Federal officials awarded $6 million to the Point Defiance Bypass Project, which is intended to reroute Amtrak service near Tacoma. The new route would avoid a tunnel and a congested area near the Port of Tacoma, saving six minutes on the 3-1/2 hour Portland-Seattle trip.
0 responses to “U.S. gives $6 million to speed Portland-Seattle Amtrak service”
That’s either lousy reporting or a lousy project. I’d imagine the point of the project is to avoid congestion that contributes to significant delays in travel between PDX and SEA. If that’s not the case, spending 6 million to shave 6 minutes off of the travel time is a waste of taxpayer money.
6 minutes x thousands of riders per year…better than any roadway project. Too bad Oregon has failed to invest in its passenger rail network.
Sorry, but I couldn’t help noticing this in the context of the line 35 diversion proposal. To save a very few SOWA/aerial tram riders 8 to 15 minutes, over a thousand regular line 35 patrons will find themselves spending three to six minutes a day more on the southbound run. Yet our neighbors to the north and the feds are willing to spend $76 million to save a few thousand potential daily riders six minutes.
Perhaps the best thing to hope for is that TriMet sees this as a test, subject to benchmarks. If ridership doesn’t take a dramatic leap then the current alignment should be restored south of Harrison. Ridership should be reevaluated when the Gibbs pedestrian/bicycle bridge is completed, and again should the streetcar be extended south of Hamilton.
The report is inaccurate, the delay cut will be 12 minutes.
And its worth every dime. Already the Cascades are competitive in speed with driving between Portland and Seattle. Schedule shortenings like this one can make a dramatic difference in attracting riders to what is already one of the most successful passenger rail projects in modern US history.
Lenny: although Oregon hasn’t invested significantly in passenger rail, it has invested heavily in freight rail. Indeed, the project mentioned in the Oregonian is part of a $30 million federal rail investment program — Oregon has spent as much alone this year. This is not the historic pattern, but rail investment has increased significantly under Kulongowski.
Also, if we’re going to be fair, we need to acknowledge the state’s funding of components of MAX and WES.
Part of the project is also funded by Sound Transit, as that will be used by SOUNDER Commuter Trains to get to Lakewood, and the Lakeview Subdivision was purchased by Sound Transit for $20 million from BNSF. This line, also called the Prairie Line, originally had a connection with the BNSF Main, but that connection was abandoned when TacomaLINK came on-line. This new connector is the major holdup in the project from ST’s point of view, then again, their plans are not for SOUNDER to get to Nisqually Junction and rejoin the BNSF Mainline. The station at Lakewood is open for buses, including a feeder route running to Tacoma Dome Station to meet with SOUNDER.
Now as for Amtrak Cascades, wonder if it will push Horizon out of the skies, or at least give them a run for their money. With the short dwell times at intermediate stations, might make up for the slower speed of the train, although if Horizon is really pulling the jets off this route in favor of the turboprops, it might close the speed gap as well, especially if improvements are made to get speeds up to 110MPH. After the recent fatal incidents in Los Angeles, Positive Train Control is a must, in addition to closing grade crossings, or go for Quad Gates in crossings that cannot be eliminated through bridging.
I wonder if this will actually affect the overall trip time, though. From what I understand (from both personal experience and hearing from others), the North-South rail in Oregon and Washington is ridiculously slow, usually having to do with waiting for freight, etc. We were over 2 hours late getting to Seattle (which made our bus to Vancouver BC late, along with everyone on it), then just over an hour late getting back into Portland the next week. I’ve heard numerous complaints about the consistent delays on the Amtrak rails here… how much would it cost to run parallel lines for *only* passenger rail in this area?
Also consider that this is not just a shortcut, but additional capacity–freight trains will continue to travel the route along the shoreline, and passenger trains can take the cutoff. Framing this as a 12 minute cut in travel time is helpful, but hardly the whole story. I have to say, the BNSF mainline between Portland and Seattle is amazingly run considering the volume of rail traffic, but having more capacity especially around the port is a great thing.
If a person takes Lenny’s figures of 6 minutes (or 6 million) x thousands of riders: a third of 4.2 billion for an I-5 Columbia River Crossing highway bridge only x tens of thousands motorist and freight movements probably calculates out to be a financially less expensive deal per each user. Moreover, besides the cost of spending a million dollars per each minute saved, the new route also takes away what can be viewed as the most scenic portion of the Amtrak trip between Portland and Seattle. Unlike the double track on the BNSF, the real delays on the West Coast for Amtrak, specifically the Starlight, are in Oregon on the single track with sidings. Any federal dollars spent on upgrades to Amtrak routes could be better utilized by double tracking some of the more congested portions of the single track such as between Portland and Eugene.
