Via Planetizen:
About $15M just got allocated toward planning for an initial segment of a 700-mile high-speed rail corridor.
More interesting, the idea that $10B toward the project could be on the ballot in 2008.
Via Planetizen:
About $15M just got allocated toward planning for an initial segment of a 700-mile high-speed rail corridor.
More interesting, the idea that $10B toward the project could be on the ballot in 2008.
29 responses to “California Takes Microstep Toward High Speed Rail”
700-mile, $40 billion rail system.
There’s no way this thing gets built if it’s going to cost California 40 billion dollars, why they’re throwing 15 million at this thing is beyond me.
$40B/700 miles for high speed rail compared to $4.2B/5 miles CRC. Hummm… In addition to being 15 times cheaper per mile, I bet it won’t increase traffic in Portland. (Seriously, $57M/mile? That sounds very cheap. Can we hook Portland&Seattle up with one?)
The impact of a Los Angeles-San Francisco train may be tame compared to the impact on San Diego-Long Beach-Los Angeles. The areas around the train stations essentially become extensions of the each cities metropolitan area.
A 220 mph train between Portland and Seattle would likely be transformative of the relationship of the two metro areas. A 220 mph train from Eugene to Portland would be a major step toward making the Willamette Valley one large commutershed. These kinds of proposals are revolutionary and it is hard to anticipate all their consequences.
The sooner we link Portland(Eugene)/Seattle/Vancouver BC with higher speed rail, the better. Just getting the Tago up to full speed would be a major improvement; also need to add more departures and make Vancouver BC thru rail trip. Some of this is in the works, but not enough.
On the global map, these three cities are pretty modest dots in the world of research/ economic development, etc. Together they can have an impact and be a player; separate, they don’t amount to much…for better or worse.
Eugene to Vancouver BC is about 420 miles. At $57 million per mile, it’s around $24 billion for a 220 mph high speed rail line.
I really can’t see that happening. If we had, say, $20 billion to spend on transportation improvements across Oregon and Washington, is a single high-speed rail line really the best place for it? Revolutionary transformations notwithstanding, I’m thinking not.
I’d rather just work on lower-cost incremental improvements to take better advantage of the Talgo.
Yep, the Libertarians should be all over this one… they can buy their cheap land way-out in whocaresville and still be able to commute to their Portland job quicker than they can get to the country store for groceries.
Although, with our UGB being enforced statewide, all the growth along the corridor would be in Washington.
f we had, say, $20 billion to spend on transportation improvements across Oregon and Washington, is a single high-speed rail line really the best place for it?
My point was that is the wrong question because a 200+ rail line is not really a “transportation improvement” but something entirely new in the context of the times and distances. It doesn’t really compare or compete with other transportation investments except, perhaps, airport expansion.
I’d settle for 55-120 mph passenger rail lines along most of Portland & Westerns’, Tillamook’s and the main trunk lines of B & N in Oregon. Start with cheap improvements like the Washington County Commuter Line and then upgrade slowly to 220 mph (that’s how Europe’s rail network was built, not all at once, but slowly over decades).
If we build it they will come!
BUILD IT, its a good idea!
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking REAL money.
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
My point was that is the wrong question because a 200+ rail line is not really a “transportation improvement” but something entirely new in the context of the times and distances. It doesn’t really compare or compete with other transportation investments except, perhaps, airport expansion.
Fair enough, but even as a “revolutionary” or “transformative” step, would a $24 billion investment pay off in improved economic performance across the entire corridor over, say, 30 years? I’m pretty skeptical.
Of course, this would really be a State of Washington-driven project. Connect Seattle-Tacoma to Vancouver BC and Portland Oregon for the benefit of Seattle-Tacoma and the state economy as a whole. The Washington State Legislature would have to approve local funding to run high-speed rail from, well, Vancouver to Vancouver (or rather, just south of the Canadian border).
At that point, it would be relatively inexpensive for Portland, Metro, and the State of Oregon to extend the line over the Columbia to downtown Portland or the Rose Quarter — at, say, $60 million per mile plus (if needed) a new rail bridge over the Columbia, that would be pretty affordable. Probably comes in under $700 million. Pricey, but still comfortably under a billion, and the benefits would be hard to resist. I’m pretty sure the City of Portland AND Metro would step up to the plate, dragging the State Legislature after them.
Vancouver B.C. could (and probably would) do the same thing at the north end.
Washington might spend $17 billion for highways and lightrail, why wouldn’t California – a MUCH bigger state with MUCH worse transportation issues – spend only a bit more than twice as much as Seattle?
