SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The Pacific Northwest is one of ten regions in the country competing for a chunk of $8 billion in federal stimulus money to put towards high speed rail projects. President Obama called attention to his support for this mode of transportation in his remarks on Thursday. In addition to the money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama wants to budget $5 billion to be spent over the next 5 years. If Oregon and Washington are able to snag some of the stimulus money designated for high-speed rail, it would go towards upgrading the Amtrak Cascades route.
"High-speed rail" refers to passenger trains that move at 150-250 miles per hour. Right now, the fastest train in the U.S. is the Acela Express that travels from Washington DC to Boston at speeds up to 150mph (though it's usually more like 80 or 90mph because the Acela often has to make way for slower trains). Trains in other countries have long since left the U.S. in the dust. Japan's Shinkkansen goes 186mph and Shanghai's Maglev trains can zip up to 270mph.
Advocates of high-speed rail, including the president and Governor Ted Kulongski, say projects would create jobs and reduce traffic congestion. Skeptics scoff at the government's $13 billion "down payment," arguing that it's not nearly enough to spark the changes Obama wants to achieve.
California voters approved more funding for that state's high-speed rail project in November. High-speed rail isn't expected to get up and running in the Sunshine State for another decade or two and will likely cost $45 billion in state, federal and private money.
Do you travel by train now for business or for pleasure? How often would you ride a high-speed train from Eugene to Vancouver, BC? What do find exhilarating or daunting about traveling by train at high speeds?
GUESTS:
- Chris Warner: Transportation advisor to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski
- Robert Poole: Director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation
- Bill Bradbury: Former Oregon Secretary of State and an advocate for high-speed rail
- Robert Jefferson: American broadcast journalist, who worked in Oregon before moving to Japan
Tagged as: high speed rail · stimulus · transportation
Photo credit: mrbula/ Flickr /Creative Commons
-
First of all, what we need TODAY in the Pacific Northwest is higher speed rail (i.e., 90-100 mph), not "high speed rail." Rail is more cost effective than any other mode of travel in most corridors ... in terms of energy, land use, labor, etc. Knowledge of fundamental principles of physics make the energy efficiency of rail very clear. Those fundamental principle cannot be "engineered" out of the equation. Rubber tires on pavement, elevating people/freight and aircraft above the surface, are energy intensive.
The problem in this country is that we have been relying primarily on private investment for acquiring, developing, maintaining, signalizing and policing almost all rail infrastructure. And then we tax the rail infrastructure/land to get funds to help support local schools, LEA, fire suppressiion, and yes, even help pay for local airports and highways.
On the other hand, highways, aviation and waterways rely almost exclusively on taxpayer dollars to acquire, develop, maintain, signalize and police their rights-of-way. Add to that the fact that the airports, roadways and marine navigation facilities are publicly owned and thus essentially exempt from taxes. (Yes, they do pay "user charges" that help cover some of the expense, but this is VERY different than the taxes railways are required to pay and which support their competition and other non-rail government expenses
The level of security required for rail is totally different than aviation. Aviation is much more susceptible to terrorist activities. A small explosive can bring an aircraft down. Taking over the aircraft controls can redirect the craft into any number of structures. Such is not the case with rail. Stopping an aircraft will bring it down. Stopping a train will ... merely stop the train.
-
Thank you DanInAloha, for your well educated comment. It makes a lot of good points.
-
I spent a couple years in Germany and utilized the high speed rail there all the time. I think this is a good start but in order for the project to trully be viable they will need to build smaller lines that go to the suburbs with in 30 min of the major city the high speed train stops at. Even if the rail doesn't take off atleast it will be some jobs in the mean time.
-
Here's an interesting report (pdf) from the Union of Concerned Scientists arguing that "motor coaches," ie buses, are the greenest way to get anywhere you want to go.
-
Buses can be seen as "green" and efficient, yes, but they lack a certain service flexibility that modern trains -- even fast (not high-) speed passenger rail gives: capacity and all-weather safety and service. If a bus gets trapped in accident or weather-related freeway closures -- a typical Pacific Northwest winter seasonal problem -- what good are buses? If it takes one driver for every busload (perhaps 60, tops) of passengers -- a given -- but one engineer can operate a train of up to 100 to 400 passengers in all seasons and weather, what's the greener, more environmentally sound option? Too, one modern fuel-efficient diesel electric locomotive pulling three or more passenger coaches carrying hundreds of passengers frequently will beat any bus in providing the most efficient service.
Buses make excellent adjuncts to regular fast trains. Buses can provide remote towns parallel to or diagonally away from the rail corridor with cheaper, convenient connections, but buses should not become the system backbone.
-
A rubber tire rolling on pavement requires TEN TIMES more energy to overcome rolling friction on level terrain than a flanged steel wheel rolling on a steel rail. The wider the roadway, the more concentrated the drainoff. And concentrated drainoff causes erosion. Collecting runoff and adding it to the sewer system, creates even more severe problems with water pollution (hence, the expensive Big Pipe project in Portland).
A paved roadway generates a concentration of rain and other precipitation at its borders, along with all the environmentally destructive petroleum products (including particulates from the rubber tires, brakes, etc). Preciptation on a railway is not concentrated, but flows through through the crushed rock that forms the rail bed.