I’d like to see the numbers behind Terry’s CRC vs. Point Defiance comparison… because it’s not just about Amtrak but Sound Transit as well, and a lot of people ride the Sounder every day.
I’d like to see those numbers too. Especially since the CRC actually increases southbound travel times, and last time I checked, it wasn’t planning on paying us money…
One other detail: I believe this section is fairly straight and not expected to be used for freight, so it may be the first place along the Cascades line that runs above 80 mph. If the high-speed improvements get made, it will save well more than 6 minutes.
Bob R. wrote: because it’s not just about Amtrak but Sound Transit as well, and a lot of people ride the Sounder every day.
What’s interesting is that while Bob states “a lot of people”, I can go to http://www.soundtransit.org and there is an entire webpage showing quarterly ridership data, separated by mode.
TriMet, where are you?
So the latest report is 2008 Q1, seen here:
http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q1_2008.pdf
So for YTD 2008 Q1, I can see that Sound Transit operated 1,149 Sounder trips with an average of 525.18 boardings = or 603,431 riders – at an average cost of $10.79 per boarding ride.
I can also see that ST Express busses operated 95,362 trips with an average of 29.06 boardings per trip, or 2,771,219 riders – at an average cost of $6.73 per boarding ride.
The fare free Tacoma Link Light Rail (really a “streetcar” operated 14,778 trips with an average of 14.99 boardings per trip, or 221,522 riders – at an average cost of $3.33 per boarding ride.
It should also be noted that while Sounder only operates a handful of trips per day, during weekday rush hours, that ST Express runs seven days a week, span-of-service-day.
Terry Parker wrote: Unlike the double track on the BNSF, the real delays on the West Coast for Amtrak, specifically the Starlight, are in Oregon on the single track with sidings. Any federal dollars spent on upgrades to Amtrak routes could be better utilized by double tracking some of the more congested portions of the single track such as between Portland and Eugene.
Ironically, I would argue that investment in the PDX-SEA segment is exactly where the investment needs to be made; even if it means eliminating Amtrak service south of Portland (both Coast Starlight and Cascades service) given the ridership numbers north and south.
There is demonstrated travel demand between Seattle and Portland – you can see it whether it’s Greyhound schedules, Horizon Air frequencies, I-5 traffic counts, Amtrak ridership; even with the “subsidized” airlines, the tax-free, loss-leader Amtrak operation – people still ride Greyhound and people still drive on I-5 (which is still congested).
I agree that the delays on Amtrak are really south of Portland, and question whether six minutes is worth this amount of money. Terry is right, the Amtrak Cascades often sells scenery as a part of its “value” and this realignment would eliminate most of the “scenery” that is prominently featured on Amtrak’s advertisements for the route. On the other hand, just as the CRC is also a freight project, moving Amtrak out of a very congested freight area in Tacoma would provide greater benefit, rather than just to Amtrak passengers but also to Tacoma residents and the Port of Tacoma (which by itself is several times the size of the combined Ports of Portland, Vancouver, and every port up and down the Columbia/Snake system.)
Don’t count on +79mph for well over a decade. I’d be surprised if it happens even then. The trackage along the entire course has a large percentage that could already be run at 90-110mph, but it isn’t. The problem isn’t if the trains can do it, it is the laws, the same that states the Talgoes are illegal, laid down by the ancient FRA.
Two things prevent us from getting true high speed rail in the US right now, and fixing both would get it without increased funding or pinging the taxpayers for it.
1. FRA rules. Stupid then, silly now.
2. Union rules will NOT let Amtrak operate successfully, their staff to passenger ratio is probably THE worse available on earth.
Those two things get fixed, it is doubtful Amtrak would even need an operational subsidy. Probably still a capital subsidy, but definitely NOT an operational one. That’s easily an extra 700 million a year we could put into capital.
…but I’m not holding my breath for union or FRA changes.
but I’m not holding my breath for union or FRA changes.
I don’t want to get overly political in this thread, but I will say that I’m encouraged that the backgrounds of the current national candidates include a regular Amtrak commuter and a person who has spent a great deal of time in a city with a major transit system. Regardless of the outcome of the next election, these factors may shape the debate about urban form and trans-urban transportation as the election approaches.
Adron wrote: Don’t count on +79mph for well over a decade. I’d be surprised if it happens even then. The trackage along the entire course has a large percentage that could already be run at 90-110mph, but it isn’t. The problem isn’t if the trains can do it, it is the laws, the same that states the Talgoes are illegal, laid down by the ancient FRA.
