http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/20/project_runway Comments On: Project Runway by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Eugene to Vancouver, BC is one of the designated HSR corridors. The section between Eugene and Sacramento is not.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has published rules regarding level crossings and associated quiet zones that you should consider before arguing that only true bullet trains will do. What makes sense in Japan, France, Spain, the Northeast and California may not in the less densely populated Northwest or Midwest.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/217
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318

If tracks are shared with freight or commuter trains using FRA-compliant equipment, then in principle the high-speed trainsets must also be FRA-compliant. The rules relate primarily to passive crash safety and mean that US passenger trains must be much heavier than those elsewhere in the world. The Talgo trains plying the Pacific Northwest corridor today are an exception that was grandfathered in before the rules were tightened. Even so, the first and last car of these trains must remain empty.

Adding weight is particularly problematic in the context of active tilt trains, which are employed on fairly winding legacy tracks to ensure passenger comfort, cp the cautionary tale of the Amtrak Acela Express in the NEC.

http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html

FRA restrictions on using off-the-shelf HSR train technology that complies with international standards are a major reason for the decision to rely on all-new track in California. Note that Caltrain, a commuter rail operator in the SF peninsula, has done crash simulations of the crash behavior of compliant and non-compliant equipment in grade crossing accidents in an effort to obtain a waiver for migrating its fleet to European EMU equipment after electrification. Crashes between trains at even moderate relative speeds are extremely dangerous to any people on board, so they must be avoided with appropriate signaling and train control technology.

http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/project2025/…

(see appendix C)

-----

The Pacific Northwest corridor is eligible in principle for a slice of the $1.5 billion in HSR funds allocated in HR 2095, which Pres. Bush recently signed into law. Obviously, any tracks north of the border would have to be funded by the Canadians and, there would have to be immigration posts at the stations, unless a way can be found to deal with that while the trains are moving.

This bill also allocates some funds for improving the safety of rail operations, e.g. positive train control upgrades. This technology will now be mandatory on selected portions of the US rail network by 2015.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd…

The Pacific Northwest corridor might also be eligible for additional HSR funding if a bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Specter (R-PA) ends up becoming law.

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?i…
Posted by rafael]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:53:07 -0800 The Stranger
I'm all for rail, but if there is a big argument concerning airport capacity, and people are so heavily invested in the concept, why does SeaTac's monopoly continue unchecked, especially when this area has no shortage of suitable fields?
Posted by Derek]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:40:53 -0800 The Stranger
Right now, because of the lines for security, it is actually faster and cheaper to drive from Seattle to Portland than to fly. Same for Seattle to Vancouver BC. That is the primary reason you don't see very many flights between these 3 cities.

If you did a high speed train from Vancouver BC to Seattle to Portland, you'd take a huge load off of I-5, as well as the airports.
Posted by Reverse Polarity]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:29:38 -0800 The Stranger
Even moderately-fast trains would be a *huge* advantage over current Amtrak, which just borrows the rail lines from the coal companies.
Posted by Ian]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:08:46 -0800 The Stranger
The only advantage to a train is the bar.
Posted by gillsans]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:50:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Greg]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:47:39 -0800 The Stranger
If we spend the right way now, we can engage in a modernization program that would improve our transportation infrastructure, education facilities, and promote renewable energy sources; we dig ourselves out of the financial crisis; and some projects could be self-financing.

Posted by Ivan]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:40:19 -0800 The Stranger
Notice that one of the common characteristics of countries where high-speed rail is a significant part of the national transportation mix is that almost all trips are less than 500 miles.
Posted by David Wright]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:53:36 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Toe Tag]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:42:57 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by Just Me]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:36:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:34:41 -0800 The Stranger
Which would you choose: a 6 hour train ride from Portland to San Francisco or a 1 hour flight when they're roughly the same price?
Posted by gillsans]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:29:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Bellevue Ave]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:06:22 -0800 The Stranger Posted by David Wright]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:45:40 -0800 The Stranger California High Speed Rail Blog. The sidebar has handy subject guides to posts, like Energy/Peak Oil, Jobs/Stimulus, and (my favorite) Debunking the Deniers. With some adaptation, you can crib most of your arguments from here.
Posted by Rose]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:29:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mike in Renton]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:20:26 -0800 The Stranger
Nothing like a game day train to a soccer match or the rave a state over!
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:16:52 -0800 The Stranger
Thanks for killing my dreams, Fnarf.
Posted by Julie in Chicago]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:16:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tomasyalba]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:10:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Bellevue Ave]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:06:07 -0800 The Stranger
The problem with a West Coast line is rail right-of-way. There's only one, and it's owned by freight. That's why Amtrak is so slow; we already have some fairly fast trains, but they mostly run at 30 MPH just like the slow ones do. To have high speed rail, you'd have to have a dedicated line, and the ROW is much too narrow for two. New rail ROW is not practical; it would cost TRILLIONS to buy the land and cross the obstacles.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:59:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by joykiller]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:57:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Your Name Here]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:49:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Julie in Chicago]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:48:46 -0800 The Stranger is demand between Seattle and Portland and between Seattle and Eugene, and Portland and Eugene...

Any one of those legs might not have the demand on its own, but together the total demand for the entire rail line could make it viable. As opposed to here, where there will never be enough demand between St. Louis and Indy, say, and there are no natural geographic connections to be able to build upon whatever demand there might be.
Posted by Julie in Chicago]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:47:19 -0800 The Stranger