Reviving a Rail Revolution: How Washington Can Get Back On Track

An Amtrak Cascades trainset with Talgo equipment and Siemens Charger locomotive. (Amtrak Cascades)
An Amtrak Cascades trainset with Talgo equipment and Siemens Charger locomotive. (Amtrak Cascades)

Amidst the fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, interest in passenger rail has increased markedly across the United States. With an enthusiastically pro-rail federal administration now in power, talk of our nation’s “second great railroading revolution” has begun among advocates and transit blogs from coast to coast. But is this only our second, or even third, attempt at such a revolution? What about the one that started in the Pacific Northwest about 30 years ago, the one that aimed to create the most advanced rail system in North America?

Where It Started

It was the early 1990s, and change was afoot in Western Washington. Many parts of the region were still recovering from the last recession in the 1980s, in addition to earlier declines of Boeing’s space program and the logging industry. Bellevue and Redmond were feeling the impacts of Microsoft’s meteoric rise. Amazon didn’t even exist yet, but Washington’s leaders were taking proactive steps to accommodate major economic and population growth. There was a new awareness of the environmental pollution caused by car dependence and the impossibility of “building our way out of ” congestion with more highway lanes.

The state was steadily easing its way into implementing the 1990 Growth Management Act and several Commute Trip Reduction provisions, all to mitigate the impacts of a projected population boom in the Puget Sound. In 1991, the Washington State Legislature directed that a comprehensive assessment be made of the feasibility of developing a statewide ‘High Speed Ground Transportation’ (HSGT) system. The next year, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) designated the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, which runs through the heart of Seattle, as a high-speed rail (HSR) corridor.

With the results of the earlier HSGT study in, the 1993 Washington State Legislature passed Chapter 47.79 RCW and created something revolutionary: a goal to build a regional HSR network connecting Seattle with Portland, Vancouver, British Columbia, and Spokane by 2030. As recommended by the study, Washington and Oregon began implementing modern intercity passenger rail service on existing tracks between Vancouver and Eugene, Oregon, with the goal of increasing this service’s top speed to 110 mph. From this came Amtrak Cascades, one of the nation’s most successful intercity passenger rail services. Following the study’s vision, the Washington State and Oregon Departments of Transportation both created bold long-range plans for Cascades that would dramatically increase the line’s frequency and usefulness. Washington also studied the idea of using existing tracks to provide convenient intercity train service between Seattle and Spokane via the Yakima Valley and the Tri-Cities.

But something happened along the way. Progress on the vision of world-class rail in Washington slowed during the early 2000s. With the exception of some improvements made thanks to funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the upcoming opening of the Point Defiance Bypass, Amtrak Cascades has not seen significant expansion since 2006. A 2001 study of daytime East-West passenger rail service went almost 20 years without the necessary follow-up, largely due to revenue losses stemming from Initiative 695 (a 1999 statewide initiative that cut Washington vehicle registration fees). Efforts to get HSR moving again have begun in earnest with faster travel times and a different project name: ‘Ultra-High-Speed Ground Transportation’ (UHSGT; since this is a local term, I will continue to refer to this new project iteration as simply ‘HSR’). But at this point, HSR will come too late to respond meaningfully to our climate and housing crises; and its lack of interim connectivity improvements (especially for Central and Eastern Washington) calls the current project’s motivations and political practicality into question.

What’s missing? Where do we go from here? There are three important features that the Northwest HSR project must include in order to respond to today’s demands: a robust intercity passenger rail network, a stronger emphasis on equity, and faster climate and environmental action.

Building a Solid Foundation on Conventional Rail

Here are the top ten countries with the most advanced HSR systems, rated in terms of operational top speeds and route mileage:

  • China
  • Japan
  • Spain
  • France
  • Germany
  • South Korea
  • Italy
  • Turkey
  • Austria
  • Saudi Arabia

Spread across the world, with differing geographies, economies, and political systems, these countries don’t have much in common. Even when it comes to their rail transportation systems there are different lessons to be learned from each one. But there is one thing they do share: excluding only Saudi Arabia, every country on this list had existing intercity passenger rail networks before HSR, with very frequent schedules along busy travel routes.

The biggest problem with the Northwest HSR implementation approach is that it hasn’t remembered this simple lesson: without a solid foundation of local and regional passenger rail services, HSR will have a hard time succeeding.

Communities lacking good local rail and transit services, particularly those in the Yakima Valley and Eastern Washington, are unlikely to support a Seattle-centric north-south HSR line at the polls. Even enthusiastic supporters in small towns along the I-5 corridor may choose not to ride HSR if they have difficulty getting to stations without long drives to metropolitan centers. With the right infrastructure upgrades, Amtrak Cascades can become competitive with flying and driving between many places and building the train-riding culture necessary for HSR to be economically and financially feasible. This is why Washington state rail plans and studies dating back over three decades have all recommended incremental yet consistent investment in existing rail corridors and services before the development of HSR, including the 1992 HSGT study and the 2006 Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades.

