark skiing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemark_skiing. I suppose this is useful, but it doesn’t really tell me how to make the turn. I’m sure there are plenty of old magazine articles with step by step instructions, but video is much better at it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpS41vV_ww).

         When it comes to transit, I often find the videos are fun, but also way too time consuming. I rarely want to sit through a ten minute video when I can read someone make the same points in a couple minutes. But at the same time, sometimes the video is done well enough that I find it entertaining even if I didn’t really get anything new out of it.

         Video tends to be more difficult to cite. You can go back and grab the transcript, but rarely does someone add citations. In contrast a typical article by Jarrett Walker on his blog (https://humantransit.org/) has several links, quite often referencing studies (although his book has a lot more). This makes it easier to dig into a subject.

      3. @ Ross:

         I once had a marketing specialist explain that people learn in different ways. Some learn best with text comprehension. Some learn best visually. Some learn best aurally. Just because you learn a particular way doesn’t mean everyone does.

         Video covers those last two ways of learning.

         You yourself have put efforts into many visual presentation maps of bus restructuring ideas. So why do you suddenly say it’s not needed?

5. Personally, I would prefer to see them pursue Alternative D. The increased frequency and speed of the express/limited stop services will provide fantastic short-term benefits while the region mulls over the idea of high speed rail.

   If they do decide to build HSR, then they can spend the billions of dollars in capital improvements that the other alternatives call for to build that new ROW. If not, then upgrade the existing route.

   1. I think they should continually try and make the trains faster. At first this likely means focusing on the areas where they are really slow (as adf2 mentioned below) but eventually this could very well include stretches where the train runs at a higher speed (90 mph).

      As far as the schedule goes I think it makes the most sense to have a mix of express and local service (which is the D option). Just to back up here I see the cities being at various levels:

      Level 1: Vancouver BC, Seattle, Portland
      Level 2: Everett, Tacoma, Vancouver WA
      Level 3: Bellingham, Olympia
      Level 4: All other cities.

      Various runs would include serving a particular level and everything above it. Thus a train to Olympia would also serve Tacoma, Vancouver WA, Everett (as well as Seattle, Portland and Vancouver WA). I put Everett in the Level 2 category even though the document did not. Everett (like Vancouver WA) would mean that a fair number of riders would not have to backtrack.

      I would likely break these down evenly. So that means that you only have local service (serving every city) about 25% of the time while express service (serving only Vancouver BC, Seattle and Portland) also runs 25% of the time. Everett would get 75% of the trips while Bellingham would get half. Of course there could be a lot of wiggle room depending on logistical issues. Timetables are rarely neat and tidy.

      1. The best way to make the trains faster is get light weight equipment that is able to operate faster over the existing lines. Amtrak demonstrated this concept in the 1970s. Washington sort of started down that path with the Talgos in the 1990a, but light weight locomotives that would allow it weren’t purchased.

      2. That would require American train standards to be reformed and be truly in line with European and Asian ones. A lot of our regulations are based on half century to century old rail knowledge that is somewhat obsolete now with modern manufacturing practices that allows for stronger lighter and more aerodynamic materials.

         French manufacturers referred to the Amtrak Acela as le cochon or the pig. As it was built on the TGV platform but was absurdly heavy compared to its French counterpart to comply with American regulations at the time.

         I know American regulations have loosened somewhat since then; but the trains realistically don’t need to be designed like rolling bank vaults on wheels.

      3. The current design Talgos owned by Oregon meet all current FRA standards. The DMUs operated by Sonoma-Marin in California meet all the safety requirements of a locomotive at half the weight of a Siemens Charger. There are light weight Diesel engines with much higher horsepower available.

      4. @ Glenn in Portland
         “Amtrak demonstrated this concept in the 1970s. Washington sort of started down that path with the Talgos in the 1990a”
         Or the Boston & Maine in 1958

6. The RMTransit video is titled “The End …?” And the first closed caption in the video is “Goodbye… ?”

   1. And the first sentence in the video description is “The end of RMTransit, as we know it…?”

      So, it sounds like he’s just taking a break.

