# Amtrak Cascadia High Speed Train



## USrail21 (Nov 8, 2011)

Any high speed service between Eugene and Vancouver? Now their is! Amtrak's Cascadia line. I gave it that name because it is very near the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Speed is 150 MPH. Stations are Eugene, Salem, Portland, Vancouver (WA), Olympia-Lacey, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Bellingham, then Vancouver (BC). This would probably have an annual ridership of 4.2 million at least. It will run on existing Amtrak tracks.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2011)

We already have the Cascades service, no need to make people learn a new name. Just reuse the old name, makes things more popular.

And it can't run on the existing Amtrak tracks because Amtrak doesn't own any tracks in Oregon or Washington.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 8, 2011)

The bigger problem is that the existing tracks (who owns them isn't the issue) cannot support 150 mph service. You'd need a new alignment.

Now, a message to you, USrail21, if you are actually serious about any of the dozens of topics you've started, I suggest you really start reading up on transportation history, finance, business, etc. It's not just as simple as saying "let's run high-speed trains all over" and waving a magic wand and it happens.

You might be aware that, right now, every penny spent on anything useful in this country is being scrutinized to death. Investment in infrastructure is being shot down under the guise of "we can't afford it" and such.

The last three years has seen several billion dollars in grants awarded for high-speed (and higher-speed) rail, and even with that money, getting anything built without major political opposition is damn-near impossible. Even in places where most people agree that high-speed rail would be useful (such as a new true HSR Northeast Corridor, or in California, or the Midwest) the money isn't there (except in California, where they have maybe 2-3% of the project paid for, if that).

Any one of us could list hundreds of rail routes that "would be nice" to have, either at conventional speeds, or at 100, 150, or 200+ mph. We're not lacking for outlandish ideas. We are lacking for practical ways to implement such plans, and unless you actually have given serious thought to the financial aspects (meaning, really, how much it's going to cost, without pulling numbers out of your rear, but also how you're actually going to convince people in this political and economic climate to pay for such a thing), the political aspects (getting approval for a project when you're going to have to take people's land, or go near schools, parks, neighborhoods, or any other source of NIMBYs; not to mention the rare bacterium that may be threatened by such a project, which is really just an excuse that the NIMBYs use to make it sound like they're concerned about something other than themselves), the real technical and environmental aspects that make things difficult or impractical, etc., then you're going to continue to get a cool reception and ridiculed on every thread you start.

Essentially, every thread you're posting is the same. The basic issues are the same, and the reception is going to be the same.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 8, 2011)

AlanB said:


> We already have the Cascades service, no need to make people learn a new name. Just reuse the old name, makes things more popular.
> 
> And it can't run on the existing Amtrak tracks because Amtrak doesn't own any tracks in Oregon or Washington.


Cascades is slow and makes too many stops.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > We already have the Cascades service, no need to make people learn a new name. Just reuse the old name, makes things more popular.
> ...


The Cascades is slow for the reasons that Trogdor just pointed out to you; not because it makes 4 extra stops that you've eliminated. You plan doesn't fix what makes the Cascades slow; it just cuts stops.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 8, 2011)

The Cascades is unrelated. I am talking about the high speed rail line Cascadia. It is not the same as Cascades.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> The Cascades is unrelated. I am talking about the high speed rail line Cascadia. It is not the same as Cascades.


No, it is related. You quite clearly stated that you want your service to run on the existing Amtrak tracks. Here, let me remind you of what you said:



USrail21 said:


> Stations are Eugene, Salem, Portland, Vancouver (WA), Olympia-Lacey, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Bellingham, then Vancouver (BC). This would probably have an annual ridership of 4.2 million at least. *It will run on existing Amtrak tracks.*


I've underlined it and bolded it for you.

So if it's going to run on the existing tracks, then it is the same as the Cascades service and it will have the very same problems that the current Cascades service has. Problems that I might add are already being worked on by the State of Washington to improve running times and get faster service. So you're just changing the name, nothing more!


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 8, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> The Cascades is unrelated. I am talking about the high speed rail line Cascadia. It is not the same as Cascades.


You said it would run on existing tracks. The existing tracks cannot support anywhere near 150 mph service.

Nonetheless, you still have to recognize everything else I said in my previous post to understand the hurdles to your "plans."


----------

