Besides the multi-modal non-freeway bridge, this is probably the most disappointing assessment (pages 4-6 and 4-7, PDF 93K) in the screening report (PDF 3.3M).
The conclusion is not to include high speed rail because it doesn’t serve regional needs. That’s sort of like saying we should never have built PDX because it doesn’t do much for travel to Salem.
Building a new crossing without including right-of-way for high speed rail would be criminal, and a clear statement that we plan to have inter-city travel remain auto-dependent.
Read the Ground Rules for CRC Week.
| ID | NAME | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TR-7 | High Speed Rail | F | F | P | P | P | P | F |
Besides the multi-modal non-freeway bridge, this is probably the most disappointing assessment (pages 4-6 and 4-7, PDF 93K) in the screening report (PDF 3.3M).
The conclusion is not to include high speed rail because it doesn’t serve regional needs. That’s sort of like saying we should never have built PDX because it doesn’t do much for travel to Salem.
Building a new crossing without including right-of-way for high speed rail would be criminal, and a clear statement that we plan to have inter-city travel remain auto-dependent.
Comments have been closed and will be submitted to the project public record. If you have additional thoughts, please comment on the open thread for this purpose.
5 responses to “CRC Week: TR-7 High Speed Rail”
Just on the positive side… we still at least have the current rail right of way, it could almost be high speed. (If the track would be upgraded between Vancouver and PDX we already have Talgo Equipment in the area, which could at least hit 100mph)
Agreed Chris, the CRC will go down as the time that we lost the opportunity to create a right of way for true “high speed rail” in Oregon. It will cost us over 1 Billion dollars 20 years from now when we realize that we need a separate bridge or tunnel just for this needed corridor. 20 years from now the US will not be able to support us, like now (if they can). But I have even less faith in the US Treasury in 20 years.
I have asked the CRC over and over again to understand that HSR needs to be a capacity that is built into the design.
DON’T BUILD THE CORRIDOR! PLAN FOR IT!!!
How hard is this to understand? Where is Earl B. and Brian B. on this critical issue!
Ray Whitford
The State of Washington is spending serious dollars to get the travel time to Seattle from Portland to 3 hours. Oregon is spending hardly anything. Just to get the Talgo to do all it is designed to do would be a great improvement. We should push for the modest freight rail improvements in the Portland/Vancouver area that the Governors’ TF recommended; public $ should be used on the assumption that these improvements will allow for more and faster passenger rail trips from Union Station across the river and beyond.
I completely agree with Ray. You don’t need to build HSR now, but dedicated space must be included in any new crossing. Just like I-205 was built with space for a future transitway, so should the crossing be built with this in mind. We WILL need HSR in the future, whether it’s 20 years or 50 years from now. To provide the ROW for it now and to plan for it will save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.
“A local high speed rail service would likely have very few stops or stations, and perhaps no stops within the Bridge Influence Area, and thus would not actually carry many passengers for local trips…”
This report and committee are too narrowly focused. They seem to think that only the immediate “bridge influence area” should be considered for this crossing. Should people in the influence area be the only ones served by this interstate crossing? This is a multi-REGIONAL corridor. It is the axis for ALL land travel between California and Vancouver, BC. We MUST acknowledge that this crossing is part of a much greater whole and provide for future needs, i.e. HSR. It won’t cost too much to build the ROW into the crossing, especially compared with the cost of a future crossing dedicated to HSR.
“Finally, in order to improve existing transit service in the Bridge Influence Area, it would have to be integrated with the existing bus and rail network, which is infeasible…”
They said this sort of thing before in regards to commuter rail. This is simply not true! Throughout the world and even the US HSR stations are fully integrated into local transit systems and are usually the major hub in the transportation system. It’s not difficult. I don’t know why the keep saying this. They’re lying. There are too many major assumptions based on speculation or less that are dictating major decisions in this study.
I really don’t understand the rational for saying on one hand that the I5 Corridor is critical for the West Coast of the US and then on the other hand say that HSR isn’t needed at CRC because it most likely wouldn’t make a impact in the BIA.
Their wishes to convey the importance of the corridor is not a hard sell on citizens of PDX/VAN. But this logic seems to suggest that the corridor isn’t the reason for the CRC, its only the BIA that matters. Its like nothing else matters.
Why have the statements in the roll out of the issue and then do nothing to support the corridor and the region?
Ray