   2. He’s leaving the door open to returning but he doesn’t have even tentative plans to do so. Just three videos he wants to do sometime, but they may be one-offs with nothing beyond that. This video was preceded by two weeks on Patreon telling people there may not be any videos in 2025, offering refunds to annual members, and asking whether to shut down the Patreon site or keep it idle, and finally indicating he’s pivoting to more blogging for 2025.

      I’ve known a movie director (Frank Schaeffer) who switched to writing books because it was easier: you can create a fictitious world by just writing, whereas with a movie you have to get all the locations and actors and costumes etc. Reece may be in a similar transition. It takes a lot of time and energy and money to go to different countries and film their transit lines and talk into a camera and edit it into a video, whereas writing is less of a time commitment and more compatible with pursuing other family/career things at the same time.

7. A little math regarding speed shows that you get much more bang for the buck by making slow sections less slow than by making fast sections even faster. For example, increasing speeds from 10 mph to even 20 mph through a stretch saves 3 minutes per mile of improvements (6 min/mile->3 min/mile). By contrast, going from 80 mph to 120 mph goes from 45 sec/mile to 30 sec/mile, a savings of just 15 seconds per mile of improvements.

   So, to have the same effect as improving 1 mile of track from 10 mph to 20 mph, you’d have to improve 12 miles of track from 80 mph to 120 mph; the difference in cost is dramatic.

   Seattle->Vancouver has a lot of these slow sections, so if the goal is to reduce travel time, making the slow sections a little less slow should be the focus, even if it’s less glamorous than making the fast sections even faster.

   1. A little math regarding speed shows that you get much more bang for the buck by making slow sections less slow than by making fast sections even faster.

      Yes, absolutely. If I’m not mistaken that is how Caltrain got such a huge improvement in their trains. I believe the top speed is the same, but since they accelerate a lot faster there is a lot less time being spent going slow.

      This is also the ideal way to approach a project like this. It is great to dream big and set your sights really high. But there is a lot to be said for just chipping away at the problem bit by bit. With ultra high speed rail we would have to wait decades before we actually have something better than now. In contrast making a series of fixes means we have improvement very quickly. The Point Defiant Bypass cost less than $200 million and saved somewhere between five and ten minutes of travel time. It only took about two years before riders could benefit from it. Obviously not every project will be as cost effective or as quick to implement but various fixes can be implemented quite quickly and the all add up.

      That is why I’m not worried about picking one of the various alternatives (A through E). They provide a good look at what would be involved but ultimately we should be trying to continually improve the line until making any sort of improvement is extremely expensive. Get the best bang for the buck whenever we can. How often the trains run and which stations they serve is important (and unfortunately needs to be negotiated with BNSF) but that can done yearly (with no real commitment to one style or the other).

   2. Another good aspect of this approach is that you are building up ridership and cultural reach to set the stage for HSR, instead of just going from what we have now to HSR, then hoping to build your ridership while running an expensive service. It would be more like building light rail after having years of solid regional commuter bus service, versus having just a few routes with peak express bus runs during that time period.

8. The biggest point improvement in the Noryh Line would also be a huge one for BNSF’s freight service to Ferndale: a tunnel through Chuckanut Mountain. The stretch along the water is beautiful but very slow. There is no siding between Edison andvFairhaven, so having a single-track tunnel will not be a bottle neck.

   I realize this is expensive but BNSF might be willing to chip in some, since it would improve freight transit times and capacity.

9. I personally think cleaning up things around Bellingham up until Vancouver would help alot and definitely make Seattle to Vancouver much more competitive. Currently two hours between the two stations is ridiculous… and the detours in BC leave lots to be desired.

   1. Until BC gets their act together, more frequent trains to Bellingham and connecting express busses from there to Vancouver? Especially if you can clear customs before getting on the train in Seattle or the bus in Vancouver.

   2. I agree. It shouldn’t take that long to cross the border. They need to rethink the process to make it faster. As I see there three potential threats:

      1) Terrorist attack. This is more likely to occur at the train station then on a train. Even for trains this is best done as people board.

      2) Smuggling goods. Again this can best be done as people board. It can be like in Hawaii where you can’t pass through a section of the airport without getting screened.

