Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by 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.

Problem is that gradual improvements don't win voters or investors the way Big Shiny Things (TM) do. Spend half a billion on improving bus service? Meh. Spend two billion on a new tram line? Ooooh, pretty.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by 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.

if you an early riser, the amtrak is only 3.5 hours long for $40 USD each way.

otherwise, it's 4.5 hours.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by djmk

if you an early riser, the amtrak is only 3.5 hours long for $40 USD each way.

otherwise, it's 4.5 hours.

Nothing wrong with that, that I can see!! Now if they could just expand the service a bit ....

[LeftCoaster]

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.

There are roughly 12 million people in the cascadia corridor set out in a narrow linerar fashion perfect to serve with a single rail line.

This population is growing rapidly, extremely affluent and more interconnected economically every day.

Is the case a slam dunk? No.

Is it dead before the ink is dry? Not at all.

This region will continue to grow and interconnect and not seeing the benefits of something like HSR is extremely short sighted IMO.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There are roughly 12 million people in the cascadia corridor set out in a narrow linerar fashion perfect to serve with a single rail line.

This population is growing rapidly, extremely affluent and more interconnected economically every day.

Is the case a slam dunk? No.

Is it dead before the ink is dry? Not at all.

This region will continue to grow and interconnect and not seeing the benefits of something like HSR is extremely short sighted IMO.

OK... fair enough... show me the money!!

No one is going to pony up the 40 Billion needed.

[logan5]

For shorter routes like Vancouver to Portland and Seattle, I can see driverless vehicles taking over from trains. Train travel would probably still be faster, but the convenience of door to door service, and a much more comfortable traveling experience would draw most people away from trains.

Driverless vehicles will likely be able to maintain speeds of 160 km/h or more, meaning a trip to Seattle, door to door (from dt to dt) would take about 1.5 hours. That's best case scenario at the border of course.

[Dengler Avenue]

I don't know how Washington troopers will feel as they see cars (in general) blowing down I-5 at 30 mph (50 kph) over the speed limit though.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 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.

The thing is, by far the largest issue to any speed for Amtrak Cascades north of the boarder (or likely anywhere) is the section of track that snakes along White Rock beach (from the boarder to Mud Bay). The only way to solve that problem is to reroute the line away from the beach to a new Right of Way (ROW) that is straighter and optimally in a sealed corridor (most likely along the 99). However, this could not be done incrementally and would be very expensive to do. If it is being done, the difference in relative cost for using Class V, VI or VII track would be minimal (though if shared with BNSF, there is little benefit for using anything greater than Class V). Given that the track would only be used by Amtrak and BNSF (both American companies) having Canadian governments fund it would be politically charged. The biggest counter argument is White Rock wants to get the tracks off of their beach, but I don't know how much weight that holds for the politicians.

Between Mud Bay and the Fraser River, it is largely a sealed corridor, so upgrades would be easy, but pointless unless speed can be found north or south of it.

Along the Fraser (both sides), it travels through rail yards and the train has to slow down for the bridge, so until the bridge is replaced, there is not much point increasing the speed. The bridge will most likely be replaced one day as it is used by multiple railways, so it is much more politically attractive. I would argue that doing so (even with track upgrades along the Fraser) will have minimal effect on travel times without upgrading the track further south as the train would have to slow right back down again.

The approach from New West to Pacific Central Station does have several level crossings that could be grade separated, but at that point the train is accelerating/decelerating for the station, so the speed benefit would be minimal, but should be done for safety reasons.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by logan5

For shorter routes like Vancouver to Portland and Seattle, I can see driverless vehicles taking over from trains. Train travel would probably still be faster, but the convenience of door to door service, and

I'm not so optimistic about the future of driverless cars. The technology (and its acceptance) is one aspect, but the environmental impact is another.

a much more comfortable traveling experience would draw most people away from trains.

More comfortable? It sounds like you have a different vision than me. To me a train is more comfortable than a car as I have much more leg room and can easily get up and wander around (or go to the washroom) in the train. Those features are not available in existing cars, though who is to say what we will see on the road in the future.

Driverless vehicles will likely be able to maintain speeds of 160 km/h or more, meaning a trip to Seattle, door to door (from dt to dt) would take about 1.5 hours. That's best case scenario at the border of course.

