On Tuesday, Democrats in the Washington State Legislature introduced Governor Jay Inslee’s (D-Washington) legislation for new transportation funding that would support creation of an interstate high-speed rail authority. The legislation would provide up to $3.25 million in biennial appropriations through 2021 to establish the authority in partnership with the State of Oregon and Province of British Columbia. The move takes Seattle a step closer to one-hour train trips to Portland and Vancouver, British Columbia.

“Feasibility studies show that our region has the critical mass of a growing population, the muscle mass of a great economy and the traffic problems to justify a system like this,” the Governor’s Office said. “The development of a new ultra high-speed corridor authority will take this project to the next level.”

What the legislation would do

The legislation specifies that the interstate high-speed rail authority would be charged with developing an organizational structure that operates harmoniously across two states, a province, and an international boundary. The structure would need to address issues like governance, operations, contracting requirements, jurisdictional laws and regulations, and the powers of the authority.

Cascadia Rail’s vision map. (Oran Viriyincy)

The authority would also engage with communities along the corridor to refine the alignment and make recommendations on funding levels and responsibilities to carry out advanced project development. A key aspect would be environmental review, which means at minimum preparing an Environmental Impact Statement under the purview of the Federal Railroad Administration. A companion process for the Canadian governments would also be necessary.

Recommendations from the authority would need to be submitted to the governor and state legislature no later than June 30, 2020 on any laws, regulations, or agreements necessary to achieve corridor development. As a basic framework to deliver a regional high-speed corridor, the authority would need to build upon results from a business case study, which is currently in development, and ensure that whatever high-speed rail technology is ultimately chosen will be capable of reaching at least 250 miles per hour at top speed.

High-speed rail advocates scored big wins in 2017 and 2018

High-speed rail advocates landed a big victory last year when the state legislature committed $1.2 million–of which was $750,000 in direct state grants–to a business case study for high-speed rail from Vancouver, British Columbia to Portland. The consultant for the state has been earnestly working on the study, which is due for completion by the of June.

“We are excited for passage of legislation this session that will fund creation of an ultra high-speed rail authority, bringing passenger rail that operates at speeds up to 250 miles per hour to Cascadia,” said Paige Malott, vice president of Cascadia Rail, a grassroots non-profit organization. “We look forward to supporting our partners in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon in building the fastest rail line in North America and empowering our region to be more connected.”

State in the midst of a business case study

One thing the business case study will do is identify potential station locations and conceptual alignments. This will be based upon the economic interrelationship of population centers, transit, employment centers, and new industries. A detailed market analysis should also be forthcoming in the study, which would provide information on service levels, equipment needs, ridership, financing options, fares, and operations.

In the fall, consultants ran an online survey to determine how prospective riders would react to different scenarios for high-speed rail travel options as compared to other travel options. Factors evaluated in the survey included a variety of travel times, cost ranges, and high-speed rail technologies.

An SRT high-speed train arriving at a Korail station in South Korea.

An interstate advisory group was commissioned as part of the study. So far two meetings have been held to guide the study and corridor planning process.

At the October meeting, the advisory group provided consultants with feedback to incorporate into the study process. A key takeaway was the need to evaluate current and future conditions of the regional corridor, including how high-speed rail could alleviate congestion on important segments of the highway system. The advisory group also urged consultants to consider how high-speed rail could affect greenhouse gas emissions, analyze social equity in corridor planning, and model how far riders would travel to access high-speed rail.

The business case study builds upon an earlier feasibility study that was completed in late 2017. The initial feasibility study suggested that Cascadia high-speed rail would be economically viable.

$3.25 million is still a small startup nest egg

The legislation that both Senate and House transportation committees will consider would set aside $3 million in guaranteed funding from the state multimodal transportation account for the interstate high-speed rail authority. Another $250,000 would be granted for the authority if private parties (e.g., Microsoft or Amazon) or local governments provide additional funding.

While $3.25 million is a good starting point to get the interstate high-speed rail authority going, more funding is likely needed to facilitate staffing up, administration, and consultant contracts. Over a two-year period, funding comes out to about $1.62 million per year, which means that the authority would only be able to hire 10 or so staff members. The authority, as envisioned, would be concerned with drafting legislation for multiple governments, actively conducting planning and analysis, and negotiating. Hiring seasoned experts to fill those roles will not come cheap.

