Hat tip to the reader who forwarded a link to the “I-5 Slog” web site set up by Horizon Air.
The site describes the trip from Portland to Seattle on I-5 as the “the longest 3-hour drive in American History”.
What a great ad for high-speed rail :-)
Hat tip to the reader who forwarded a link to the “I-5 Slog” web site set up by Horizon Air.
The site describes the trip from Portland to Seattle on I-5 as the “the longest 3-hour drive in American History”.
What a great ad for high-speed rail :-)
50 responses to “The I-5 Slog”
Or even just reliable Amtrak service …
Actually, it’s a really dumb campaign. As drives between major cities go, this is one of the easiest, especially when you car pool.
The problem with Horizon’s ad is that you arrive in SeaTac and have no easy way (read fast mass transit) into the city.
Let’s see, you can either do the 3 hour drive from Portland to Seattle or … drive to PDX an hour early to wait for your flight … on a propeller plane … to SeaTac … then 1/2 hour drive to downtown Seattle …
let’s see. Which option will any but the busiest business person choose?
I actually work at Alaska Airlines and found this amusing to say the least. Here is a quick and dirty comparison I made.
A fun comparsion…
Downtown Seattle – Downtown Portland via Amtrak 3:30hrs – 4:00hrs ($28 – 50 Coach, Add $12 for Business Class)
Downtown Seattle – Downtown Portland via Auto 3 hours (according to Mapquest) And assuming car gets 30mpg with a 10.9 gal fuel tank, $50-60 est.
Downtown Seattle to Seattle Tacoma via Bus 194, $1.50 or $2.00, 30 minutes
Drive from Downtown Seattle to Seattle Tacoma International – 15-25 minutes (Pending Traffic) ($5-10 in Gas + $20-80 for parking at/near Airport)
Seattle – Tacoma International to Portland International, 45-55minutes…plus 1-2 hours check-in/security. ($99 One Way on Horizon)
MAX Light-Rail to Downtown Portland ($1.50 – 20 minutes)
Taxi to Downtown Portland ($20-40 – 20-40 minutes, Pending Traffic)
Things to make you go hmmm….
Brian
A big part of the equation is whether a rental car is required at either end of the journey. If you’re going to waste an hour at either airport picking up baggage, completing a rental car contract, familiarizing yourself with the car, etc., flying becomes more of a pain than driving, even for people who don’t really like to make long drives.
For downtown-to-downtown trips, things will improve when Seattle’s light rail system opens with a connection to SeaTac. Portland’s Red Line airport connection is very convenient to the Horizon terminal, but from what I understand Seattle’s airport connection won’t be directly connected to a terminal and will require a bit of a walk.
When my partner and I were involved in a long distance relationship between Seattle and Corvallis, we would often take the Cascades train between Albany and Seattle. This worked well because there was always someone at the destination side of the journey who could provide a ride, and the Albany train station had free parking.
Because of the hassle of airport security, frequent rail service has an opportunity to really provide a useful and popular means of getting between Portland and Seattle — city center to near-city-center.
Despite its often-ignored environmental and cost factors, the private automobile is popular because of its many advantages to the user in the form of flexibility — I don’t foresee a time when the private auto becomes a minority mode for the PDX-Seattle I-5 corridor, especially due to only limited time savings, but I think we can do a lot more to provide alternatives which will serve a certain subset of trips and passengers well.
PS… The clip featuring the roadkill on the Horizon web site was tasteless, offensive, and quite satisfyingly funny.
– Bob R.
My first and last train from PDX -> Seattle took 11 hours. $TIME > $MONEY
Personally I have driven the link at least 2000 times in recent memory, delivering cars to the Seattle Auto Auction, *I love the drive and still do it frequently to get meds at Madigan and shop the commissaries… never get tired of the drive…
Portland-Seattle is a great ride by train, and by 2009, light rail will serve the stations at both ends.
If Amtrak were able to increase speed, frequency and reliability it would become highly competitive with the private car, particularly for downtown-to-downtown business trips.
Greater frequency is easy. Buy more Talgo trainsets. That’s a one-time investment. Of course, they also need to work out travel times with freight companies.
Speed requires track upgrades and continued maintenance to let the 125 mph Talgo trains do their stuff. But they don’t even need maximum speed along the whole route. It’s roughly 175 miles from Portland to Seattle. If the trains get up to an average speed of 90 mph (including stops), they could finish the trip in under two hours.
