Bill Gates: is far more interested in other things
> to do with his money than funding a high speed
> train. Dream on if you think he'll pour any money
> into it.

Microsoft paid a big part of these WSDOT studies. Gates is very interested in transportation and alternative energy technologies just look at his investment portfolio.

"..hard fight with the Red Staters"

Sound Transit's ST2 and ST3 are funded by local initiatives within the King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Rail expansion would be funded by the same with the addition of a few other Western Washington counties, Clark being the most notable. Vancouver Wa is mostly blue and would hold its on there.

Other point I forgot to mention was "bandwidth". The 7 Amtrak trains is the max that can use the freight corridor. With their most recent expansion in ST3, Sounder trains have pushed the envelope to where there is no more "bandwidth" for passenger trains. A major expense is inevitable. It's not a matter of building a new expensive corridor, it's a matter of what you want to run through it.

FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LES Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think there are some big differences when
> > comparing Cascadia to CAHSR.
> >
> > 1) City-pair distances are ideal, similar to
> what
> > Texas Central has going for it.
> >
> > 2) Bill Gates. The guy has got money to burn.
> > The line doesn't have to be a money maker of
> the
> > likes of Paris-Lyon. It just needs to be
> somewhat
> > reasonable.
> >
> > 3) Washington is as "Green" as state as it
> comes
> > when compared to European standards. No way on
> > earth are they going to build more highways,
> > especially when they can put in a smaller foot
> > printed rail system, a system that runs on
> > electricity (Sound Transit is the first rail
> > system in the country to run 100% on green
> energy
> > so far). And now with the new study showing
> how
> > tire chemicals are killing salmon, the idea of
> > green power will only be further entrenched.
> >
> > BOB2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> I agree with Bob, and also note that WADOT has in
> fact done some studies, though focusing on True
> HSR first and foremost then trying to develop the
> data to support that (kind of backward). I would,
> however, quibble with some of your points. They
> have done a better job than was done before the
> political decision driving CAHSR was made.
> However:
>
> City-Pair Distance: definitely better than CAHSR.
> Close enough that ordinary high (or even just
> "higher") speed trains would beat driving (what,
> 3ish hours Portland-Seattle without congestion?).
> And make not mistake: it's driving that you're
> competing with, not flying, even though on the
> PDX-SEA route a Really High Speed train could in
> fact compete with flying due to the terminal times
> vastly exceeding the flying time.
>
> Bill Gates: is far more interested in other things
> to do with his money than funding a high speed
> train. Dream on if you think he'll pour any money
> into it.
>
> WA as a "Green" state: maybe around Puget Sound,
> but not elsewhere. The fact that, like in OR,
> there's enough population in the One Big Urban
> Area to carry most propositions doesn't mean it
> won't be a hard fight with the Red Staters (who'd
> rather be part of Idaho) east of the mountains and
> south Of Olympia. And it's not just a
> no-more-taxes thing; why, really, should they help
> pay for something via their taxes that they'll
> never ride on?
>
> Another thing that cropped up in the discussion:
> flat and straight alignment need - yes and no, and
> some other issues. Ideally, yes, if you want
> really high speed, you need flat (or only gently
> rising and falling) and straight (or very broad
> curves). But, if that means crossing a bunch of
> tidal flats and marshes you're going to lose on
> environmental grounds and seismic stability, and
> to some degree sea level rise. Plus, BNSF already
> has the water-level routes. HSR trains have a lot
> of power to make high speeds possible, and can
> climb some fairly impressive grades at a good
> speed, so don't get your blinders on about r/w
> design yet.
>
> BTW, Muni in SF has never advertised it much, but
> the electric portion of its operation are pretty
> "green" as well. It mostly runs on power produced
> by hydro plants in the aqueduct system. Yes, Sound
> Transit made some deals with solar and wind people
> too, but even if it just used garden variety local
> power it would be much greener than average with
> much of it coming from the Columbia River power
> plants. Except those are "big hydro" so the
> fanatics say it's "not renewable" - which is true
> on a centuries-millennial time scale, but not in
> daily operations.
>
> Bob is right: the WADOT studies need to be clearer
> about how High (for various values of "High")
> Speed Rail meets the needs for a new
> transportation facility. They know how to do it.
> Somebody just has to tell them to do it and give
> them the money for staff (and, yes, some
> consultants) to do it. They have a good start,
> better than CAHSR ever got, and it shows.