Two things prevent us from getting true high speed rail in the US right now, and fixing both would get it without increased funding or pinging the taxpayers for it.
You’re looking at two different FRA regulations there – the FRA Track Classification reg (49CFR213.9), and the FRA Crashworthiness reg (49CFR238.203) which directly affects the Talgos.
Track speed is determined by the quality of track and the signalling system installed. 79 MPH is the maximum speed that trains can operate on without cab signalling and Automatic Train Control systems – there were a number of stretches of track in service in the western U.S. where Amtrak was authorized up to 90 MPH (namely on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad in California/Arizona/New Mexico, and the Illinois Central Railroad south of Chicago) until the last decade or so when those two railroads disabled the ATC system due to the expense of the system and limited use of it (for one Amtrak train a day).
The Talgos are “illegal” because they don’t meet the crashworthiness reg. I agree that the law is stifling, but there’s a reason for it – if a passenger train is going to collide with another train, what is it most likely going to hit? Probably a 435,000 pound SD70M or C44-9W – and probably three or four of them, with a lot of cars behind it. This isn’t Europe where the average freight train is a small locomotive and MAYBE a dozen cars behind it, we operate real freight trains here in America.
As for whether the current BNSF mainline had a “large percentage” that could run at faster than 79 – I doubt it. There are a LOT of speed restricted curves; even for the Talgos which have a higher speed limit through many curves, they often must slow down to speeds of 50-60 MPH. The stretch of track along Puget Sound has a lot of permanent speed restrictions. Napavine Hill is another. In fact I’ll even post a list of Talgo speed restrictions out of the BNSF timetable in a new post.
Amtrak Talgo Train Speeds—Maximum Speed
(This is from the BNSF Employee Timetable, from 2006). MP 0.0X is Seattle (King Street Station). MP 0.0 is Tacoma (old NP station). MP 32.2 is Centennial (Olympia/Lacey). MP 54.0 is Centralia. MP 97.3 is Kelso. MP 136.5, and then MP 10.0 is Vancouver. MP 0.0 (at the bottom) is Portland Union Station.
MP 0.0X to MP 1.8X, Main 1 …………………………. 20 MPH.
MP 0.0X to MP 2.0X, Main 2 …………………………. 20 MPH.
MP 1.8X to MP 2.6X …………………………………….. 48 MPH.
MP 2.0X to MP 2.6X, Main 2 …………………………. 48 MPH.
MP 2.6X to MP 3.4X, Main 1 and Main 2 …………. 56 MPH.
MP 6.7X to MP 8.8X, Main 3 …………………………. 79 MPH.
MP 8.8X to MP 10.0X, Main 3 ………………………… 73 MPH.
MP 8.8X to MP 10.4X, Main 1 and Main 2 ……….. 73 MPH.
MP 10.4X to MP 10.7X …………………………………. 63 MPH.
MP 15.9X to MP 16.6X …………………………………. 40 MPH.
MP 31.7X to MP 31.8X …………………………………. 65 MPH.
MP 34.4X to MP 34.6X …………………………………. 55 MPH.
MP 34.6X to MP 36.4X …………………………………. 73 MPH.
MP 36.4X to MP 37.8X …………………………………. 52 MPH.
MP 37.8X to MP 39.0X …………………………………. 37 MPH.
MP 39.0X to MP 39.6X …………………………………. 30 MPH.
MP 39.6X to MP 0.0……………………………………… 20 MPH.
MP 0.0 to MP 1.8 …………………………………………. 42 MPH.
MP 1.8 to MP 2.8, Main 1 ……………………………… 57 MPH.
MP 1.8 to MP 2.1, Main 2 ……………………………… 57 MPH.
MP 2.1 to MP 2.2, Main 2 ……………………………… 47 MPH.
MP 2.2 to MP 2.8, Main 2 ……………………………… 57 MPH.
MP 2.8 to MP 5.1 …………………………………………. 64 MPH.
MP 5.1 to MP 6.6 …………………………………………. 60 MPH.
MP 6.6 to MP 7.1 …………………………………………. 70 MPH.
MP 7.1 to MP 9.5 …………………………………………. 75 MPH.
MP 9.5 to MP 9.8, Main 1 ……………………………… 35 MPH.
MP 9.5 to MP 9.8, Main 2 ……………………………… 52 MPH.
MP 9.8 to MP 10.8 ……………………………………….. 67 MPH.
MP 13.2 to MP 14.0 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 14.0 to MP 14.3 ……………………………………… 40 MPH.