The rest is a question of proper scheduling and working around freight traffic. Since Amtrak has to lease freight lines, this may be the biggest obstacle. Maybe Congress could impose some kind of financial incentives (rewards and penalties) for freight companies to keep the tracks clear for Amtrak at certain pre-agreed times.
The Columbia Third Bridge option (as opposed to the CRC proposal) could also improve both freight and passenger rail at the same time. It would roll all needs into one project—instead of the CRC idea of tearing down perfectly good structures and replacing them with something that doesn’t solve anything and will make our existing congestion worse.
If we are going to spend billions of dollars lets use it on something that fills a niche not already filled. As far as the CRC project—if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I’ve been on the AMTRAK to Seattle a number of times. Four hours is too much. Two would be fine.
The Columbia Third Bridge option (as opposed to the CRC proposal) could also improve both freight and passenger rail at the same time.
My understanding was that the river rail crossing was not a cause for delay. That the choke points were elsewhere. Has that conclusion changed?
What is particularly ironic is that of the debate that we have here (support for high density, living close to life/work resources, minimal use of oil, high use of high-density transit or walking/biking) that it’s clear that many people work in Seattle but rely on residences in Portland – because housing is cheap and lot sizes are larger, compared to up north.
And it’s not just Clark County, but also Washington and Clackamas Counties, too.
This shouldn’t be a debate for more HSR between the two cities (because a HSR line would eat up thousands of acres of prime farmland and possibly disturb ecologically sensitive areas, especially west or south of Tacoma), but rather to continue what we preach here in Portland.
At least that Horizon Air is a private, non-subsidized company and provides this “essential” transportation mode is a testament to the private sector filling in a need. Really, the focus should be on bringing more jobs here to Portland, so that there will be little or no need for anyone to have to commute 175 miles to work.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has virtually zero Oregon employees, Boeing has just a tiny share of its employees in Portland (I guess it’s better than nothing), and numerous other companies that have thrived in Seattle due to a more attractive business climate, three major airports (Paine Field, King County Airport and Sea-Tac), and the same rail infrastructure as Portland; the same if not better environment and recreational activities (not to mention easy access to three National Parks).
I should add that I have done the “slog” four times – in the last four years. I’ve also ridden Amtrak to Seattle twice in the last four years (although once was just to use up a free ticket). And the last (and only) time I flew the Shuttle was in 2001 – and that was because Horizon Air doesn’t serve Kalispell, MT from Portland – I was required to jump a shuttle to PDX.) To paraphrase some contributors on this forum, “you choose to participate in the congestion”. To use a line from Amtrak, “Travel as you wish.”
I am begining to think that maybe there should be a Plan B with the TALGOs, as in prepare to replace them with conventional equipment and make the track capable of 90MPH(Cab Signals, upgraded crossings), and maybe super-elevate the curbs if it comes to that. Rather than face the TALGOs being sidelined again. They are not doing much sitting in the yards right now, although lately on my way home from various temp jobs the past couple weeks, I have passed by King Street Station, and saw a TALGO or two sitting on the very track that they would be leaving from if they were operating again.
Also, SOUNDER is about to have a service revision. 1500 is the first morning trip from Tacoma, it will leave Freighthouse Square at around 5:10AM, and pull into King Street Station at 6:00AM, and then 1501 will be leaving King Street Station at 6:10AM as the first ever Reverse run on SOUNDER. Could have even better equipment utilization if they had a 2nd Reverse commuter train.
To a previous commenter – I’d question how unsubsidized Horizon and Alaska are. It only takes the recent downturn in aviation and the federal bail out to quash that argument, not to mention the airports that are built to serve peak hours with meager airport fees (head overseas to see private airway connections really “work”… Heathrow.)
High speed rail should be here in time the for 2010 Olympics, its a shame it won’t be.
Also, it seems there is very little news in the mainstream about the Talgos being pulled from service – anyone know the prognosis on our Spanish trains?
I’d question how unsubsidized Horizon and Alaska are. It only takes the recent downturn in aviation and the federal bail out to quash that argument, not to mention the airports that are built to serve peak hours with meager airport fees
1. What “federal bailout”?
There was a one-time federal “bailout” that occurred in 2001. It was actually a LOAN program, that was almost paid in full (two airlines defaulted, but those two airlines had relatively small loans issued) and that the program was repaid in full (with the interest payments, the federal government took in more than was spent – EVEN AFTER THE TWO DEFAULTS.)