Railways are inherently and fundamentally greener than rubber-tired traffic. That is not to say we do not need buses. We do need buses. But rail is clearly the most envirnomentally friendly mode for most corridors with concentrations of people or freight.
-
I agree with KevinV. In some circumstances, trains can benefit from economies of scale that buses cannot. The important thing is to identify where those would come into play and then go with the mode that is most appropriate.
-
This idea is one of only a few of those that have come from the Feds since the election that has any possible benefits.
No land is needed the tracks will need a completely different road bed then Iron, Wood, Rock. Raise them parallel and upgrade the existing tracks allowing higher speed of the freight lines and higher security and safety for all rail.
There will be other minor technical challenges, nothing that can not be solved as long as we think it through better then PDX did with the west side light rail.
Security could be an issue. If we get outside of the current safety box and design a system that will absorb damage up to some reasonable finite point coupling it with such simple steps as securing our national borders, this issue can be mitigated with technology, unlike what has been band-aided to air traffic. -
Rail as a mode of choice for transportation in USA will have future if it adds value.
It will not replace road travel. Simply because cars got to the masses first in USA
Any other place where rail is popular and well utilized the population density is 5-10 times higher than USA and cars were not available en-mass. i.e rail replaced bus travel or opened new possibilities but never replaced cars..
Rail can add value in USA in 2 ways:
1) Replacing short commuter flights PDX-SEA, PDX, SFO
If and only if, door to door time of train is +/- 10% of the door-to-door for flights. i.e. if the flight and airport security etc keep getting longer and longer they’ll make it easier for people to choose trains. But I doubt a 90 mph train can do this.
2) “Seamlessly” Feeding Seatac, Vancouver, SFO airports.
If the train travel including ticketing and baggage handling can be seamlessly integrated from train-to-plane then suddenly a lot more flights are available to the travelers to and from Oregon. This even a 90 mph train can solve, at least with PDX-Seatac
-
I am still trying to understand why there appears to be no discussion about establishing either a train or high speed train connection between Portland and Madras/Redmond/Bend? Would this not facilitate economic growth in the Central Oregon area? Is this simply not feasible in any respect?
-
Yours is a good question. The big problem is the railroad itself. Right now Amtrak must interface and depend upon commerical freight railroads. Yes, there are tracks already between Portland and Madras/Redmond/Bend but by established Amtrak and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (which owns that route) operating contracts, those tracks are freight-only. Too, those tracks form a giant out-of-the-way "C" of travel: they are quite indirect and even if available for regular passenger trains, the distance would make a slow trip that would have to go through southern Washington along the Columbia River before tucking back into Portland.
An ideal soultion -- for now and some time in the future -- would be to put in regular connecting Amtrak Northwest buses to serve Bend/Madras and in-between communities connecting with more frequent 'Amtrak Cascades' intercity trains serving the Willamette Valley and Washington/British Columbia.
There may come a day when adequate capital -- and it would be a great amount of money -- will be there for full-rail service to oregon's east side, but it's not there now. Passsenger-quality track is expensive -- even for fast (not high-) speed trains, on the order of $2.5+Million per mile; a modern passenger rail coach costs no less than $3M each and that's without a locomotive which is substantially more.
-
Before we spend a ridiculous amout of money on high speed rail, it would be nice to actually have a reliable rail link from Seattle to Vancouver, BC. These major metropolitan areas are currently only linked by two trains a day, one running each way. That makes it effectively impossible to travel from Portland to Vancouver entirely by train, and forces riders to take a 4 hour bus trip across the border.
-
Enjoyed your comment on the radio ... Amtrak Cascades does travel all the way to Vancouver BC, as you probably realize, but currently requires an overnight stay in Seattle, both directions. You may also be aware that Amtrak and the State of Washington have been working to extend one of the exisiting trains that travels between Portland and Seattle to Vancouver BC, making it possible to travel all the way without transfer in Seattle. The impediment has been Canadian Government/Customs, who want to charge Amtrak an exorbitant amount to pay for customs official on the train ... payment they do not require for any other mode of travel. This problem will probably be resolved soon, but they have been trying to get the BC goverment to budge for about 2 years ... Dan McFarling OregonRail@aol.com
-
One of the biggest deficits in our current transportation system is a DIRECT train route to the Portland Airport from south in the Willamette Valley, that runs the hours planes fly. Better if it were high speed, but last time I checked, to get from the airport to the Amtrack station downtown took the Max and 2 buses. And it shouldn't cost as much as flying from Eugene to Portland.
The fact is that we won't eliminate plane travel, but we wouldn't have to drive to Portland and park in order to get to the airport.
-
The new MAX line in downtown Portland serves Union Station (Amtrak). That line will begin operation in September. It would not be difficult for TriMet to route some or all Red Line MAX trains directly to Union Station.
-
As one who grew up in suburban Chicago & experienced the efficiency of good trains and later went cross-country by train more than once and has ridden Canada Rail and Eurail, I am so excited to hear of these plans to improve rail! My family would certainly use it -- if it is affordable. We'd love to take train trips now, but it's pretty expensive. It also would help our tourism, based on how the Eurail Pass is a popular & wonderful way to see Europe. Imagine tying in a trip down the Willamette, just like the Eurail ties in with trips on the Rhine, etc. We must reduce auto use & pollution & this is a great alternative.
-
This is really a great idea. To couple tourism with effective transportation. I think the idea would require a lot of due diligence, but could be very worthwhile.
