Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#161

Post by psunavy03 » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #39

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the layout. They had a nice bypass set up, but the first day the train derailed and it has just recently re-opened. Sharing track with freight is a PITA: the freight trains don't care about going fast (so no really straight tracks) and they often have priority especially if the cascade is running off schedule, causing even more delays. Not sure where they are going to build new straight-enough HSR track unless…

Legally, Amtrak is supposed to have priority, and freight trains are required to pull off. But freight trains usually get priority because that's what the railway wants, and Amtrak doesn't have the political muscle to do much. But it's illegal. https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Amtrak-has-priority-o...

Because everyone involved understands that, as currently implemented, Amtrak is irrelevant and a joke. But freight rail isn't.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#162

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

_ah wrote: post #157

This is dumb. In a high-density environment (hey there Japan!) HSR makes tons of sense. In a much lower-density area, moving people isn't the biggest problem, it's moving stuff . Next time you take a long-distance flight in the USA, look out the window and ponder how dang big AND EMPTY the country is. People can be transported quickly by air, but for cargo you want energy efficiency per kg (not speed). For most of th…

[deleted]

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#163

Post by djcapelis » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:55 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #56

hiram112 wrote: post #17

They allocated $150M according to the article. I can't see that being enough to even break ground on a single mile of track. If California boondoggle is any indication, it will be enough to staff an army of middle managers, bureaucrats, and environmental impact and DEI staff for a year, and, of course, pay out some political kickbacks.

California's spent something like $9 billion and they hadn't a single mile of track by 2022. Maybe we should do a crawl/walk/run instead of jumping directly to HSR.

This is what zero miles of track looked like in 2022: https://youtu.be/gAZqaESaZLg

This is what zero miles of track looks like a year later: https://youtu.be/luX35wVJt84

You can today in the Central Valley look at large construction sites and structures, some of which are finished. Go 100 miles up the alignment, and see construction and structures there too. None of those sites have laid track yet, but there’s hundred of miles of trackway under development.

Track comes last.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#164

Post by psunavy03 » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

rob74 wrote: post #130

ghaff wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 hr Seattle to Portland probably doesn’t even really make it commuting distance because very few people are going to live and work close enough to the endpoints to keep things to 90 minutes total. Boston to NYC is 4 hours or so and that’s useful for a lot of purposes although that’s admittedly in part because driving and parking in Manhattan is so awful. (I could drive from my house to Manhattan faster but I hardly…

I don't think commuting should be the main focus - if you want HSR to make sense ecologically, it should replace existing car and airplane trips, not enable people to make longer commutes.

One of these days people are going to understand that "what makes most ecological sense" is allowing people to live their normal lives as they're accustomed to live them, without beating them over the head and telling them they're bad people.

The average American lifestyle (cars included) is what it is . . . so decarbonize that and stop expecting everyone to live like Brooklynites or Europeans.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#165

Post by Karrot_Kream » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:00 AM UTC

andbberger wrote: post #144

kposehn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line is owned by BNSF and has quite a lot of BNSF and Union Pacific trains running on it daily, in addition to the Cascades services. No amount of improving the tracks will fix congestion, so moving to a separate line entirely for passenger service makes a ton of sense.

organization before electronics before concrete. some amount of infrastructure will fix congestion, how much depends on what precise timetable will be run. the swiss manage to run a huge amount of freight alongside many passenger trains because they did their homework and built infrastructure where it was needed. in general, "precision scheduled railroading" has fucked passenger-freight interoperability in the states…

It's just a lack of political will. If Congress wanted Amtrak to really have priority, then they'd strengthen laws which allow Amtrak to have priority and then Amtrak can go for suit. They don't though whereas freight railroad has a lot of friends in Congress and so freight wins while Amtrak loses.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#166

Post by djcapelis » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:00 AM UTC

justrealist wrote: post #156

jeffbee wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Single mile of track” is one of the dumbest memes ever. Yes, they lay the tracks last, because that is by far the easiest part of the project and there’s a machine that can poop out HSR tracks at 1km/hour.

> and there’s a machine that can poop out HSR tracks at 1km/hour. Uh... not in the US, there isn't.

Sigh. Though there are definitely automated track laying machines in the US, some pieces might not meet the needs of the project and may want other machines. You can of course ship them.

Did you think CAHSR was going to lay the track by hand?

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#167

Post by genocidicbunny » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:00 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #148

genocidicbunny wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want to point out that unlike Germany, where the population centers are relatively spread out over the area, in WA and OR, the vast majority of the population lives in a fairly narrow band largely following I5. The density of the Portland - Seattle - Vancouver corridor is a little less dire. Eastern WA and OR are relatively sparsely populated, so HSR to those areas is almost a non-starter.

