High Speed Rail Opportunity


One of the late additions to the stimulus bill was the inclusion of $8B for high speed rail, and item that was voted into a top position on the transition team’s public web site.

Assuming this doesn’t all get consumed in the NE Corridor (I think there is actually a provision capping the percentage that can be spent there), how would we spend some of these dollars getting a Willamette Valley to BC corridor going?


46 responses to “High Speed Rail Opportunity”

  1. WSDOT already has your answer, in 223 detailed pages.

    The end goal is a 2:30 trip from Portland to Seattle with 13 daily round trips up from the current 4) and a 5:22 trip from Portland to Vancouver, BC, with 3-4 daily round trips. Estimated cost for the whole program is $6.5 billion, but some of this money has already been spent.

    The specific infrastructure improvements needed, and their cost in 2006 dollars, starts at page 75. It’s sorted by county in Washington State, and page 104 shows the order the projects need to be completed in. And check out the example timetables starting at page 144. I love planning weekend trips back home to Portland with the 2023 schedule—I could easily do it in a weekend without taking time off work!

  2. There is talk about the Pt. Defiance Bypass being delayed because of budget cuts, but hopefully it is back on with the Stimulus. The project is a two-phase joint project with Sound Transit. The Lakewood extension of SOUNDER will be using that stretch.

  3. Really, this is a State of Washington project … a “Vancouver to Vancouver” high speed rail with Seattle at the center. The Portland area is dealing with a fairly small segment — Vancouver WA to Oregon City.

    Along that segment, I can see a few ways to increase speed and reliability. Put in extra track where there’s room to allow more shared freight/passenger train operation. Grade-separate crossings to permit higher speeds in the Metro area. Maybe build a new passenger rail station at Rose Quarter to eliminate the two river crossings needed to reach Union Station.

    We probably could piggyback some proposed commuter rail projects onto that; for example, an extra track between Clackamas and Milwaukie, designed to allow passenger rail to bypass freight, could support WES lines from Clackamas TC to Beaverton and/or Sherwood.

  4. Oregon needs to step up and make the trip via rail from Portland to Eugene possible in less than 2 hours with AM trips from Portland south as well as later return trips. We’ve been getting a free ride for trips to and from the north. Talgo’s can go a lot faster than 79 mph if tracks allow.

  5. I wonder if a new high speed rail station at the Brooklyn Yard would work. It could connect to the Milwaukie MAX line and busses 9,19,17, and 70. Additionally it has easy auto access off of Powell, Holgate, and McLaughlin(99E).

    This would be cheaper and easier than a new station at the Rose Quarter, and would allow the high speed line to stay on the east side of the river.

  6. I find this discussion very similar to a trip to Disneyland, cause its all make believe.

    So they put in the high speed rail, THERE IS NO MONEY TO OPERATE IT REMEMBER?

    Who’s service is going to get whacked next?

  7. Lottery money works for me. We are not talking about high speed rail (HSR) here, but “higher speed rail”…i.e. faster than 79 mph. No need to replace Union Station which is accessible by Streetcar, many buses and soon the Green & Yellow MAX lines.

  8. Hell, I would settle for just standard rail service without the extra hours waiting for freight and without the switch to bus to get up to Vancouver. Supposedly a lot of “those issues” are going to be fixed in time for the Olympics, but jeez… the switch to bus alone is tempting me to rent a car to drive when I go up for Timbers games this spring.

  9. I think there are plans for an early Cascades train out of Portland that goes thru to Vancouver BC some time in 2009…in time for an evening game, but not an afternoon event. Back the next day; sounds like fun, but its not HSR!
    Lottery $ works for Oregon State Parks, why not for rail service that will offer an option to I-5 to Eugene.

  10. I’d trade high speed for sustained speed any day.
    Passenger rail isn’t sustainable – it costs too much & does too little.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. One more time…

    I put up a comment earlier today, but I guess Chris no longer allows my posts. It contained only opinion on rail expansion — the Sounder commuter-rail segment between Tacoma and Lacey which Amtrak will share, the Tacoma streetcar line connection and Amtrak moving their station near there. Restoring the Pioneer to Salt Lake City. Period. Oh well. I won’t miss this forum, nor its host.

  12. Wells, I haven’t deliberately deleted anything you’ve submitted. I’ll check if something got hung up in the moderation queue without getting noticed.