MP 14.3 to MP 15.9 ……………………………………… 50 MPH.
MP 15.9 to MP 19.9 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 21.9 to MP 23.8 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 23.8 to MP 25.6 ……………………………………… 63 MPH.
MP 46.8 to MP 47.7 ……………………………………… 70 MPH.
MP 47.7 to MP 47.9 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 51.1 to MP 51.4 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 51.4 to MP 53.7 ……………………………………… 75 MPH.
MP 53.7 to MP 54.3 ……………………………………… 60 MPH.
MP 62.3 to MP 63.0 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 64.5 to MP 65.1 ……………………………………… 62 MPH.
MP 69.1 to MP 70.4 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 70.4 to MP 70.7 ……………………………………… 60 MPH.
MP 70.7 to MP 71.6 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 77.8 to MP 79.5 ……………………………………… 65 MPH.
MP 81.6 to MP 81.8 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 81.8 to MP 83.2 ……………………………………… 70 MPH.
MP 86.9 to MP 87.2 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 89.0 to MP 89.8 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 91.0 to MP 91.2 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 93.7 to MP 95.0 ……………………………………… 67 MPH.
MP 95.0 to MP 95.3 ……………………………………… 45 MPH.
MP 95.3 to MP 97.2 ……………………………………… 52 MPH.
MP 97.2 to MP 98.4, Main 1 ………………………….. 75 MPH.
MP 98.4 to MP 98.5, Main 1 ………………………….. 70 MPH.
MP 98.5 to MP 100.3, Main 1 ………………………… 75 MPH.
MP 97.2 to MP 100.3, Main 2 ………………………… 75 MPH.
MP 100.3 to MP 100.6 ………………………………….. 67 MPH.
MP 122.3 to MP 122.8, Main 1 ………………………. 65 MPH.
MP 122.8 to MP 122.9, Main 1 ………………………. 53 MPH.
MP 122.3 to MP 122.9, Main 2 ………………………. 65 MPH.
MP 132.6 to MP 136.2, Main 1 ………………………. 70 MPH.
MP 132.6 to MP 133.1, Main 2 ………………………. 67 MPH.
MP 133.1 to MP 136.2, Main 2 ………………………. 70 MPH.
MP 136.2 to MP 136.5 ………………………………….. 35 MPH
MP 9.8 to MP 9.2 …………………………………………. 30 MPH.
MP 9.2 to MP 8.9 …………………………………………. 40 MPH.
MP 8.9 to MP 8.5 …………………………………………. 30 MPH.
MP 8.5 to MP 5.5 …………………………………………. 79 MPH.
MP 5.5 to MP 5.0 …………………………………………. 30 MPH.
MP 5.0 to MP 3.0 …………………………………………. 50 MPH.
MP 3.0 to MP 1.5 …………………………………………. 70 MPH.
MP 1.5 to MP 0.9 …………………………………………. 50 MPH.
MP 0.9 to MP 0.3 …………………………………………. 35 MPH.
MP 0.3 to MP 0.0 …………………………………………. 10 MPH.
It’s not fair to place a blanket blame on “the unions”. It’s specifically the conductor and engineer’s unions (combined with the outdated FRA regs) that bear the responsibility for labor inefficiencies: The on-board crews have worked with management to allow for much greater efficiency than ever before. For instance, an Amtrak sleeping car or coach attendant handle many more passengers per car than a Pullman Porter or Chair Car Porter ever did, and the Food & Beverage staffs are probably 1/3 of what they were in the pre-Amtrak days.
Eliminating the AC position and putting the conductor up with the engineer, as they do in Canada, would be much more cost-effective. That way, the on-board service positions would then handle all aspects of service, and that would be much less expensive than paying two Conductors.
As for the Pt Defiance cut-off, both geography and reality make this an essential project: Widening the two tunnels is a non-starter, and operating two separate stations for Sounder and Amtrak is just dumb. I agree that it’s too bad to lose the limited waterfront route, but the NE corridor manages to pack them in without much of anything in the way of scenery. If we want a grown-up rail corridor, with efficient operation, we have to give some things up.
Eric K.
I have the updated version…
MP 0.0X to MP 0.3X, Main 1 …………………………. 35 MPH.
MP 0.0X to MP 0.3X, Main 2 …………………………. 35 MPH.
MP 0.3X to MP 1.8X …………………………………….. 50 MPH.
MP 1.8X to MP 2.6X …………………………………….. 48 MPH.
MP 2.0X to MP 2.6X, Main 2 …………………………. 48 MPH.