      3) Passport inspection. This can be done as people board or as the train is traveling to the other country. Canadian officials can screen everyone as the train goes north of Bellingham but that doesn’t mean the train has to stop. Likewise the train leaving Vancouver could be screened almost immediately by US officials. If people are not allowed into the country they are forced into a holding area on the train and then onto a train going the other way at the next station.

   3. Whenever I’ve ridden Cascades from Vancouver, passport control was done at the Vancouver station, and customs was done by officers boarding the train at the border and getting off at Bellingham. I thought it was still that way but apparently it’s been suspended, because I’ve heard calls to add preclearance when it already has partial preclearance, or at least it did.

      I can’t see how preclearance could work with multiple stations between the anchor cities and the border. You’d have mixed local/international passengers, and the possibility of somebody saying they’re just going to Bellingham or White Rock but then crossing the border. Would the immigration agents give hand stamps to show who can cross?

      1. You’d have mixed local/international passengers, and the possibility of somebody saying they’re just going to Bellingham or White Rock but then crossing the border. Would the immigration agents give hand stamps to show who can cross?

         They would just check their ticket and ID. At that point the officials know who has been cleared and who hasn’t.

      2. Just checking the ticket isn’t secure. A person could easily defeat that by simply buying two tickets; one so border officials think you aren’t crossing; the other to actually cross.

      3. My point is that you would ask for the ticket again (which is routine). It has a bar code which goes into the system. At that point most riders show up with their names already cleared. But someone who hasn’t has to go through the process, similar to what would happen if they bought a northbound ticket from Bellingham at the last second.

      4. “They would just check their ticket and ID.”

         Who would check that? The immigration agents are in Vancouver and Seattle. It’s not train conductors’ job to enforce immigration. If you have additional agents on the train, it’s not fully preclearance and requires more staff.

      5. Who would check that? The immigration agents are in Vancouver and Seattle. If you have additional agents on the train, it’s not fully preclearance and requires more staff.

         Immigration agents can ride the train. Yes, this requires more staff. Big deal. It wouldn’t require that much more in terms of staffing. There aren’t any other trains going across the border serving those cities. It is not like an airport where they handle dozens of different flights from all over. You are probably talking about two officials on each train, riding (at most) from Seattle to Vancouver. The whole point is to reduce the amount of work for those in the train station. If there is a red flag they send those people to some room there. Everyone else just gets off the train and goes.

      6. Preclearance of passengers at Pacific Central Station should be in place by this summer, which will eliminate the southbound stop at Blaine.

      7. Are the trains clean yet?

   4. Just a few points to make on this thread.

      Redbeaver is correct. A lot of delay is the train making its way through all the industrial trackage around Point Roberts and then between the Frazier River swing bridge, which can cause its own issues (Remember the heirarchy – Marine>Rail>Highway>Pedestrian), to the station. Most of that is at “Link speed in the Rainier Valley”.

      Amtrak personnel can only check to see if the passenger’s listed documentation is present(,and not the expired one). Customs officials are the ones responsible for enforcing whatever issues they choose. (DUIs, felonies, etc.)
      A manifest is sent to the border officials so they can pre-clear as many passengers as is available at the times the information is sent.
      There is no “room” at the Vancouver station. The train is the room. If you’ve ever noticed when you detrain, the whole consist is gated in. The barbed wire is set up like a prison. You’re still in US territory, No Escape except through the Customs Agents!

      Remember the Olympics and the second train? Amtrak and the Canadian government were arguing so much over who pays for the border control personnel that it escalated all the way up to the Federal level to be resolved.

      The busiest time is during Alaska Cruise season. Most of the people filling up the trains are coming from Portland and Seattle. If you’re the Canadian government, you’re clearing passengers who will just go over to Canada Place and back through US customs.
      From an economic standpoint, what does Canada have to gain?

      That’s why I champion a midday train for Hockey Fans. Need to flame that Kraken/Canucks rivalry!

10. Sam, I have an assignment for our star reporter and the emperor of the comments section. You have the best skills in finding local transit videos. Which are the best channels that have a recurring series of videos on Pugetopolis transit topics? We could list or feature them in an article.