    Your comments are welcome and invited.

  13. I just went over the spam queue for the last 24 hours (that’s a lot of spam), and there were no posts containing the string or signature, “Wells”.

  14. I actually have a very lengthy post that details the Mid-Range plan that will be up tomorrow morning.

    I have already gone over some of the Oregon stuff previously but in short, the State of Oregon is looking at purchasing Alstom Bi-Level (Surfliner, California cars) or ex-NJT Comet Cars and ex-GO Transit F59PH locomotives. This is possible because of the fairly straight track between Portland and Eugene.

    Meanwhile, the State of Oregon will be working with Union Pacific Railroad to finish up the second main track in Eugene and increasing the speed to 79mph. After the installation of Positive Train Control, the State of Oregon will again talk with Union Pacific to increase speeds to a maximum of 90mph however it is believed that Union Pacific will require at least 40 to 70% of the corridor to be double tracked. In the interim, Thurway Service will be added between Portland and Eugene. Rail service will be added as the motorcoach service grows.

    Right now, Amtrak Cascades can do the trip in 2 hours and 35 minutes (scheduled), Motorcoach is 2 hours and 25 minutes, and driving is 1 hour and 55 minutes. If trains are increased to 90mph, the estimated run time is 1 hour and 50 minutes after improvements.

  15. “So they put in the high speed rail, THERE IS NO MONEY TO OPERATE IT REMEMBER?”
    … and …
    “I’d trade high speed for sustained speed any day.”
    … and …
    “Passenger rail isn’t sustainable – it costs too much & does too little.”

    Are all actually on the same topic. For intercity rail, the percentage of operating costs covered by passenger revenues depends on the populations of the cities connected and the travel times by rail. For example, in the Ohio Hub, using the same ridership modeling, the operating ratio for the 79mph scenario is 89%, while the operating ratio for the 110mph scenario is 154%.

    And the 79mph scenario only gets so close to break even if it connects to 110mph MWRRS corridors … if it connects to 79mph MWRRS corridors, the operating ratio is closer to 60%.

    So the 79mph scenario would require ongoing operating subsidy (like airlines and automobiles) while the 110mph scenario would not.

    None of this is rocket science, of course … offer faster trips, and the total population connected in two hour and three hour trips increases. Increase the populations connected by two and three hour trips, and you increase ridership.

  16. If Seattle was cheaper and/or easier to get to, I’d go a lot more for fun. I’d probably go more for work reasons as well.

    If we get HSR to connect to California’s system, I’ll go there more too. Southwest is okay for getting to OAK or SFO, but I’d love it if a 250 mph train can become realistic. The cheaper/easier it becomes to travel, the more I’ll travel.

    Realistically HSR is the immediate replacement for shorter airplane flights. Vegas to LA? HSR can be faster/easier. San Diego to Phoenix? Santa Barbara to San Francisco? Fresno to Sacrameno?

    How about Texas? San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi, Houston, Dallas, Ft Worth, Galveston and Waco are all in a loop if you get a little creative.

    In Florida I-95, I-4 and I-75 make a loop around the state and population centers as well. New York has the Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse/Utica/Albany/NY Thruway Corridor to build on.

    Oregon should get moving, because we don’t have comparable populations to any of them. We won’t get much funding unless we’re first to the trough.

  17. I can’t see any realistic prospects for an HSR connection to California. There just isn’t enough between the Willamette Valley and the Bay Area to support it. High-Speed Rail is useful over intermediate distances … long enough that it represents a significant time savings over a car or bus, and short enough that it’s competitive (time-wise) with air travel (taking into account all the time and hassle associated with boarding aircraft). And there need to be significant population centers to generate ridership.

    Realistically, I can see LA to SF doing pretty well. Same goes for Portland (or even Eugene) to Vancouver BC. But I don’t see much prospective ridership between those segments. Even with significantly faster trains than the Talgos, Portland to SF would be a five hour trip. I can’t see that competing effectively with airplanes on either time (less than two hours in the air) or price.

  18. Douglas K is right on a bullet train to the California HSR system … the capital cost is very high per mile, especially through that kind of terrain, and you need large population centers that are 2 hours and 3 hours apart by bullet train to support the cost. California works for bullet trains because it brings SF/SJ within 3 hours of the LA Basin.

