It would be fantastic, but republicans exist. maybe in 2118.

Light-rail advocacy groups and groups studying feasibility and profitability must remain orthogonal.

correction: high-speed rail ... (and light as well actually)

I support the idea of high-speed rail, but this does not need another study!

Anyone who has ever ridden true high-speed rail in France, Germany, Japan, and/or China knows exactly the essential technical components that are necessary: dedicated, grade-separated right-of-way.

There's absolutley no need to dick around trying to re-invent the wheel: just go to each of the other countries that already has this and ask them each for a bid on supplying rolling stock. Gage of track doesn't matter, since these trains are going to run on dedicated lines that need to be built from scratch. The only technical change is adapting the engines to US voltage, and that's not rocket science.

What else is there to study - routing? How many straight-ish lines can you draw between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver? The landscape here isn't any more challenging to high-speed rail than anywhere else it's been accomplished via tunneling and viaducts.

Yes, this is going to cost lots of money. Another study just wastes some of that money and pushes the timeline out - and time is money.

Just build the fucker already!!!

I have advocated for high speed rail for decades. The report that was done does not make a practical case for high speed rail in this region. Read the report, it does not: 1) connect the airports, which is required; 2) connect all of the downtowns; 3) connect to existing rail hubs; 4) provide a practical and reasonable solution for the geographical and topological obstacles that exist in a north-south rail corridor. As an old wag might say, if it was so easy, someone would have done it years ago. Surprisingly, the report raises the cross state high speed rail concept first proposed by Gary Locke. This is the easiest and cheapest high speed option, using an existing tunnel through the Cascades at Stampede Pass. It could be up and running in about 5 years. If a leg can be built to Pullman, it would truly useful, practical, and would save lives. Meanwhile, the Vancouver to Portland route will be mired in environmental litigation for decades for crossing the Nisqually Delta and other sensitive areas.

@5: I rode the Thalys from Paris to Amsterdam; it didn't stop at any airports. Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam.

@5, for someone who claims to have advocated for high-speed rail for decades, you don't seem to have learned much in that time. You really believe that connecting the airports is required?! There just aren't enough people who are going to be hopping off an airplane in Seattle to catch a train to Portland to justify that extra stop. And those people aren't screwed anyway; they can always take the light rail (or some other mode) downtown. In fact, adding those extra airport stops would be detrimental to the value proposition of the entire line because they would slow down the trip for people wanting to get from downtown to downtown, and they potentially present a detour since not every airport is on the way.

Now, I'm sure you'll have some snappy comeback waiting for me, and we can go back and forth talking past each other. This is the blogosphere after all. But this is one case where I don't want to let a loony notion go unanswered.

It's a shame because I'm intrigued by your broader point, that we're better off focusing our energies on Seattle to Spokane and/or Pullman.

Anyway, I'm kinda with Max @1 here. As much as I believe in high-speed rail, these studies feel like an academic exercise. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

@5 & @6 - The French TGV has a station located directly beneath terminal two of Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport; the German ICE running on the Cologne–Frankfurt high-speed line stops at the Flughafen Fernbahnhof beneath Frankfurt am Main Airport; and a station at Munich Flughafen International Airport has both local S-Bahn service to Munich as well as ICE service to Berlin, Cologne, Salzburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Vienna, Zurich and Milan.

Meant @6 & @7

@8, that's good info. What I would say is that the fact that some high-speed-rail lines have stations at airports hardly indicates that an airport station in required. What's required about the station location is that it be within walking distance of either (A) major destinations in their own right or (B) a major transit hub. I'm reluctant to take seriously any plan for high-speed rail if it doesn't factor in stations in the downtowns or extended downtowns. And all that costs money.

But then, I'm reluctant to take any of this seriously just yet, especially when there's so much else to worry about on the transit front these days.

And the projected high-speed between LA and Las Vegas is suspect of practicality and would be a terrible environmental scar.

@12 - You're right, but it's not like it's gotten out of the planning phase. Those budget increases are all related to delays caused by opponents of the train. The longer we wait, the higher the bill goes.

And yes, the actual flight time from SF to LA is 1 hour, 15 minutes. But total travel time is closer to 3–4 hours, provided there are no delays—and if SFO or LAX are involved, there will be.

@1 Max Solomon: How about we hurtle all RepubliKKKans and their idiotic apologists into outer space, especially Thug Ericksen, R, Ferndale? I'm up for that.

@4 NoSpin: Agreed, and thank you..

@15 - Yes, 20 Billion just from opponents, who have ganged up on the project year after year while simultaneously complaining about its rising cost, which they have been mostly responsible for creating. The political mantra is that it's a boondoggle that will swallow billions of dollars and produce nothing of value, which it will if the Republicans can keep getting away with delaying and misrepresenting it.

@6: I live in Holland. You are wrong. Thalys stops at (i.e. literally directly underneath) Schiphol (i.e. Amsterdam) Airport on its way to/from Amsterdam. The line to/from Dortmund (Germany) stops at Dusseldorf airport. Rotterdam and Brussels (Zavendem) airports are trivially reachable from those stops with a transfer (the regular intercity train from Amsterdam to Brussels stops there directly.) Plus all the shit @8 said.

Right-of-way is probably the biggest cost factor in building a high-speed rail line. So use the existing freeway as the route. Yes there will need to be viaducts and other elevation smoothing required, but what better promo than people driving on the freeway watching a high-speed train go zipping by?

And the Seattle terminus? How about putting it on the proposed deck over I-5?

@15 If you prefer flying, then you prefer flying. That's fine. For those of us that make the aforementioned trip frequently (the second busiest air route in the US), the go-to debate—probably the second most debated San Francisco past-time after who makes the best burrito—is whether it's better to fly or DRIVE to Los Angeles, and driving takes 5–6 hours. Not the place to have this specific argument, but there's a case to make that they're very comparable.

My point it to get it done sooner than later. It will be needed eventually, and it'll only get more expensive. Also, we're talking about dedicated high-speed rail. All these routes already have passenger rail, but they're not practical for anyone but travelers that enjoy riding trains (I think LA is currently ~10 hours via Amtrak).