2. How is Alaska/Horizon subsidized?
Alaska and Horizon receive little governmental subsidy; what they do receive is Essential Air Service payments to service underserved rural airports. Currently, Horizon serves only one such airport (Pendleton); and does not receive a federal subsidy between PDX-SEA. Alaska does receive several EAS subsidies, all within the state of Alaska.
According to the 2007 EAS report, Horizon received a total of $649,974.00 in EAS subsidies (to serve Pendleton). Alaska received just over $7.1M for its service on six routes within Alaska – on total revenues of well over $3.1B.
Given that both airlines are doing rather well, my guess is that elimination of those subsidies won’t hurt the company – they can simply shift the aircraft onto more lucrative routes, or find a new airport to fly into.
3. “Airports…meager airport fees”
Why, I believe I just commented on another thread how TriMet refuses to publish their financial data. So I’m going to go to the Port of Portland’s website, at http://www.flypdx.com .
Then I click on “inside the port” in the upper right hand corner.
Then I click on “Audit Reports”, and then “Audit Report 2006”.
And on this wonder report, as audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, I can tell you that the Port of Portland – including four airports, four marine terminals, and associated land holdings, EARNED A PROFIT of $36.7M in FY2006. The airport system EARNED A PROFIT of $42.2M, but losses at the marine side reduced the total profit.
How about those “meager” airport fees:
The airports earned $162.6M in “charges for services”.
$6.4M in “interest revenue”.
$28.3M in Passenger Facility Charges (essentially the tax on your plane ticket to use the airport).
How much TAX revenue did the airports get? ZERO.
How much TAX revenue did the Port as a whole get? $7.5M. That’s right, seven-and-a-half million dollars, to support the marine terminals.
It’s amazing that a little searching on the Internet can turn up…
Great, now we’ve gone from heated bus vs. rail arguments to heated transit vs. air travel arguments, rather than discussing how the I-5 corridor trip could be improved.
– Bob R.
Erik,
Were you on vacation for awhile? If so, I guess that all I can say is welcome back. The tone of this blog changed while you were gone and has changed again since you returned.
now we’ve gone from heated bus vs. rail arguments to heated transit vs. air travel arguments
Nobody’s arguing; it’s just Erik back on his anti-rail thing again, And he’s outdone himself this time. Check this out:
it’s clear that many people work in Seattle but rely on residences in Portland – because housing is cheap and lot sizes are larger, compared to up north.
Got that? We’ve got “many” people living in Portland and commuting to their jobs in Seattle. I’ve never heard of anyone doing this, let alone “many” people. But apparently, it’s common enough to be “clear.”
a HSR line would eat up thousands of acres of prime farmland and possibly disturb ecologically sensitive areas, especially west or south of Tacoma
Can’t come up with a good argument against high speed rail, make one up. Ignore the fact that HSR would use existing tracks under some kind of time-share arrangement with freight trains; pretend instead it will involve carving out a whole new right-of-way.
Really, the focus should be on bringing more jobs here to Portland, so that there will be little or no need for anyone to have to commute 175 miles to work.
Yep, that’s why we need to improve the local economy. Help find local employment opportunities for all those Portanders who have to commute to their jobs at Microsoft or Boeing.
As to the actual topic at hand:
High speed rail should be here in time the for 2010 Olympics, its a shame it won’t be.
Not in Oregon, at any rate. Is Washington doing anything to improve track conditions between the Vancouvers? That’s most of the important HSR line anyway, and track improvement is the only physical obstacle to high speed service.
Amtrak has the Talgos already. It would take relatively little time to work out improved operating agreements with the railroad companies to allow better passenger service. Improve the tracks, and there you are: high speed rail from just south of Vancouver BC to just north of the Oregon border.
Erik-
I will need to look at those numbers, I believe they would not include capital expeditures.
Looking at the tax bill for my home in Portland I see I am within a levy code for the Port – so there is tax revenue going to the Port. It may be the marine vs. air you propose, but it is not clear.
Then there are the externalities of air travel – i.e. the largest single source of carbon consumption in my household even with a 12K a year car habit and natural gas.
But back to the topic….
Just imagine, instead of pissing away billions of dollars on trolleys of various sizes for which Portland has no need, we could have constructed a high speed rail line to Seattle (with the federal funds) on the order of the ‘AVE’ which I rode from Madrid, Spain to Cordoba–a line on its own complete ROW–in essence a separate RR. Top speed on this thing is 150 MPH, with no interference for freight trains.
NOW, this would be a REAL 1-5 congestion buster for evermore, and premium fares could be collected, too boot.