Yeah fine, I fully believe in the Vancouver->Vancouver (cough) train line. The justification for it, however, is not "WA is just like Germany". First of all, it's gone to be a relatively single-line system, paralleling I-5, which is quite unlike Germany, Second, even with the full west-of-cascades population, you're still not even remotely close to the population of Germany. You not even really that close to the popu…

> The justification for it, however, is not "WA is just like Germany".

Of course not, they're not the same. But we are still talking about a region of about 8-10 million people. It's also a region that has grown by 2 or so million people in a decade. Washington alone has had a pretty steady 14-20% growth per decade since the 60's. Oregon is fairly close in its decadal growth as well. So by the 2030's we might be talking more like 12-13 million people in the region.

That's plenty sufficient density to start investigating if an HSR is economically feasible and advisable.

(Edit: Just for self elucidation, I looked at the number of people that live in the Hamburg - Frankfurt corridor, since that's about the same distance as Portland to Vancouver, BC. Just going off the 'megaregions' that are crossed, its about 20 or so million, give or take a couple. That's only 2x the density of the cascadia region. Berlin - Essen also seems to be about the same distance, and also about 20 million people.)

> Yeah fine, I fully believe in the Vancouver->Vancouver (cough) train line.

At that point, just extend it. Put a bridge over the river and have a train terminal somewhere near PDX. The further continuation into Salem and Eugene is a little iffy, that I will concede, but Vancouver WA to Portland is practically spitting distance.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#168

Post by psunavy03 » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:02 AM UTC

carabiner wrote: post #79

CSMastermind wrote: post #70

For those unaware allow me to present The Seattle Process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process Otherwise known as "decision making through exhaustion" where everyone tries to stop progress as much as possible until the other people get so sick of arguing with you that they give up and you get your way. The Seattle region might be the part of the country least capable of building infrastructure. I'll believe…

lol California would disagree. I am amazed at how much is being built here. I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle is the fastest building urban metro area in the US. I still think WA has a libertarian streak (hence no income tax) that moves things along.

Are you kidding me? Washington's "libertarian streak" is long-dead and buried.

Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, at this point, Seattle is basically San Francisco's insecure younger sibling and Washington is basically California Lite. As an example, since you brought up income tax, there is now a state capital gains tax, which the state Supreme Court cleverly danced around and called an "excise tax." Again, whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, Washington is every bit as much a single-party deep blue state as California now, and it's marching lockstep in the same direction as every other single-party deep blue state.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#169

Post by Karrot_Kream » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:06 AM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #154

andbberger wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I quite frankly just don’t see the value is connecting Portland and Seattle by high speed rail. Who gives a shit? Spend billions of dollars so that hundreds, perhaps even a whole thousand, of people can take a weekend trip that is slightly faster than a 3 hour drive dramatically faster. travel time between portland and seattle along a realistic route is on the order of 90m with a few stops and 60m non-stop. about a…

High-speed rail isn’t really for daily commuters. Shinkansen tickets are quite expensive. We’re talking $100 each way. I don’t see trains having a huge advantage over a clean grid and EV fleet. And the latter is much easier and faster to build.

EVs still emit brake particulate matter, generate roadway noise, put pressure on roadway infrastructure (either for maintenance or expansion), and still tie up the driver's time in transit. Rail does none of those things. It's a matter of political will in the US, and most Americans tend to be fine wasting lots of time driving.

Re: Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

#170

Post by psunavy03 » Sat, Jul 29, 2023, 6:08 AM UTC

irrational wrote: post #120

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WA does but Seattle does not. Worse, the one big city / region we have completely swamps the rest of the state politically so our "leaders" only ever get leftier and don't have a moderating influence from the other side. It's worse in OR to the south (Portland)...it's so out of balance there that 11 rural counties voted to secede and join their eastern neighbor Idaho.

Why does there need to be a balance? Wyoming is considered the most Republican state. Do people there talk about there needing to be more balance?

Because in both cases, there comes a point where the majority should not be able to trample on the minority, be they PacNW Republicans/conservatives or Wyoming Democrats/liberals.

Having 50.01 percent of the vote in either direction should get you strong influence with boundaries, not carte blanche to do whatever you want. The American system is deliberately designed so progressively bigger changes to the status quo require progressively bigger majorities, and certain options are completely off the table.

And this is for good reason. If you and I vehemently disagree, we should still be able to live as neighbors as long as neither of us is trying to violate the other's rights or force our views on the other.