MP 2.6X to MP 3.4X, Main 1 and Main 2 …………. 75 MPH.
MP 6.7X to MP 8.8X, Main 3 …………………………. 79 MPH.
MP 8.8X to MP 10.0X, Main 3 ………………………… 79 MPH.
MP 8.8X to MP 10.4X, Main 1 and Main 2 ……….. 75 MPH.
MP 10.4X to MP 10.7X …………………………………. 63 MPH.
MP 10.4X to MP 31.7X …………………………………. 79 MPH.
That is valid between Seattle and Tacoma.
MP 37.8X to MP 39.0X …………………………………. 43 MPH.
MP 39.0X to MP 39.6X …………………………………. 30 MPH.
MP 39.6X to MP 0.0……………………………………… 43 MPH. (New relocated mainline)
MP 0.0 to MP 1.8 …………………………………………. 47 MPH.
That is valid to McCarver Street in Ruston.
Or to make this more simple…
With the mainline relocation completed in Seattle, train speeds are the following;
King Street Station to Royal Brougham is now 35mph from 20mph
Royal Brougham to Spokane Street (Just North of it) is 50mph from 20mph
Spokane Street (after the curve) to Georgetown is 50mph
Georgetown to South Seattle is 70mph (soon to be 79mph for all 3 mains)
South end of South Seattle is 65mph (curvature)
Curve before Tukwila Station is 50mph
Tukwila Station to “Steward” (except for 2 curves) is 75/79mph
Steward to TR Jct is 65, 50, 35 respectively.
TR Jct to Dock Street is 35mph from 15mph
You can review all of this information on Railroadforums.com under the Maintenance of Way section.
I’d just like to address a few of the reasons why this is an important project.
First, I’m less worried about the Coast Starlight. That’s one round trip daily. Amtrak Cascades in the Seattle-Portland corridor has four round trips, and the long range plan for the service calls for twelve or thirteen eventually. That portion of Cascades accounts for most of its now approximately 800,000 annual riders.
Seattle to Portland travel is today a tossup in reliability and speed between air, car, and rail. Air trips are expensive and often delayed – nearly as much as Cascades is – and require a mess of security. Car trips are congested and fuel is expensive for a single traveler. Train travel can be delayed, offers the highest base travel time, and only operates four times a day.
In the next year or two, WSDOT wants to add two more round trips daily to Amtrak Cascades – and these, along with the increased access that Link Light Rail will bring to the station, will easily bring ridership well over a million passengers per year. In order to do this, though, they need to be able to schedule around the freight operating in the Nelson Bennett tunnel, and they need better reliability in the corridor.
The other aspect here is Sound Transit. Sounder pulls in some five times the daily ridership of Cascades – and that rate is increasing, with several round trips just added and more to come. If our local Proposition 1 passes, Sounder will be carrying double or triple that in another decade. Extending this service to South Tacoma and Lakewood is absolutely necessary to provide a real option to those in Pierce County.
It’s only a matter of time before Sounder is extended to Dupont – and Thurston County might join the district as well. The possibility of commuter rail service to the Capitol – not to Lacey – is very real for a next step. That project will only come from incremental expansion on Sounder, and this project is the largest part of that.
It’s not just six minutes. It’s six minutes today, and far higher reliability. It’s also visibility for I-5 users who probably don’t even know there’s a train. That visibility is key when we build a higher speed track in this corridor. When you’re stuck in 40mph traffic and a train passes you at 110, you don’t just think about using it – you tell your friends about what you saw, and you start to see how necessary it is.
This isn’t six million dollars. It’s a step toward doing things right in a place that is ripe for change.
I just got back from Seattle today on the Cascades (2:20PM), and the damn thing was 1 hour 45 minutes LATE arriving at Portland! There were TWO bridge delays and TWO freight train delays. Some successful rail project! I’m never taking that thing again to Seattle, even if I have to go by Greyhound. (The time before when I took it, it was ONLY 50 minutes late coming back from Seattle.
It’s a shame; the train should theoretically be the best way to go between Portland and Seattle.
Nick, that’s the whole point. The thing needs funding!
“Nick, that’s the whole point. The thing needs funding!”
>>> Yes, it needs its own ROW, like the AVE train in Spain (Madrid – Sevilla), which I rode years ago.
But transportation policy in this country seems to be more oriented to things to light rail (which is totally unnecessary in Portland metro), instead of high-speed mainline rail in heavily traveled corridors.
Uhmm, and it will get it’s own (okay, it has to share it with sounder,) right of way for a couple miles, with this funding…