Just imagine, a discussion on a topic on PortlandTransport which isn’t drug down into yet another round of light rail and streetcar bashing.
Nick – What is your evidence (please cite federal laws and regulations) that money used in the past 20 years on light rail and streetcar transit projects could have instead been allocated to a Portland-to-Seattle high speed rail line, and that this amount of money would have been sufficient to construct said line.
Thanks,
Bob R.
The site describes the trip from Portland to Seattle on I-5 as the “the longest 3-hour drive in American History”.
Bob T: I’ve driven that route many, many
times and do it in 3 hours or less most times. Depends on when you start. Anyone who goes up
there starting at 3 pm is asking for it.
Bob T
I especially liked the idea that the “US out of UN” billboard was a result of over-exposure to radiation from Trojan.
To Brian MacSter,
Quick and dirty is about right. Let’s just make sure we’re comparing oranges to oranges.
Portland to Seattle = 174 miles. A 30 mpg car will make that in just over 6 gallons. Even a more typical 20 mpg car requires just 8.5 gallons to go the distance. Total = 20-25 bucks.
Where you buy your gas so that 6 gallons costs $50 bucks, I don’t know!
I apologize in advance for this long note.
I hate to say it but Erik is right. If you read the State of Washington Amtrak Long Range Plans/Goals, there are several line relocations that would allow almost near consistent operation of 90 to 125mph running, the heaviest of that is indeed in farmland and rural areas but the reduction would be a mere 1:45? from Seattle to Portland.
The only possible locations to really take advantage of 90-110mph running with the current Right of Way
King Street Station to Argo is undergoing improvements. Will increase speed from 15-20mph to 30-40mph
Argo and South Seattle (3 miles, 79mph)
Tukwila Station to Sumner (21 miles, this curve could not be relocated due to heavy industrial, 110mph)
Sumner to Stewart (5 miles, 90mph)
Freighthouse Square to Nisqually is only supposed to be rated for 70mph to my knowledge though that could change to 79mph.. I really don’t see it any higher than that…
Nisqually to North Centralia (40miles, 90-110mph with 75mph coming into Centralia)
Centralia Station to Napavine (90-110mph, 13 miles, would require a relocation at curve into Napavine. It’s only rated for 65mph for the Talgos)
Napavine to Vader (23 miles, 70-90mph, twisty curvy grade, relocations required for higher speed, ie: 90mph)
Vader – Vancouver (50 miles, 90-125mph)
Vancouver to Portland Union Station wouldn’t be able to be upgraded because of the extensive bridges and yards that the trains are required to go through to access Vancouver or Portland.
Of course though because Amtrak operates on BNSF, they would have the final say as to what happens, final speeds and what would be required not to mention the time needed for EIS’. I can tell you from Sounder’s experience that BNSF will make Amtrak/WSDOT/ODOT fork the money over for 3MT and possibly 4MT from Tacoma, WA to Vancouver, WA. Union Pacific also shares this piece of railroad so it is really hard to say what the final end result of high speed rail… Freight Trains can only do 70mph and that also varies on tonnage and a slew of other items.
So much goes into High Speed Rail and the thought of high speed rail and where it is safe to do it and how to intergrate passenger trains with freight trains PLUS commuter rail.. I can see why things are so difficult to jump on the HSR bandwagon.
To Brian MacSter,
Quick and dirty is about right. Let’s just make sure we’re comparing oranges to oranges.
Portland to Seattle = 174 miles. A 30 mpg car will make that in just over 6 gallons. Even a more typical 20 mpg car requires just 8.5 gallons to go the distance. Total = 20-25 bucks.
Where you buy your gas so that 6 gallons costs $50 bucks, I don’t know!
It was a really rough ballpark. I keep forgetting that at 2.74 (lowest I have found) that it is only 25 or so bucks to fill it up and most can easily do the round trip on a single tank.
=D
Thanks Paul,
Brian
174 miles in a car is $90 according to the AAA, $84 according to the IRS, or $43 according to Jim K. The gasoline isn’t that big of a deal compared to the rest of the costs…
HSR is actually defined as service exceeding 150mph, so what we’re talking about here is only upgraded, fast & frequent normal passenger service.
And the website was awesome… the videos were great! I used to do that drive 1-2 times a month for the several years I lived up near Seattle, and god it is such a bitch. I always take the train now when I can. It’s so much more relaxing and scenic. Not to mention they have movies!
