4 ms·

For some definition of small. Which I suspect is larger than “180 miles apart”. I quite frankly just don’t see the value is connecting Portland and Seattle by

For some definition of small. Which I suspect is larger than “180 miles apart”. I quite frankly just don’t see the value is connecting Portland and Seattle by high speed rail. Who gives a shit? Spend billions of dollars so that hundreds, perhaps even a whole thousand, of people can take a weekend trip that is slightly faster than a 3 hour drive? I’d rather see Renton and Kenmore/Bothell quintuple in density and get connected by a nice, fast loop. Seattle to SeaTac probably has about the right number of stops. Well, a few too many, but should be more than zero. Those stops just need to have something at them. We built a minimal amount of transit and then failed to upzone the neighborhood.

rendang 3y ago
There's been quite a lot of building around Northgate, Othello and Columbia City. I'm surprised there hasn't been more upzoning at Rainier Beach, though - maybe displacement concerns on the part of planners
andbberger 3y ago
> I quite frankly just don’t see the value is connecting Portland and Seattle by high speed rail. Who gives a shit? Spend billions of dollars so that hundreds, perhaps even a whole thousand, of people can take a weekend trip that is slightly faster than a 3 hour drive dramatically faster. travel time between portland and seattle along a realistic route is on the order of 90m with a few stops and 60m non-stop. about as long as my commute from SF to palo alto. at those distances a high speed rail connection is transformative, it would turn portland and seattle into one large metro area. portland and seattle are ideally situated in terms of population and distance for high speed rail. but if you don't see the point in investing in high speed rail in general, I would suggest that you take a look at the latest news on the arctic sea ice and review what your state is spending on highways every year
- forrestthewoods 3y ago
  High-speed rail isn’t really for daily commuters. Shinkansen tickets are quite expensive. We’re talking $100 each way. I don’t see trains having a huge advantage over a clean grid and EV fleet. And the latter is much easier and faster to build.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    EVs still emit brake particulate matter, generate roadway noise, put pressure on roadway infrastructure (either for maintenance or expansion), and still tie up the driver's time in transit. Rail does none of those things. It's a matter of political will in the US, and most Americans tend to be fine wasting lots of time driving.
    - forrestthewoods 3y ago
      New York City has the best public transit in the US… and the longest commute times. Average commute time in Tokyo (58 minutes) is twice as long as Seattle (27.5 minutes). It’s not the same problem as induced demand, but the net effect is similar. Ultra dense, transit rich cities are more expensive and have longer commute times. There’s no free lunch.
      - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
        The problem in NYC [1] is that 21.4% of people have > 60 min commutes, which probably is the same problem with Tokyo and many US cities: COL is really high so commuters come in from long distances to commute. Fukuoka has a 30 min average commute time, closer to Seattle. Moreover the real important thing when it comes to commute time is that driving requires active participation. Sure you can listen to whatever music you like and sip your favorite drink in the car, but every minute spent driving a car is time spent using your attention. People are willing to put up with longer transit commutes because those commutes are passive. > There’s no free lunch. I mean, are we seriously comparing the capital, operational, and environmental costs of a train with tens of thousands of BEV cars and the charging infrastructure required to make this work? There's also the permanent kneecapping of throughput in an auto-oriented corridor. The long tail of BEV adoption will be quite long. The only reason this is even a discussion point is because building transit is politically unpopular and US governments can't really build anything anymore on time or under budget. [1]: https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/100-u-s-cities-ranked-by-commute-time/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...

rendang 3y ago

There's been quite a lot of building around Northgate, Othello and Columbia City. I'm surprised there hasn't been more upzoning at Rainier Beach, though - maybe displacement concerns on the part of planners

andbberger 3y ago

> I quite frankly just don’t see the value is connecting Portland and Seattle by high speed rail. Who gives a shit? Spend billions of dollars so that hundreds, perhaps even a whole thousand, of people can take a weekend trip that is slightly faster than a 3 hour drive dramatically faster. travel time between portland and seattle along a realistic route is on the order of 90m with a few stops and 60m non-stop. about as long as my commute from SF to palo alto. at those distances a high speed rail connection is transformative, it would turn portland and seattle into one large metro area. portland and seattle are ideally situated in terms of population and distance for high speed rail. but if you don't see the point in investing in high speed rail in general, I would suggest that you take a look at the latest news on the arctic sea ice and review what your state is spending on highways every year

forrestthewoods 3y ago
High-speed rail isn’t really for daily commuters. Shinkansen tickets are quite expensive. We’re talking $100 each way. I don’t see trains having a huge advantage over a clean grid and EV fleet. And the latter is much easier and faster to build.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  EVs still emit brake particulate matter, generate roadway noise, put pressure on roadway infrastructure (either for maintenance or expansion), and still tie up the driver's time in transit. Rail does none of those things. It's a matter of political will in the US, and most Americans tend to be fine wasting lots of time driving.
  - forrestthewoods 3y ago
    New York City has the best public transit in the US… and the longest commute times. Average commute time in Tokyo (58 minutes) is twice as long as Seattle (27.5 minutes). It’s not the same problem as induced demand, but the net effect is similar. Ultra dense, transit rich cities are more expensive and have longer commute times. There’s no free lunch.
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      The problem in NYC [1] is that 21.4% of people have > 60 min commutes, which probably is the same problem with Tokyo and many US cities: COL is really high so commuters come in from long distances to commute. Fukuoka has a 30 min average commute time, closer to Seattle. Moreover the real important thing when it comes to commute time is that driving requires active participation. Sure you can listen to whatever music you like and sip your favorite drink in the car, but every minute spent driving a car is time spent using your attention. People are willing to put up with longer transit commutes because those commutes are passive. > There’s no free lunch. I mean, are we seriously comparing the capital, operational, and environmental costs of a train with tens of thousands of BEV cars and the charging infrastructure required to make this work? There's also the permanent kneecapping of throughput in an auto-oriented corridor. The long tail of BEV adoption will be quite long. The only reason this is even a discussion point is because building transit is politically unpopular and US governments can't really build anything anymore on time or under budget. [1]: https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/100-u-s-cities-ranked-by-commute-time/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...