Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

Recall we had a referendum or vote something a little while back regarding transit expansion funding through some tax? I don't think it passed... ?

That was Christy Clark and the BC Liberals forcing a non-binding plebiscite in 2015. There's plenty of disdain over it due to it being needed to fund public transit expansion while things like roads and bridges were automatically paid for. No surprise car drivers didn't want it.

[officedweller]

Washington State proposes $150 million for Vancouver-Seattle high-speed rail planning
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-seattle-high-speed-rail-washington-state-funding-proposed

[logan5]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Washington State proposes $150 million for Vancouver-Seattle high-speed rail planning
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-seattle-high-speed-rail-washington-state-funding-proposed

This seems like a significant next step. Transit fantasy becomes reality.

[Metro-One]

It’s definitely the most concrete movement that has ever been made towards making this idea become a reality.

[ilikeredheads]

Spend 150m to find out that business case will be poor and that operating a line within the jurisdiction of 3 different governments (2 countries) will present A LOT of red tape. What's likely it's that it'll say a line between Portland and Seattle is more realistic with a future option of potentially extending it to Vancouver.

Don't get your hopes up. Just look at the California HSR, which is one big mess marred by delays, mismanagement, and over budget galore.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Spend 150m to find out that business case will be poor and that operating a line within the jurisdiction of 3 different governments (2 countries) will present A LOT of red tape. What's likely it's that it'll say a line between Portland and Seattle is more realistic with a future option of potentially extending it to Vancouver.

Don't get your hopes up. Just look at the California HSR, which is one big mess marred by delays, mismanagement, and over budget galore.

The Chunnel shows that big, complex international rail projects can succeed. But I agree that the likelihood of HSR succeeding between Vancouver and Seattle is far less than in a lot of other corridors where it still hasn't succeeded. It's hard for me to see politicians spending money on this when they could spend it on local projects that will bring more benefits and votes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Spend 150m to find out that business case will be poor and that operating a line within the jurisdiction of 3 different governments (2 countries) will present A LOT of red tape. What's likely it's that it'll say a line between Portland and Seattle is more realistic with a future option of potentially extending it to Vancouver.

Don't get your hopes up. Just look at the California HSR, which is one big mess marred by delays, mismanagement, and over budget galore.

Of all the places in the USA to put a true HSR line, I highly doubt that this area would be the one that would be deemed the best one to do. I can see Acella type service, but not much more.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Don't get your hopes up. Just look at the California HSR, which is one big mess marred by delays, mismanagement, and over budget galore.

If you watch the B1M video that was shared, it mentions a fun fact: "Seattle's somewhat unique in that some of its past projects have come in under budget and ahead of schedule." Given that track record I can at least be optimistic that Washington state will have its ducks in a row.

As for a scope limitation, this project is already being designed 75 percent for Washington's benefit. If the project goes ahead, it isn't unreasonable to assume that some hybrid workers struggling to find homes in the Seattle/Tacoma area may be able to live in Bellingham or Longview. Those commutes are 1.5 hours and 2 hours by car, respectively, but a HSR could drop both of those to under 1 hour. This would be a significant tool in the State's fight against housing affordability that we in Vancouver know all too well.

That being said, a significant part of the proposal is the ability to create an economic super region, tying multinational corporations together and improving access to the arts, entertainment, and tourism industries in our neighboring cities. Cutting Vancouver out of the plan would be a catastrophic mistake but if that does happen it won't be because of our US counterparts. It'll be because our federal, provincial, and civic governments don't step up to the plate with funding and/or a stamp of approval. It may be politically unpopular because Ontario wants their corridor done first, or Abbotsford car loyalists oppose transit funding, but if Washington builds a 350 kilometre line from Longview to Bellingham and we can't complete our own 90 kilometre spur, I will be pissed

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Of all the places in the USA to put a true HSR line, I highly doubt that this area would be the one that would be deemed the best one to do. I can see Acella type service, but not much more.

It may not be number one, but it is very high on the list for a number of reasons:

1. The distances between the three major cities are pretty much perfect for HSR (250-300 KMs between them).
2. Cascadia has a rather positive posture towards transit options other than cars, especially compared to regions that would also benefit from a project like this such as the Texas triangle, Calgary to Edmonton, anywhere in Florida, and anywhere in California.
3. Cascadia also has strong support for climate measures, and this line would take a number of cars off the road and more importantly, remove a number of short-hall trips that are both economically and environmentally inefficient.
4. Washington state has shown a willingness and ability to plan and complete large infrastructure projects.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

It may not be number one, but it is very high on the list for a number of reasons:

1. The distances between the three major cities are pretty much perfect for HSR (250-300 KMs between them).
2. Cascadia has a rather positive posture towards transit options other than cars, especially compared to regions that would also benefit from a project like this such as the Texas triangle, Calgary to Edmonton, anywhere in Florida, and anywhere in California.
3. Cascadia also has strong support for climate measures, and this line would take a number of cars off the road and more importantly, remove a number of short-hall trips that are both economically and environmentally inefficient.
4. Washington state has shown a willingness and ability to plan and complete large infrastructure projects.

