High Speed Rail and Amtrak News

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

An issue with Portland Union as a passenger train station--at least one in the 2020's, and not the 1920's--is the ground-level boarding. It should be unacceptable now, with the current level of services; it would be basically unusable if it were to function as a major train station a la anything in a medium-sized European or Asian city.

However, my understanding--gleaned from somewhere, I promise, if not the Prosper Portland pdf I'd thought it was from (still worth a look-through; lots of info)--is that level boarding wouldn't provide the clearance freight trains need. Automated gap-fillers are fairly common in Europe, where mixed platform heights are the norm, but AFAIK don't exist anywhere in the U.S.

The higher frequencies between Portland and Seattle proposed by WSDOT would seem much more feasible and pleasant if people didn't have to climb up into the rail cars as they do now.

I wish the few American cities with modern-ish rail service levels and modernized stations would see rail investment as the major economic breadbasket that it can be. There is no major global city whose physical construction is benefitted by a dominion of highways through their middle; the opposite is pretty obviously true of rail.

To be fair, Amtrak is updating billions of $$ infrastructure in the NE Corridor with recent funding. Which is awesome to see. My train-nerd self clocked my train (gps) between Philly and NYC in the upgraded NJ Raceway section at 128 mph this summer, on the non-Acela. Awesome. But I digress...

Interesting about the platforms. Especially since there are several boarding tracks that are sidings to the mainline freight tracks. I wonder why they couldn't have high platforms on those and just work out an agreement with (UP?) to have those be for Amtrak only. You'd only need one platform at high level, allowing for boarding two train sets at once. Do freight ever use anything aside the mainline tracks in that area?

[colossalorder]

One could hope for something like Denver's Union Station that is just bustling with activity, but I just don't think Portland's location could really support it. Its in such a dead and dirty pocket there.

$250 mil is just a monstrous sum for a building that is lovely from a distance but kind of dismal, cramped and uninspired up close and inside. It really lacks the charm and grandeur of America's other great rail stations like Philly or DC. I'd hate to see the old building go, but you have to wonder at that price tag if its really worth saving.

[RedGlovesRule99]

If we're looking for a way to build HSR or at the least, move away from the slow and seismically obsolete Steel Bridge, would it theoretically be possible to bury the tracks at Union Station underground via cut and cover? Then continue under the Willamette and through the central eastside? We could cut and cover with minimal opposition to the disruption down 3rd Ave and pop up again south of division. This alignment would allow expansion of the capacity limited union station over the tracks, separate passenger ROW through the city center from freight and also make pedestrian/bike connections to Naito easier by removing the barrier currently presented by the tracks.

Problems? If all surface level tracks are removed then the small amount of freight traffic that runs across the steel bridge currently would need to be rerouted somehow, and anything underground would have to contend with a MAX tunnel through the area should that ever get built.

[babs]

Originally Posted by RedGlovesRule99

If we're looking for a way to build HSR or at the least, move away from the slow and seismically obsolete Steel Bridge, would it theoretically be possible to bury the tracks at Union Station underground via cut and cover? Then continue under the Willamette and through the central eastside? We could cut and cover with minimal opposition to the disruption down 3rd Ave and pop up again south of division. This alignment would allow expansion of the capacity limited union station over the tracks, separate passenger ROW through the city center from freight and also make pedestrian/bike connections to Naito easier by removing the barrier currently presented by the tracks.

Problems? If all surface level tracks are removed then the small amount of freight traffic that runs across the steel bridge currently would need to be rerouted somehow, and anything underground would have to contend with a MAX tunnel through the area should that ever get built.

If you are going to go through all this effort, why not put the HSR station on the east side such the Rose Quarter area? We all love Union Station but to cross the rive and then back, there are other places better suited for a HSR rail station.

[AdamNorthwest]

The big pipe runs under SE 3rd Ave to my recollection, so any additional tunneling under 3rd would be a no-go.

[maccoinnich]

Lawmakers announce high-speed rail to link Portland, Seattle, Vancouver

PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) - On Wednesday, a group of Oregon lawmakers announced new federal funding for planning the development of high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) joined Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), and Representatives Rick Larsen (D, WA-02), Derek Kilmer (D, WA-06), Marilyn Strickland (D, WA-10), Adam Smith (D, WA-09), Suzan DelBene (D, WA-01), and Pramila Jayapal (D, WA-07) released a joint statement to announce that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has awarded $49.7 million for planning work for the proposed Cascadia High-Speed Rail project, which would link the Pacific Northwest’s major population centers, including Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland, with regular train service running at up to 250 mph.