If the business case study is anything to judge by, the State of Oregon and Province of British Columbia are in line to add money to the pot, increasing the two-year startup budget for the interstate high-speed rail authority. Last year, Oregon promised to pitch in $200,000 while British Columbia committed another $300,000 (in Canadian dollars). Microsoft also joined the team with $300,000 in private funding for the business case study after contributing another $200,000 for initial feasibility study the year prior.

Given that the 105-day legislative session just started on Monday, there is a long way to go before a transportation funding bill is passed. Typically such bills are passed just before the state legislature adjourns, likely meaning a final decision in April. Legislators should soon receive a briefing on draft findings from the business case study underway, which may help them make that decision easier.

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider supporting our work. The Urbanist is a non-profit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Previous articleAmending Aurora Zoning
Next articleCity Council Reviews MHA Rezone Proposals for Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5
Stephen is an urban planner with a passion for promoting sustainable, livable, and diverse cities. He advocates for smart policies, regulations, and implementation programs that enhance urban environments by committing to quality design, accommodating growth, providing a diversity of housing choices, and adequately providing public services. Stephen primarily writes about land use and transportation issues.

12 COMMENTS

    • In absolute air time? I would think yes. But the conceptualized HSR could be capable of getting people between Portland and Vancouver, B.C. in two hours. Even under the very best of circumstances for regular commercial air travel it would take three hours for that destination pair. Spokane, however, is not currently being studied by WSDOT and their consultants. But it’s conceivable if the same level of technology is used that it could still be competitive with flying to Portland or Vancouver, B.C. But hey, if you happen to have a personal jet hanging around, I guess the HSR might lose out.

      • The supposed benefits of rail for total travel time is overstated. Anyone who has lined up to take an Amtrak train at DC Union Station or NY Penn Station knows this full well.

        • Maa89: You raise a good point about the current paradigm in America. There is definitely some added boarding time for train travel.

          Regarding this instant HSR proposal, there is also an international boarding crossing that also can complicate things. The border check process coming back from Canada is particularly intrusive and slow on Amtrak Cascades.

          One of the issues that will be looked at is how the boarding process and customs checks can be sped up. The existing model in America is massively arcane.

          HSR systems globally typically have next to no boarding delays. The images of the SRT trains in this article were from a recent trip to Korea where I literally had a digital ticket and arrived at the platform three minutes before departing (plus two minutes walking through the station).

          Our current system doesn’t have to be the one we use. We can significantly streamline things if we want to. Amtrak, however, has largely not been effective at doing so to date. Hopefully that changes for the conventional rail network. This is a worry I don’t think we have to have with HSR though.

          • Even then it doesn’t work as intended. For people living in suburbs and outskirts of cities, it’s a lot faster to drive or take an Uber (or even public transit) to the airport than in it is to get to the train station in the city center. I lived in Jamaica, Queens, for a number of years, and it is much faster to take the AirTrain or an Uber to JFK airport than it is to take the subway or LIRR to Penn Station to get on an Amtrak train.

            I lived in Tacoma, WA, at one point, and while it would be easy to get to Tacoma Dome to catch a HSR train, it wouldn’t be any easier for someone from Lakewood or DuPont to get there as opposed to SeaTac airport.

          • I mean, that’s actually an argument that it’s less convenient than the airport. Not only is the specific Tacoma case you highlight purely false, the system would serve at minimum seven cities: Vancouver, Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, and Portland. If people are flying between those locations, the high-speed rail line that is conceived would be more convenient for most residents in those communities over air travel, which was your entire point initially. That said, sure, transit connections are not always great to those stations with our existing transit networks. By the time this launches, the transit-to-transit scales will change dramatically for many with not-so-great access today to convenient access.

          • It all depends on where you live in the city, how many stops the train has, and how good those connections are to elsewhere. We have to start somewhere and fix the whole system. China is building 2000 miles of high speed rail in 2019 alone. Why can’t we?

        • Amtrak is not high speed rail. Anyone who has taken real high speed rail in Europe, China, or Japan knows that full well 🙂

      • ODOT is planning an improved Cascades route between Portland and Eugene. A Corvallis route was included but has been dropped, no explanation why. You’d think the two college towns – Eugene and Corvallis – would generate ridership between the two. The 250mph speed requirement should be rejected, unless of course the point is not to build HSR, but to make a bundle planning its demise.

    • It’s not faster when you include arriving at the airport an hour early which you don’t have to do for trains. Also train stations can be in the center of cities rather than 45 minutes away. It’s generally faster for distances of 150-500 miles.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.