    As a market segment based on incremental improvements of existing rights of way, a 110mph sleeper service might be workable, allowing people to leave after close of business hours and arrive early the next morning … but for daytime services, the PacNW Corridor is a much more viable Rapid Rail market.

  19. Is it possible to effectively use the money and not put any of it into Peter DeFazios’ district. Maybe it is time we started thinking of Bend as the 3rd grown up city in the state; how about Vancouver to Salem to Bend to Sacramento. After all, DeFazio didnt think it was worth voting for this money, so why should we act like his vote doesnt matter. (BTW, I live in his district and I think his vote was the height of irresponsibility).

  20. ValkRaider wrote: I wonder if a new high speed rail station at the Brooklyn Yard would work.

    Lenny Anderson wrote: No need to replace Union Station which is accessible by Streetcar, many buses and soon the Green & Yellow MAX lines.

    Union Station, in a railroad sense, is in a very poor location; it requires Amtrak trains to run “off course”, over two maintenance intensive bridges (one of which has a tendency to “freeze” in an open position), and the station itself needs a lot of upgrades.

    I would propose a new, modern station to be located in East Portland between the Hawthorne and Morrison Bridges as a brand new transportation hub, incorporating a new Greyhound terminal (akin to Spokane’s intermodal facility) within the same building, a new Eastside TriMet transfer facility (considering the large number of buses that would pass on the Morrison and Hawthorne Bridges, it would make the new station so much more transit accessible), and would be the catalyst and hub for redevelopment in the Eastside – including an urban shopping center/lifestyle center akin to the VERY SUCCESSFUL development of Washington D.C.’s Union Station. Look at any major rail station in Europe or the Northeast…that could be Portland.

    But not at Union Station. Union Station ought to be turned into a railroad museum.

  21. Lenny Anderson wrote: Oregon needs to step up and make the trip via rail from Portland to Eugene possible in less than 2 hours with AM trips from Portland south as well as later return trips.

    What’s incredible is that this is possible, TODAY, with buses.

    Portland could fund an extensive, and profitable, bus system with hourly bus service between Portland and Eugene, which would attract more passengers than the rail system, at a single-digit percentage of the cost of a rail system (which would not be profitable), and would spawn branch bus services blanketing the entire Willamette Valley and not just the core.

    Portland-Eugene is 107 miles. A bus running at 55 MPH from freeway on-ramp to freeway off-ramp would make the run in two hours with nothing more than…the bus. (Yes, maybe the 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM departure south out of Portland might take a little longer…and maybe the Friday night 6:00 PM departure too…)

    Right now the ODOT supported buses running as part of the Amtrak Cascades schedule do not require any operational subsidy; and in fact Amtrak Cascades has a rider advisory stating that those holding monthly passes are not guaranteed a seat on those buses – which means a two hour wait for a train (because the buses are so popular – imagine that!) Save the money for something more substantial.

  22. No need to replace Union Station which is accessible by Streetcar, many buses and soon the Green & Yellow MAX lines.

    Rose Quarter is served by multiple buses, all four MAX lines, and will be close to Streetcar service when the eastside line is built. Take the north mall buses over the Steel Bridge to end at Rose Quarter and there would be even more transit connections.

    It’s also right next to the freeway, which would make it a great site for the sort of multi-modal bus/rail facility that Erik suggested.

    There’s even available land at the old Red Lion site. That’s a waterfront site, so potentially the rail/bus station could include a dock to serve river taxis or even cruise ships.

    And Erik’s right: Union Station could be rehabbed into a fantastic museum. Or possibly a public market. Or both.

  23. for the time being i’d say forget about major improvements to the portland-eugene segment and instead focus rail investment in the northwest on the seattle-portland route.

    think about this, if we had true HSR between portland and seattle it would take about 40-45 minutes. (145 miles and at about 200-220 mph). and think about how that would change travel patterns and how we live as well as regional identities.

    with improved and faster tracks you get a more efficient use of equipment and railroad employees as well as attract more people to the service, and therefore the farebox recovery improves to the point of profitability.

  24. Sorry. I guess my post just disappeared. And thanks for the explanation. I’m a wreck.

    I’m not a big fan of electrified high-speed rail. Talgo trains can reach 135mph top speed on suitable track, fast enough for the Portland-Seattle run which at 3 hours 30 minutes competes well with flying and driving while providing service to five stations between here and there.