    1. I’ll do it. I like watching local transit-related videos anyway. I’ll compile a list of some local channels.

11. I wonder if this effort is consistent with the effort Microsoft sponsored.
    Reading the news back then, I was under the impression that they were looking into building a California style HSR with 200+ mph max speed.

    1. No, it contradicts it. Microsoft spearheaded/latched onto a study for ultra-high-speed rail with a brand new right-of-way and tracks. It envisioned its tech employees riding ultra-high-speed rail between Microsoft’s Vancouver and Redmond offices within two hours and for weekend tourism.

       The UHSR proponents are NOT recommending a two-step solution with Cascades improvements first and UHSR later — they’re recommending UHSR only. This Cascades plan is the latest version of Cascades long-term plans going back to 1990 that are never implemented. The legislature says it wants high-quality Cascades and commissions a long-term plan, but then never funds it. It has done work in fixing slow zones. South of Seattle there used to be a lot of them, but the last few times I’ve ridden it’s been robust speed from King Street Station to the Oregon border. But robust speed still doesn’t yield a travel time as fast as driving on the freeway.

       So in order to get it implemented we need a strong campaign to convince the legislature to really implement it. UHSR proponents aren’t doing that: they’re arguing to replace Cascades with UHSR whenever it can open. That may be decades away or never. Especially as they’d have to raise the billions more it would cost.

       That’s why Reece made a video about this, and why The Urbanist and STB have been saying the same thing. To try to catalyze a public movement that can convince the legislature to fully implement Cascades’ long-range plan and start delivering phases soon. This could be alongside longer-term UHSR plans, although we’d argue that Cascades improvements are sufficient and we don’t need UHSR in this corridor. 2.5 hour Seattle-Portland travel time is adequate; we don’t need 1.5 hour or 0.5 hour. We don’t need 5-day-a-week Portland-Seattle commutes; we just need it to be useful for day trips once or twice a month, and a wider range of concert-going and tourism and visiting people. UHSR would be nice if it cost the same or the federal government paid for it, but there’s fat chance of that.

    2. Earlier versions of the Cascades plan had alternatives at 110 mph, not just 90 mph, so when I say Cascades’ potential I’m including those. The same studies said costs grow exponentially the faster you go, so 90-110 mph is the sweet spot for quality/cost. Every level up requires higher-quality tracks and trains and gentler curves and inclines, and level crossings are a no-no. Now some people are saying 125 mph might be within the sweet spot after all, so that could be re-evaluated and added to Cascades. That’s still far slower than UHSR.

       1. Mike, Thanks for the digest. Sorry that I didn’t watch the video and reading through every comments carefully before dropping the question.

          It is absurd that HSR proponents are against a two-step solution. To me, UHSR could be a premium option similar to commercial airline, so that means it could attract private investment. It doesn’t make sense for system of such kind to be heavily subsidized by public sector. What Amtrak Cascades has now is just not enough to justify that kind of need, that’s why a Tier 1 improvement to bring corridor to higher speed is a necessary step to prove a UHSR needed (or not) 20-30 years from that.

       2. “It is absurd that HSR proponents are against a two-step solution.”

          They haven’t explicitly said no, but the legislature has had a Cascades plan like this since 2006 or so and still hasn’t implemented it, so what’s the chance it will now? That’s twenty years of crickets. The legislature is getting somewhat excited about UHSR but is not talking about Cascades improvements. This report was just WSDOT doing its periodic update: it’s not a sign the legislature is getting ready for a change. The report is six months old, but have you heard anything about the state considering or choosing any of these alternatives?

       3. I just don’t think UHSR will ever pencil out.

          The terrain and development issues are vast because there are difficult curves and elevations to contend to reach those speeds. This isn’t Texas or Florida or the Central Valley.

          Japan may do it, but Tokyo metro has over 37M people and Osaka has 19M people with Nagoya at 9M people and Shizuoka at 3M in between. That’s over 68M which dwarfs the entire Cascadia corridor with only about 10-12M at a much further distance. And they have denser cities and fewer owned cars per household to boot.

