Bullet Train - Portland to Seattle to Vancouver? (Tacoma, Pacific: leases, credit)

[Masterful_Man]

It would be pretty nifty to have high speed mag-lev trains that could zip between these major cities at 300 mph. It would alter the region economically. You could live in Seattle and work in Portland or Vancouver, or visa versa.

America seems far behind much of the developed world in developing this kind of tech.

Here's a great article I recently read online:

Dispelling the Top Ten Myths of Maglev
https://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/i...myths-blow.pdf

Here's a map of possible high-speed corridor routes in the U.S.
https://i0.wp.com/photos.adron.me/Tr...07-09-2009.jpg

If such a mag-lev train route did exist, would you use it often to visit Portland and Vancouver?

[Ruth4Truth]

Yeah, it would be pretty nifty, as long as you wouldn't have to pay the special tax they pass to help pay for it. Do you have any idea how expensive those are to build? Have you been paying any attention to California's struggles with it. Everything's a nifty idea as long as someone else is paying for it.

[Masterful_Man]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Yeah, it would be pretty nifty, as long as you wouldn't have to pay the special tax they pass to help pay for it. Do you have any idea how expensive those are to build? Have you been paying any attention to California's struggles with it. Everything's a nifty idea as long as someone else is paying for it.

I'm not aware of any mag-lev project California is doing, except for mere proposals.

Which projects are you referring to?

And btw, I'd be more than happy to pay a little extra each year in taxes to help fund an awesome transportation system.

[CrazyDonkey]

Is building new airports any less expensive? Or better for the environment? I doubt it, on either count. It may be the best way to beat sprawl and congestion (which chokes airports as well) by leapfrogging it, opening up cheaper land for both housing and jobs.

If such a system were to be built, it would likely be more evolutionary than revolutionary, progressing from higher-speed to high-speed in steps. Most see a Cascadia Line as running between Vancouver B.C. and Eugene, where it could link up with the California High Speed Line.

[mhays25]

Any kind of fast train would help. The current services get pretty good use, and would get much more with more frequency (the biggest key) and average speeds even 10-20-mph faster. Or maybe TVG-type service. Grade separation and having to stop to lack of track capacity are the biggest keys. It's way easier and more comfortable than driving or flying. You can get up, stroll for a beer, etc. When you arrive you're right downtown.

I'm in favor of improvements to our existing airports, including the addition of Paine Field for a portion of regional flights. But adding another airport would be horrible, and incredibly expensive. Rail could go a really long way for regional service, especially with local transit serving each station.

[leastprime]

I discovered that the Chinese highspeed trains are far more popular than air travel.

Elevated tracks from Vancouver to Portland would be nice.
We traveled 6x in 2016, via Amtrak bus/rail, SLM to SEA, to visit son or passing thru on other travels.
I am willing to pay more to make the travel faster and without delays.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Masterful_Man

I'm not aware of any mag-lev project California is doing, except for mere proposals.

Which projects are you referring to?

And btw, I'd be more than happy to pay a little extra each year in taxes to help fund an awesome transportation system.

The CA highspeed rail project

[OneTimeSEALover]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Yeah, it would be pretty nifty, as long as you wouldn't have to pay the special tax they pass to help pay for it. Do you have any idea how expensive those are to build? Have you been paying any attention to California's struggles with it. Everything's a nifty idea as long as someone else is paying for it.

The Acel on the eastern seaboard is high speed if not maglev. But there are a whole bunch of cities along the way. All the Pacific Northwest has is Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, and Vancouver (and I doubt such a train would go north of Seattle). The total population there is probably less than one eastern state. East of the Mississippi is more likely for a bullet train.

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Is building new airports any less expensive? Or better for the environment?

It is infinitely cheaper to add a runway and let the airlines pay for it through landing fees and terminal leases, and to add their own rolling/flying stock, rather than the colossal public investment required for ROW acquisition, design, legal, and capital costs, including environmental mitigations, that would be required for developing a new rail system with limited demand. Infrastructure for access to airports is already highly developed, and adding another plane makes an air-based system far more scalable. With 20 or so daily flights between SEA and PDX, and a dozen or so between SEA and YVR, I'd argue the system is currently in supply/demand equilibrium.

In addition, the current rail system is used mainly by freight traffic, which would have to go somewhere if a new system was designed.

[CrazyDonkey]

You need population density to provide sufficient demand, and it has to be price/time competitive with flying or driving. In Europe, they heavily tax fuel, which makes driving less competitive. Discouraging driving and car ownership creates demand for other modes.

Air travel is cheaper partly because both airports and airlines are heavily subsidized. Historically low fuel prices, with production subsidized through government credits, and the cost of resulting environmental damage transferred to future tax payers, make not only flying cheaper, but driving to and from airports.

Higher-speed rail is based on improving current rail corridors, enabling higher speeds for both passengers and freight.