    Our real traffic problem isn’t intra-city, it’s inner-city where electricity is needed for light rail expansion. The Cascades route is mostly rural where the environmental benefit of electrification is moot. Basic UPRR track upgrades would do more good and speed up travel times sufficiently.

    I’d like to see the Amtrak Pioneer to Salt Lake City start up again. And, rather than the proposed Maglev train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, return Talgo trains to that route and continue to Salt Lake City.

    Speaking of Salt Lake City, the Amtrak Zephyr from the Bay area arrives there at 3:am! A 2nd daily train on the Zephyr route would arrive at a more civilized hour. The Amtrak Pioneer to Los Angeles via SLC and Las Vegas goes by Zion and other National Parks. Hmmm.

    Should we invest in super expensive, super high-speed rail and Maglev or basic Amtrak lines that aren’t sexy enough for the small penis overcompensation crowd?

    When I write this sort of analytical viewpoint, it bugs me that the only response they get is negative.

  25. “When I write this sort of analytical viewpoint, it bugs me that the only response they get is negative.”

    Just a wild guess, but maybe casting those who disagree with your position as the “small penis overcompensation crowd” might have something to do with it.

    That aside, I do tend to agree with you. The region, at modest cost compared to dedicated high-end high-speed rail, would be well served by medium-speed frequent, *reliable* rail service. If the trip to Seattle is two hours, but reliably on-time compared to air travel, and free of security hassles at either end, and free of delays due to waiting on sidings, etc., it would be a tremendous improvement over what we have today and would attract a lot more riders.

    I would rather take continuous incremental steps… a new parallel track here, a viaduct there, a grade-separated crossing there, constructing them to allow for the possibility for easy future upgrades to true high-speed, but alleviating bottlenecks and delays immediately at moderate cost.

  26. The Cascades is doing well even now, Bob. There are other rail corridors to improve, like the Pioneer.

    Or, how about routing the Starlighter along the west side of the Cascades Range to serve Cottage Grove, Roseburg, Grants Pass, Medford and Ashland before heading on to Shasta? Some major trackwork needed to open up that old route. Sure, Greyhound buses run through on I-5, but wouldn’t a 2nd rail route be handy should the Klamath route close due to slides, washouts and snowfall.

    I still say electrified 200mph+ high-speed rail is so unecessary, it’s more cathartic than decent.

  27. Wells wrote: how about routing the Starlighter along the west side of the Cascades Range to serve Cottage Grove, Roseburg, Grants Pass, Medford and Ashland before heading on to Shasta? Some major trackwork needed to open up that old route

    I suggest the fine book, “The Southern Pacific in Oregon” by Ed Austin and Tom Dill. Available at most libraries in the area.

    SP even knew back in the 1910s that the Siskiyou Line was simply unacceptable for through passenger traffic; that’s why the Cascade Line (a.k.a. Natron Cutoff) was built and opened in the 1930s.

    We’re not talking just “major track work”, we’re talking complete line relocations, in some cases miles away, just to make the railroad route suitable for 79 MPH passenger speed operations.

  28. jon wrote: if we had true HSR between portland and seattle it would take about 40-45 minutes. (145 miles and at about 200-220 mph). and think about how that would change travel patterns and how we live as well as regional identities.

    It seems that having Seattle within one hour to a larger number of people would simply encourage more sprawl – Portland would be a bedroom community to Seattle, Portland would lose many of the high-tech and industrial businesses, and Portland’s average income would go down as the only remaining jobs in Portland are low wage service sector jobs to serve those who commute to Seattle every day.

    Look at the Northeast Corridor. Most of the investment bankers in Manhattan do not live in Manhattan – they live an hour or so away by train in Connecticut, or Long Island, or Rhode Island…

    The folks who use the subway? They’re the ones who work at the fast food restaurants to serve those who live in The Hamptons, 80 miles to the east (and a commuter train goes out there). If we’re going to seriously talk about extending rail access out of Portland, we should start with Salem – at least there is an employment and a housing base in either city (many state workers live in Portland/work in Salem), there’s already a six-lane highway between the two cities, and it wouldn’t have to be “high speed”, just 79 MPH.

    HSR to Seattle, by the way, would NOT use the existing railroad – it would be an entirely brand new, separate railroad. You would never, ever find a BNSF or UP style freight train on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor; the only freight trains on the NEC are switching moves with a locomotive or two and a handful of cars moving at 30 MPH – not a through freight train with 100+ cars moving at 60 MPH — such a train would tear up the NEC to pieces.