That’s a steal, if you ask me!
Besides, the airport and freeway expansions needed – and being planned – as an alternative to HSR would be 1.5 – 2 TIMES more expensive, for less capacity and more congestion/pollution/traffic.
Not all of Europe’s links were improved slowly over the course of decades, though this was the dominant way to do it. Some links, however, were built entirely from scratch to be high-speed. It’s the hybrid of the new links and the upgrades to existing ROW that built the European network, and so should it be here.
I would think that $57m a mile, or $20 billion for the NW corridor would be worthwhile. That’s an investment in the future of the mega-region that really would be unparalleled in its effects, especially if combined with 15 minute headways (as CA proposes to do).
Ultimately, however, I’d like to see the high speed rail connection be Tijuana to Vancouver, B.C., because the West Coast really does generate enough overall traffic to require such a link, and it would do wonders for economic development — especially in the smaller communities where it might stop (like the Rogue Valley). Also, high-speed freight on the same lines could really help with freeway congestion, if handled correctly (i.e. not causing conflicts with passenger rail). The best way to pull all this off would be to make the entire system a 3-track standard, with 4 tracks in many locations (and all stations) to allow for passing, leapfrogging, etc. at-speed.
The question is, who in Oregon would have the foresight to spearhead an initiative like this, and potentially put a bond on the ballot? It’s an investment in the future, the long-term future. Sometimes, you have to take risks (i.e., spending $20 billion) to reap rewards (improvement of the economy).
I didn’t say “high speed rail”, I said “higher speed rail” between Eugene and Vancouver BC. This should be part of the Port’s PDX Futures study…how many takeoff/landing spots can be freed up at PDX by getting travel time to Seattle down to 3 hours, 2.5 hours, 2 hours.
Making it effortless to travel between Eugene and Vancouver BC means that ideas, projects, investments can combine the people and resources of the larger region and be more able to compete with the other much larger regions of the country and the world.
Eugene should be an hour away, Seattle two, Vancouver 4, with hourly departures. And yes, Portland & Vancouver BC will be secondary cities to Seattle, due in part to the research based on U. of W. There is no dishonor in that.
So Ross, what is the right question? Now that I’m thinking more about it, maybe something like: “What is the long-term benefit (over 30 or 40 or 50 years) to the State of Washington’s economy from using some form of high-speed rail to turn Portland and Vancouver BC into railroad suburbs of Seattle?”
It would be interesting to see what an objective analysis would reveal. Maybe a study by UW researchers with no vested interest in any particular pro-rail or anti-rail outcome. If it were a $20 billion project (assume one half paid by the federal government, so $10 billion from Washington), but would generate an average $500 million per year in new economic activity from turning the Seattle area into this major economic hub, then it’s probably worth the investment.
If the payoff is only something like $50 million per year, then probably not.
And yes, the study should include projected operating costs/subsidies as part of the cost-benefit analysis.
I really wish that Federal transportation policy was oriented towards providing funds for high-speed rail in corridors where it is probably justified (like Portland-Seattle, or LA-San Diego), INSTEAD of “snail rail” transit projects like the ones being done around Portland, which are completely uneccessary, IMO.
High speed rail is all the more important considering the increasingly crowded nature of our airways, which is one reason I really don’t travel anymore. HSR would relieve air traffic in short-to-medium corridors.
I suspect the $40 billion price tag will be a deal killer for the California high-speed rail project. The main cost is track ugrades, so I have submitted non-electrified type trainsets that reach 150mph top speed. Average speed even with electrification is only around 150mph anyway. This cuts cost by at least 1/3. Electrification has little environmental benefit through the mostly rural route.
A 200mph top speed will have little affect upon most traffic woes which are more local and regional than travel of longer distances. Further, 200mph speeds leave in the dust the development needs of communities between major hubs of a high speed rail system. We do not need to engineer the means to get further faster, as much as we need to engineer the means for meeting needs closer to home and community.
First:
Also, high-speed freight on the same lines could really help with freeway congestion, if handled correctly (i.e. not causing conflicts with passenger rail).
California’s system, as discussed when I lived there, includes freight on the passenger trains. Companies like FedEx, UPS and DHL, as well as their customers could benefit greatly by cheap parcel delivery all the way from San Diego to Sacramento.
It won’t be really cheap, but it will be cheaper than air costs or driving costs if implemented correctly.