I know this is outrageous, but I wonder whether nationalizing the railroads wouldn’t improve the level and quality of all service. Perhaps a model where the public owns the rails and private companies operate over them would work.
I would love to have HSR from Portland to Seattle. I’ve ridden the TGV in France, Eurostar to London and AVE in Spain and frankly, it’s almost a shame that it takes more than an hour to get from Portland to Seattle.
However, there have been a few misconceptions on this board.
djk wrote: “Can’t come up with a good argument against high speed rail, make one up. Ignore the fact that HSR would use existing tracks under some kind of time-share arrangement with freight trains; pretend instead it will involve carving out a whole new right-of-way.”
This is impossible. Under HSR, the rails are fused into one continuous track, which is a different setup than the current rail system. I’m not familiar with the gradient of the current line to Seattle, but it probably wasn’t designed for trains moving 150+ mph. Plus, having trains traveling 150+ mph on a rail rail system that is carrying freight at 70 mph would cause major signaling problems and the potential for major accidents.
I will agree that I’ve never heard of anyone that lives in Portland and commutes to Seattle on a daily basis. Sure, I have to go up there for work once in a blue moon, but who would go up there daily?
Frankly, I don’t take Amtrak when I go to Seattle. By the time I include having to drive to the train station, having to wait for the train, having to ride on the train and the system’s unpredictable ontime performance, I end up driving or flying to get to Seattle. A lot of the people that I work with don’t take Amtrak when they travel to Seattle because of infrequent schedules as well. If a meeting wraps up early, one can immediately hop in their car to drive back, while one might have to wait hours for the next train to leave.
Perhaps a model where the public owns the rails and private companies operate over them would work.
I’ve believed for some time that this is the best way to go. The rails are providing a public service upon which, to a certain degree, the health of our economy is dependent. It makes no sense that one company owns the infrastructure and dictates how and when other companies may use it, at times forcing these other companies to wait for hours upon hours before they can move into or out of the region. As a region, that is directly preventing us from being as competitive in the freight-movement market as we could be. Additionally, issues such as the location of some train yards (Brooklyn, for example) combined with the lack of grade-separated crossings (SE Milwaukie Ave) as well as inadequate bridge maintenance policies make this an even better idea in my mind, because directly-elected leaders would have more accountability to address these problems than private companies.
Freight mobility is a HUGE problem here, and we owe it to ourselves to look at this in the 30-50+ years range to determine what is best for the region. Private companies are too concerned about the immediate bottom-line to bother with that degree of foresight.
One thing that should be pointed out. Portland and Seattle are small cities compared to say, San Fransisco and Los Angeles. If those two cities can’t make high speed rail work, (they can’t even make more than 1 train a day got all the way through,) then I’m not seeing this as something that is going to happen without a significant [political|economic] investment on our part… Not to say that we shouldn’t do it, we should, but it is going to be a lot of work.
I’m not sure we need “high speed” rail (which I gather is 150 mph+) given the distances involved. As I noted in a previous post, Portland to Seattle is about 175 miles. At an average speed of 90 mph, the trip could be made in two hours. Which means upgrading segments of track to support (maybe) 110 to 120 mph, and other segments to support 80 to 90.
Two hours to Seattle is competitive with both air travel and the private car, and the train is far more comfortable than either of the competing options. At that point, the biggest problem is frequency and reliability.
A minimum speed of 79 mph along the entire corridor is a good starting point, but I’m pretty sure we can do better than that.
At an average speed of 90 mph, the trip could be made in two hours.
At 150 mph it becomes closer to an hour. That would really change the relationship between the two cities. High speed rail would be revolutionary, 90 mph is merely faster.
Granted, shaving the trip to 70 or 80 minutes could be revolutionary, but we’d need really fast trains to average 150 mph along the whole route, given that there are areas where they need to move more slowly, plus all the stops along the way. Unless they skip Tacoma, Olympia, Centralia, Kelso/Longview, and Vancouver, which seems a waste. (Well, maybe not Centralia…)
I don’t know that the costs involved to cut the time by not quite half would be worth the benefits. I see the great advantage to a two hour trip is the train becomes truly competitive with other modes for core-to-core passenger service.
But once a train is signficantly faster than a car and (once loading/unloading is taken into account) faster than an airplane, how much benefit will additional speed really deliver?
Havng just looked as WSDOT’s website and the Draft Long Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades, WSDOT plans to cut Portland-Seattle travel time to 2 hours 30 minutes by 2023, and continue to add trains to reach 13 roundtrips daily by that time.