  29. considering we’ve already been making many incremental steps to improve the cascades this gradual higher-speed rail is the way to go.

    And, rather than the proposed Maglev train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, return Talgo trains to that route and continue to Salt Lake City.

    please tell me you didnt fall for that LA-LV crap. the media has been perpetuating this fabrication spouted my john boerhner. LA-LV is not an official HSR corridor, mag-lev will never be built, this is merely a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream sketched out on a napkin that some republican interns dug up that boerhner latched onto to try to paint out HSR and the whole stimulus as pork.

    HSR to Seattle, by the way, would NOT use the existing railroad – it would be an entirely brand new, separate railroad. You would never, ever find a BNSF or UP style freight train on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor; the only freight trains on the NEC are switching moves with a locomotive or two and a handful of cars moving at 30 MPH – not a through freight train with 100+ cars moving at 60 MPH — such a train would tear up the NEC to pieces.

    obviously, i was just suggesting what would happen if we had true HSR in this PDX-SEA corridor. theres no reason for true HSR when for a fraction of the price and time we will have a train of half the speed. it was just a big what if scenerio but just for the fun of thinking about it… it would be 45 minutes between downtown portland and downtown seattle, so the advantages would occur just in the downtowns. i think this would strengthen the downtowns by focusing activity there moreso as people want to locate near the station to take advantage of the rapid travel times that dont need local connections. sure portland would give some things up but it would also gain others.

  30. “”HSR in this PDX-SEA corridor. theres no reason for true HSR when for a fraction of the price and time we will have a train of half the speed.””
    “”focusing activity there moreso as people want to locate near the station to take advantage of the rapid travel times that dont need local connections. sure portland would give some things up but it would also gain others.””

    ~~~>What in the world are you talking about?

  31. jon wrote: i think this would strengthen the downtowns by focusing activity there moreso as people want to locate near the station to take advantage of the rapid travel times that dont need local connections

    In all the times that I’ve been in and around major railroad stations both in the U.S. and in Germany, I never saw a major housing development close to the station.

    It’s for the same reason people don’t live near airports.

    While Portland does have the apartment complex just opposite the train tracks from Union Station, Union Station sees a fraction of the train traffic as other major stations (Los Angeles is a good example, with close to 100 train movements in and out of LAUPT between Amtrak and Metrolink) and the apartment complex is some of the lowest-rent, least-desirable housing in that part of Portland. When I was in Germany a few years back and extensively travelled by bus, rail, bike and auto (yes, people DO own cars in Germany), I didn’t see housing near the railroad stations, I saw busy streets and business districts. I did see, however, big “bike parks” but they were nothing more than huge arrays of bike racks.

  32. Erik Halstead Says: In all the times that I’ve been in and around major railroad stations both in the U.S. and in Germany, I never saw a major housing development close to the station.

    I’d had England, Scotland, Spain and France to the observation. The natural development around rail stations is commercial and, obviously, hotels. It’s impossible to draw any conclusions in Portland, because the train station is all that survives from the period of rail traffic that created it.

    The residences Erik mentions are all very new, and were only built to take advantage of all the available land from the de-industrialization of the surrounding area. They certainly don’t exist because of Union Station.

    A truly busy hub like a rail station would be a congested, noisy place to live and the only resident who would benefit (other than, oh, hookers and pickpockets) would be someone who lived in Portland and worked in Tacoma.

  33. What in the world are you talking about?

    i am talking about two things… one, ‘cascades’ improvements to make it “higher speed rail” ~100 mph rail (not ‘high speed rail’) and two is hypothesizing about if we did have true 200+ mph “high speed rail” in this seattle-portland corridor like the kind of system california is proposing.

    In all the times that I’ve been in and around major railroad stations both in the U.S. and in Germany, I never saw a major housing development close to the station.

