Comments on Trans-Cascadia Express

I've been waiting for one of these since I can remember.

sometimes I just love the europeans....

I've been trying to get us one of those on the West Coast since before the Bush Regime Fuhrer's dad was kicked out of office for being moronic and out of touch.

The French are Godless socialists, that provide basic health care, education, and employment to the down-trodden and non-cafe smoking masses of France. Does it shock anyone that the next downward step would be high speed mass transit for the suffering masses?

why would a suburb dweller ever take the train?

When I moved here from the UK, the lack of a high speed inter-city rail network was one of the most bitter pills to swallow.

I can't believe it's quicker AND cheaper for me to drive to Portland or Vancouver than it is to take the train.

Ridiculous!

Ugh now I'm homesick.

Down to Portland for breakfast? Up to Vancouver for dinner?

Or we can save a few billion bucks and just drive there.

"save a few billion bucks and just drive there" ?????

WOW!

Yeah, JMR, let's just screw the environment for your convenience ...

just hop a freight a-la vollmann...

Building one of these between Vancouver and Portland wouldn't do fuck-all for the environment, at least not at the cost, which would be closer to trillions, not billions. Where are you going to put the tracks? AMTRAK DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHT OF WAY. If you put this exact train on our tracks, it would travel at the same pleasant 30 MPH lope as the current one.

Dream is right. Concentrate on transit that actually makes sense for this area.

As if driving 60-70 mph through traffic is convenient.

I'd say more but blog comment threads break down in quality after about 15 comments.

In UK and Europe track gets put in and they have more of a shortage of space than in North America. Just take a nice chunk of space off I5 corridor and put the train in. Regulate traffic to necessary traffic, make people pay if they insist of driving because they think it is right. Screw the cars and people that want to drive everywhere join the rest of the world and put in great transit and trains.
Put this in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227807.stm

Hundreds of miles of high-speed tracks could never be protected at once from all of the world's sabateurs, bogeymen, and enemies of freedom.

America will never have the courage to expose such a target, and therefore will never have high-speed rail.

The idea isn't to displace freight trains on the lines BNSF uses. But we could if we wanted to.

We can condemn the right of way to build new lines.

The issue is how do we move more people more efficiently, more cost effectively, in a more environmental way. Building rail costs billions, but so does another freeway link or more airports for air links.

Why should doing nothing, or building more freways and airports, be the default position?

People said "we have horse buggeys, who needs autos and roads?"
"we have K-12,who needs college?"
"most folks get along just fine with septic tanks, who needs sewage systems?"

Those all cost a lot of money, too.

Yo, -B-: try learning something about rail rights of way and how they operate, and what their limitations are, and when they were granted. You can't just "take some land on the side of the I-5 corridor" and put trains there. You'd have to reconconstruct 200 miles of freeway and freeway overpasses, at a cost of, yes, trillions.

The French rights of way were granted 150 years ago, and have had tracks on them ever since. Much like our rail tracks were, and have. But our rail tracks aren't owned by the government, and the people who do own them are extremely busy running heavy freight. Passenger traffic is a luxury, a frill, a wonderful way to get to and from Portland or Vancouver but not, not, not the basis for a workable high-speed frequent-service line, the building of which would solve ZERO PERCENT of our regional transit problems.

Pointing at French trains is just ignorant. When the density of population along the corridor increases tenfold or more, then maybe we can talk. As it stands, putting a train like this in would dramatically increase sprawl, not reduce it. Do you really want to increase the commuting radius of Seattle to 180 miles?

Fnarf, Fnarf, Fnarf.

Trains - even high-speed ones like that - use one-tenth the energy (or even less) to get you from point A to point B - and create one-tenth the global warming emissions.

So, if you don't have a 100 mpg plug-in hybrid that you're ridesharing with someone, building a high-speed passenger/freight rail line (which by definition has its own right of way, not shared track, as anyone with transportation experience knows) is way better for the environment.

Well?

Either go buy a $28,000 100mpg plug-in hybrid or back the train.

Down to Portland for breakfast? Up to Vancouver for dinner?

Or we can save a few billion bucks and just drive there.

erm... or howabout we value the environment and not go to portland just for breakfast and vancouver just for dinner.

i'd still love a rail line, and think it would be better than driving when you have already decided to travel.

@17

"When the density of population along the corridor increases tenfold or more, then maybe we can talk."

No -- condemning land now is always cheaper and waiting 35 years makes it too expensive.

It is even cheaper if done through condemning land but letting the current owner occupy it for 30 more years.

You don't need to rebuild the freeway.
You do need to have overpasses.

You agree it was wise for everyone to got track right of way to have done so -- in the past. Doesn't that show in general it's potentially a good investment any time, such as now?

The plan of doing nothing and waiting till it is too expensive sounds defeatist and Luddite.