-
Thank you for hosting this program. Please point out on the air that the bus solution suggested by the highways interest group doesn't provide the speeds that we are talking about (and hence convenience and advantage over the auto - the only way we will pry Americans out of our cars) and busses do not lend themselves to being powered by electricity.
Thank you.
-
You are absolutely correct that buses do not attract riders as well as trains do. Trains tend to be a much more pleasant, comfortable way travel. One of many reasons we do not have an adequate passenger rail system in the USA today is that, compared to other nations ... we rank among some of the poorest of the third world countries when it comes to per capita investment in passenger rail. We cannot expect modern, reliable rail service if we don't invest in it.
Never-the-less, rail is not practical to reach many locations. We will need more bus service to help provide connectivity and make public transportation feasible for more people. As more people begin to use public transportation, rail will become more feasible in more corridors.
-
This is a very timely program topic for me. My mother-in-law just visited my husband and I in Albany, and was excited to take the train. She flew in to Portland, took a cab to the train station, and was put on a freezing cold bus which promptly got stuck in traffic.
Nonetheless, she recommended my husband and I try that system the next time we fly out of Portland--trying to support public transport and all. Unfortunately, at $17 one way, it is too exorbitant for us, even if we did want to sit on a bus for 2 hours and make 2 transfers. For 2 people round trip, it would cost about $75, not including taking the MAX line from the train station to the airport. We drive a hybrid--even with parking costs, driving makes more financial sense.
Train travel can be very soothing and much easier on the environment. I would be so happy if in 10 or 15 years taking the train long-distance was a sensible choice.
-
this is crazy 10 mph and 13billion come on give me a break. How many people will actually use that service. I have used it once since I have lived here. how often do people goto seattle? Hello what are you guys thinking?
-
Your comments sound exactly like what any number of Californians said between 1950 and 1990. Then Amtrak California -- a dedicated agency -- was formed and funded, with incremental service upgrades to existing weak intercity passenger rail services. New rail cars were gradually built and put in service. Suddenly -- as in within 2 to 3 years -- there were trains connecting San Jose-Oakland/San Francisco-Sacramento and San Jose-Oakland/San Francisco and san Joaquin Valley cities and throusands of passengers used those trains. They are still using those trains and the pasenger counts and return on investment is *huge.*
Get stuck in traffic or bad weather on the freeway in your car and watch a fast passenger train full of people whip past on its way between Seattle and Portland or Eugene and those people paid under $50 round trip, had meals on board, good drinks -- yes, alcohol -- if they liked. They had their laptops plugged in at their seats or were watching a movie from their seat.
How will you feel then, not being one of them?
-
KevinV makes a good point. A study on the long-term benefits of the immediate investment would shed some light on the issue.
-
I was watching a show on trains awhile back, and I recall something about Federal regulations limit train speeds to 79 miles per hour. Our Current trains can go up to 120mph.
IS this true? Why don't they increase the speed limit on existing tracks?
Outside of deticated lines, don't these trains also need seemless tracks?
Another thing...Compared to the 4 trillion of taxpayer money dumped into the markets (which is still unproven), 45 - 300 billion is a drop in the bucket. At least that money would be going toward tangible items instead of lining bank execs pockets. We need to increase estimated funding and actually get this thing off the ground.
-
The 79 mph limit for nearly all rail corridors is set by the Federal Railroad Administration. There are a few corridors in which US passenger trains travel faster, but only when meeting restrictive FRA requirements.
Prior to this speed restriction (about 1950) many US passenger trains traveled at speeds exceeding 100 mph ... even some steam locomotives exceeded 100 mph.
One of the biggest impediments to higher speeds is the at-grade crossings with roadways. When the interstate highwaywas built, we paid the huge sums to eliminate all grade crossings (crossings with railways and roadways). In some cases, railways were simply eliminated to make way for the "freeway." That also happend a few years ago when I-5 was widened in Salem.
As roadways were expanded, governments at all levels failed to recognize that much of our rail system is (or should be) high speed corridors for both passengers and freight. These roads, most built after the railway, helped slow and strangle the railways and force more commerce and passengers from rail to road.
The FRA does much more "damage" to railways than impose restrictive speed limits. If aircraft and highway vehicles were required to meet the same requirements as trains: (1) planes would not be able to get off the ground, they would be too heavy. (2) fuel efficiency for trucks and automobiles would make such travel unaffordable. (3) smaller vehicles would not be able to share the roadways with heavy trucks.
In Europe and elsewhere, transportation safety requirements are based on accident avoidance. In the US, most transportation saftey requirements are based on survivability. Elsewher trains are lightweight and very safe. And consequently we have killed more US citizens on roads in the last two decades than were killed in more than two CENTURIES of war ... from the Revolution through the Iraq conflicts, including the deadly "Civil" War" ... we seem to accept it as a fact of life. No other industrialized nation has such an abysmal transportation safety record. No where else in the world do they have such a carbon footprint from transportation.
We cannot import the incredibly fast and incredibly safe trains used elsewhere in the world ... because they don't meet FRA "safety " standards!
-
Hi-speed rail would be nice, but I'd settle for having frequent, dependable rail service, with 3 or 4 trips a day, each way, between, say, Roseburg and Portland or Washington. As it is, commuting or even taking day-trips is practically impossible because of the shortage of scheduled runs and the screwy, 'take a bus halfway to your destination half of the time' service that Amtrak currently provides.
