High speed rail between Eugene and Vancouver, BC ... would you take it?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
SodaPopinski

SodaPopinski

Tigers love pepper
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
1,856
Likes
50
Points
48
As someone who travels for work between Portland and Seattle, the potential intrigues me. I'm always stuck with the dilemma of flying (shortest travel time, but potential for delays, airport hassles), taking the train (can work during transit, relaxing, but most time-consuming and also prone to delays), and driving (most control, can stop when and where you want, but potential for traffic headaches and also the most mentally-taxing method).

I'd probably take it. Although this would probably be a pretty substantial project, and who knows where I'll be working or living by the time it even became a reality.

Link here: http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/05/25/daily29.html?ed=2009-05-29&ana=e_du_pub

-Pop
 
Its a neccessity. Amtrak is way too slow for serious use. much easier....they should connect all the cities on the west coast this way.
 
They are proposing something similar in California and it passed. There's going to be a highspeed rail system from LA to SF. I'll probably be dead by the time it's completed, but it's something I'd use all the time.

If it goes into Canada will need a passport?
 
I'd definitely take it. But I'll probably be dead before it gets built - this has no chance at all of happening anytime soon. My imaginary grandchildren will love it.

Edit: wow, I guess I said pretty much the same thing as Shapecity. Ah well.

barfo
 
I would use it. I would take it down to Portland and I would take it up to Vancouver BC.

I love going to Vancouver BC but the traffic right outside of the city invariably sucks.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
I would use it. I would take it down to Portland and I would take it up to Vancouver BC.

I love going to Vancouver BC but the traffic right outside of the city invariably sucks.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

they were blasting a subway last time I was there for the olympics.
 
Shapecity said:
They are proposing something similar in California and it passed. There's going to be a highspeed rail system from LA to SF. I'll probably be dead by the time it's completed, but it's something I'd use all the time.

If it goes into Canada will need a passport?
Click to expand...

god, you hear about the 4 different types of IDs for canada and mexico travel now? so lame. we need a national ID card or soemthing just to simplify it all.
 
Here's the map of proposed high speed rail lines in the US:

highspeedrail.jpg


First thing that comes to mind ... Little Rock? Really? Of course people back east are probably thinking "Eugene? Really?"

Surprised to not see a line from Denver, south or east to some other population centers. A whole lot of flat nothingness east and south from Denver. Would seem like a no-brainer from an ease-of-construction perspective. Plus Denver is a hub city for a lot of travelers.

-Pop
 
the bottom right corner says it all - Federal Railroad Administration, October 2005.

Basically, there's a better chance that the Blazers land LeBron in free agency than these actually being built. For whatever reason, functioning, timely railroads and America don't mix.
 
It would be pretty cool for the regional economy for sure. I would love to be able to take my family on a bullet train to Seattle or BC. Our nation has a terrible view of rail travel, sadly because the oil industry hates the idea for clearly self serving reasons.
 
BTOWN_HUSTLA said:
god, you hear about the 4 different types of IDs for canada and mexico travel now? so lame. we need a national ID card or soemthing just to simplify it all.
Click to expand...

Those are options. You don't have to have 4 different types of ID, any one will do.

barfo
 
This might work. Lets just hope the engineers will make this train track elevated in Chehalis, WA since this area has flooded the last two years and no local/state/federal has fixed this issue with I-5.
 
that map looks like the plot basis for the next season of 24
 
I'd support it if a private group were building it. My tax dollars? No thanks. The airlines work just fine if you need to get there in a hurry. Otherwise, drive, take the existing train or the bus.

I'd love to see the passenger cost per-mile. There's no way it's economically feasible in all those places. Perhaps from DC to NY and NY to Boston, but that's about it.
 
A San Diego to San Fransisco line makes total sense to me. It'd boost tourism, too. I know I'd be tempted to do a rail trip on a short vacation, just to see Southern California without the hassle of figuring out freeways/parking/etc.

maxie's point about passenger cost per mile is interesting, but it pretty much ignores this benefit. It's impossible to put a dollar figure on how much Europe makes every year in tourism because of its amazing train system.

Eugene to Vancouver? I don't know. I'd probably take it at some point.

I wish Amtrak still ran from Boise to Portland, even just once a week. I'd love to take my kids on it. I'd have no problem with a share of my tax dollars going to opening that line up again.
 
I would definitly take this. High speed rail would rock. Not only that, but it might help take a load off of the airport. As it is I try to take a Amtrak up to Seattle for at least one Seahawk game a year.

Also I forgot to add, that when a route is added such as this, that freight can take advantage of it as well, and rail is the most efficient method to move things. We aren't talking cars loaded with Iron and chemicals here. I am talking like packages and stuff that need a high speed delivery. None of the security headaches of the airport.

Plus, you never have to worry about Terrorist flying it into the space needle.
 
Last edited:
There should definitely be a high-speed from San Diego up to Vancouver.

It will never happen, though.
 
How many of you would pay to take this train if the true cost were passed through to the user? What if tickets were $300-$500? Something tells me the view in this forum would be different.