          I think there is consensus within this blog that cheaper, sooner but a slower yet reliable train is the way to go. The big dilemma is dealing with BNSF without getting ripped off. I suspect that that also exists within the legislature too.

          I have heard of a bait and switch tactic for getting better intercity passenger rail service. That is to get funds lined up to build something that doesn’t involve BNSF — and negotiatie with BNSF with a looming threat to walk. That may be the long game for the state.

       4. The legislature is getting somewhat excited about UHSR but is not talking about Cascades improvements.

          It is much easier (from a political standpoint) to study something — especially something spectacular — then actually build something useful. Everybody likes the idea of ultra high speed rail. It is easy to get excited about going to Vancouver or Portland in less than an hour. But I just don’t see it ever working out (unless they figure out a way to make construction really cheap).

    3. Instead of UHSR, how about Cascades improvements plus…

       – Improve all Metro core routes to 15-minute full-time frequency, then 10-minute daytime frequency.
       – Improve all Community Transit and Pierce Transit core routes to 15-minute full-time frequency.
       – Similar bus improvements in other counties, to bring them up to the European average for their population level.
       – Make multi-county bus connectors hourly across the state. (They currently run once or twice a day, or not at all in some areas.)
       – Half-hourly Sounder South, adding a new track to avoid impacting freight capacity.
       – Seattle-Spokane rail similar to Cascades. This would connect all of Washington’s remaining largest cities to rail.
       – A tram in Seattle with exclusive lanes.
       – Other things … ?

       It would require a different tax-funding structure and potentially different agencies’ structures, and I haven’t costed out all these things compared to UHSR. But the point is the state could explore these possibilities and do something along these lines. Then we would have a more comprehensive transit network throughout the state, and ridership could gain a larger mode share and transit would be more of a first-choice option. That’s potentially more beneficial than one UHSR line stopping in a few cities near I-5.

       1. Yes, that would have a much bigger impact on the region than UHSR. It is quite likely that would actually increase intercity rail travel more than UHSR. One factor in intercity rail travel is the quality of the transit system. If you are used to taking transit for most of your trips then taking a train to another city is more likely. Not only that but it effects other riders as well. Someone from Portland or Vancouver may feel like they currently need a car to get around Seattle right now, but they wouldn’t (in most cases) if the transit system was good enough.

    4. It is consistent with HSR. HSR and Amtrak Cascades are being planned as complementary systems.

       1. The looming question is:

          Will anything be in place for the 2026 World Cup?

       2. No, there’s not enough time.

       3. or political will.

       4. Temporary additional train trips, additional bus trips, and/or longer trains are in the mix for the World Cup.

       5. @Jim Cusick,

          “The looming question is: Will anything be in place for the 2026 World Cup?”

          The answer to that is “yes”.

          DRLE, Full ELE, and FWLE will all be open in time for the World Cup. And I’m sure ST will run extra Sounder trains. And Amtrak will probably add a train or two also.

          By the time the 2026 World Cup occurs it will be a completely different transit environment around here.

       6. Over the border?

          NB 502’s equipment should continue on to VAC.
          516’s equipment departs (before 502 arrives) as the SB extension of 509.
          519 uses 502’s equipment for the return. Then 518 arrives, and is ready for return as 517.

          Easy Peasy.

          The issues will be:
          acquiring the equipment needed.
          Where the meets occurr,,
          And customs staffing.

          Since these passengers are coming to spend money in Canada, I would think they would be more willing to contribute more to making ot work.

          Plus, that midday connection becomes the Hockey Train.

          The added benefit of the midday Hockey Train is selling tickets in the slow season. (Winter).

          That should be the first step.

       7. “DRLE, Full ELE, and FWLE will all be open in time for the World Cup.”

          I thought the question was about permanent Cascades improvements.

          “By the time the 2026 World Cup occurs it will be a completely different transit environment around here.”

          None of these are any alternatives for Cascades trips. You’d be fuming around in Portland or Mt Vernon unable to use the Federal Way Link extension.

       8. @Mike Orr,

          “ I thought the question was about permanent Cascades improvements.”

          There won’t be any “permanent” improvements made to Cascades due to the World Cup, or at least not permanent improvements of any significance. Amtrak/The Feds/WSDOT just aren’t going to fund any major “permanent” improvements for a temporary event.