Rail could be a dream, with wireless service on the train, comfortable accomodations and smart, timely service. But as things are now, it's not.
-
I can attest that Japan's high speed rail is a huge improvement over car, bus, or plane travel in terms of comfort, but you also need to discuss automobile related fatalities in the US and compare those to the Japanese high speed rail system. People who think that high speed rail would be too expensive should think about highway fatalities in the US--the Shinkansen trains in Japan have yet to have a single fatal accident, if I am correct.
-
You are correct, and that is true for France, Spain and many other nations, where HSR ridership is very high.
Compare that with the fact that we more US citizens die of highway trauma every couple decades than were killed in ALL the wars this country has ever been involved in (Revolution through the Iraq conflict).
And that does not begin to count the huge numbers who die from respiratory-related illness. Many years ago the American Lung Association estimated that recovering the medical costs from gasoline exhaust alone would require a 40-45 cent per gallon tax on gasoline! Increased costs of health care today would make the cost per gallon even higher.
-
Come on people! Think outside your car! Many other countries have people not relying on cars and gas and wars to get their gas! Think of the environment! Get your coffee and your paper or laptop, sit on a train, relax, do some work! YES please let's make public transportation work in America!
-
it would cost 3-400 billion dollars to do this. If they only want to spend 13 billion it will never work. it would be great to be able to do that but instead of useing 13bil to do this how bout put it towards something that would help more.
-
This is a good point. Obviously, these systems seem to work well in other countries. Studying why and they work well and finding appropriate locations to install them would be a smart idea. It seems like many good ideas are being tossed before they can even be studied to determine viability.
-
My father was a railroad engineer in Japan back in the 40's and has walked and looked some rail lines in Oregon. Maintenance of the rail lines he's walked was scary. Rotten ties, missing or loose spikes being held down by the train wheels..... The US would have to really improve its maintenance practices.
-
Improvements in basic Amtrak service is best. The trip between Portland and Seattle takes 3 1/2 hours, a time comparable to and competitive with driving and flying. This time could be reduced to 2 1/2 hours affordably with basic rail upgrades, sidetracks, grade separation, etc. More passenger trains could run daily, and freight service would also improve.
It's good to hear the Amtrak Pioneer may reopen. I'd rather see it go through Salt Lake City to Las Vegas and reach a terminus in Los Angeles. The Amtrak Zephyr runs daily from the Bay Area through Salt Lake City to Chicago. The Zephyr could run 2 trains daily with basic upgrades and interconnect well with this proposed route for the Pioneer. The Pioneer comes closest to Bend at Hood River.
These sort of basic upgrades to Amtrak service is doable now, not after years of planning and construction that entails many times more expensive, electrified, completely separated Right-of-way high-speed rail track.
-
Although I also own a Prius for local car travel, I have also been a regular AmTrak traveler all around the country, too. For those of us who've traveled trains for years, it's already romantic. : )
I've many times ridden the trains in Europe, which connect just about every town to every other town. Even tiny places are served. One can work on the train, walk around, eat in a diner, have meetings, sleep, and sight see. These aren't nearly as useful when done on a bus or a plane. THERE is the romance.
I have traveled EUG - SEA many times, and even traveled back east to DEN, Kansas City and other locations and here in the US, the romantic side of things is still very much intact. (But now those Pioneer east-west lines are gone, so it's only North-South)
I also lived in New England in 2007 and traveled another North-South line, AmTrak's premiere Eastern corridor running New England to WashDC/NYC. Very nice service with good frequency, pricing and coverage.
General Passenger Rail is a great thing to increase. I wrote to the Obama administration right after they came in and suggested we'd like to see more Train service in all the infrastructure changes. All in all, I do not know that it's so much about SPEED as it is the CONNECTIVITY and OPTIONS around the country.
This is what it used to look like around the country and I think should come back again.
Thanks for the program. It's all good stuff.
-
i don't think the jury is out on high speed rail. it's a long-term solution and it needs to be thought of that way.
if we were to add up all of the government infrastructure spending over the last few decades in facilitating the automobile, i am sure it would come to an enormous number. if we don't start, we will never get there. the automobile is not a long term solution.
if you build it, they will come.
-
I love trains. I of course definitely want high-speed rail or just any reliable, frequent and consistent rail service. But the success of rail in Europe and other places is often do to geography, European countries are pretty small so obviously rail is much easier. The urban planning of European cities is also vastly different---yes there is actually something to do and see when you get off the train. Much of what we love to hate about America is largely a result of circumstance and function. It's a big country its hard to navigate something so large by rail, when the population density perhaps doesn't support it. I still think we should try though.
-
I'm finding the discussion fascinating. Regarding the comments about projections for usage for, say, a high speed rail line between Portland and Seattle, shouldn't the analysis be based upon the concept of "if you build it, he will come"? Why is it appropriate to do an analysis based upon usage of Amtrak now, when it takes four hours to get from Portland to Seattle, vs a high speed train that could get you from Portland to Seattle in 1/2 hour? I would suggest that if you provided consumers with that kind of alternative, that usage would dramatically increase.
