Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Trainguy]

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.

HSR along the north west coast is dead before the ink is even dry on the napkin from the coffee shop where this idea probably originated. The population and user base does not even come close to making a business case for this very expensive idea. It works in Japan and other population dense countries because you need to the numbers to justify the costs. The car is still King and until people are demanding HSR in large numbers, keep dreaming.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

HSR along the north west coast is dead before the ink is even dry on the napkin from the coffee shop where this idea probably originated. The population and user base does not even come close to making a business case for this very expensive idea. It works in Japan and other population dense countries because you need to the numbers to justify the costs. The car is still King and until people are demanding HSR in large numbers, keep dreaming.

Are you from Vancouver? If so then you should know the bike is king here. The car is more like that embarrassing brother in law you try to ignore.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by misher

Are you from Vancouver? If so then you should know the bike is king here. The car is more like that embarrassing brother in law you try to ignore.

Yeah. In Vancouver. Elsewhere in the GVRD, everyone drives like everyone else in North America. It's kinda disingenuous that Vancouver is some "bike heaven" when you have suburbanites whining about bike lanes. If they find bike infrastructure a waste of tax dollars because they don't use it, then tough luck on making HSR a reality.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

Touche.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by misher

Are you from Vancouver? If so then you should know the bike is king here. The car is more like that embarrassing brother in law you try to ignore.

Not a Vancouverite thank goodness. Anytime I do drive into Vancouver and back using either Granview or 1st ave it is just gridlock traffic. So much for being a biking city. Everywhere else, people drive and not bike.

Realistically, how many people go north or south along the I5 and how many would pay premium prices to ride a HSR? Not enough to fork over billions.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Realistically, how many people go north or south along the I5 and how many would pay premium prices to ride a HSR? Not enough to fork over billions.

You are asking the wrong question. HSR competes with airlines, not motorists, so the better question is how many people fly between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. They are the ones willing to pay more I don’t have the answer but that is the real question.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are asking the wrong question. HSR competes with airlines, not motorists, so the better question is how many people fly between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. They are the ones willing to pay more I don’t have the answer but that is the real question.

It's only a two hour drive between Downtown Vancouver to Seattle. Most people would rather drive to Seattle than to fly because it's cheaper to refuel and quicker to get there (assuming no border backups) than paying a ticket for your flight, going through security and customs, and boarding. So yeah, HSR still has to compete with motorists.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

It's only a two hour drive between Downtown Vancouver to Seattle. Most people would rather drive to Seattle than to fly because it's cheaper to refuel and quicker to get there (assuming no border backups) than paying a ticket for your flight, going through security and customs, and boarding. So yeah, HSR still has to compete with motorists.

Two hours from downtown Van? Try at least three hours plus time at the border.

[Jalapeño Chips]

I would totally get on that high speed train. I have friends in Portland and I would definitively go more often if it was quick and easy, and they would be coming here too. A weekend of good food, a good show and visiting with a quick and easy way down and up, sounds like a dream to me.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

I would totally get on that high speed train. I have friends in Portland and I would definitively go more often if it was quick and easy, and they would be coming here too. A weekend of good food, a good show and visiting with a quick and easy way down and up, sounds like a dream to me.

That’s what it is. A pipe dream. If the HSR line has a low turnover rate (assuming if it’s built), then the prices would be really high, which you might as well fly to Portland instead.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

That’s what it is. A pipe dream. If the HSR line has a low turnover rate (assuming if it’s built), then the prices would be really high, which you might as well fly to Portland instead.

I go to Portland often enough, and I know many people who go often. Flying is a pain in the 🞵🞵🞵. You have to get to the airport, be there two hours before your flight, then fly in a cramped 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 plane, and then get to wherever you're going, which is most likely far. I've flown many times to Portland, and it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. If it costs the same as flying, and if it's a only two-three hours ride, then I see success.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Two hours from downtown Van? Try at least three hours plus time at the border.

Would it be possible to have pre-clearance border checkin, as at the airport?

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

I go to Portland often enough, and I know many people who go often. Flying is a pain in the 🞵🞵🞵. You have to get to the airport, be there two hours before your flight, then fly in a cramped 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 plane, and then get to wherever you're going, which is most likely far. I've flown many times to Portland, and it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. If it costs the same as flying, and if it's a only two-three hours ride, then I see success.