“The I-5 corridor is the backbone of Western Washington’s transportation system, yet a recent study found that Seattle is the second most congested city in the nation,” said Sen. Cantwell. “This funding will enable the state to work with locals to develop the best possible high-speed passenger rail route and someday give Washingtonians the option to skip the highway and reach their destination faster.”

“This federal award is an important step forward for the Cascadia High-Speed Rail project and will support critical planning, community engagement, and initial design activities,” said Sen. Murray, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “The Cascadia corridor is home to 10 million people and growing—bringing high speed rail speed to the region will be transformative, allowing Washingtonians to travel much faster and more easily between Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, and communities in between. I’ll continue working to help secure the federal funding to move this project forward.”

...continues at KPTV.

[HillsboroTech]

I’m someone that currently lives in Seattle for a tech job. I know several people that live in portland and commute to Seattle 1-2 times a week. I also know lots of people in Seattle that would love to live in Portland but their job is in Seattle so they can’t.

This has potential to have profound effect on Portland.

It’s awesome we have a huge clean slate with the Broadway Corridor right there. How great would it be if this planning committee determines that a massive amount of people are going to use this high speed rail for commuting so the broadway corridor needs maximize its housing developments.

[aquaticko]

It's just not going to mean much unless we can get BNSF to admit that they could put up some wires to electrify the line. No one's doing actual HSR without electrification, and even averaging 125mph isn't going to make a Portland-Seattle commute viable (though admittedly, HSR commuting is unusual outside of truly huge cities like Tokyo, Seoul, and China's eastern seaboard, and even then is a pretty niche use).

[mhays]

The current 79-mph service is popular, and easily the best way to get between the city centers. With some limited capacity improvements to improve liability, plus ideally a little more speed, ridership should jump again. Give me a reliable 90-mph train once an hour. And yes let's also try to get true HSR someday.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

It's just not going to mean much unless we can get BNSF to admit that they could put up some wires to electrify the line. No one's doing actual HSR without electrification, and even averaging 125mph isn't going to make a Portland-Seattle commute viable (though admittedly, HSR commuting is unusual outside of truly huge cities like Tokyo, Seoul, and China's eastern seaboard, and even then is a pretty niche use).

It's not that simple. You can't run over 79 mph on freight lines.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by RedGlovesRule99

If we're looking for a way to build HSR or at the least, move away from the slow and seismically obsolete Steel Bridge, would it theoretically be possible to bury the tracks at Union Station underground via cut and cover? Then continue under the Willamette and through the central eastside? We could cut and cover with minimal opposition to the disruption down 3rd Ave and pop up again south of division. This alignment would allow expansion of the capacity limited union station over the tracks, separate passenger ROW through the city center from freight and also make pedestrian/bike connections to Naito easier by removing the barrier currently presented by the tracks.

Problems? If all surface level tracks are removed then the small amount of freight traffic that runs across the steel bridge currently would need to be rerouted somehow, and anything underground would have to contend with a MAX tunnel through the area should that ever get built.

Pretty big smack in the face from these photos and this commentary that the post office site would have been an ideal location for this kind of underground HSR station infrastructure.

[dizflip]

Seriously. It has Seoul Station written all over it. Dream scenario for me is if Union Station handled regional commuter rail traffic.

[aquaticko]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

It's not that simple. You can't run over 79 mph on freight lines.

And goodness knows railways are never upgraded, their ops have never changed, etc., etc....

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

And goodness knows railways are never upgraded, their ops have never changed, etc., etc....

It’s a federal rule, 79 has been the max since 1947. Exception is Amtrak in NE corridor, because that is on separate tracks.

If you want to go faster, you need a dedicated ROW. No sharing/at grade crossing of freight lines.

Faster lines in PacNW needs its own tracks, and that’s what HSR advocates are pushing for. But it’s obviously substantially more $$$.

[jakedutt]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

It’s a federal rule, 79 has been the max since 1947. Exception is Amtrak in NE corridor, because that is on separate tracks.

If you want to go faster, you need a dedicated ROW. No sharing/at grade crossing of freight lines.

Faster lines in PacNW needs its own tracks, and that’s what HSR advocates are pushing for. But it’s obviously substantially more $$$.

The 79 rule is actually related to signaling systems and track quality, in cab signalling and better track quality = higher speeds, see the recently upgraded 110 mph track from Chicago to St Louis or the Brightline shared use segments.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by jakedutt

The 79 rule is actually related to signaling systems and track quality, in cab signalling and better track quality = higher speeds, see the recently upgraded 110 mph track from Chicago to St Louis or the Brightline shared use segments.