I am not sure how feasible those speeds are in mixed traffic. Also, energy efficiency drops as speed increases. In trains, that effect can be average out over many people so it is mitigated that way. Unless we can find new sources of clean energy, I don't think we can provide enough energy to power a large number of low occupancy at those speeds. Now maybe there are solutions that let cars couple together like trains, but we aren't even close to that, and I wouldn't bet the farm on it actually happening.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by logan5

Driverless vehicles will likely be able to maintain speeds of 160 km/h or more, meaning a trip to Seattle, door to door (from dt to dt) would take about 1.5 hours. That's best case scenario at the border of course.

Only if you run those driverless vehicles in a dedicated ROW. Running at speeds faster than other vehicles in mixed traffic is never going to happen. And a dedicated 160km/h ROW with automated vehicles sounds an awful lot like a railway, only a railway would have much more space efficient vehicles.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, by far the largest issue to any speed for Amtrak Cascades north of the boarder (or likely anywhere) is the section of track that snakes along White Rock beach (from the boarder to Mud Bay). The only way to solve that problem is to reroute the line away from the beach to a new Right of Way (ROW) that is straighter and optimally in a sealed corridor (most likely along the 99). However, this could not be done incrementally and would be very expensive to do. If it is being done, the difference in relative cost for using Class V, VI or VII track would be minimal (though if shared with BNSF, there is little benefit for using anything greater than Class V). Given that the track would only be used by Amtrak and BNSF (both American companies) having Canadian governments fund it would be politically charged. The biggest counter argument is White Rock wants to get the tracks off of their beach, but I don't know how much weight that holds for the politicians.

Between Mud Bay and the Fraser River, it is largely a sealed corridor, so upgrades would be easy, but pointless unless speed can be found north or south of it.

Along the Fraser (both sides), it travels through rail yards and the train has to slow down for the bridge, so until the bridge is replaced, there is not much point increasing the speed. The bridge will most likely be replaced one day as it is used by multiple railways, so it is much more politically attractive. I would argue that doing so (even with track upgrades along the Fraser) will have minimal effect on travel times without upgrading the track further south as the train would have to slow right back down again.

The approach from New West to Pacific Central Station does have several level crossings that could be grade separated, but at that point the train is accelerating/decelerating for the station, so the speed benefit would be minimal, but should be done for safety reasons.

The true way to do HSR is the way the Japanese do it. Dedicated ROW with mostly straight track. I have ridden the Shinkansen and it is awesome. It is fast, safe, and comfortable. Anything less is not HSR but a slightly faster train.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Only if you run those driverless vehicles in a dedicated ROW. Running at speeds faster than other vehicles in mixed traffic is never going to happen. And a dedicated 160km/h ROW with automated vehicles sounds an awful lot like a railway, only a railway would have much more space efficient vehicles.

Don't forget the logistics involved in operating, coordinating and maintaining several thousand cars across 500+ km of highway (let alone inside three cities at once). Compare and contrast with thirty to forty trains.

Self-driving cars aren't the future. They aren't even the present. Until they create smart-enough AI and flying cars, they're just another revisit of the failed ideology that led to PRT and the light rail craze. It's pretty telling that the techs have essentially said they need to ban pedestrians to make autonomy work.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The true way to do HSR is the way the Japanese do it. Dedicated ROW with mostly straight track. I have ridden the Shinkansen and it is awesome. It is fast, safe, and comfortable. Anything less is not HSR but a slightly faster train.

Amen to that - took it last summer, can't see why we should be satisfied with anything less.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

OK... fair enough... show me the money!!

No one is going to pony up the 40 Billion needed.

Well I sure ain't showing you the 40 billion. Like I said it's not a slam dunk, but to say it's dead before the ink is dry is just as silly as saying it's a slam dunk.

$40 billion between 3 states/province and 2 federal governments is a big number but certainly achievable, especially if potential corporate users like Microsoft continue to back it.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Well I sure ain't showing you the 40 billion. Like I said it's not a slam dunk, but to say it's dead before the ink is dry is just as silly as saying it's a slam dunk.

$40 billion between 3 states/province and 2 federal governments is a big number but certainly achievable, especially if potential corporate users like Microsoft continue to back it.