Also:
Much of the route is incredibly flat desert. The cost reflects that. Few bridges are needed, and almost no quick turns through hills for hundreds of miles (LA to outside the Bay Area.) The Bay Area and LA and San Diego are going to be the really expensive parts.
They get the added bonus of connecting to the Las Vegas HSR to Anaheim that’s also under study, and rather likely to be built. San Diegans, when I left, were also starting to call for HSR along I-5 and I-405 from San Diego to LAX.
Many of these are probably decades off, and while I like the idea of a West Coast or NW HSR, it’s going to take a long time to get funded and in operation. I also think that if either Cali or Washington wants to connect to us, and asks us to build, we should do it.
It opens too many doors to PDX to let it pass by. Oh, and the feds are more likely to contribute if there’s interstate commerce benefits. Lightening traffic on I-5 and at the airports is a big plus, but we have to think bigger than connecting Portland to Eugene, Bend, or the Oregon Coast to make it cost effective.
Another point I forgot: The FAA may also be willing to help fund it. Maybe offer FedEx or UPS exclusive use for 20 years if they contribute to construction, in addition to operations. The Port of Portland, Long Beach and Los Angeles might also throw in money.
Once it gets far enough, funding can be found.
HSR, from Portland to Eugene?
I thought the “sprawl” problem just eight miles to Beaverton was a problem, but to sprawl >100 miles south?
Not to mention the destruction of valuable, productive farmland, the carving out of Ankeny Hill, and the massive electrical requirements necessary for a HSR project.
Unlike in California where numerous airlines fly from the Bay Area to the Southland, PDX-EUG has just FOUR flights, flown by Horizon, using Dash 8-Q200 (37 seat) aircraft, six Greyhound schedules, and three Amtrak schedules (one train continues south to California). While load factors for Horizon and Greyhound are not readily available, Amtrak’s south-of-Portland load factors on the two Cascades trains are roughly 20-30% on a good day (about 70 passengers per train that seats 250 passengers.) (Source: ODOT)
In California, replacing the aircraft with HSR would make a significant impact on air quality.
In Oregon, it would only serve to increase commuting distances (and associated sprawl) and cause extensive environmental impact without a clear benefit or need. At least Portland-Seattle demonstrates more of a need than Portland-Eugene.
“I thought the “sprawl” problem just eight miles to Beaverton was a problem, but to sprawl >100 miles south?”
I don’t know how many people are going to commute from Eugene to Portland, (or vice versa,) on a daily basis if they have to get on a bus from the outskirts of Eugene, (it isn’t exactly “sprawl” in Eugene if they happen to live right next to the train station, now is it?) ride for 30+ minutes to the train station, get on the train and ride for an hour, and then get off the train and ride a bus/MAX for another 30+ minutes to get to their office. I mean, I could be wrong, but if you are going from the outskirts of Eugene, to the outskirts of Portland, (i.e. actually contributing to sprawl, as opposed to traveling from the middle of one urban area to the middle of another,) it seems like you’d be more likely to drive, since it would take about the same amount of time and bus service in the sprawl area doesn’t tend to be very good in the first place.
It isn’t going to cause sprawl anyplace else in the valley, (well, except Salem, Albany, and Oregon City, but same argument as Eugene,) cause it isn’t going to stop there…
…PDX-EUG has just FOUR flights…
Yep. Sounds about right. So?
Density increases as transportation options increase. It’s not that tough. The less reasons someone has to drive, the less they drive.
The accurate question is how many flights are between Seattle, Vancouver (BC), Portland, Eugene, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, Burbank, LAX, John Wayne (Orange County), Ontario, and San Diego in a day?
I’d currently rather drive than fly. I’m just one person, but I like to take Amtrak to Seattle. It’s cheaper, but as fast as flying. Once I do the security thing, and taxi to the runway, and wait for the runway, and wait for landing, and get my bag it’s taken just as long, if not longer.
Is it so bad if PDX-SFO is the same on rail as in air? Not every rail route is a great idea, but this adds an amazing level of connectivity to a widespread region. We don’t need to build new cities with widely spaced stations.
Build near existing freeway exits and transit in major areas only and we’ll maximize the speed. We don’t yet need a Tualatin, Woodburn, Keizer or Roseburg station.
They’re not bad to keep available for expansion, but we can make true HSR connecting PDX, Salem, Eugene, Olympia, Seattle, Bellingham, Vancouver, Sacramento, Bay Area, Fresno, Bakersfield, LA, Riverside and San Diego. Is that a bad thing, looking at the airline list above?