Emphasizing Equity and Accessibility

The economic and social effects of HSR are varied. Thus, it is important to understand those circumstances in which HSR helps with equity or accessibility and those where other solutions are needed. Places like Japan and France are not more equitable or accessible simply because of the Shinkansen or TGV lines between their major cities. These top-tier HSR services are the flagships of nationwide mobility ecosystems that include conventional intercity and commuter trains; metro systems; bus networks; high-quality pedestrian and cycling infrastructure; and urban design patterns that are economically efficient and can connect all of these things together effectively.

The Northwest HSR project is often talked about as an equalizer, and in certain respects it is. But if improving equity and access across Washington are our top priorities, we cannot forget the roles of regional and local public transportation systems, active transportation like cycling and walking, and transit-oriented land development. HSR is unlikely to be an ideal option for daily work commuters and those with limited transportation options because HSR fares are assumed to be 52 cents per mile, as opposed to a 19-26 cents per mile average for Amtrak Cascades and a 10 cents per mile average for Sounder commuter rail. If it fails to include investment in more affordable transportation alternatives across the entire state, the HSR project may not contribute meaningfully toward its core values of equity and economic inclusion.

Acting Quickly on the Environment and Climate

A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that a 45% drop in global carbon dioxide emissions (relative to 2010 levels) by 2030 is necessary to prevent irreversible climate damage. As of 2018, the largest contributor to America’s greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation sector, at 28%. Of that, 82% of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions are from road vehicles; another 9% from aircraft, and just 2% from rail. A major mode shift from highways and air to rail is perhaps the fastest and most effective way to reduce the overall emissions of America’s transportation system.

With a planning horizon of no less than 20 years, Northwest HSR will not be able to contribute to needed carbon dioxide reductions by 2030. When it does open, HSR’s pricing will make it a strong competitor with air travel, but not necessarily with driving. Thus, in order to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, Washington needs to invest in its existing rail system and shift as much freight and passenger traffic to rail as possible. This includes upgrading Amtrak Cascades to maximize its speed, capacity, and frequency as laid out in the previously mentioned studies.

The Bottom Line: Northwest HSR Will Never Be Realized without a Robust Conventional Intercity Passenger Train System

It’s 2021, and once again Washington finds itself with mixed news and a bit of uncertainty. While Puget Sound’s economic and population growth has continued, the effects of climate change and a serious disconnection from the rest of the state threaten its prosperity. We have also fallen far behind in achieving our 1993 goals for a statewide HSR network. But Washington still has the chance to prove itself as a leader in doing rail the right way. We just need to think practically in the short term and focus on our most critical priorities in the long-term.

As we start to consider the financial and political feasibility of HSR, we must not forget the importance of investing in our region’s existing rail infrastructure and services over the next decade. For intercity passenger transportation, that means, at a minimum, implementing the 2006 Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades and extending similar passenger rail services across the Cascade Range to Yakima, the Tri-Cities, and Spokane (a project which sees public approval of 76%). Once North-South and East-West intercity rail backbones have been established and a competitive market of rail and transit travelers has been created, Washingtonians on both sides of the Cascades Range will have reason to support the creation of Northwest HSR.

HSR is a worthwhile endeavor — we cannot afford to undermine it by failing to build out the statewide public transportation network and the coalition of supporters it needs to succeed.

A version of this article appeared in Speedlines, the newsletter of the American Public Transportation Association.

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Patrick Carnahan

Patrick is co-executive director of All Aboard Washington, a statewide passenger rail advocacy organization. He is an experienced researcher, editor, and writer. He has a strong background in international travel and passenger rail advocacy, with a focus on economically and environmentally sustainable urban design.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I agree the more people take an intercity train, the more likely they will use HSR. I do believe the Sounder service should be upgraded to a regional service and extended to Olympia and Marysville and Mount Vernon and with all day service. Instead of paying BNSF, we may want to start building an HSR ready line. We may also want to expand service east… All that will increase mobility and therefore opportunities and commerce and is still much cheaper and better for the environment than adding another lane to I-5.