Which is why some people rather drive to Portland than fly. If these people don’t even want to fly, they won’t want to be on HSR.

[Metro-One]

After living somewhere for 5 years that has a great High Speed Rail network, I have to agree with Jalapeño Chips, the distances between Vancouver / Seattle / Portland are perfect for HS rail. They are short enough where it makes the time spent preparing and disembarking from a plane a complete hassle / waste of time, but far enough where driving the distance is a slog (especially to Portland). I have only been to Portland once (Seattle a few times), but if we had HS Rail I would definitely make the trip far more often. Especially now that Seattle is expanding its urban rail system and Vancouver's is continuing to mature / fill in the gaps.

It takes all the hassle away of worrying about parking, traffic, and the trouble of having car accidents in a foreign country.

In Japan urban area to urban area, it is not even a question, take the bullet train. This has also made the airlines more competitive and actually offer flight deals you would never see in Canada (saw 50 bucks to Tokyo the other day from my local airport, about the same distance as flying Vancouver to Calgary).

Now if I am going to the country side, I will drive (such as comping or hiking) but that is to be expected no matter how complete a rail system is.

PS, I have flown a couple times Vancouver to Seattle, for puddle jumps, and it is the most annoying way I could ever imagine traveling between the two cities.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

After living somewhere for 5 years that has a great High Speed Rail network, I have to agree with Jalapeño Chips, the distances between Vancouver / Seattle / Portland are perfect for HS rail. They are short enough where it makes the time spent preparing and disembarking from a plane a complete hassle / waste of time, but far enough where driving the distance is a slog (especially to Portland). I have only been to Portland once (Seattle a few times), but if we had HS Rail I would definitely make the trip far more often. Especially now that Seattle is expanding its urban rail system and Vancouver's is continuing to mature / fill in the gaps.

It takes all the hassle away of worrying about parking, traffic, and the trouble of having car accidents in a foreign country.

In Japan urban area to urban area, it is not even a question, take the bullet train. This has also made the airlines more competitive and actually offer flight deals you would never see in Canada (saw 50 bucks to Tokyo the other day from my local airport, about the same distance as flying Vancouver to Calgary).

Now if I am going to the country side, I will drive (such as comping or hiking) but that is to be expected no matter how complete a rail system is.

PS, I have flown a couple times Vancouver to Seattle, for puddle jumps, and it is the most annoying way I could ever imagine traveling between the two cities.

Sure. Maybe a few people here like the idea of having HSR across the Pacific Northwest. But to everyone else outside this forum, they see it as a huge waste of taxpayers' money on a train they'll never take when it opens. They'd rather use the billion $$$ on highway bridges and ramps than on HSR. You REALLY have to justify the price tag if they want to ride on bullet trains, otherwise they'll just drive. Suburbanites generally have a grudge against anything involving rail, especially in the States.

[Metro-One]

To be honest looking at the quality of the rail provided (especially cross regional) I can see why!

Again, to sum up the point of my post, once you experience High Speed Rail, you don’t go back.

Meaning that if we had that option available to us along that corridor, I believe it would quickly rise in popularity.

Essentially, the same argument could have been made before building the Expo Line. Who is going to ride it? People would rather drive...

Once you make rail faster than driving, it wins. This is why flying is so popular, because it is faster than driving (or perceived to be in some cases) despite the massive headaches and annoyances of airports.

Again, the PNW distances are perfect for a proper rail connection.

And as stated by others many of the segments and rail links on our side are in need of a major overhaul anyway in the coming decades due to nearing end of life.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Would it be possible to have pre-clearance border checkin, as at the airport?

Pre-clearance when driving? Not sure how that would work.

If you mean on the train, they already have it at Pacific Central Station.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Which is why some people rather drive to Portland than fly. If these people don’t even want to fly, they won’t want to be on HSR.

I don't get your logic. Here are the points he listed against flying:

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

You have to get to the airport, be there two hours before your flight,

Amtrak recommends arriving at Pacific Central Station one hour early to allow time to clear customs and board the train (an hour less than flying).

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

then fly in a cramped 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 plane,

Trains have much more leg room and it is easier to get up and walk around. And if you are tall, you don't have to duck your head when trying to use the washroom.

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

and then get to wherever you're going, which is most likely far.

