Bullet Train - Portland to Seattle to Vancouver? (Burien: 2015, apartments)

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

I suppose it is all hunky-dory, as long as it isn't your house or town that is being effected. That property owners aren't being compensated for this is another form of public subsidy.

How much to add a fourth runway or a second airport? LOTS.

Seatac doesn't need a fourth runway; they haven't even gone to slot allocations yet, never mind being slot controlled (of which there are only 4 airports in the US, EWR, JFK, LGA and DCA.) And Paine Field will probably have commercial traffic by the end of this year.

Oh, and have you ever lived next door to train tracks? I have.

Airports use revenue bonds for capital costs; they're paid off by user fees and charges. 21st Century rail projects, both longhaul and urban, all rely on far more public (tax) subsidy per passenger mile, forever. The Port of Seattle relies on far more tax dollars per capita than almost every port authority in the country. But that's a local political problem, not a structural one, and has much more to do with the POS's maritime ops than aviation. Here's an older article but still worth reading - Port of Seattle: The gang that can't shoot straight

[CrazyDonkey]

There are commercial flights out of Paine Field now.

See: https://skift.com/2015/04/09/wikilea...-in-subsidies/

I'm not arguing for Mag-Lev or high speed rail here, but think that investing in higher-speed rail (passenger and freight) makes sense.

[mhays25]

1/2 the cost of one new airport (billions) would do amazing things with the existing Amtrak service in terms of frequency and speed. A few new sidings at choke points, some hillside stabilization, a few overpasses, added trainsets... It would make a popular service even more so. Another five or so per day to Portland and Vancouver would significantly reduce the need for commuter flights, taking a little pressure off every city along the line.

[franklin42]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

It's already happening (my emphasis):



Burien may sue FAA over flight pattern change | KING5.com

I suppose it is all hunky-dory, as long as it isn't your house or town that is being effected. That property owners aren't being compensated for this is another form of public subsidy.

How much to add a fourth runway or a second airport? LOTS.

Funny you mention all this. My wife brought this up at breakfast this morning. We were both talking about how we never hear planes fly over us, hardly ever. We really only hear the planes taking off to the North when the weather is "nice" (maybe one of the reasons I like overcast/rainy days???). Anyway, we noticed 3 planes flying over our house today while we were home. Coincidence or the FAA sending a message/flexing its muscles?

[leastprime]

^ You should hear the jets over (Capitol Hill/First Hill/BeaconHill) . Twice a day, AM takeoffs. PM landings. There is an air/temperature density issue at this elevation where sound travels very well. If you are lower just a few blocks down, you don't get the noise.

[modc]

is there enough density for a high speed train running between Seattle, Portland and San Francisco/ Silicon Valley to justify the cost? I would love to take a train to San Francisco and bypass the airport hassles. However, I'm thinking there wouldn't be enough passengers....maybe a luxury train for google and msft execs going back and forth?

[leastprime]

Some incremental changes would be fine, if Amtrak can just get the average speed up from 40 to 45mph.
Schedule time from PDX to SEA is 3:50. The Point Defiance ByPass is suppose to take off 10 minutes which will be only improve speed to 41mph. Hopefully this will also make the ride smoother although we'll lose the water view

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by modc

is there enough density for a high speed train running between Seattle, Portland and San Francisco/ Silicon Valley to justify the cost? I would love to take a train to San Francisco and bypass the airport hassles. However, I'm thinking there wouldn't be enough passengers....maybe a luxury train for google and msft execs going back and forth?

Another way of looking at this is that merely concentrating density in urban cores of "hub-cities" drives up their real estate values, driving out both workers and middle-class families, which are then saddled with punishing commutes.

Light-rail, by itself, can fuel sprawl - it needs to be complemented by high(er)-speed heavy-rail that can leap-frog sprawl, connecting to satellite residential/job-centers that can be developed on cheaper open-land. Hubs: Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Vancouver, Portland, Eugene. Satellites: Mt. Vernon/Burlington, Centralia/Chehalis, Longview/Kelso, Salem/Albany, etc.

This would be more of an intrastate, than interstate, development, although a high(er)-speed/longer-distance "Cascadia" passenger/freight-rail line could be developed concurrently along the transportation-spine that would be created.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by modc

is there enough density for a high speed train running between Seattle, Portland and San Francisco/ Silicon Valley to justify the cost? I would love to take a train to San Francisco and bypass the airport hassles. However, I'm thinking there wouldn't be enough passengers....maybe a luxury train for google and msft execs going back and forth?

Another way of looking at this is that merely concentrating density in urban cores of "hub-cities" drives up their real estate values, driving out both workers and middle-class families, which are then saddled with punishing commutes.

Light-rail, by itself, can fuel sprawl - it needs to be complemented by high(er)-speed heavy-rail that can leap-frog sprawl, connecting to satellite residential/job-centers that can be developed on cheaper open-land. Hubs: Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Vancouver, Portland, Salem, Eugene. Satellites: Mt. Vernon/Burlington, Centralia/Chehalis, Longview/Kelso, Albany/Corvallis, etc.

This would be more of an intrastate, than interstate, development, although a high(er)-speed/longer-distance "Cascadia" passenger/freight-rail line could be developed concurrently along the transportation-spine that would be created.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by modc

is there enough density for a high speed train running between Seattle, Portland and San Francisco/ Silicon Valley to justify the cost? I would love to take a train to San Francisco and bypass the airport hassles. However, I'm thinking there wouldn't be enough passengers....maybe a luxury train for google and msft execs going back and forth?

Once enough rail infrastructure is in place, adding tons of capacity via longer trains and higher frequency is relatively cheap and easy. Of course the standards for "enough rail infrastructure" are very different at different speeds.

San Francisco would be a stretch for popular rail. I've heard that the sweet spot is 100 to 500 miles (I think that's averaging 100+ mph or some level like that), or substantially less at slower speeds. Going farther, air travel is easier including the lengthy wait during/after security etc. For shorter distances driving tend to be faster, and local transit can be an option though transfers are typically involved.

Rail doesn't have to be faster to be popular, though that obviously helps a ton. The current Portland service often sells out last I heard. If you're going from urban core to urban core the time is similar to other modes, with a schedule risk similar to dealing with traffic. You can stroll to grab a micro or sleep on the way. And when you arrive there's no car to deal with.