    It’s for the same reason people don’t live near airports.

    it would be primarily office and hotels that want the close immediate proximity. of course residential would still be there but it probably wouldnt want or require the same immediate proximity to the station as other uses. and as far as ‘around the station’ i dont mean just literally next door to the station but the general downtown area… pretty much anything within walking/biking distance of the station. like for seattle the whole downtown spreading up to pikes market and the westlake center. or portland, the 405/5 freeway loop.

    the reason people dont live near airports is the frequent extremely loud noise.

    ok i agree about the affordable housing next to union station but then look a few blocks further in the other direction and you have some of the highest value land in portland (the pearl). residential has no problem being near the train but not literally right next to it.

    what i’m suggesting is more or less what we have today as far as people and businesses in proximity to the stations in portland, tacoma and seattle. and just more infill continuing to be built around the stations and downtown as has been the case recently. people now can walk and bike to these stations, but the rail service in the future would be faster, more frequent and of more use to people… which would likely increase demand for the land near the station (walking/biking distance).

  34. jon Says:What in the world are you talking about?

    Thank you jon!
    Appreciate that response,this stuff is pretty technical for a dumb bus driver like me!

    :-s

  35. I was out of town this weekend, so I’m catching up. Forgive my multiple-posting, please, but I’ve had this on my mind since Sunday.

    The folks who use the subway? They’re the ones who work at the fast food restaurants to serve those who live in The Hamptons, 80 miles to the east (and a commuter train goes out there).

    Ummm, what? You think people who live in Manhattan work in fast food?

    Not in 2007. From http://nyjobsource.com/manhattansalaries.html:

    If you are searching for a high-paying job in the U.S., then you should start by looking in Manhattan. Workers in Manhattan, also known as New York County, recorded the highest weekly wage of $2,817 of all 329 U.S. counties measured during the first quarter of 2007. This equals an annual salary of $127,000. Research was done in a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Manhattan wages were more than triple the national average of $885. To compare the disparity in Manhattan earnings, none of the other four counties that make up New York City reached the national average. Queens was closest at $831 per week. Average weekly wages in Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), and Richmond (Staten Island) counties were $788, $742, and $733 respectively.

    Wow. Manhattan was a bit too Disney’d under Giuliani to let the poor in anymore. Yes, there are places, but it hasn’t the way implied for at least 15 years.

    For more, check Manhattan CraigsList For Rent. The worst places in Manhattan are $1250/mo for a tiny studio. That’s not “Do you want fries with that” pricing.

  36. If we’re going to improve rail service (whether or passenger or freight) in the area–

    howabout better connections between the south metro and the north?

    Right now, there is ONE useful line connecting the entire UP (and WPRR/PWRR and other shortlines) infrastructure in the Willamette Valley and points south, with Union Station, the majority of Port of Portland terminals, as well as the mainlines to the north and east. I condition my claim with “useful” because I don’t consider the Cornelius Pass line out to Banks, switching back down to Hillsboro and such, to be a terribly useful alternative–even though the tracks are there and still (I think) operational.

    Where to put such a line is left as an exercise for the reader. :)

  37. If we’re talking about european rail stations, then let’s get realistic.

    Yes Erik, in the suburbs it is probably quite uncommon for residences to be situated right next to a train station.

    In the cities, its obviously a whole different story! It is perfectly normal to have residences across the street!

    Regardless, why would anyone especially desire to live adjacent to a rail station? Thats why we have public transportation! ;)
    (…and bikes!)

    Regarding rail travel in Oregon, I agree completely with those who have advocated a *reliable* and *reasonable* regional rail system.

    Eugene, Salem, possibly even Bend. Serve the smaller cities as well, eventually. Corvallis, whatever.

    The reality is that a decent rail system will tye the region together. It creates a stronger bond between Portland and the Willamette Valley. Its not only important for commuting… it opens up the whole Valley to people from the City… and opens up the City to the people from the Valley. I view it as an extremely important project for the region, and I think it could be done for under 1B$…

    We cannot afford true HSR… at least for another generation.

    Work with the freight companies, build double track, improve service times and refurbish old stations. Get the project going now, and pay as we go, keeping within the budget, upgrading and expanding when possible.

    I really think this type of system will be invaluable for the region, and a bargain…

  38. Nate wrote: Eugene, Salem, possibly even Bend. Serve the smaller cities as well, eventually. Corvallis, whatever.

    The reality is that a decent rail system will tye the region together. It creates a stronger bond between Portland and the Willamette Valley. Its not only important for commuting… it opens up the whole Valley to people from the City… and opens up the City to the people from the Valley. I view it as an extremely important project for the region, and I think it could be done for under 1B$…

    First of all, there is a difference between “regional” rail and “High Speed Rail”.

