5 ms·
As a PNW native: no thanks. I'd much rather we spend tax dollars on ways to prevent the need for commutes – especially ones that require highway travel.
by 23B1 3y ago
As a PNW native: no thanks. I'd much rather we spend tax dollars on ways to prevent the need for commutes – especially ones that require highway travel.
- jdlshore 3y agoWhat would prevent the need for travel between Portland, Seattle, and BC, and how would you like the government to make that happen?
- 23B1 3y ago[flagged]
- jdlshore 3y agoI understand the difference, and chose my words intentionally. What evidence do you have that the purpose of the high speed rail project is primarily for commuting to and from work? I’d be willing to wager that the actual report (which I haven’t read) probably names a variety of reasons for high speed rail in the PNW, of which commuting is one of many. Setting your passive aggressive pedantry aside, you haven’t answered the question: how would you like the government to prevent commuting in the PNW? And—now that we’re focusing on just one form of travel—how much do you expect that will reduce the demand for travel, and how will that reduction change the desirability of high-speed rail?
- 23B1 3y agoDid you RTFA? The cited UW report is entirely about commuters. If you want to visit granny in Portland, take a car no problem. If a Seattle exec needs to meet with his dev team in Olympia once a week, make it a zoom.
- jdlshore 3y agoThe actual report is here. It’s quite readable: https://mic.comotion.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Keeping-it-on-the-Tracks-High-speed-Rail-Success-and-Lessons-Learned.pdf https://mic.comotion.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Keepi... The word “commuter” appears 19 times, always in the context of “local commuter rail,” in contrast to the high speed rail the report discusses. High speed rail is very clearly described as a metro-to-metro solution, in competition with air travel. Commuting is not the stated purpose. The stated purpose is to “overcome long-term problems of affordable housing, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
- 23B1 3y ago[flagged]
- mynameisvlad 3y agoThey clearly did read it. And the actual report, which is the thing that really matters. You clearly have not, on the other hand. Nor do you have the most basic understanding of the purpose of HSR, which you wouldn’t even need to read the report to know. It’s ok to say “I’m wrong”, you know. > Let me ask you a different question, since you brought up air travel; what sort of ticket/buyer do you think accounts for the bulk of domestic airlines' revenues? It sure isn’t commuting if that’s what you’re getting at. https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Research_Fact-Sheet_US-Travel-and-Tourism-Overview.pdf https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Re... -> “Leisure travel accounted for over 80% of domestic travel” https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers-main-trip-purposes-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers... -> majority personal/leisure But please, tell me exactly how commuters somehow are the primary users of both air travel and HSR.
- 23B1 3y agoYou've confused ticket volume with profits.
- 3y ago
- mynameisvlad 3y agoHow exactly would you prevent the need to travel between cities? Vancouver-Seattle or Seattle-Portland isn't exactly a "commute".
- 23B1 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mynameisvlad 3y agoPlease understand that HSR is not meant to be for commuters, as the other commenters also pointed out. Next time, if three different people ask you the exact same question, maybe take a step back and ask yourself if you were actually wrong. One person might be able to misunderstand, but multiple people generally means you’re the one that has no clue what you’re talking about.
- 23B1 3y agoHSR has multiple purposes, but if you think it isn't meant for commuters... well, it's not worth arguing with you.
- a2xd94 3y agoHow are tax dollars supposed to help prevent the need for commutes? By subsidizing remote work? I truly cannot follow the logic, curious to hear what you mean. Public transport has been proven time and time again by numerous studies to be one of the best investments of tax money around. Just take a look at the absolute mess of a traffic situation that basically the entire Los Angeles metro area experiences, a direct result of no useful public transport system.
- 23B1 3y agoThere's a hundred different ways to disincentivize commutes – without subsidies either: simple tax incentives.
- a2xd94 3y agoI'm still unclear on how that could be accomplished. Its pretty obvious that most companies larger than startups are unwilling to fully embrace remote work and need to make themselves feel good about the money they invest into their leases/real estate and so force their employees into at least 2/3 days in office. Are you proposing that the government just give money to businesses so long as they keep their workers at home? This would have a pretty big impact on peripheral businesses near office parks (coffee shops, restaurants, etc). SF is the perfect example - the city's tax revenue is down big time from pre-COVID and continuing to worsen, primarily because of the work-from-home trend. BTW - I'm NOT advocating for return to office, at least not for software engineers.
- 23B1 3y agoNot just businesses but individuals too. And tax incentives ≠ giving money away.