You want a new rail right of way between Vancouver and Portland, Cleve? Care to pencil out what that would cost? Trillions, fool, trillions. Rebuilding a hundred-plus overpasses?

Your comments don't even merit a response, Willie boy, but I'll take a stab at it. I know that in your world transit money is unlimited, so building a high speed rail line from your house to the best head shop in San Francisco makes perfect sense, but in the real world, dollars have to be allocated where they make sense. If you build a new rail right of way here, it will cost more than all of the urban transit systems that have ever been built in this country put together. If you use the existing right of way, you're going to have to make room for hundreds of thousands more trucks carrying goods on the freeway, since they won't be able to use their rail line anymore.

And hardly anyone will ride it, because trips for breakfast and dinner aren't really what those trips are about. But you wouldn't know anything about the reasons people travel, would you, Will? Because your mind is completely blacked out. What is it with you, anyways? Powerful anti-depressants? Pot? Glue?

Cleve, you seem to assume that this tenfold increase in population, making the I-5 corridor as dense as Paris-Lyon. Is that, you know, sensible?

Or should we maybe spend our money on good urban transit, where it makes sense, instead?

Actually, the State of Washington is working on getting some form of higher speed rail between Vancouver BC and Portland, Oregon with a maximum speed of 110mph.

Seattle to Portland in between 2 hours and 15 minutes to 2 hours and 30 minutes from 3 hours and 30 minutes and Seattle to Vancouver BC in 2 hours 30 minutes to 2 hours and 40 minutes down from 3 hours and 50 minutes.

There is a group next year that might be on the November 2009 ballot for a small tax increase to fund the project and get it going faster than it's 2023 start up. They are pushing for 2012.

Also, the State is looking at adding 15

I'll bet they're not building a new right of way!

Look, I support track improvements and increasing Amtrak's allotment. I think the train is great. But people who point at "Europe" and say "we can has that?" drive me crazy. They're counterproductive. They get in the way of real action. One of the reason Seattle politics is so screwed up is because every subject that comes up, the crazies all have to have their say: "we can all travel on my particle-beam". The Wills in Seattle, if you will.

The thing is, we already have trains that can go pretty fast on that line; they just can't, because the tracks aren't up to snuff, and the freight owners won't let them.

In the meantime, small, isolated cities like Seattle are crying out for usable mass transit. But the lunatics, having "solved" that problem (in their minds) are all wandering off to look at some more glossy pictures of something else.

I doubt they say "we can has that?"

They probably say "can we have that?"

They're not rubes.

And are you calling everyone in Japan, France, China, Germany, Spain, and other countries lunatics?

Their economies are doing far better than ours, because they're not stuck in an oil-based death spiral like we are.

You're delusional, Will. There are so many things wrong with just that one post that I don't know where to begin.

Ask yourself this: what region of the world is experiencing unprecedented growth in short-hop air travel, due the prevalence of ultra-low fares (as little as 1 pound or euro) and a plethora of nearby destinations? Hint: it's not the US.

What region of the world is expected to double its car ownership in the next decade? Hint: it's not the US.

"Far better" -- that's just imbecilic.

I'm delusional about the oil-based death spiral? Seriously? Then why does the WTO and the WEF agree with me?

Hmmm. I think I'll trust my judgment on economics instead of yours, Fnarf.

And it's not just China, it's India. But they're trying to crank out 60-100 mpg vehicles (used by multiple people), while we're still pumping out 17-25 mpg vehicles (used by one). Talk about relative levels of insanity ...

How much do you think those roads COST to support those cars here in the West - a lot less than high-speed trains do.

Darlings, trains can only handle a slight grade increase - much slighter than what cars can. We live in an mountainous region, so high speed rail along interstate ROW is is problematic at best - at least with current US rail technology. (The Talgos operate on special waiver.)

And - once again - AMTRAK TRAINS ARE NOT INTENDED TO GO EXCLUSIVELY FROM MAJOR CITY TO MAJOR CITY WITHOUT STOPS IN SMALL TOWNS. Hence, the "30mph" myth. They actually go 79mph - top speed in the US outside of the NE corridor and a few other places - but have to slow down to stop at Centralia, Mt Vernon, Kelso, etc. Because trains have a lot more mas s than cars, they need to decelerate a few miles before each stop, and it takes a longer distance to get up to speed.

Now, with more trainsets (which are in the pipeline), you could see express services that would only stop in, say, Bellingham (on the way to Vancouver) and Tacoma (on the way to Portland) traveling 90 mph the rest of the time.

That, combined with track work that is already well underway, and will allow the passenger trains to move around the slower freights, could bring Vancouver and Portland travel times that are faster than driving.

But that requires some decisions to be made about equipment allocation, and will surely upset the smaller towns along the route.