    Using Germany as an example, the ICE trains would not serve an area of the Willamette Valley. It would serve Eugene and Portland. PERIOD. It would NOT stop in Albany or Salem, it would not provide regional services. That would be the job of regional trains and the S-Bahn (commuter rail).

    Secondly, how is improved rail service going to “open up the whole valley to people from the city”? Do you really think that if there was a train between Portland and Albany that Albany would just suddenly grow and spike and become a mecca for…something other than paper mill workers? Portland will still be the economic capital and it will make it easier for a few to commute to/from Portland (namely residents of Salem). As I witnessed firsthand when I lived in a suburb of Hamburg in the mid-1990s and frequently rode both DB Regional and Hamburg S-Bahn trains. Further such a system would do nothing to serve off-route communities like Molalla, Mt. Angel, Silverton, Stayton, Aumsville, Lebanon, Sweet Home – to the east; Yamhill or Polk Counties to the west.

    refurbish old stations

    Not many of them exist. When they do, they often don’t exist in their intended locations (Oregon City, Canby, Woodburn, Corvallis, Silverton). Besides, most of the old depots really have little relevance to passenger service.

    Oregon could have a regional bus system (akin to NJTransit, or California’s extensive Amtrak Thruway network) up and running for less than $25 million (including the costs of new buses and bus stops/park-and-ride facilities in most communities) which would blanket the entire Willamette Valley with frequent service (hourly on major corridors, multiple departures on other routes). $25 million won’t even buy you one mile of light rail, and will barely purchase one commuter rail trainset (track extra). It should be noted that Oregon’s Amtrak Thruway bus network receives NO STATE SUBSIDY for operations; the entire state subsidy for the Amtrak service goes straight to rail operations.

    The bus system would augment a commuter rail system between Portland and Salem, with potential rail service to Eugene (frankly the existing service is not suitable for most travellers, which is demonstrated by its ridership — the daily ridership PDX-EUG can fit in just one of the nine cars of the trainset)…with an ultimate eye towards redeveloping rail service if/when it becomes necessary.

    One final comment: Does anyone here know how to get to Bend by rail? Given that Bend is essentially sprawls-ville (and dramatically failing given its huge home foreclosure rate), I can’t see the rationale to encourage the poor planning of that community. Portland-Salem is easy pickings, and yet nobody seems to have an interest in building a commuter rail system between two cities that literally sticks out like a sore thumb.

  39. Erik,

    with all due respect, whether we are talking about HSR or regional rail (and yes, I know the difference), we are really projecting what we would like to see built during the next great infrastructure boom.

    These projects arent going to begin for another 10 years, minimum. But that’s why its good to discuss and plan now, so that there exist cogent visions for the time when we can build this stuff… if the people dont provide the visions, the power-mongers will… for their own ends.

    Buses are great… but they are not equal to rail. By the time Portland and the Valley need this regional system, the population will likely be doubled and there will be a focus on localism and regionalism. Count on it.

    There will be great demand for trips by rail. Quick, easy, efficient, reliable. Buses can have some of the same benefits as rail, but let’s face it, the popularity of rail speaks for itself. You *cannot* argue with that.

    Germany is a crap model for the region. Do you know how big Germany is?

    The Netherlands is a better model for the region. It has a similar suburban/exurban model of growth as “european-ish” Portland… and a focus on planned growth, like portland. Similar trends, values and existing infrastructure.

    In the Netherlands, there is a large regional rail service. Its expansive. its reliable. And it enables people to get around the region cheaply, efficiently and reliably(they’re region is they’re country, minus a few far out places like Friesland and Maastricht).

    People live all over, and they use their cars and bikes to get around. But if they’re going to Utrecht or Amsterdam, they take the train.

    You may see a regional rail system sucking the lifeblood from the valley…. I see it spreading the wealth around. Reinvigorating towns like Albany… connecting Corvallis and Eugene with Cosmopolitan Portland. The truth is, most people want a little bit of the City and a little bit of the Country… There are major advantages to bother. Connecting them with rail gives *everyone* access to both.

    With regard to HSR… pretty simple to me. Eventually, Seattle and vancouver. Without a doubt… but that is a project for the greater region, Cascadia. As far as the Bay Area, the answer is no way. During the next wave of ascendancy, we will improve air travel greatly… and there will never be a good reason to build a 25 Billion $ rail system from PDX to SF…

Leave a Reply to Wells Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *