Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[SpongeG]

Bullet train from Portland to Vancouver, B.C.? Oregon, Washington, Canada talking
Updated Oct 9; Posted Oct 8

By Andrew Theen [email protected]
The Oregonian/OregonLive

Imagine stepping on a train in Portland at noon and stepping off about two hours later in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Passengers would whiz past Seattle in less than an hour.

Oregon, Washington and British Columbia governments are hoping to take that far-flung vision and turn it into a reality by 2035. High-level transportation officials from each will meet Tuesday for a second discussion this year about what a so-called ultra-high-speed rail line connecting the three cities would look like.

The rail discussion is in its infancy, but the governments hope to work with private companies to set the groundwork for bullet trains in what they are calling the "Cascadia megaregion." Government, business and academic leaders are hosting the annual Cascadia Innovation Corridor conference in Vancouver this week.

No ultra high-speed trains currently operate in the U.S. The fastest train, Amtrak's Acela Express, hits maximum speeds of 154 miles per hour but averages about half that speed on its route between Washington D.C. and Boston.

Amtrak's Cascades route already connects Portland and Vancouver via the passenger rail network, but it runs only four times each day between Portland and Seattle and infrequently to Canada.

...

Cascadia is one of what planners say are 11 megaregions in the country, those geographic swaths with shared economies, infrastructure and ecosystems. The region is already connected by its "educated and skilled workforce, similar public policies, academic institutions and a culture of innovation," according to the report, but as of yet the economics have been disconnected. With population in the three cities expected to hit a collective 11.2 million by 2040, the governments believe a high-speed rail connection would bridge that economic gulf.

The freeway network is expected to hit capacity, and "speed constraints limit regional mobility, and economic development and global competitiveness."

...

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/ind...ce=facebook&utm_campaign=theoregonian_sf

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i don't really see this being realistic. i just hope that as a tax payer, i am not stuck financing this debt for the rest of my life.

would be a total waste of money. if it can pay for itself, or only cost a reasonable amount then sure, but as it stands, i don't see it being anything but a drain on resources. i guess we will find out when the study is finished.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i don't really see this being realistic. i just hope that as a tax payer, i am not stuck financing this debt for the rest of my life.

would be a total waste of money. if it can pay for itself, or only cost a reasonable amount then sure, but as it stands, i don't see it being anything but a drain on resources. i guess we will find out when the study is finished.

Why would you be against it?

If anything, as a taxpayer, you'd only be responsible to pay for 40km of rail from Vancouver to the boarder. That could very easily be used as high speed commuter rail at the same time. Think of a faster WCE from South Surrey, Delta, and New Westminster which ends in Vancouver. It would be a great way of tying the outlying areas into the city.

We'd get all the benefit with a relatively puny capital cost.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i don't really see this being realistic. i just hope that as a tax payer, i am not stuck financing this debt for the rest of my life.

would be a total waste of money. if it can pay for itself, or only cost a reasonable amount then sure, but as it stands, i don't see it being anything but a drain on resources. i guess we will find out when the study is finished.

I think it will happen. Having travelled "bullet trains" in Asia and Europe as recently as this spring (spending our kid's inheritance don't you know) it is very clear that these trains are faster than air travel, when security and boarding times are included, over distances like Amsterdam or Brussels to Paris for example.....The driver for governments over the next few years will be reducing carbon foot print (rightly or wrongly) and most of these fast rains are electric. Most of the PNW power I believe is hydro electric. Friends in Europe travel on business by train mostly because it is cheaper & faster. A friend, for example, regularly attends business meetings in Paris, from his home in Brussels. Since he went to the train, he gets up later and is home for dinner.

While it will be past my time, I even predict they will run it down to LA.

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 that you will have to pay for it. I suspect we will too. Our "live to 90" plan has taxation increasing drastically in the next few years. I feel for most of you, like our kid's, in non government jobs, getting little if any pay raises and no longer having indexed pensions......but thats another topic for debate.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Why would you be against it?

If anything, as a taxpayer, you'd only be responsible to pay for 40km of rail from Vancouver to the boarder. That could very easily be used as high speed commuter rail at the same time. Think of a faster WCE from South Surrey, Delta, and New Westminster which ends in Vancouver. It would be a great way of tying the outlying areas into the city.

We'd get all the benefit with a relatively puny capital cost.

While I agree that the vast majority of the expense would be on the American side, given that much of the existing ROW cannot be used, and thus a new ROW will need to be found, the costs involved won't be puny. Having said that, detouring away from White Rock has many other benefits.

One other thing to consider is that for trains to run at ultra high-speed, they need their own, dedicated track (it can't be shared with slower trains). Having said that, the trains could slow down to a more conventional speed of 95 mph (153 km/h) north of the boarder. That would still be a massive improvement over current conditions and likely considered acceptable.

[misher]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While I agree that the vast majority of the expense would be on the American side, given that much of the existing ROW cannot be used, and thus a new ROW will need to be found, the costs involved won't be puny. Having said that, detouring away from White Rock has many other benefits.

One other thing to consider is that for trains to run at ultra high-speed, they need their own, dedicated track (it can't be shared with slower trains). Having said that, the trains could slow down to a more conventional speed of 95 mph (153 km/h) north of the boarder. That would still be a massive improvement over current conditions and likely considered acceptable.

You need to embrace the future not shy away from it.

Vancouver is a growing powerhouse that is fast becoming the trade and economic centre of Western Canada. Seattle is experiencing the same in America. We need to proceed forward lest we fall behind. Thanks to ties to Asia the West Coast is becoming the floodgate which lets the economies that will make up 50%+ of the world's GDP & 2/3rds of the worlds middle class in 2030 in. http://www.hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/pr6-rbapregional-eastasia-2013hdr-eng.pdf

It makes perfect sense to connect the two cities to form a larger more attractive entrance. Either we form this entrance or somewhere south of us will.

As for costs, private investment and corporate partnerships all the way.

I'd be down for selling off the naming rights so its called the Amazon or Microsoft train.

Or perhaps we can sell setup a few restaurants in the trains themselves such as a Spot or McD and sell the commercial lease for the next 10 years.


With all the environmental talk the Greens should be pushing this as I can't imagine the fuel costs were using to go back and forth for trips.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by misher

You need to embrace the future not shy away from it.
Vancouver is a growing powerhouse that is fast becoming the trade and economic centre of Western Canada. Seattle is experiencing the same in America. We need to proceed forward lest we fall behind. Thanks to ties to Asia the West Coast is becoming the floodgate which lets the economies that will make up 50%+ of the world's GDP & 2/3rds of the worlds middle class in 2030 in. http://www.hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/pr6-rbapregional-eastasia-2013hdr-eng.pdf

It makes perfect sense to connect the two cities to form a larger more attractive entrance. Either we form this entrance or somewhere south of us will.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that it should be done. Heck it should have been done when we were approached 20 years ago. Just noting that our portion won't be "relatively puny" as Alex Mackinnon said.

As for costs, private investment and corporate partnerships all the way.

I'd be down for selling off the naming rights so its called the Amazon or Microsoft train.

Or perhaps we can sell setup a few restaurants in the trains themselves such as a Spot or McD and sell the commercial lease for the next 10 years.

I'm all for PPP, but I can't see this happening without at least some government support and funding.

With all the environmental talk the Greens should be pushing this as I can't imagine the fuel costs were using to go back and forth for trips.

Are they not?

[Migrant_Coconut]

BC's share of the corridor is 8%, so that's $2.6-4.2 billion CAD (out of $33-52 billion) at the very least. Not for or against, but if it comes to a choice between HSR or a new SkyTrain line, we need to see some real solid numbers before we pick the HSR.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm all for PPP, but I can't see this happening without at least some government support and funding.

No kidding. With an eleven-digit figure, corporations won't touch this thing unless they can charge $300 a ticket ("What? It's still cheaper than flying...").

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

BC's share of the corridor is 8%, so that's $2.6-4.2 billion CAD (out of $33-52 billion) at the very least. Not for or against, but if it comes to a choice between HSR or a new SkyTrain line, we need to see some real solid numbers before we pick the HSR.

And our percentage may be higher since Washington and Oregon have been investing in infrastructure improvements on the line, but BC/Canada hasn't, so much more work is needed north of the boarder.

No kidding. With an eleven-digit figure, corporations won't touch this thing unless they can charge $300 a ticket ("What? It's still cheaper than flying...").

Off topic, but that is where I like the fundamentals behind VIA's HFR plan. Rather than try to compete with low cost airlines (by providing ultra fast and expensive service), VIA wants market towards people who are currently driving (by providing an affordable, reliable and convenient service). In the 300-600 km range, far more people drive than fly, so they have a much larger market share to compete for, and since the "competition" won't fight back, there is no risk of a price war.

So getting back on topic, for Vancouver to Seattle, it currently takes (according to Google):

• 3 hours to drive (not including boarder time)
• 55 minutes to fly (plus transfers)
• 4 hours by bus, and
• 4.5 hours by train

So instead of going HSR with 1 hour travel time (230 km/h average speed), they instead went HFR with a slower 2 hour travel time (115 km/h average speed), but had a train once an hour like clockwork, it would be much more convenient than driving and the lower up front and operating costs would allow the fares to be more affordable.

[misher]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And our percentage may be higher since Washington and Oregon have been investing in infrastructure improvements on the line, but BC/Canada hasn't, so much more work is needed north of the boarder.



Off topic, but that is where I like the fundamentals behind VIA's HFR plan. Rather than try to compete with low cost airlines (by providing ultra fast and expensive service), VIA wants market towards people who are currently driving (by providing an affordable, reliable and convenient service). In the 300-600 km range, far more people drive than fly, so they have a much larger market share to compete for, and since the "competition" won't fight back, there is no risk of a price war.

So getting back on topic, for Vancouver to Seattle, it currently takes (according to Google):

• 3 hours to drive (not including boarder time)
• 55 minutes to fly (plus transfers)
• 4 hours by bus, and
• 4.5 hours by train

So instead of going HSR with 1 hour travel time (230 km/h average speed), they instead went HFR with a slower 2 hour travel time (115 km/h average speed), but had a train once an hour like clockwork, it would be much more convenient than driving and the lower up front and operating costs would allow the fares to be more affordable.

Well reasoned. I think it depends on whether we are building for the future or the far future.

Also I think they need to look into long-term maintenance and reliability.

Taiwan's HSR was privately funded and tickets are around $70-$100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail

I think Green voters would be really happy as Taiwan found that

a high-speed rail line would offer the highest transit volume, lowest land use, highest energy savings, and least pollution.

Maybe LNG companies can help pay for it in return for the pollution caused by LNG?

I still prefer that the train is private though so its less likely it becomes a future burden. Plus then its less likely we get forced to use NDP Unions to do it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by misher

Well reasoned. I think it depends on whether we are building for the future or the far future.

There is no reason HFR can't later be upgraded to HSR when the time comes. If you think about it, most places that built HSR previously had what amounted to HFR between those cities. Few built ultra HSR rail lines where there was infrequent rail service. One might use Florida's Brightline as an example, but the current top speed of 79 mph (127 km/h) between Miami and West Palm Beach and almost hourly service makes it look more like HFR. The extension to Orlando will be faster, but even then it will still only be
125 mph (201 km/h) between Cocoa and Orlando.

Also I think they need to look into long-term maintenance and reliability.

Taiwan's HSR was privately funded and tickets are around $70-$100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail

Not really a valid comparison as Taiwan has a much higher population density and access to a cheaper labour force. Not sure, but they may not have as many environmental restrictions to worry about as well.

Brightline might be a better comparison, but they already owned the track and there certainly was government support.

I still prefer that the train is private though so its less likely it becomes a future burden. Plus then its less likely we get forced to use NDP Unions to do it.

This would primarily be a Washington and Oregon State project with BC being on the fringe. I don't think there is a risk of the NDP getting power in either of those states.

[Cypherus]

If this were to really happen, it would be in a time where Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept, in conjunction with Virgin, will be available for this corridor (by then Vancouver, South Surrey, Bellingham, Everett, and Seattle will form a conurbation). This corridor would be best served by Hyperloop, not a choo choo train.

[djmk]

Is there really a market for Vancouverites to travel to Portland for this kind of money?

Other that beer, and the Blazers and Timbers, what else is there?

And 1/3 of the time for me to get to Seattle by car is getting though Burnaby. Putting a skytrain to the border and then having the high speed train seems like a better idea.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

If this were to really happen, it would be in a time where Elon Musk's Hyperloop concept, in conjunction with Virgin, will be available for this corridor (by then Vancouver, South Surrey, Bellingham, Everett, and Seattle will form a conurbation). This corridor would be best served by Hyperloop, not a choo choo train.

So far, the Hyperloop is nothing but Musk dreaming out loud. Having the same cost as a Maglev and 30 people or less per vehicle (bullet trains handle 700 or more) means extortionate ticket prices. That's before we go into its inability to turn without severe turbulence, its operating cost, or the various technical difficulties of commuting at over 1000km/h via elevated vacuum tubes.

Originally Posted by djmk

Is there really a market for Vancouverites to travel to Portland for this kind of money?

Other that beer, and the Blazers and Timbers, what else is there?

And 1/3 of the time for me to get to Seattle by car is getting though Burnaby. Putting a skytrain to the border and then having the high speed train seems like a better idea.

That's Portland, Seattle and a couple of in-betweens. There's a lot of cross-border traffic both ways from shopping/tourism/business trips, so we'll see induced demand from drivers and train passengers sick of wasted time, flight passengers deciding an extra hour is worth skipping airport security, and people who have more incentive to travel once a superfast train opens. Is that enough to cover the cost? Good question.

Good thing a train would completely skip the traffic in Burnaby. It's always best to drop off tourists and white collars close to the city centre.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that it should be done. Heck it should have been done when we were approached 20 years ago. Just noting that our portion won't be "relatively puny" as Alex Mackinnon said.

I'm all for PPP, but I can't see this happening without at least some government support and funding.

Are they not?

I'd argue that $5B of a $40B project to be pretty insignificant for HSR, especially if it can be piggy backed upon other important infrastructure upgrades.

When you look at the infrastructure required, a lot of the infrastructure is required in the next couple decades anyway. At a minimum we'd probably need the following:

- Add extra tracks and completely grade separate BNSF line through Vancouver and Burnaby. Add flyovers for at interchanges.
- Replace Fraser River rail bridge, probably with a tunnel. Likely the most expensive part of the project.
- Upgrade Delta RoW to be completely grade separated, double and triple track where required, add flyovers at interchanges.
- New RoW through South Surrey, probably tunnelled.

Of those, Surrey and White Rock already want to move the existing rail line. The rail lines Robert's Bank have already been getting significant grade separation. The bridge is already pretty old, and is likely to be replaced anyways.

It's unlikely that the project would start off getting built to handle huge pphpd, and just getting the train up to a steady 100+ km/h in the city would be huge improvement.

The Cascades takes about 1.5 hours to get to the boarder. If traffic is ok, you can get from the train station to White Rock in about the same amount of time via the Skytrain and bus.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'd argue that $5B of a $40B project to be pretty insignificant for HSR, especially if it can be piggy backed upon other important infrastructure upgrades.

When you look at the infrastructure required, a lot of the infrastructure is required in the next couple decades anyway. At a minimum we'd probably need the following:

- Add extra tracks and completely grade separate BNSF line through Vancouver and Burnaby. Add flyovers for at interchanges.
- Replace Fraser River rail bridge, probably with a tunnel. Likely the most expensive part of the project.
- Upgrade Delta RoW to be completely grade separated, double and triple track where required, add flyovers at interchanges.
- New RoW through South Surrey, probably tunnelled.

Do you really think all of those things can be done for $5B? Now I agree that those things should be done anyway, but unfortunately I don't see the money coming any time soon. We have been talking about them for decades and we don't seem to be any closer today than we were 20 or 30 years ago. The fact that BNSF is an American railroad makes the optics of funding anything owned by them very poor.

Of those, Surrey and White Rock already want to move the existing rail line.

But do they have the money to do it without provincial and federal funding? Until they are agree to open their wallets, it will just be a dream.

The rail lines Robert's Bank have already been getting significant grade separation.

But the coal trains to Robert's Bank cause major disruptions. I remember as a kid waiting for a 100+ car train to lumber across the highway as we were driving to catch a ferry. That track is also owned by various different Canadian railways (depending on the segment).

Besides, ignoring the pedestrian crossings in White Rock, I only count 2 public level crossings (River Rd and Elevator Rd) on the BNSF New Westminster Sub. south of the Fraser. North of the Fraser, the track is shared by multiple railways and I believe most of the approach to PCS is owned by CN anyway.

The bridge is already pretty old, and is likely to be replaced anyways.

Hopefully yes. It should be an easier sell as it is used by many railways, but it is only one very small piece of the puzzle.

It's unlikely that the project would start off getting built to handle huge pphpd, and just getting the train up to a steady 100+ km/h in the city would be huge improvement.

Agreed. Even if they only get it up to a steady 100+ km/h south of the Fraser it would be a major win. Unfortunately, I am not holding my breath.

The Cascades takes about 1.5 hours to get to the boarder. If traffic is ok, you can get from the train station to White Rock in about the same amount of time via the Skytrain and bus.

Ya, we need to cut that in half at least. A third would be even better. The sad thing is the US is willing to pay to operate the service if only we can get the money to upgrade the infrastructure.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by djmk

And 1/3 of the time for me to get to Seattle by car is getting though Burnaby. Putting a skytrain to the border and then having the high speed train seems like a better idea.

SkyTrain to the boarder would be almost as slow as the existing service. Even if it isn't HSR north of the boarder, significant time reductions can be made by investing in infrastructure upgrades discussed.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So far, the Hyperloop is nothing but Musk dreaming out loud. Having the same cost as a Maglev and 30 people or less per vehicle (bullet trains handle 700 or more) means extortionate ticket prices. That's before we go into its inability to turn without severe turbulence, its operating cost, or the various technical difficulties of commuting at over 1000km/h via elevated vacuum tubes.

I agree. I also have very serious safety concerns with it. If a leak develops in one of the tubes, and a train ends up hitting a wall of air at 1000km/h, the results would be catastrophic.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by djmk

Is there really a market for Vancouverites to travel to Portland for this kind of money?

...and if there is, why isn't some company chomping at the bit to build this? Why does the money have to come out of the public purse? In my mind that's the most convincing argument against the notion that this thing could be economically feasible.

Now I can imagine the government playing a role in securing the right of way. But if they can't convince a company to invest beyond that then it's a hole where I sure wouldn't want my tax dollars to be buried.

[misher]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...and if there is, why isn't some company chomping at the bit to build this? Why does the money have to come out of the public purse? In my mind that's the most convincing argument against the notion that this thing could be economically feasible.

Now I can imagine the government playing a role in securing the right of way. But if they can't convince a company to invest beyond that then it's a hole where I sure wouldn't want my tax dollars to be buried.

Private is possible. However, there's a lot involved with purchasing/taking the land needed to get there. Thats a lot of land and they really only need a narrow strip of it. Government backing would be essential.

Remember we're NDP now so they'd much prefer that government runs it, builds it, and employs their voters....I mean union workers. Private they'd definitely go non-union.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...and if there is, why isn't some company chomping at the bit to build this? Why does the money have to come out of the public purse? In my mind that's the most convincing argument against the notion that this thing could be economically feasible.

Now I can imagine the government playing a role in securing the right of way. But if they can't convince a company to invest beyond that then it's a hole where I sure wouldn't want my tax dollars to be buried.

Getting the private sector involved isn't always the best option (*cough*Canada Line*cough*).