Paul @ 6:

I can't believe it's quicker AND cheaper for me to drive to Portland or Vancouver than it is to take the train.

How do you figure that? A ticket to Portland is $28 one way. How can you drive cheaper than that, with all costs involved? Also, the train isn't that much longer, and definitely faster if traffic is crappy (which happens pretty much every day).

#28- Easy, add a second or a third person in the car.

i rode from paris to amsterdam on the high-speed TGV, and it was marginally cheaper than flying. marginally.

you won't be going to portland for breakfast at those prices.

amtrak is cheap because it fucking sucks.

Or, you could buy a SMART car in BC, like one of my high school classmates did and then fill it up with people - really really cheap.

Forget Amtrak - we need service like other nations get.

Amtrak fares are what they are because that's what the market will stand. The trains - even the long-distrance trains - are regularly sold out, so the fares must not be too high.

Up until the mid-90's tickets were much more inexpensive. But then congress decided Amtrak needed to be "self-sufficient" (which it isn't - no form of transportation is) so the prices went up.

Mind you, if it were up to me, they'd be much cheaper. But they'd also be faster, and there would be more of them.

And before anyone jumps on me, I don't think trains should take the place of either cars or planes. This country is big enough to support all modes. But I think there should be a public option for surface transportation, and rail - particularly with a bus feeder system, like have in California - is that option.

Actually, they'll be adding a 3rd main from Tukwila to Tacoma and long passing sidings in key locations between Nisqually and Vancouver BC. The third main between Seattle and Tukwila has been done for about a year and a half now along with upgraded rail, new leads so Amtrak and Sounder isn't delayed.

Double tracking between Everett and Chuckanut would be installed in sections.

The fastest train on the West Coast is the Pacific Surfliner which operates at 90mph from Santa Ana to San Diego.

The fastest train on the East Coast is the Northeast Corridor, specifically the Acela which operates at 135mph with some sections outside of Boston that goes to 150mph.

There are some Amtrak long distance trains that operate at 90mph (Southwest Chief, Lake Shore Limited)

I'm sorry but a SMART car isn't going to help. 8.9 gallon fuel tank, requires Premium Gasoline, still only 300 miles and 36mpg using the 2008 EPA figures.

So really, we can argue how Amtrak sucks.. It sucks because our government rather fund a war. The money that has been spent on the war could have built High Speed Corridor trains from San Diego to San Fran with Links to the airports, LA to Las Vegas Maglev, upgrading the ENTIRE Northeast Corridor for 220mph operations, upgrade the Chicago Corridor, Surfliner, Amtrak California for 110mph... just to name a few things.

The Smart's new EPA rating for highway is 41 MPG, not 36. But yeah, those new EPA ratings are a shocker. I think they may have gone too far in the other direction; our '04 Jetta diesel gets better than the rated 32 combined, 39 highway, as their own "drivers like you" estimate of 38.6 combined suggests.

Mrs. Fnarf is the luckiest woman alive.

That's not what she says.

41's still better than the average car mpg around here.

I'm still doing the 100 mpg plug-in hybrid route myself, electricity's really really cheap (one-tenth the cost of gas right now, and going to be even better since I pay for green power).

Cale @ 29: Granted, if they're paying and you have a group going, otherwise, no.

How do you figure that? A ticket to Portland is $28 one way. How can you drive cheaper than that, with all costs involved?

A tank of gas for my car ('05 Ford Escape) is about $45. Portland is about 160 road miles from downtown Seattle; I can get there and back on one tank. The trip takes 2.5 hours each way (and no, you don't have to drive triple-digit speeds to make it in that amount of time) vs. 4 hours on the train. Time the trip properly and traffic is not an issue (which you can't do by train because Amtrak offers only three trips each way). In any case, traffic moves 75-80 between Tumwater and the Clark County line. I've made this trip over 1,000 times in the last 20 years. Traffic on I-5 is always moving faster than the Amtrak Cascades, at least on the parts where the road runs next to the tracks.

Still, it's an incredibly boring trip and I would love to be able to take a train that runs much more frequently and goes 100+ mph. Not in my lifetime, unfortunately...

Orin dear, I'm glad you enjoy your car and that it works for you. Truly I am.

But I feel I should point out that there are five trains per day, not three - and the trip takes 3.5 hours.

Additional frequencies are supposed to be added next year. Eventually, there will be 12 trips per day, and they are anticipating a 3 hour trip, once they stop going around Point Defiance, and start taking the inland route from Tacoma to Oly (which will have no freight traffic on it).

I'd prefer to go to Spokane for lunch. I made it from Portland to Seattle in 2 hrs 25 mins. My friend drove much slower from Eugene to Portland before I took over for the last leg. BTW, Oregon drivers are worse than Washington State drivers.