Handicapping high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest

Spanish RENFE  trains (photo courtesy GreenChips) 

If a Portland businessperson traveled to Seattle today by Amtrak train, the average speed would be just 42 miles an hour. Sure, you could fly there much faster, but with the pre-flight check in and the drive from Sea-Tac airport, it wouldn't be so efficient either. Then there's driving, an inefficient single-use car trip that clogs up the highways and takes over three hours too.

It's no wonder many would love to see high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest receive funding. From economic benefits to cultural ones, having improved infrastructure and the chance to move between cities quickly and easily can only help. It's not an inexpensive endeavor, but high speed rail will more than pay for itself over time.

The recent elections that gave Republicans a majority in the US House of Representatives could hurt chances for fast trains. The party, tight-fisted about non-military spending outlays, would be unlikely to approve big funds for rail on its own if it had a bicameral majority. But the GOP does not have the Senate or occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so this is not 1994-96 or 2000-2008 redux.

Besides, not all Republicans are against high speed rail. For example, Representative John Mica of Florida, the senior Republican in line to take the reins of the House Transportation Committee in January, is a proponent. "But it has to be where it makes sense,” Mica told The Associated Press in a post-election interview. “The administration squandered the money, giving it to dozens and dozens of projects that were marginal at best."

Mica would rather see the money focused on a few key high-density areas like the Northeast, where the Amtrak Acela already acts as the nation's only high-speed rail line, between Boston and Washington via New York. But there are other officially 11 designated "mega regions" where clusters of close cities make the cost of high speed rail justifiable.

And Mica's GOP colleagues may be making it easier to single out which mega-regions in the United States first get fast trains. Newly elected right-wing governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have pledged to reject their portions of an upper midwest line linking with Chicago, and the same may be happening to a Florida line between Tampa and Orlando. That resistance could make other states and regions planning high speed rail lines, such as California, Texas and the Pacific Northwest, better able to compete for those federal rail-building dollars. That's particularly the case given that Oregon saw Democrat John Kitzhaber defeat Republican Chris Dudley; Kitz is surely more likely to support the rail investment, just as Jerry Brown will be in California now that he's defeated Meg Whitman.

Map of high-speed rail corridors (courtesy US Department of Transportion)

As reported by the Daily Journal of Commerce, on October 28 the Oregon and Washington departments of transportation received an additional $26.5 million in grants for development of a high-speed rail line between Eugene and Vancouver, British Columbia. The U.S. Department of Transportation announced the award as part of $2.4 billion for high-speed rail development projects around the country. Planning and environmental studies on the potential Eugene-to-Portland rail corridor will be performed with $4.2 million of the award, including an overhaul of the state’s overall passenger rail plan. Another $4 million will go toward a preliminary engineering and environmental study on potential renovations and track improvements at Portland’s historic Union Station to prepare the structure for future high-speed rail. This award adds to grant funds Oregon and Washington DOTs received in 2009 from the US Department of Transportation for high-speed rail projects.

The state estimates the cost of the Northwest rail project at about $2 billion on either one of two likely routes skirting Interstate 5. As much as $1.6 billion of that could be secured through federal funds, according to the transportation department, leaving at least $400 million in state money needed to make it happen.

Obviously in a time of unemployment and budget deficits, spending billions on anything must be justified by the improvements to the economy and culture they bring. But unlike the backlash we've had against highway funding, which arguably only contributes to sprawl and global warming, high speed rail is in keeping with the more sustainable, low-carbon future toward which the world is heading. Just ask the Chinese, who have nearly seven thousand kilometers of high speed rail lines under construction.

By no means is high-speed rail between Eugene and Vancouver, BC a done deal. But in an increasingly borderless global economy, we can not afford for travel between Portland and its closest big-city neighbors be restricted by slow, expensive, inefficient options. That only becomes truer in light of the fact that the nation's demographics are shifting. More Americans living in cities where they do not have family means more trips home, which require more transportation options than just planes and automobiles.

It's ironic that the Portland area has long been embroiled in a debate about huge federally funded transportation project, the Columbia River Crossing bridge, but one that has virtually nothing to do with high speed rail. Instead of worrying about 12 lanes or 10 for the bridge, why not forget the whole thing and embrace the fast train instead? Usually we can't take federal dollars intended for one transit mode and exchange them for another, but it's not unheard of in Portland. We once rejected the Mount Hood Freeway and were able to use the funds for the first MAX light rail line. Why not make the Columbia River Crossing a Pacific Northwest Crossing? High speed rail has the opportunity to help vastly more people cover much more terrain for less per-capita cost. It's just the kind of pioneering move we've been known for in the past and could be again.

