Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plans develop for high-speed rail in the PNW

southseattleemerald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 311 posts

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

#171

Post by SllX »

_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…

Eugene -> Albany -> Salem -> Woodburn -> Wilsonville -> Tigard -> Portland -> Vancouver WA -> Woodland -> Long View -> Castle Rock ->Centralia -> Grand Mound -> Olympia -> Lacey -> DuPont -> Tacoma -> Federal Way -> Seattle-Tacoma International Airport -> Burien -> White Center -> Seattle -> Shoreline -> Lynnwood -> Everett.

You could keep going, but that gives you the spine of the populated places between Seattle and Portland and a little past them too covering basically the Willamette Valley in Oregon. You could extend through Mount Vernon and Bellingham up to British Columbia. You could run an East-West line connecting Forest Grove and Gresham through Hillsboro, Beaverton and Portland.

I know Seattle and Portland are the big ones, but the value to people in passenger rail is the whole rail network, not just two points. That said, I’m not going to defend the economics of high speed rail in America either, I’m a bit soured on it, just thought your characterization was unfair that Portland and Seattle were the only two points that mattered when you’ve got most of metropolitan Oregon and Washington around them.

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

#172

Post by irrational »

beembeem wrote: post #149
irrational wrote: post #113

Vancouver to Seattle would be doable. It’s the Portland to Vancouver part that would be hard. There were plans to rebuild the interstate bridge to allow more lanes, include pedestrian/bike crossing, and train crossing. It got so bogged down in disagreements that it was eventually scrapped. I’m not holding my breath on allowing a high speed rail crossing between Portland and Vancouver. Fortunately the rail yard in Van…

Aha, to clarify for others - Vancouver WA is what you're referring to, not BC.

Oh, yeah. In Portland, if you say Vancouver, it means the one right across the river. You have to specify Vancouver BC if you mean the other one.

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

#173

Post by grecy »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #159
ojbyrne wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite name collision is Ontario, CA (city, state) and Ontario, CA (province, country).

I had a friend from Ontario tell me she was going to school in London. That was confusing initially.

I moved to Canada, and whenever I tell a Canadian my sister lives in London, I basically always have to add "in the U.K." just as they ask about London, ON.

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

#174

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

Man, whenever all this train talk comes up, I get this impression that Americans really know their shit when it comes to trains. All these plans and documentations, speeds, infrastructure details, hundreds of comments, expertise - you’d think it’s all the other way around.

I live in Poland, and all I know is that it all just works here (more or less).

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

#175

Post by Balero »

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.

> 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.

The latter requires building millions of individual cars, each with large expensive lithium batteries, plus the road network and upkeep of that. Then building green energy, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, plus storage!

The other includes building some train tracks and trains.

The planning system must be utterly dysfunctional, and the government incompetent when it comes to large projects, or tender for them, for the first to be anywhere near easier than the latter.

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

#176

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

_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…

I don't think anyone is proposing building high-speed rail in empty places like Wyoming.

Most Americans don't live in those vast empty areas. There are large parts of the US that are as densely populated as Western Europe. HSR would make sense on the Eastern Seaboard, in the Midwest, California, the Texas triangle, and the Pacific Northwest. There are plenty of city pairs in the US with a few million people, separated by a few hundred miles, which is ideal for HSR.

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

#177

Post by forrestthewoods »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #169
forrestthewoods wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

New York City has the best public transit in the US… and the longest commute times. Average commute time in Tokyo (58 minutes) is twice as long as Seattle (27.5 minutes). It’s not the same problem as induced demand, but the net effect is similar.

Ultra dense, transit rich cities are more expensive and have longer commute times. There’s no free lunch.

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

#178

Post by Balero »

SllX wrote: post #171
_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…

Eugene -> Albany -> Salem -> Woodburn -> Wilsonville -> Tigard -> Portland -> Vancouver WA -> Woodland -> Long View -> Castle Rock ->Centralia -> Grand Mound -> Olympia -> Lacey -> DuPont -> Tacoma -> Federal Way -> Seattle-Tacoma International Airport -> Burien -> White Center -> Seattle -> Shoreline -> Lynnwood -> Everett. You could keep going, but that gives you the spine of the populated places between Seattle an…

That route at the top would make any high speed rail pointless. You would never get up to a speed to make it worth while. All to stop at places like Castle Rock population 2500. Going down to Eugene and Salem would make sense, but with the intent that they places would aim to grow in size considerably.

Places like Gresham to Forest grove are better for the Portland tram network, they are just part of the one metro area, they are not different metro areas like Seattle and Portland.

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

#179

Post by hparadiz »

_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…

High speed transportation tends to grow the low density areas.

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

#180

Post by jdlshore »

23B1 wrote: post #139
jdlshore wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would prevent the need for travel between Portland, Seattle, and BC, and how would you like the government to make that happen?

[flagged]

I understand the difference, and chose my words intentionally. What evidence do you have that the purpose of the high speed rail project is primarily for commuting to and from work? I’d be willing to wager that the actual report (which I haven’t read) probably names a variety of reasons for high speed rail in the PNW, of which commuting is one of many.

Setting your passive aggressive pedantry aside, you haven’t answered the question: how would you like the government to prevent commuting in the PNW? And—now that we’re focusing on just one form of travel—how much do you expect that will reduce the demand for travel, and how will that reduction change the desirability of high-speed rail?

Post reply on HN