Also, with respect to the comments regarding costs of high speed rail line, are your speakers really doing apples to apples analysis? By analagy, look at the costs of nuclear power. Was it really correct to ignore the costs of long term storage of nuclear power wastes in doing the cost benefit analysis. Similarly, in the case of high speed train costs, vs, say, the use of cars, improvements of highways, etc., are all of the costs associated with the latter being taken into account, such as roadway maintenance, effects on the environment, greenhouse emissions, the costs of oil subsidies, the costs of continuing dependence on the Middle East for oil, etc. I realize this is a daunting task, but shouldn't this be undertaken at this time?
David Ambrose
-
Conventional rail can make a significant impact on our transportation congestion and emissions, without exorbitant investments. All that is needed is political leadership to make the investment in infrastructure and equipment.
High-speed rail is like trying to run before you have learned to walk. Convention rail is not "highly expensive" as a speaker recently described high-speed rail. Conventional rail can be incrementally upgraded to 79 MPH, which is the fastest form of land transportation in the US. Modest additional improvements can raise speeds beyond 79 MPH. Simply decreasing the 3.5-hour time to Seattle to 2.5 hours would raise ridership tremendously. Adding more trips from Portland to Eugene would likewise expand ridership.
Washington and California both have forged public/private partnerships with the conventional freight railroads that permit highly effective conventional rail travel. Oregon is several years behind its neighborsing states in creating this sort of mutually-beneficial relationship with the freight railroads in Oregon.
-
We have troubled the poor rail service since I can remember, mid-seventies..I-5 should not be built larger, indeed, with a new rail bed a more frequent interurban service could ensue. What I want addressed is the fact that the many through ways for the rails were/are public lands. The rail companies do have some responsibility to the "public"..
Rail is essential for the urban corridor, for development along the alignment and the urban centers.
-
When the railroads were first built the federal government gave them every other square mile along the tracks to encourage development of the West. They made very handsome profits from the land that We, The People, gave them.
As an aside, the railroads were responsible for the idea that Corporations are legally "Persons", with the rights of actual human beings as in The Bill of Rights. That strange concept is at the root of many of our political problems today, like who has power and clout in our government. Thom Hartman worte about that in "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights".
-
I love riding the train! I would take it everywhere if it weren't for the poor schedules. There are things that are hard to quantify with rail travel. It's hard to say how much more likely people are to go somewhere along a rail corridor if an easy access to a train trip were available rather than forcing people to go by plane or car. I think business travellers would be more likely to go by train than plane, because it's easier to access, more comfortable, and easier to get more work done on the way; and less expensive. I would take classes at OSU if there were a commuter train, but can't imagine driving there or taking a bus (ugh). For some reason inter-city busses just don't get people taking mass transit, but rail does. Also, when a rail corridor develops that will be well traveled, a lot of development happens along it, it was seen in the Portland Streetcar development. For reasons hard to articulate, people are more likely to take an available train than a bus, and people will be more likely to go somewhere if there isn't a lot of discomfort and hassle. I think more people would travel casually and for business between cities if there were more available trains at more convenient times, stops focusing on business, and with even slightly faster service.
Another great way to travel between the bigger cities is to go by rail, and then pick up a Zipcar once you're there.
-
I also lived along the Interstate Max Corridor before the Max line was running. The increase in the number of people transported by the MAX vs. the No. 5 bus was immediate, and it is now HUGE, even though it isn't carrying the commuters from Vancouver like the 5 was.
-
I use max and tri-met all the time and enjoy being able to use the time to do other things (read, etc). I would happily take a LOW speed train for my longer travel, if it were more convenient and not, often, just as expensive as air travel. My sister used to live in Redding and when I visited her I ALWAYS checked bus, train and air before visiting. The train took as long as the bus, cost almost as much as a plane and left and/or arriveed at incredibly inconvenient times. PLUS it went through the most beautiful and noisiest (squeeking wheels) parts (the mountains) in the dead of night.
-
I take Amtrak to Eugene all the time, though usually they end up putting me on an Amtrak bus because the trains are constantly delayed. The Amtrak buses are much cleaner and more pleasant than Greyhound, and I would gladly take bus or train as long as they are safe and clean.
I have travelled all over Europe, and public transport there is convenient, affordable and pleasant, something public transport here in the US generally lacks.
-
A low speed train network would be the best use of funds. If you travel in Europe (Germany, France) the service is amazing. You can go from city to city, or stop near a national park and enjoy the day.
I would like to see a line that not only serves Portland and Seattle, but also allows people to go out of the city centers.
The great thing about train travel is that it is smooth, usually reliable, relaxing, and inexpensive (Id be interested to see how much auto/bus transport costs when looking at the private/public funds spent).
A train can be the transportation mode of choice for people. Why the obsession with fast before we even have the slow train network ironed out.
-
I am a graduate student at University of Washington, and have commuted to Seattle on a weekly basis throughout the year. My husband and I own a home in Portland and I stay with my brother during the week when I am attending classes.
I occasionally take the train, and would like to do so more often. It is a great way to travel. It is stress free and allows me to take advantage of the three hour trip to study.
However, the time it takes, door-to-door, for me to commute from Portland to Seattle is five hours, including getting to and from the train station on the MAX and bus. In contrast, the total time in the car, door-to-door, is usually three hours. In addition, when gas prices were closer to $4 per gallon, the $60 round trip train ticket made economic sense. Now I can drive round trip for $30. In addition, the train schedule is generally not convenient for the business traveler, with no early morning or late evening options. The earliest one can arrive in Seattle is 11:30am, and that is without delays.