That sounds pretty good to me. Not as fast as it could be, but still faster than driving.
How about high speed autos instead of trains.
Having driven the SLOG many times and been frustrated by the lack of lane discipline of the average NW driver, I can’t help but wonder what European type highway laws might do. Are the signs that say “keep right execept to pass” invisable? How about keeping the left turn signal on in the left lane to signal to all that you are there only temporarily (until you complete your pass) like they do in Italy?
Consider modern cars well driven on modern roads are pretty safe at 80-100mph. That 175 miles could be shaved to under 2 hours pretty easily making the trip pretty quick and easily compared to any train/plane/bus trip.
Portland-Seattle is a great ride by train, and by 2009, light rail will serve the stations at both ends.
If you’re interested in this, you might want to join the yahoo group ‘pnwpassrail’. Here’s their “mission statement”:
Discussion and development of faster and more frequent Passenger Rail Service in the Pacific Northwest (ie. Amtrak Cascades).
If Amtrak were able to increase speed, frequency and reliability it would become highly competitive with the private car, particularly for downtown-to-downtown business trips.
My wife and I have ridden between Portland and Seattle a number of times over the last 3-4 years, and every time was a great trip. Most times the train was on time; I recall one lateness (maybe 30 minutes) because BNSF was working on the tracks.
Greater frequency is easy. Buy more Talgo trainsets. That’s a one-time investment. Of course, they also need to work out travel times with freight companies.
Right. Buying the trains is the easier part. Amtrak doesn’t own its own tracks, except in the Northeast Corridor. Between Seattle and Portland, Amtrak depends on BNSF, which has been investing in its railroad. Amtrak’s legislation gives it the right to operate the passenger service, but does not specify how many “slots” Amtrak ought to get, in between the freight trains. Amtrak must negotiate this, and pay some of the railroad’s costs (sort of a toll, if you will).
We have a classic tradeoff here. Keep in mind that this is the main north-south rail line, and freight railroading is booming in this country.
(That’s how we should want it to be — the alternative is more big trucks on the Interstates. Consider a 100-car double-stack, each with 2 containers. That would take 200 trucks. Hang out at Union Station — you’ll see these trains go by with some frequency. Count the containers, and the loads of plywood and other stuff, and imagine it all on I-5 instead.)
Speed requires track upgrades and continued maintenance to let the 125 mph Talgo trains do their stuff. But they don’t even need maximum speed along the whole route. It’s roughly 175 miles from Portland to Seattle. If the trains get up to an average speed of 90 mph (including stops), they could finish the trip in under two hours.
That’s if the Amtrak trains had the line all to themselves. Scheduling them around 60 mph freight trains is tricky stuff.
The rest is a question of proper scheduling and working around freight traffic. Since Amtrak has to lease freight lines, this may be the biggest obstacle.
Maybe Congress could impose some kind of financial incentives (rewards and penalties) for freight companies to keep the tracks clear for Amtrak at certain pre-agreed times.
Read the recent (paper) issues of “Trains” and “Passenger Train Journal” (the latter has just started publishing again after a 10-year hiatus). They’ve both been giving a lot of coverage to just this issue.
BNSF is actually among the best at getting the trains through on time. UP and CSX are the worst. The “Coast Starlight” (Seattle-LA via PDX) is a great example of a good train that is repeatedly sidetracked for UP freights.
The freight RR’s are legally required to give Amtrak trains priority over freights. But Amtrak hasn’t always been willing (or able) to enforce this — often the political muscle just isn’t there, held back by Congressional or administration malice toward passenger trains. Recently Amtrak’s new CEO, Alex Kummant (an ex-UP guy, by the way) has been flexing his muscle a bit about the repeated delays on UP and CSX, and making some progress. I read somewhere (“Trains”?) that timekeeping has improved on UP, at the cost of some schedule-padding.
We’ll see how long Kummant can get away with this — the board has the power to fire him, and the board is politically appointed. (And you think TriMet has political issues?:-))
I agree with yours ideas wholeheartedly. But they are a lot easier said than done, for technical but mostly for political reasons. As I said above — there’s some reading you can catch up on if you’re interested in this. Also join NARP, the National Association of Railroad Passengers. They are our voice in DC.
Mike
I just couldn’t resist….