Now, also reduce air cargo operations demanded, and this is a bad idea for what reason?
Wow. I have ridden HSR in France and Spain and yes, it kicks butt over flying if you’re going less than 600 miles (almost all HSR routes in France are 186 mph).
Anyone imaging HSR to California…keep imaging. I can’t believe that the engineering would allow for the train to get through the Siskiyou mountains unless a tunnel to rival the Chunnel is going to be built and I’m not holding my breath for that one.
Erik Halstead has it right on HSR to Eugene: The ridership isn’t anywhere to close to justify it. I imagine that if the trip was done in 1 hour, ridership would be a lot higher than current airline fliers to Eugene because almost all travellers from Portland to Eugene drive on I-5. However, I doubt that the ridership would be high enough to justify the cost of the line.
HSR is great, but as has been alluded to on this board, the problem is the last mile or two. If I want to get from downtown Portland to downtown Seattle, HSR is great. If I want to get from Gladstone, OR to Bellevue, WA, HSR is going to take just as long as driving unless I pay for a taxi on the ends of the trip because the public transit to get the station takes too long.
BTW – Matthew – I’m glad that the train works for you getting to Seattle, but when I travel up there for business, the train doesn’t work well for me and I fly on Horizon. The train takes longer and is frequently late (I don’t check a bag, like most business travelers so I don’t wait at baggage claim) and if my meetings finish early, Horizon is great about letting me get on an earlier flight at Sea-Tac. I’m glad that it works for you, though.
HSR to Seattle in 1 hour and a little over 2 to Vancouver, BC would be sweet, though!
True High Speed Rail al a France’s TGV is probably beyond our reach in the NW for the foreseeable future. The Bay Area built BART, Portland went with MAX, so we can expect a lower cost alternative here for intercity rail as well.
That said, I believe there is a lot that can be done…Oregon has spent very, very little so far…to make the existing Cascades Talgos faster, more frequent, etc.
Double track to Euguene would be a start, allowing more and more reliable passenger service.
Ridership will follow better, faster service. Sprawl? not likely as rail goes center to center; indeed better rail connections would encourage development in the valley to be more concentrated in existing centers…Salem, Albany/Corvallis, Eugene.
Thankfully the State of Washington is investing in rail between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver BC, so we may get to 3 hour service to Seattle before too long. But HSR on a brand new ROW? Don’t hold your breath.
If I want to get from Gladstone, OR to Bellevue, WA, HSR is going to take just as long as driving.
Compare PDX to SEA, not suburb to suburb. It creates demand near the connecting local transit, as well as reduces airport demand.
Ignoring growth or expanding PDX into the Columbia aren’t my preferred solutions.
I don’t see commuting as being the issue. But the ability to do business is. If you are a Portland business bidding on a contract in Seattle, it makes a huge difference if you can assemble employees you need in Portland and transport them to the job site in Seattle for the day. It is integrating the economies of the two regions that brings benefits. Of course part of that is being able to recruit a key employee as well, but I think an hour commute is not going to be all that desirable.
Rail service tends not to support really low density suburban sprawl.
Yea, it might allow some people (who can afford it) to commute from Eugene to Portland, but unless we build thousands of parking spaces near the station, where are they going to park?
High(er) speed intercity (city to city) rail systems tend to allow cities to function in a much more connected fashion, since people who live close to the station have convenient access to the next city. Those who have to commute an hour just to get to the station… then have to ride the train for another hour or so, then walk to their final destination. If you visit other cities around the world who actually have high speed rail, unless you build a station in the middle of farmland, its not going to spur sprawl.
I would like to see the current Eugene – to – Vancouver (BC) rail line upgraded and expanded to handle Local passenger rail (stopping at small towns along the way, such as Centralia, and add additional ones such as Corvallis). It will promote denser growth and build ridership for passenger rail.
After we do that and establish frequent slow rail service, then we could build a higher-speed dedicated Limited (or Express) rail service between the major cities: Eugene, Salem, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver – skipping the smaller towns and making sure we have a train that takes less time than an airline or freeway. Additionally, if it was only 150mph instead of 200mph, it would be much more affordable – and since the cities along I-5 are fairly close together anyway, wouldn’t make a drastic difference in travel time.
“(that’s how Europe’s rail network was built, not all at once, but slowly over decades).”
High speed rail lines in France – the TGV’s – are not upgraded rail lines. They are brand new ones. In countries like Germany, they often do run higher speed trains on upgraded lines, but you cannot mix a 60 mph freight train with a 200 mph passenger train, especially when you have a high speed train running every 15 minutes over the route.