I look at the California HSR as an example. They have a massive population base and don't have the 1st phase planned for completion until 2029.

"CAHSR plans to operate on dedicated, grade-separated tracks for the entirety of its route between San Jose and Burbank with speeds of up to 220 miles per hour (350 km/h), with early ridership projections for the San Francisco to Los Angeles leg at 28.4 million per year."

No way those numbers will come out the Pacific North West.

[LeftCoaster]

Just a little more thought on the subject:

The $40 billion in cost spread over BC, Washington and Oregon's population of 16.5 million is $2,413 per person. Amortized over a 10-12 year construction schedule that's about $200 per person per year. Still a lot of money but passes this smell check as far as I'm concerned, especially since it assumes no federal funding whatsoever.

[ClaytonA]

Yeah driverless and flying cars being this cheap panacea is a bit of elite projection (i.e. convenience for those who can afford it). It will be cheaper than a taxi, but then who uses a taxi to commute to work, shop, visit friends every day? It'll be hard to compete with transit unless the libertarians are successful in defunding and discrediting transit.

PSA for an Cascadia HSR advocacy group

twitter https://twitter.com/CascadiaRail

website: cascadiarail.org

[ClaytonA]

https://medium.com/wagovernor/washington...gional-partnership-building-1972f94fbe97

Article on conference and new working group set up between Washington State and BC for collaboration on HSR and other issues.


Again what would it cost to get two more round trips per day between Seattle and Washington on the existing/near-to-existing infrastructure? Crickets on studying/planning that. But this is the potential quick win.

[BCPhil]

I rode the train from Ottawa to Toronto this fall and it was a pretty good experience. And even though it was a really long train ride, I don't think I lost that much time out of my day.

On the Train:
* 15 minute taxi to station from downtown Hotel (when the LRT opens it will be like a 10 minute transit trip).
* 20 minute wait for train
* 4 hour 20 minute train ride
* 7 minute walk to hotel.
= 302 minutes

Compared to flying:
* 25 minutes Taxi to the airport (or almost an hour on transit)
* 1h 30m for airport security/wait/boarding.
* 55m flight time
* 20m wait for luggage/leave the airport
* 45 minutes from Pearson on the UP and walk to hotel.
= 235 minutes

A half hour difference is not bad, especially considering the following:
* the distances travelled to and from the train station was much shorter than that to/from the airports, meaning much less could go wrong with traffic.
* Because the distances were shorter, the taxi/transit rides were cheaper, and transit would need fewer transfers (again, improving reliability).
* The train tickets were cheaper, plus all the extra costs of getting around were much less.

So overall I think I lost roughly 30 to 45 minutes of my life, but probably saved around $200 and it was far far less stressful.

As an addition to the anecdote, you have to remember that HSR isn't just for replacing air travel between major cities. It also acts as a regional distribution/collector service.

The train left Ottawa less than 1/4 full, but picked up people along the way, and every seat was occupied when it left Kingston (and a surprising amount got off in Oshawa).

Think of the efficiency that 1 linear rail line offers over multiple airports and planes. Don't just think about the 3 big cities, but also the other stops along the way.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Compared to flying:
* 25 minutes Taxi to the airport (or almost an hour on transit)
* 1h 30m for airport security/wait/boarding.
* 55m flight time
* 20m wait for luggage/leave the airport
* 45 minutes from Pearson on the UP and walk to hotel.
= 235 minutes

To be fair, most people flying to Toronto from Ottawa use Porter, which flys in and out of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport which has a free 15 minute shuttle to/from Union Station.

A half hour difference is not bad, especially considering the following:
* the distances travelled to and from the train station was much shorter than that to/from the airports, meaning much less could go wrong with traffic.
* Because the distances were shorter, the taxi/transit rides were cheaper, and transit would need fewer transfers (again, improving reliability).
* The train tickets were cheaper, plus all the extra costs of getting around were much less.

So overall I think I lost roughly 30 to 45 minutes of my life, but probably saved around $200 and it was far far less stressful.

The other factor is your time on the train is far more productive. Not only can you use your phone but they have free wifi. Also, being mostly one large block of time and not fragmented. You also have more room to work on your laptop.