As much as I despise transit, I do think we need better regional train systems. We need a Eugene to Vancouver company providing HSR and I would support getting us out of Amtrak to do it. Amtrak is absolutely lousy! They should be relegated to servicing the Northeast Corridor and then let someone else take over all their other corridors. They can’t even get reliable service to and from Salem, why would anyone think they could do any better for Portland to Seattle? If a private company took over the route, improved the rails and cut time down to 2 hours I could envision people living in Portland and commuting to Seattle, thus further relegating Portland to its future status as a bedroom community to other cities that actually don’t chase away businesses.
P.S. Salem’s really nice! The commute from Mac takes me less time than Beaverton Portland did! :) I’m surprised more people don’t move down this way and commute to Portland. You can get a brand new 2 bedroom apartment with everything for about $500 a month! Compare that to my Lloyd Center one-bedroom 600sq feet one was costing closer to $900.
As much as I despise transit, I do think we need better regional train systems.
If the system were “better,” would you use it? So many people (myself included) like to say “we should have this and this and this and this…,” but don’t say if they would use it versus what we already have.
And what is your definition of “better?” More reliable? More frequent? More security? Something else?
P.S. Salem’s really nice! I’m surprised more people don’t move down this way and commute to Portland.
My guess is most people that would read this website wouldn’t like driving to Market St. P&R by 5 AM, just to pick up 1X and transfer to 96 in Wilsonville – and you’ll get back to the P&R at 7:16 PM. Where’s the rest of people’s lives outside of their job? Miss the transfer because of an accident? Wow, I’d hate to have to pay for that cab ride… Not to mention that if you only work 7-4 or 8-5 M-F it would work for you. (It doesn’t for quite a few people, especially the service industry workers.)
I’m surprised more people don’t move down this way and commute to Portland.
I think the net migration for work is in the other direction. A lot of state employees live in the Portland region and commute to Salem.
I’m surprised more people don’t move down this way and commute to Portland.
If they did, say goodbye to your $500/month rent.
And what is your definition of “better?” More reliable? More frequent? More security? Something else?
Hey, last I checked Greyhound went to/from Portland/Salem several times a day. Why would you need to do the asinine ride the Smart, transfer to Tri_Met take 3 HOURS to do so when you can just ride Greyhound? Better yet, just buy a car!
Greg –
1. RE: Valley rail service
A big part of the problem in trip times has to do with the fact that private companies do in fact own and maintain the rails and have little or no interest in providing passenger service. Amtrak has to use those rails and often winds up stuck waiting for freight to clear the tracks.
2. Commuting from Salem to Portland
By car, that’s a 100 mile round trip every day. With a 30MPG average vehicle with 1 occupant at $3/gallon, that’s over $200/month — just for gas, not to mention repair and maintenance. Any savings in rent gets rapidly eaten by commuting.
A lot of people already think that commuting from Wilsonville or Tualatin to other metro area destinations takes too long… so why add a trip from Salem on top of all that? Doesn’t seem like the best use of a person’s time, but to each their own. It really doesn’t seem like the best way to develop a region though, to support 100 mile daily commutes. I’d rather spend to improve the 10 mile or less daily commutes first. Seems like more bang-for-the-buck that way.
Your suggestion of Greyhound won’t work for most jobs, either: If you work 9-5, you’ll need to catch a 6:10am morning departure, and you won’t arrive home again until 7:55pm. 12.75 hours away from home every day (pretty much all the daylight hours) leaves a lot less time to enjoy that $500/month rental in Salem. The fares will run you $420 per month as well.
– Bob R.
A big part of the problem in trip times has to do with the fact that private companies do in fact own and maintain the rails and have little or no interest in providing passenger service. Amtrak has to use those rails and often winds up stuck waiting for freight to clear the tracks.
I am so tired of hearing the “freight companies own the tracks” blather when it comes to justifying why Amtrak is so horrible. Even in the N.E. corridor where they DO own the tracks and have the Acela the service is lousy compared to other countries. If our government is providing a piss poor service then they need to either farm it out or get rid of it altogether.
It really doesn’t seem like the best way to develop a region though, to support 100 mile daily commutes.
That’s where your thinking is flawed. You don’t “discourage” or “support” people’s choices. You don’t stand in their way and you let them do whatever they want to when it comes to living and commuting. You don’t force them onto the stinky streetcar and make them stand next to a bum talking to himself during the whole ride, begging you for change or dripping on your shoes with a garbage bag full of cans. Pelosi and company probably didn’t have to ride with the vagrants and I’m sure there was somewhere to sit when she actually visited town. But it makes you wonder while these self-righteous politicans jet all over the world and drive SUVs if they even have time to ride these much touted systems they try to force everyone else to use.