Train stations are usually downtown, so there is a much better chance that it is close to where you are going. Downtown is usually the centre of the transit network, so you can likely easily get where you want without renting a car (renting a car kind of defeats the purpose of not driving).

The other advantage of the train is you can actually see where you are going. Even if you have a window seat, the windows are small and once you get up to altitude, there isn't much to see.

The problem with HSR is that you are competing with airlines, who will see it as a threat and will start a price war. That is good for the consumer, but bad for the viability of the service.

As I said before, it is better to go with HFR, which is frequent, reliable and affordable. It needs to be time and cost competitive with driving (which the current train isn't). VIA Rail has found that by increasing the frequency of service on their Toronto-Ottawa train (about 400km) usage has increased at a higher rate than the frequency increase. Their big problem is reliability of service as the freight railways in Canada (unlike in the US) are not required to give passenger trains priority.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

To be honest looking at the quality of the rail provided (especially cross regional) I can see why!

Again, to sum up the point of my post, once you experience High Speed Rail, you don’t go back.

Meaning that if we had that option available to us along that corridor, I believe it would quickly rise in popularity.

Essentially, the same argument could have been made before building the Expo Line. Who is going to ride it? People would rather drive...

Once you make rail faster than driving, it wins. This is why flying is so popular, because it is faster than driving (or perceived to be in some cases) despite the massive headaches and annoyances of airports.

Again, the PNW distances are perfect for a proper rail connection.

And as stated by others many of the segments and rail links on our side are in need of a major overhaul anyway in the coming decades due to nearing end of life.

It may just be anecdotal, but most of my friends live in distant suburbs where SkyTrain is inaccessible. Almost all of them drive to work. I don't drive because I can't afford to own a car until I have a stable income to get one. It may also be a the car culture in the 'burbs. A lot of my friends can't understand why I commute for 1 1/2 hours to school while it's a 30 min drive for them. That's why I'm doubtful of having HSR in the PNW because so many people here are so used to the driving culture in the 'burbs that they'll pull any excuses of not having one.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Train stations are usually downtown, so there is a much better chance that it is close to where you are going. Downtown is usually the centre of the transit network, so you can likely easily get where you want without renting a car (renting a car kind of defeats the purpose of not driving).

The other advantage of the train is you can actually see where you are going. Even if you have a window seat, the windows are small and once you get up to altitude, there isn't much to see.

For people living too far from Downtown or closer to the border, they would rather drive across the border to Seattle/Portland than driving to Downtown and pay for parking. You can tell the benefits of HSR to them all you want, but you really need a convincing sales pitch to leave their cars for HSR/HFR. Car culture in Langley is embedded in the subconscious to the point their perception of rail seems like it's straight from the 50s.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

It may just be anecdotal, but most of my friends live in distant suburbs where SkyTrain is inaccessible. Almost all of them drive to work. I don't drive because I can't afford to own a car until I have a stable income to get one. It may also be a the car culture in the 'burbs. A lot of my friends can't understand why I commute for 1 1/2 hours to school while it's a 30 min drive for them. That's why I'm doubtful of having HSR in the PNW because so many people here are so used to the driving culture in the 'burbs that they'll pull any excuses of not having one.

Their motive seems to be more practical than cultural/ideological - get SoF's transit times down to a half-hour or less with the Expo line and BRT, and surely many of them will switch.

Ditto HSR. Three hundred bucks to Seattle is obviously unappealing, but a hundred or less will be less so. It's already thirty-ish in gas; the extra fifty or sixty gives you less stress, more comfort and an extra hour of your life back. No parking, pit stops, tickets, traffic or border security either.

The one problem I see is ridership. On top of capital costs (which we'll assume will not be recovered) bi-hourly service would cost about $160-200K daily. Are there 2,000+ daily passengers in Cascadia?

[trofirhen]

We already have the Amtrak Cascades to Seattle, although I don't think the rail bed allows for really high speeds. But we do have it, and that's a major start.
What about "beefing up" the railbed - an overpass here, a tunnel there - to allow for yet faster trains. They may not be HSR like the TGV or Shinkansen, but they'd exist.
The capital cost would possibly be considerably lower that for full-fledged HSR. If that works, attracting enough pax, then they could go go one step further upgrading to full HSR.
If not, at least there'd be a fast train, and who knows, it just might catch on, and become the preferred way to go. It seems to me that perhaps people are setting their initial goals too high.