The president's plans to increase funding for rail is very important for the Eugene to Vancouver, BC corridor. In addition to upgrading the speed of the trains, attention must be paid to making train travel more convenient and economical than the plane or the car. Reducing delays due to conflicts with freight would be a great first step. We are decades behind Europe and Japan, and as the population in the Pacific Northwest grows, we will be grateful for efficient transportation alternatives.
-
Any comments about the "high cost" of tens of billions for improved rail service need to be put in the context of hundreds and hundreds of billions spent on highways.
The "Reason Foundation" representative presented grossly manipulative misinformation on point after point.
The Union of Concerned Scientists "study" referred to is actually a consumer guide specifically about family vacations - not a formal study, and about travel in general - and it's remarkably shaky even there, given sweeping assumptions and oversimplifications. Buses can in no way provide a legitimate substitute to excellent national and regional rail systems.
The choices we need to make are not necessarily cheap or easy, and the issues are inherently complex. That doesn't mean it's better to minimize or ignore them.
We need to work carefully and patiently from real facts, and leave out the lobbyist snow jobs, if we're going to get the grip we need on climate change.
Excellent passenger rail _is_ an essential, vital component of developing the low-carbon transportation future we urgently need.
Thanks to our local, regional, and national political leaders who have the long-sighted public stewardship to help support this!
-
"The "Reason Foundation" representative presented grossly manipulative misinformation on point after point."
Yeppers! From his website:
"Robert Poole is director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation, the free market think tank he founded. Poole, an MIT-trained engineer, has advised the previous four presidential administrations on transportation and policy issues."
He's a free market ideologue, and free marketeers brought us the current economic crash Recession that is plaguing the world.
I find it hilarious that a Conservative is trying to hide under the label of "Reason". What an exquisite oxymoron!
-
thank you! All GREAT points.
-
How about running passenger rail right down the center line between the Interstates.
I5 and I assume all other major interstates have wide separation between the north and south lanes and so no new roadbeds need be bought, just some modifications to the existing roads.
-
I have been to Europe and Japan often and used the high-speed trains. The seats are roomy, you can take refreshments and enjoy the scenary. There are key differences between the US and Japan, for example that make shinkansen (bullet trains) useful and enjoyable to ride there but perhaps not here.
The key aspects of Japan that make bullet trains effective are not generally in place here. Imagine fitting half the population of the US into Montana. Japan has large and densly populated metropolitan areas around Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya which are also served by highly efficient local public transportation systems. Consequently, many residents do not own a car or even a driver's license because they can walk a short distance to a train station. Outside the big cities, however, public transportation tends to be inconvenient, and most people rely on a car. Most of the US is similar to this. Also in Japan, the expressways (like our intestates) charge tolls for automobiles which make driving vs. taking the shinkansen more balanced.
Also the Japan shinkansen trains come every 10-15 minutes to handle the larger ridership with its higher density, which use the tracks more and therefore provide a better profit for the cost of the tracks.
Even though high-speed rail sounds nice, and I would enjoy it here, in general I don't think it would work here because:
- Our lack of supporting local public transportation
- Cars are still a lot more convenient and the cost is similar or less
- Freedom of movement. If I ride a train anywhere, such as Seattle or Vancouver, BC, I still have to rent a car to get where I want to go while there.
- Public transportation is not safe. Being in car offers a safety barrier. There have been many stories of Mexican gangs beating Max riders here in Portland. In Japan, you have a law-abiding, honorable, homogeneous population where people don't have to worry about their safety. It is also similar in Northern Europe.
- Most of the US does not have the population density to support high-speed trains.
So I would suggest that instead of risking our money taken out as taxes on a high-speed train, allow private companies to develop them when their in-depth market research signals that it makes sense. And I will enjoy riding it!
- Phil Wheeler
-
These are valid concerns for an individual. Both Seattle and Vancouver have great public transportation and it's pretty easy to get around as a visitor or business person. For expeditious business people, they have taxis. Also, I'm not sure about Vancouver, but Seattle has Zipcars, which are easy and cheap (rental by hour includes insurance and gas).
The safety issue is balanced out by collision reduction, and I've never seen or heard of attacks on inter-city Amtrak routes; I don't think the gangs are inclined to this kind of travel. In Los Angeles, personal crimes from gangs happen to people regardless of the lack of public transportation. The public transportation is not the problem. In fact, I feel safer at a stop where there are people around, rather than getting into a car downtown late at night. It's part perception, but it's also that crime finds places to happen, and eliminating the places doesn't reduce the crime, it has to be approached differently. Plus, I'm not going to let criminals control my choice to take public transportation.
I think there is a lot more support for good, high functioning public transportation than there is against it, but those against something really tend to howl.
For now, cars are more convenient and still cost effective, but I doubt they will be in 20 years, and that is what developing major infrastructure is about.
-
Chris Warner's description of the Governor's commitment to rail is encouraging, but the fact is that on the Oregon.gov website, the current budget cutback plan is to axe fully half of the existing Amtrak Cascades trains.