Advertisement

Comments

[Alexander Craghead]

Brian:

The current PDX-SEA average speed is 53 mph, not 42. It should edge slightly upward in a few years as well. That is faster than driving -- unless you drive like Michael Schumacher, anyway.

What you do not mention, but that should be good news, was the last round's grant to WS-DOT for $590 million, all to be placed between Seattle and Portland. While overall trip times won't decline much -- at least 6 minutes shorter, though possibly more -- on-tie performance should approach 98% and the number of round trips will increase, with capacity for additional RTs as financing permits.

WS-DOT's goal is to get to hourly departures between PDX and SEA, and I have no doubt that goal will be achieved.

Oregon, though, I admit is a bit... behind the times. And I'm being generous.

[Nick Oakley]

(At the risk of sounding pedantic, those are Spanish RENFE high speed trains in the photo at top)

53 MPH is achingly slow, and on a good day it takes 3 hours 30 minutes to rumble up to Seattle, compared to 2 hours 55 by car (Cautious Google Maps). The only justification for going by train is some intermittently good scenery, and over three hours in which to drain your laptop battery. Brought up on, and having worked on the design a few HSR trains, we really should expect a sub 2 1/2 hr dash to Seattle.

Interestingly however, The Economist makes the case that US freight rail leads the world and prioritizing HSR could ruin it.

[Jim Heuer]

Brian, thanks for bringing to light the odd juxtaposition of massive government hand wringing over the I-5 Columbia River crossing compared to the virtual silence on the issue of rail freight and passenger service and its role in the transport of the region. Much has been made of the age of the I-5 bridge, the oldest parts of which date to 1917, and its vulnerability to earthquakes and age related deterioration. Nothing at all has been mentioned about the parallel railroad bridge used by BNSF and UP trains as well as Amtrak -- it was built in 1908!

As the I-5 bridge project progresses, further stress will be placed on the capacity of the I-5 segments in central Portland, creating a need for freeway lane expansion and the resulting huge disruption to the surroundings in the much abused Rose Quarter district. Also impacted will be the current rail routes through that area, which likely will be called upon in the near future to handle more and faster passenger train service. Indeed, the long range ODOT plan has been for Portland's high-speed rail terminal to be built on the east side of the Willamette, avoiding the tortuous S-curve across the Steel Bridge and slow running through the industrial NW. That new terminal would necessarily occupy land near the Rose Quarter Transit Center.

None of the potential impact of these developments on rail service has reached the public consciousness. (Although I understand that the NE Quadrant Study that is part of the Central City planning effort, currently under way, seems to be oriented to finding ways to expand I-5 capacity through the area. The study group advisory council does have a UP Railroad representative. I feel much better knowing that.)

As to some of the previous comments on your post:

- The 3-1/2 hours you spend on the Amtrak Cascades riding to Seattle will not drain your laptop battery... Every seat is equipped with an electrical outlet. Perhaps that's one reason why more than 3/4 million riders found a "justification" for riding them in the last 12 months.

- Yes, the Economist did carry an article nonsensically lamenting the impending destruction of the US rail freight network by higher speed rail. Note it was higher speed, not real HSR that they claimed was the problem. Real HSR runs on dedicated tracks and will not affect the rail freight network.

The article in question actually was an error-filled regurgitation of press releases and background material from the Association of American Railroads that was, at the time, waging political war against the Federal Railroad Administration, which had promulgated truly awful proposed regulations for the operation of "higher speed" rail passenger service on freight railroad tracks. Those proposed regs have since been rescinded. Still the key point of the article, that passenger train operations up to 110 mph on freight tracks would cripple the US rail freight system, was laughable. US railroads operated passenger trains at speeds over 100 mph routinely until government regulations limited most tracks to 79 mph in the 1950s. Some of the highest freight volume routes in the country also carried 20 to 30 very fast passenger trains as well. In the current era when rail capacity planning has been elevated to a high art using advanced computer tools, there is no reason that our rail passenger service can't be upgraded massively while at the same time enabling dramatic improvements to our rail freight system as well with properly targeted infrastructure investments.

[Amygarlandmyers]

Interesting discussion. However, I'd like to point out that one option for getting between Seattle and Portland has been left out -- the new(ish) SeaPort Airlines. The flight is only 1 hour and due to the small size of the planes, you do not go through TSA screenings. You can arrive 15 minutes before your flight! That said, it goes to Boeing Field and not SeaTac airport. But still a nice "high speed" option for now until train service improves.

Also, I just drove to Seattle and back a few weeks ago, and the 3-hour driving estimate is nice provided there is no traffic. Ha ha. Which is never the case, especially between Tacoma and Seattle! My return trip was close to 4 hours.