          But note my comment about Amtrak potentially adding a few trains. That level of temporary improvement might happen.

          But the real heavy transit lifting for the 2026 World Cup will be done by the local transit agencies. In particular, by Link in Seattle, and by Skytrain in VanBC. Those local transit systems will carry many more World Cup fans than Amtrak will. So the opening of DRLE, Full ELE, and FWLE will e much more impactful locally.

          But hey, I’m not a very big soccer fan, but I’m looking forward to the next World Cup. Should be fun. And Link will be packed.

       9. @Lazarus
          “There won’t be any “permanent” improvements made to Cascades due to the World Cup, or at least not permanent improvements of any significance. Amtrak/The Feds/WSDOT just aren’t going to fund any major “permanent” improvements for a temporary event.

          But note my comment about Amtrak potentially adding a few trains. That level of temporary improvement might happen.”

          Which brings us back to the term Political Will.

          That midday train would be the one north end improvement that has a good chance of paying off in the near future (past the World Cup).

          But hey… What the Hell Do I Know?

          Everyone still falls into the same trap that the only mode that satisfies mobility, local or regional, is pavement based.
          I will no longer congratulate my local representatives for local highway capacity ‘improvements’ (not that I ever did, but I won’t be silent anymore).
          HSR is a distraction. Our representatives need to get serious about improving the current situation.

12. I’d say let the state figure what would be good for the short, medium, and long term for both Cascades and HSR. Like HSR and Cascades improvements can both coexist alongside each other and both would be valuable to each other in a symbiotic relationship. I think forcing them to compete against each other is a bit silly in a way when they’re both good infrastructure projects that should be both fully funded by state and federal tax dollars.

    1. This was in response to Mike’s post above mine

    2. I agree. All of the above. So if we want that, we have to have dedicated funding stream. Count the feds out.

       I recommend going big. Changing the constitution. Eliminate the gas tax. Implement some sort of weightXdistance tax. Make it dedicated to transit + road maintenence. No highway expansion without a referendum or private funding. We should have the votes if those Ds are really Ds.

       1. We know D’s aren’t really D’s because 70+% of Seattle and other Pugetopolitan cities are still single-family (under the state’s relaxed definition) and residential-only, and resist attempts to allow more walkability in them.

       2. I think the housing issue is personal. And twofold.

          – People really really like seeing their house value pop 10% annually. That’s where most people’s wealth is stored. And their possibility for a cush retirement.

          – no matter how progressive, rich people fear poor people. They don’t want to live near them for the most part.

          I think transit funding is more abstract and less clearly personal.

    3. I really don’t think Ultra High Speed Rail (UHSR, i. e. bullet trains) will ever make sense for the region. I think they are a distraction from what we should be building. Not only for intercity travel but improvements in transit.

       There are a lot of other factors — none of which favor UHSR — but the biggest one is distance. Rail competes with driving and flying. Consider each:

       Driving. There are several reasons why someone would rather drive than take the train. Some of these would exist even if we built UHSR. For example someone going to Portland may feel like they need a car down there or it is difficult to get to the train in Seattle. Good transit within both cities would thus have a big impact on train ridership. Another is that they live south of Seattle (e. g. Kent) and thus don’t want to head north and then head south. But if you serve Tacoma you pick up the vast majority of those riders anyway. Then there is speed. A train doesn’t have to be a lot faster than driving — it just has to be fast enough (and frequent enough). You reach a point where driving may be a little bit faster (point to point) but not worth the hassle. UHSR might get more riders, just not a lot more.

       Then there is flying. It is a similar situation. You need to be fast enough. With flying there is the time it takes to get to the airport and the time it takes to get from the other airport to your destination. Of course some people live close to the airport and/or are doing business close to the airport. These are a small minority of the potential riders though — way more people want to go downtown to downtown (which is one of the key advantages of trains). There is the hassle of added security as well. Of course airplanes are extremely fast. But the distances are such that there isn’t that much difference between high speed and ultra high speed. It is different for California because it is much farther between San Fransisco and L. A.