-
I live in Albany, which is a major Amtrak stop. There are only 2-3 passenger trains that go through the "major" stop, and they are nearly always late (not minutes, but HOURS). I have asked RR workers why this is such a problem, and they gave me their impressions--the freights get priority (which has been discussed), but I see them every day and they travel fairly slowly, which just holds up the passenger trains that much longer. The other reason the RR workers have mentioned is that the tracks are in such poor shape that making up time is just not safe! Also we have mountains here (especially going south into CA) that create many switchbacks that don't allow speeds much over 15 mph, and winters impact that even more. In my opinion, using funding to repair and maintain tracks, and creating better solutions between freight and passenger trains seems more logicial than high-speed rail, which in many instances would be nearly impossible due to our lanscape.
I have used the Cascadia to travel to my work in Salem, and northbound is usually fine, but coming home, due to only two trains a day, my days become 14 hour days. It's nice, but not worth the loss of my day. We need MORE trains, and I would use them more.
-
A business argument would be that an employee on a train can do work instead of driving.
This is the argument used to justify limousines and corporate jets and it seems just as valid here.
And people just traveling can read, watch DVDs, play computer games, talk on the phone, or just watch the bypassing scenery without the hassles of paying attention to traffic. They would arrive rested and refreshed instead of wired up and worn out from driving!
-
Having worked for Amtrak for several years and witnessing the massive growth of the Amtrak Cascades corridor from Eugene to Seattle, the Pacific Northwest is literally on the right track. We just need further improvements.
In the mid 1990s Washington and Oregon began to invest in regional Amtrak service. Annual ridership skyrocketed from the low 100,000s in the early 90s to more than 700,000 riders per year in 2008. While travel in general declined in 2008, Amtrak Cascades trains posted significant passenger increases throughout the year.
Modest investments were made to existing rail lines as well as better train equipment. The time required between Portland and Seattle was reduced from four hours to three and a half hours. The public responded very positively to these modest improvements.
If the average speed from Eugene to Portland to Seattle is increased to 70 miles an hour, the trip time between Seattle and Portland is cut to two hours and 45 minutes. That is faster than driving, competitve with flying if you include check in time and more convenient than both.
A mistake we seem to be making is thinking we either have no passenger trains or only very high speed trains like the Japanese Shinkansen or French TGV. I don't know if the Northwest can support the cost of buiding and using such a high speed system. However we have proven there is a large and growing market for improved passenger rail service.
We can invest in current rail infrastructure and add rail capacity where needed for both passenger and freight trains.
The Northwest has a great passenger rail starter system and is a model that should be copied by developing regional rail corridors around the country. We don't need the fastest train in the world. We need passenger trains competitive with driving with convenient departure times throughout the day. Our goal should be Portland-Seattle times of two and a half to three hours with departures every hour.
Oregon and Washington have already proven that incremental improvements to existing rail infrastructure works. We need to continue making these improvements and money the Obama administration has allocated for rail improvements will be well spent in our region.
-
Until we enable high-speed transit to receive fuel fees we're stuck in the sand box. The time is right for the Legislature to refer a constititutional amendment to the voters to reconsider our obsolete restriction on this.
Also, for local high-speed infrastructure, we need to look at new technology like personal rapid transit. It's a fraction of the cost per mile than light rail or heavy rail and can offer speeds over 100 mph. It could be designed to use a tiny (miniscule!) right of way and be completed in a mile of track a day! Check out PRT on the Web. Sweden, Britain, Korea and others are already planning for PRT. It carries as many as a two or three lane freeway per hour and uses a fraction of the electricity as light rail if it's a mag-lev technology.
-
Think different! Leave your car at home! No gas wars! Better for our environment! Relax! No traffic Jam!
-
No one has talked about the human cost of travel. Rail is 25 times less lethal in terms of highway fatalities. Why do we not value human lives, when we could eliminate 96% of fatalities by shifting highway miles to rail miles?
-
While we're talking about other transit, I really miss the Green Tortoise commuter bus that went between Vancouver and LA. It was on time, affordable, and there was a salmon dinner at a beautiful camp half way through! I think we need to expand our vision of transport beyond big budget projects like trains that require so much infrastructure investment.
-
Traveling by train is such a 'civilized' way to travel. I now take the train from Albany, OR to Salinas CA to visit my parents. We leave the car in Albany and enjoy the trip to California. Big comfortable seats, no worries about driving, beautiful views, access to snacks and meals. We read books, play games and relax - none of the hassles that airplane travel engenders. I believe we need a high-speed rail system along the I5 corridor from San Diego to Vancouver, BC. The current route was put in before there were roads and travels up into the mountains on a route that makes hiway 58 seem straight. Many of my friends don't take the train because of the frequent side-lining due to freight - this can be fixed.
During the time that the train was out of commission due to a landslide high in the mountains by Chemault, I took the bus to Sacramento (I hadn't taken the bus since about 1980...). I now remember why. There is no comparison between bus and rail travel, and I really don't think one should be made.
Let's spend some of our infrastructure dollars on this much-neglected form of travel.
Larry Plotkin in Corvallis.
-
That was a good point about buses, Europe has wonderful clean buses, quite unlike the old dingy American types.
Modern European styles would help bring back bus ridership.
-
I agree with those who say that simply increasing the frequency of train trips would help a lot. I live in Corvallis and my family is in Sacramento County. We love to ride on the train, but only one train goes from Oregon to Sacramento per day and the train that heads north from Sacramento leaves the station at 12 midnight. My mother's house is about 20 miles from Sacramento--we don't have any family members who really want to drive us to the train station at midnight. Because of this, we usually drive. We'd much prefer to take the train.