No doubt that it is a good spot for HSR. It would just surprise me that this would be the first one in the USA.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

No doubt that it is a good spot for HSR. It would just surprise me that this would be the first one in the USA.

What surprises me is that Japan has had HSR for 50 years, and the USA is finally getting around to seriously considering it.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

What surprises me is that Japan has had HSR for 50 years, and the USA is finally getting around to seriously considering it.

The states spent it's money building competitive means of transport on a massive scale, and it basically killed their passenger rail network. The rail networks basically reoriented everything around massive flows of freight.

The Japanese were essentially capacity constrained on their rail corridor when they built the first HSR line. Even without it being HSR, they needed a parallel route from Tokyo to Osaka. They also carry a very small amount of freight on their rail networks, which makes it much to run passenger trains in large quantities.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

What surprises me is that Japan has had HSR for 50 years, and the USA is finally getting around to seriously considering it.

Probably just due to population density.
The Northeast Corridor has had Acela for a while, I think.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Probably just due to population density.
The Northeast Corridor has had Acela for a while, I think.

Acela is a great example of what is wrong with trains in NA. The train reaches 240 kph for only 55 km of the trip and only averages 135 kph over the whole route. This is because Acela shares track with slower trains (does that sound familiar with anyone who has ever used VIA rail and had to sit on a siding while a freight train rumbled by?

And Acela runs on a corridor that is ~600 kms long, with a combined population of 34.4 million people and a GDP of over 2 trillion USD.

Meanwhile you can take a train from Rome-Florence-Bologna-Milan, with a combined population of 5.1 million people, with no where near the economic impact of the Northeast, and that train does 514 kms in 3.75 hours (~137 kph).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Washington State proposes $150 million for Vancouver-Seattle high-speed rail planning
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-seattle-high-speed-rail-washington-state-funding-proposed

We should be grateful the planners did not expect BC to foot the bill on this.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Vin

We should be grateful the planners did not expect BC to foot the bill on this.

Lets stop doing the studies and get on with building the thing. We can start with electrification and move on from there.

Construction around White rock may need to be shrouded in secrecy to avoid NIMBI reactions but that can be done.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

No doubt that it is a good spot for HSR. It would just surprise me that this would be the first one in the USA.

Texas HSR will be the first High-speed Rail in the USA to be completed. It's a slam dunk route and despite some opposition has a lot of support and fantastic business case.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The states spent it's money building competitive means of transport on a massive scale, and it basically killed their passenger rail network. The rail networks basically reoriented everything around massive flows of freight.

The Japanese were essentially capacity constrained on their rail corridor when they built the first HSR line. Even without it being HSR, they needed a parallel route from Tokyo to Osaka. They also carry a very small amount of freight on their rail networks, which makes it much to run passenger trains in large quantities.

Even if they ran lots of freight on their rail networks, it wouldn't matter. HSR in Japan is built on standard gauge and is completely separate from existing ROWs. It's only recently that they've done a few "mini-shinkanen" which share ROWs with other trains, either by up gauging their narrow-gauge tracks or using the relatively rare (outside of Osaka) standard gauge already there.

Basically, when they were building their original tracks, British Engineers said... it's too expensive to run standard gauge in a country that's 80% mountains.

Oh... and there's the matter of a geology:


Guess where most of the people live.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Even if they ran lots of freight on their rail networks, it wouldn't matter. HSR in Japan is built on standard gauge and is completely separate from existing ROWs. It's only recently that they've done a few "mini-shinkanen" which share ROWs with other trains, either by up gauging their narrow-gauge tracks or using the relatively rare (outside of Osaka) standard gauge already there.

Basically, when they were building their original tracks, British Engineers said... it's too expensive to run standard gauge in a country that's 80% mountains.

Oh... and there's the matter of a geology:


Guess where most of the people live.

On the eastern plains of Hokkaido! Duh. Look at all that flat land

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

On the eastern plains of Hokkaido! Duh. Look at all that flat land

LOL! Well you're not complete wrong. That flat land is great for farming... it's basically the dairy and bread basket of Japan.