As for Mook's point, people visit Europe because it's interesting, not because of their train system. You don't visit London and Paris just to take the Eurostar.
 
How many of you would pay to take this train if the true cost were passed through to the user? What if tickets were $300-$500? Something tells me the view in this forum would be different.
Click to expand...
How many would prefer to drive from Eugene to Vancouver if they had to pay tolls to cover the cost of maintaining the highways, and gas/oil taxes that really reflected the military and other costs of fueling our cars?

As for Mook's point, people visit Europe because it's interesting, not because of their train system. You don't visit London and Paris just to take the Eurostar.
Click to expand...
I might visit London or Paris if I have a week and no Eurostar. I'll happily visit both if both if I can take a high speed train.

I'd be much more likely to consider a London/Paris trip over a trip to Hawaii. But I'd probably go to Hawaii over just London or just Paris.

It's ludicrous to suggest that Europe's high speed train system adds no tourist value for those thinking about a vacation. It's simply not true. I've backpacked around Europe.

High speed rail, in some instances, is much like a lighthouse. Sure, it'd be nice to assign an exact dollar value and charge each user exactly for the benefit they derive. But it just doesn't happen because there are tons of benefits that are impossible to quantify/charge. A lighthouse can never really be repaid by a specific ship for not crashing into land.

Public services don't always exist because liberals want to take all your tax money and have "free" stuff. Sometimes public services just work better.
 
BTW--that's not to say I'm in favor of the high speed corridor from Eugene to Vancouver. I just don't know. I'd need to see some dollar figures associated with it, and some economic estimates about its viability, net economic impact on the region, etc.

Sometimes public services don't make sense, sometimes they do.
 
mook said:
How many would prefer to drive from Eugene to Vancouver if they had to pay tolls to cover the cost of maintaining the highways, and gas/oil taxes that really reflected the military and other costs of fueling our cars?
Click to expand...

I'd be quite happy to have a full toll network. I believe in a user pay system.

mook said:
I might visit London or Paris if I have a week and no Eurostar. I'll happily visit both if both if I can take a high speed train.
Click to expand...

My point was you go to Europe to see London or Paris, not to take the Eurostar.

mook said:
I'd be much more likely to consider a London/Paris trip over a trip to Hawaii. But I'd probably go to Hawaii over just London or just Paris.
Click to expand...

That's you. I'm exactly the opposite. In fact, I'd fly to London just to spend a week at the British Museum.

mook said:
It's ludicrous to suggest that Europe's high speed train system adds no tourist value for those thinking about a vacation. It's simply not true. I've backpacked around Europe.
Click to expand...

And it's equally ludicrious to suggest that it's the trains that bring people to Europe. That's great you've backpacked around Europe--you're the shizzle. However, ignoring the distance difference between cities and towns in the US compared to Europe is silly. What people who live in Europe and who are cool enough to backpack in the US either rent a car, fly or take Amtrak. No big deal.

High speed rail, in some instances, is much like a lighthouse. Sure, it'd be nice to assign an exact dollar value and charge each user exactly for the benefit they derive. But it just doesn't happen because there are tons of benefits that are impossible to quantify/charge. A lighthouse can never really be repaid by a specific ship for not crashing into land.

Public services don't always exist because liberals want to take all your tax money and have "free" stuff. Sometimes public services just work better.[/QUOTE]
 
maxiep said:
And it's equally ludicrious to suggest that it's the trains that bring people to Europe.
Click to expand...

Clearly they bring many of the people. Unless they walk, fly or drive.

[/barfo]
 
maxiep said:
However, ignoring the distance difference between cities and towns in the US compared to Europe is silly.
Click to expand...
Eugene to Vancouver: 425 miles. Europe is small, but not that small ;). A simliar train ride costs around 50 Euro in Germany fwiw.
 
maxiep said:
I'd support it if a private group were building it. My tax dollars? No thanks. The airlines work just fine if you need to get there in a hurry. Otherwise, drive, take the existing train or the bus.
Click to expand...

Don't your tax dollars bailout the airline industry every five years...:devilwink:
 
Javaanse said:
Eugene to Vancouver: 425 miles. Europe is small, but not that small ;). A simliar train ride costs around 50 Euro in Germany fwiw.
Click to expand...

Basically, there are four popular destinations on that line--Eugene, Portland, Seattle & Vancouver. You could take a 425 mile stretch almost anywhere in Western Europe and find more than four popular destinations.
 
Sug said:
Don't your tax dollars bailout the airline industry every five years...:devilwink:
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of bailouts to begin with, but it's quite a different thing than having the Government build and run something.
 
[video=youtube;PUIbpyBJBxg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUIbpyBJBxg[/video]


Watch that video from 1 min - 2 min 20 secs if you want to see a train that should be built.



Future By Design is a video you should all watch if you're interested in this type of stuff. Zeitgeist vol 1 and 2, and The Venus Project are also videos to watch if you enjoyed that clip. All can be found on Youtube. Defiantly makes you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top