See this forum for some idea on the scope of a European network:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=119926
(hint: some of the stations alone cost billions)
=======
There’s a big distinction between the MAX and an intercity passenger rail line. There is a lot more local traffic within a city like Portland and the Metro area, people traveling to/from work, the grocery store, to visit friends, etc – then there is people driving/flying from city to city.
Thus, a system like MAX will naturally run both more trains, and carry more passengers (over a shorter distance) than an intercity train – but an intercity train will conversely make it less necessary to expand costly interstate freeways (which are hundreds of miles long and cost a lot of money) and also reduce pollution generated by intercity travel (whether using diesel or electric trains – both are far more efficient than driving or flying).
A convenient downtown – to – downtown rail line would make it more convenient for people living downtown and close-in – making it more attractive for businesses to locate there and people to live there, as the inconvenience of driving would be partially offset by the added convenience of getting to another city faster than driving.
Those that live in the far reaches of the suburbs, however, obviously will gain less – but that just makes sense. There is a reason why the center of (anything – a city, a circle, or any other geometric figure) is considered the “center of mass” – eg, highest density, land value, as it is equally mid-way to all parts of the area. Simple geometry, folks!
I’ve just read all of the comments in this chain and find them very insightful and thoughtful.
I am a native Portllander currently displaced in Pittsburgh. I have a transportation engineering degree from an east coast school and worked in transportation planning and engineering in Portland before turning to the dark side – obtaining and MBA and working on engineering issues for large corporations.
My roots are calling – my wife and I will return to Portland in the near future. While doing alright in my current career – the issues like those you have all presented here are frankly more interesting and compelling. Having lived on the east coast for ten years now I am looking forward to returning to the Pacific NW and am excited to see it continue to develop. As we transition, I am certainly considering returning not only to my geographic roots but to my employment roots as well. At a minimum, I hope to be involved in forums such as this. Thank you for what you all have provided here.
Does anyone know which Organizations (if any) are currently working on this rail issue? Thank you again.
NJD said
Start with cheap improvements like the Washington County Commuter Line and then upgrade slowly to 220 mph (that’s how Europe’s rail network was built, not all at once, but slowly over decades).
Well, not exactly. Europe’s original rail network was built like that, but OTOH so was ours, and about the same time. The big difference is they kept improving their passenger service after WWII, while we ripped most of our passenger service out in the 1950s and 1960s, till Amtrak took over in 1971 and ran (still runs) only a small fraction of the trains that existed earlier.
Back to Europe. As it happens, I’ve kept actively up to date on this since the 1960s, and still do, so I’ve got my facts straight. The best high-speed example is France, where they upped the speeds on many of the old lines to around 200 km/h (130 mph or so) in the 1960s and 1970s.
Then late in the 1970s they decided to build a new line from Paris to Lyon (409 km or about 250 miles), which opened in 1981. (It occupies a total land area of 16 square kilometers; by comparison, Charles De Gaulle Airport occupies about 32 square kilometers.) The new line is roughly parallel to the old, but considerably shorter.
Service in 1981 ran at 270 km/h; the speed was later raised to 300 km/h, for a roughly 2-hour travel time. Currently the line is served by double-deck trains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex) seating 545 riders. These are coupled in sets of 2, for roughly 1100 passengers.
They run at roughly 10-15-minute intervals or roughly the headway of the MAX. (The new lines are not shared with freight traffic.) Virtually nobody flies this route any more, because the downtown-to-downtown train timings are as fast as the plane, or faster.
There are about 100 of these double-deck trains now — 2 locomotives surrounding 8-10 cars. By comparison, Amtrak has 20 6-car Acelas in the NE corridor, and 5 Talgos here in the Northwest. The French lines charge reasonable fares – about 58 euros or about 90 dollars for Paris-Lyon.
On an operating basis, the French high-speed lines are highly profitable, even though the railroad company, SNCF, is government-owned and therefore “socialistic”. One reason the lines are profitable is the huge number of passengers carried, allowing maintenance, etc., to be amortized over a huge riding public.
Now they’re building TGV-like lines all over Europe and Asia, and even South America and North Africa (Morocco, Algeria) are getting ready to build.
It takes a very large investment to do it right, but the experience elsewhere in the world is that the investment pays off handsomely. Gotta think long-term, though, and recently we’ve been having trouble doing that here in the US.
Mike