Cascadia Report

What if improved rail could alleviate the need for a new airport? Here’s a starting point:

Andre A

As a long time transit and city planning enthusiast, after looking at the HSR studies for years for Washington state I’ve come to the conclusion that the subject should no longer even be studied. There is no mass groundswell of support for this. No more money for studies should be allocated let alone for planning or construction. The potential ridership is vastly too low and is almost a transportation rounding error compared to the stratospheric costs that the federal and state governments will not in any unicorn fantasy scenario come close to subsidizing. A subsidized statewide frequent bus network similar to Bolt bus would actually be more accessible, useful for lower income residents and would likely have far higher ridership. The fact that the existing Amtrak stations are fairly hard to get to for most residents and have random and unreliable schedules which are unlikely to change any time soon definitely makes a bus network seem more realistic. It takes a lot for me to say that a planning goal should be taken behind the barn and shot and this is one of those instances.

Marc Lemieux

Dear Andre:

As a Canadian that has travelled extensively throughout a large part of the world and who has experienced all forms of modernized passenger rail, I respectfully disagree with you in that higher-speed rail or HrSR, providing increased speeds from 90 to 125 mph, is far more affordable and effective than HSR and is actually the norm in most advanced countries throughout the world such as Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, or Sweden, just to name a few.

In the aforementioned countries, intercity bus service acts as a feeder for HrSR train service, not as a full replacement for intercity trains!

Intercity bus service is simply too slow, and is only getting worse, compared with modernized passenger rail due to having to deal with increasing congestion levels on our roads and highways in and out of our major cities, as evidenced here in Canada between the cities of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

Most importantly, the implementation of an adequately-funded modernized passenger rail service supplemented by feeder bus routes would dramatically lower carbon emissions so as to safeguard this planet for future generations since our present transportation system is responsible for approximately 25 percent of all carbon emissions!

Nordic countries, for example, emit far fewer carbon per capita than Canadians do, and that’s very troubling!

Unfortunately, successive Canadian governments have failed to effectively address this issue through concrete, realistic measures, such as the implementation of modernized passenger rail, that emits 4-5 times less carbon using diesel locomotives and 30 times less carbon using electric locomotives than a single occupant in an automobile!

Sadly, the ‘status quo’ on transportation in Canada remains largely unchanged!


I generally agree with Andre. We should be focusing our limited taxpayer transit dollars on trips we make every day – getting around within the cities – rather than trips between them, which the typical person might make once or twice per year.

Two arguments I hear over and over again for justifying HSR is that it will replace air travel and airports and save the planet by reducing carbon emissions. Both are not really true. In the case of the airport argument, the bulk of Seattle air traffic is flights to destinations too far away for even high speed rail to compete – we’re talking destinations such as Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and London. What passenger air traffic there is between Seattle and Portland, much of it is people flying to the other city’s airport to change planes, not travel to the actual city itself. The bulk of the inter-city travel between Seattle and Portland happens by car – not plane – since it’s about the same total travel time and much, much cheaper.

As to carbon emissions, it is true that better Seattle->Portland train service would get some cars off the road, but the actual amount of carbon saved is a lot less than it may appear. For starters, trips between Seattle and Portland represent a tiny portion of the VMT within Seattle->Portland because intercity trips don’t happen than often. Then, consider that the 20 year timeline it would take to actually build Seattle->Portland HSR exceeds current estimates for when the private vehicle fleet will be mostly electrified – so taking the average carbon emissions of a car today and applying that to 2040 is not accurate. Then, consider that even if the train is well ridden, the actual marginal amount of cars taking off the road by the HSR project is far less than the number of riders on the train. Many of the train trips represent trips that would have happened by train (or Bolt Bus) anyway. And many more will represent “induced demand”, that trips trips that people would simply not bother to take at all if the travel time is 3 hours instead of 2. Induced demand is great for economic development (although, probably not nearly enough to cover the construction cost), but, unfortunately, does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. And, on top of all of the above, any massive construction project to actually build the HSR is going to come with a large carbon footprint that may take a very long time to pay back. No matter how you do it, it’s going to be a lot of concrete (which is very carbon intensive to make), a lot of diesel powered construction equipment running a lot of hours, and a lot of trees chopped down to make room for it.

If we’re really living in a climate emergency, massive construction projects that emit carbon up front and don’t even open for another 20-30 years is not the way to go about solving it – even if it does end up reducing carbon emissions in 2050, it will be too late. If we need to reduce our carbon emissions now, we should be focusing on technologies that do that – and that means electrifying cars and improve frequency of service on the plain-old bus.

Anton Babadjanov

You are not doing an apples to apples comparison. The electric cars you talk about need to run on roads which are far more carbon intensive to build and maintain than many types of rail track.

I’ve covered this subject here:

The actual vehicles likely show a similar story per passenger, especially if you consider electric rail that doesn’t rely on improving but still resource-hungry battery technology.

The Cascades LRP has a list of improvements that costs 1/10th to 1/20th the cost of UHST and may provide just enough of an edge over driving that many people choose the train (esp. as driving times increase due to congestion).