Interesting. Looks like Brightline is a locally owned Class 2, so that likely is how that got pushed through. I can't find much specific detail about the Chicago line, other than it was mutual between UP, Amtrak, and Illinois DOT and cost $2b. Did Feds/State pay for improvements to UP lines, and UP just said sure, why not? Was it not a heavy use freight line and UP is ok with it? I would imagine at that speed Amtrak would have (real) signal priority, and in my experience my Amtrak rides always seem to get stuck behind freight trains (DC to Richmond, etc). But at 110 would cause complications. Does the freight also move at 110?

In my work experience Class 5 RR have more power than the Feds, and do not do anything that does not directly improve their situation (cost/risk/time, etc).

[aquaticko]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

It’s a federal rule, 79 has been the max since 1947. Exception is Amtrak in NE corridor, because that is on separate tracks.

If you want to go faster, you need a dedicated ROW. No sharing/at grade crossing of freight lines.

Faster lines in PacNW needs its own tracks, and that’s what HSR advocates are pushing for. But it’s obviously substantially more $$$.

No, HSR advocates are pushing for a new ROW for even higher speeds, which aren't likely to be necessary. Higher speeds are really only justified by the need for greater capacity, and no one's projecting any PNW city to pop into double-digit millions basically ever, which is the metro size anchoring 300kph+ lines anywhere.

What they're advocating for is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. We need higher-speed rail--maybe up to 250kph, but not more. That would likely require some new ROW, but not an entirely new alignment as would be required by the 400kph speed every PNW HSR study I've seen advocates for. It's not even like these are especially large distances to cross. We're doing the American thing of trying to leapfrog what's already out there, perhaps out of embarrassment that we're currently so far behind, even if it doesn't make sense.

I can't say I know that the ROW is wide enough for triple or quadruple tracking throughout the entire corridor (though I bet it's not), but if the hold up is FRA regulations more than anything else, those aren't set in stone, either (even if there's not no reason to segregate freight and higher-speed passenger trains). The Cascades already gets good ridership by American standards; we don't need to reinvent that particular wheel.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

No, HSR advocates are pushing for a new ROW for even higher speeds, which aren't likely to be necessary. Higher speeds are really only justified by the need for greater capacity, and no one's projecting any PNW city to pop into double-digit millions basically ever, which is the metro size anchoring 300kph+ lines anywhere.

What they're advocating for is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. We need higher-speed rail--maybe up to 250kph, but not more. That would likely require some new ROW, but not an entirely new alignment as would be required by the 400kph speed every PNW HSR study I've seen advocates for. It's not even like these are especially large distances to cross. We're doing the American thing of trying to leapfrog what's already out there, perhaps out of embarrassment that we're currently so far behind, even if it doesn't make sense.

I can't say I know that the ROW is wide enough for triple or quadruple tracking throughout the entire corridor (though I bet it's not), but if the hold up is FRA regulations more than anything else, those aren't set in stone, either (even if there's not no reason to segregate freight and higher-speed passenger trains). The Cascades already gets good ridership by American standards; we don't need to reinvent that particular wheel.

Agreed, just thought you were implying we could upgrade exist lines/freight to true HSR, which is likely not possible. It would require a new alignment.

I'm not sure which top speed would be worth the investment. Upgrading to say, 90mph would likely not gain much. The push should be to make existing infrastructure more reliable, remove the excessive slowdowns in the rail yards, run express trains that don't stop between vancouver and olympia (maybe even direct PDX to SEA), find ways to give amtrak real track priority (I got stuck behind a freight train this august in Seattle for a few mins).

I'm all for 125mph, but I'm not sure that's worth the investment cost. As for the NE corridor, it's not the top speed that matters, its the track details/slowdowns that slow the trains down (and thank god that is being fixed recently: Portal bridge, sawtooth, susquehanna river bridge, baltimore tunnel, hudson river tunnel etc).

[mhays]

Many regional HSR supporters care about speed a lot. Some want to encourage long-distance commuting*. Others simply want to get to the next city in less time. I'd certainly go to Vancouver or Portland more often if the trip took half the time. They also favor separate ROW to permanently end the congestion problem.

That said, give me reliable, frequent 125, 90, or even 79 mph service between the three main downtowns (plus Tacoma, as the PS region is very linear) and I'd be reasonably happy.

*The long-distance commuting idea is tied to a premise I disagree with, that our cities can't handle growth long-term and therefore we need satellite cities. I think we can handle massive growth (over a lifetime) via second-generation redevelopment with higher densities. We're all far down this path already.