You don’t “discourage” or “support” people’s choices. You don’t stand in their way and you let them do whatever they want to when it comes to living and commuting.
I think this is a transparently ridiculous argument. But if you repeat it often enough some people obviously will come to believe it.
You don’t “discourage” or “support” people’s choices. You don’t stand in their way and you let them do whatever they want to when it comes to living and commuting.
That’s one more place where you’re wrong, Greg — if you want to support 100 mile commutes, whether by car or by train, that requires a lot of subsidy.
You’re simply saying the government ought to support your personal set of preferences, rather than another set of preferences.
Personally I’d rather let open and public processes (as slow and as imperfect as they may be) determine what the government encourages, discourages, or ignores.
– Bob R.
That’s one more place where you’re wrong, Greg — if you want to support 100 mile commutes, whether by car or by train, that requires a lot of subsidy.
That “100 mile commute” on I-5 is subsidizing (through gas taxes, not general fund dollars) far more than just that one person’s commute – it’s supporting 90,000 vehicles a day – commuters, tourists, small business, and freight in and out of Portland and along the I-5 corridor.
It’s supporting Fred Meyer trucks that haul groceries and other goods from Clackamas throughout the region; the same with Safeway and Albertsons’ warehouses in Clackamas and Northeast Portland, and WinCo in Woodburn. It’s supporting Target trucks out of Albany, Les Schwab trucks out of North Portland, and numerous other deliveries of manufactured goods, lumber, food, paper, steel, raw materials, etc.
It’s supporting State Government workers in Salem and commercial business in Portland, as well as other cities along the corridor.
It supports events such as the State Fair and the Rose Festival.
It brings in dollars from outside the state, such as travellers from Washington and California; not to mention Canada and Mexico.
To the State’s general fund, it costs $0 – the cost of Interstate 5 is bourne 100% by the state and federal gas tax.
The same is true of that airport located just off of I-205 – it doesn’t take a penny out of your property or income taxes. If you use the airport, you pay for it – whether you rent a space in the Oregon Market, an airline that pays rent and landing fees, or a passenger that pays a PFC on each ticket.
Frankly, that’s a pretty good assessment of what the public wants, and for the most part those two facilities work pretty well. (I-5 is somewhat questionable, but for the most part it does work well.)
Does MAX or Streetcar have those benefits? Does the Amtrak Cascades have all of those benefits? Of course not – because none of those have any benefit to freight mobility or creates jobs, and the tourism aspect of MAX/Streetcar is more that of a curiosity. The Amtrak Cascades attracts tourism but does it really get people out of their cars – even at full capacity, 2,400 passengers a day will make about a 3% dent in total I-5 traffic volumes between Portland and Seattle. (I believe my high school math teacher used the phrase “statistically insignificant”.)
Why should we taxpayers subsidize a massive infrastructure construction project that simply isn’t needed? If we want to let the public process take its toll, get back to me when Horizon Air declares Chapter 7 and shuts down and Greyhound stops running busses up and down the corridor. If someone wants to propose a national buyout of the freight railroad network in this country, let me know what you are going to disinvest in so I can make a wise decision as to whether it’s worth it, or not.
You’re simply saying the government ought to support your personal set of preferences, rather than another set of preferences.
Of course. The government shouldn’t mandate how people move themselves around or live. Central planning failed miserably in USSR when’s its demise going to happen in Portland? Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Good article on MSNBC about Amtrak!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20630319/
Thanks for the link to the article, Greg.
The thing I found interesting is that Amtrak pays the rail owners approx. $90 million a year for operating leases.
If that amount of spending were matched by a capital program for improvements, it would buy a lot of new passing sidings and signal improvements over time, allowing Amtrak to operate with a much more reliable schedule and slightly faster overall service.
With a more reliable schedule, Amtrak can charge a bit more for tickets… which may help offset the initial capital investment.
The current subsidy for Amtrak, on a per-ride basis, is a bit high, but what we’re really funding is the core of a system that is barely hanging on, with less money overall than most government programs. With the proper investment and commitment, ridership can be boosted so that the actual subsidy per ride is far, far lower.
An analogy would be this: A small business owner pays monthly rent on an office space, and leases on office equipment, but can only afford less than optimal staff levels, so the office is often unpredictably closed, turning away customers. The cost per customer, therefore, is quite high. With a bit more investment, the business could stay open all the time and serve many more customers, at a much lower cost per customer.
– Bob R.