-
Checking my timetables for Japan, the high-speed bullet train runs 172 trains per day in each direction between Tokyo and Osaka. (Yes, every 3 to 7 minutes between 6am and midnight!) Each has a capacity between 1200 and 1600 people and typically carries 1000. It is ridership like that (350,000 trips/day for this one route), that made it clearly economically feasible for Japan to construct this line in the 1960's. I love high-speed rail, and have even ridden AmTrak several times. But it makes me pessimistic that the Northwest could generate the ridership to make true high-speed rail feasible between Portland and Seattle, let alone other outlying areas.
-
High speed rail would be nice, BUT before we get too carried away, we need to resume rail service to the many area no longer being served with Amtrak or any other railroad (or bus) passanger service.
Starting in the "90's, I've urged our congressional delgation to beome more pro-active in improving rail (and bus) service.
Re-establishing service to such grand old names as The Pioneer,
North Coast Limited, Portland Rose (those I've ridden in the past)
and othersin areas which have no passanger sevice (and in many cases no bus service either).
It is also time to make sure the existing freignt railroad companies improve and property maintain the track conditions on which their and Amtrak trains run.
I still remember the troop trains of World War II (and have read of those playing such an important role in The Great War). While I pray there will never agan be a need for "troop trains" there are other needs for providng the means to move people, as well as goods, from place to place in an expeditious manner.
High speed service in the "metropolitan corridors" has merit, provideing service by passenger trains throughout our entire country, in my opinion, has at least as high a priority.
Additional service would also be desirable in the "corridors".
p
-
A couple of years ago, my wife and grandson took Amtrak to San Jose, CA. What a diaster. A 20 hour sheduled trip took 40. The conductors had no idea how long the train would be sidelined so everyone was forced to stay on board at each stop. The machines ran out of food and drinks. Passenger trains were supposed to have priority but the line is owned by Union Pacific so priority was a joke. The only part of the trip that went anthing like stated was LA to San Jose- essentially a commuter run.
All this talk of bullet trains and the like is a putting the carts before the horse. We need to get 60 mph first and that will take a dedicated line. Until that is done, a 200 mph train that sits on the sideline is a waste of money.
Oregon does not need to take money for trains just to get the money. All too often the logic in government is we have to get "free" money.
-
i too have experienced long delays on amtrak. that doesn't mean trains don't work. they do. they were here before the gas-powered automobile, and they will be here after it. our priorities need to be re-orderd to emphasize sustainable technologies. if there is an opportunity to increase investment in rail infrastructure, it should be done.
-
A lot of comments here wondering about what happened to the old passenger rail systems.
The auto makers lobbied heavily for cars because they made big profits from each unit sold and Big Oil also made more profits by more consumption of gasoline by gas guzzlers. The gov also subsidized the airlines.
But looking back, passenger rail was the best for the people and our climate.
-
Coming from a country like India, where railways are a main source of long distance transportation, I always wondered how in this country we managed to develop the road & air traffic and missed the rail traffic in between!
Thank you TOL for initating this discussion.. it couldn't have been more timely, as my husband and I weigh our career options in the northwest, living in two diferent cities at the moment. A high speed rail network in the pacific northwest corridor, will enable couples and families like us, to pursue our careers in different metro areas, like Seattle, Spokane, Portland and Eugene..
-
Coming from a country like India, where railways are a main source of long distance transportation, I always wondered how in this country we managed to develop the road & air traffic and missed the rail traffic in between!
Thank you TOL for initating this discussion.. it couldn't have been more timely, as my husband and I weigh our career options in the northwest, living in two diferent cities at the moment. A high speed rail network in the pacific northwest corridor, will enable couples and families like us, to pursue our careers in different metro areas, like Seattle, Spokane, Portland and Eugene..
-
I'm sorry to say that I felt like this show took the exciting prospect of high speed rail and made it dull, dull, dull.
-
To spark ridership interest, offer riders a service that the airlines cannot provide: High speed internet. People will be more productive and stay entertained in long journeys. This coupled with absence of engine noise, more open space to move around, and availability of cell phone service would make the rail option much more desirable than air. This is possible with existing technology, and would not be subject to FAA regulations. It will probably be decades before the FAA realizes a decent and affordable internet solution for air travel.
-
Comments are now closed.
It will be a game of the haves and have nots. To be competitive, it will need to run into Redmond, WA. to make the Willamette valley a bedroom community for Microsoft.
Lets look at reality here:
It will need its own rail bed, too much heavy freight moves the current rail for a bullet to make good time in any of the existing corridors. Who gets to give up their prime realestate for this?
It will cost more to move people than air, so it will need to serve the wealthiest commuters.
It will be considered another TSA nightmare target, so Airport type security will be needed... this won't be as quick and simple as boarding Amtrak or the current Cascade Express.
It would be cheaper to buy up the overpriced in-town housing and offer it to real working folks at a real working wage price (affordable housing beats long commute and transportation upgrades any day).
My opinion is that there are better ways to beat congestion and put folks to work. High speed rail customers are already served by air better in this country than their counterparts overseas are, and with government not directly running high speed rail to keep prices down, the rest of us won't be able to afford it enough to make it realistic.