       The one exception is the trip from Vancouver BC to Portland. But I really don’t see why Washington State would spend billions making that trip attractive on rail for people who now fly.

       Which gets into cost. This is another factor. Making the trains “fast enough” is not that expensive. In contrast UHSR is extremely expensive. No matter what you build there won’t be that many riders. The bullet train system in Japan carries plenty of riders but ridership is tiny compared to the number of people who ride local subways. So with so few riders you are left with a conundrum. If you charge a lot of money then people will just drive or fly. It also means that only the upper income people ride the train. If you subsidize the trips (making them affordable) then you are subsidizing a very small number of riders. Why should someone in Skyway — who pays $100 a month for their ORCA card — pay for a businessman to go back and forth to Portland every day? It is pretty inconsistent to say “Sorry, we can’t afford to run the buses frequently in your neighborhood, you have to live with a bus every half hour or a microtransit system that in unreliable but hey, you can get to Portland or Vancouver very quickly for not much money.”

       You would be spending an enormous amount of money for relatively few riders. I just don’t see it.

       1. The shinkansen is actually pretty unaffordable for most Japanese. We rode from Tokyo to Kyoto with professor who teaches at a university. She said it was the first time she had been on one. She had to really stretch to go on the trip. Tourists are heavily subsidized with their rail pass.

       2. It about $85 from Tokyo to Kyoto, and there’s a total of 128 trains per day from/to various stations in either city.

          It’s expensive, but not really out of line. It’s slightly more expensive than the cut-rate airline companies.

          You could do it for $53 if you want to take a bunch of local trains.

       3. Average salary in Tokyo is much lower than Seattle. ~40k. And there aren’t as many wealthy people, with much lower top salaries.

          They are a more frugal people as well.

          I’m not saying it’s not a great deal. 2 hours by train vs 7 hours driving. We can dream.

       4. “We can dream.”
          Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars

       5. About that “fast enough” thing.

          I recently found a card and invitation to that time in 1993 when Amtrak and ABB demonstrated the X2000 in the northwest.

          The brochure says the when introduced on the Stockholm – Gothenberg route, the train reduced travel time from 4.5 hours to 3 hours.

          Knocking an hour or more off Portland – Seattle with no investment in new line construction was the goal of this whole demonstration.

          More than 30 years later, we’re all still waiting for all the arm waving to stop and actual stuff to happen.

          Could have happened with the Talgos too, or any number of similar products. The USA isn’t the only place where HSR on new lines doesn’t make sense.

13. I am happy to see that upgrading the existing product is still on the table, for it is within reality given today’s financial strains, while high-speed rail is well outside that realm. I rode on Japan’s “bullet,” a.k.a. Shinkansen, trains when their speeds were “only” 105 mph, and those were plenty fast enough to see the scenery as well as practical for anything within a three-hour range (~315 miles) compared to air travel. At that time, over 40 years ago, I became a proponent of a regional approach to rail in the U.S. I haven’t changed that opinion but rather become firmer in that belief due to what it would take to implement the longer we wait, as this country’s political class is wont to do. When riding the Edmonds to Vancouver, B.C. and the Seattle to Portland segments, it wasn’t difficult to see where track upgrades would vastly improve the current peak speed -79 mph- to a more consistent speed, such as grade separation and track improvements. It also wasn’t difficult to see where investing in improving the interior experience, such as reliable wi-fi. I hope that I see this line improved in my lifetime.

    1. It sounds like Cascades is prepping to handle more trainsets, so more runs
       must be in the cards. Probably wait until 2028 for next moves.

       “Amtrak will soon begin major rail yard upgrades in Seattle”

       https://media.amtrak.com/2024/10/amtrak-advances-major-rail-yard-upgrades-in-seattle/

       New trainsets

       “Introducing Amtrak Airo”

       “Features enhanced lighting, improved technology with digital customer information systems and touchless restroom controls, dedicated individual outlets, USB ports and onboard Wi-Fi.”

       https://media.amtrak.com/introducing-amtrak-airo/

       1. I’d be happy just to get comfortable seating back, like what was on the Talgo Mark VI sets we had starting in 1995.

Comments are closed.