 |
Re: When considering the alternatives
Author: Erik H.
Date: 12-11-2020 - 17:36
LES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seatac (currently spilling over onto Paine) and VIA are bursting at the seems and need
> their precious space for international travel.
Except very, very little of Sea-Tac's capacity is used for flights to/from Vancouver, Portland and Eugene. And even of those flights, the vast majority of them are flown using sub-100 seat turboprop aircraft, whereas most HSR systems in the world replaced airline shuttles using mainline (130-200 seat) aircraft - or in the case of Japan, domestic configured 747s with over 500 seats per aircraft. If Sea-Tac is really out of room, it could easily be accommodated by forcing Alaska to fly fewer, but larger, aircraft instead of its Horizon Q400s.
> Widening I-5 is becoming more and more onerous. Just look at what it has taken to get a
> single 100 year old bridge (CRC) replaced
Except HSR will have absolutely zero impact there, since HSR and I-5 serve two very different purposes. So even with HSR, I-5 is still going to be clogged and congested, because HSR won't serve >99% of the trips that I-5 supports. HSR replaces short-distance air travel, NOT freeways. (Otherwise, why is Germany still building and expanding its Autobahns?)
> with land restrictions and the Northwest's propensity for regular flooding I don't see
> them adding much more in lane capacity to I-5
Those factors also work heavily against HSR. Any HSR route, which must be relatively straight/flat/level, will have tremendous environmental impacts on protected wetlands and coastlands, tidal flats, rivers, and not to mention the 100 or so miles of metropolis between Tumwater and Marysville and the tens of thousands of homes that would have to be destroyed while within a housing crisis. The proponents of HSR think that we can just build homes in Centralia and Kelso to replace the lost stock, but isn't that just creating urban sprawl and destroying even more protected land and farmland?
The biggest bang for the buck is going to be more local transit to get local trips out of the car. That means more bus service - busways/bus lanes, larger (articulated buses) and more frequent. Once we've accomplished that, then move to light rail and commuter/regional rail for the longer trips - WHILE MAINTAINING a high level and quality of bus service.
Building HSR is only going to convince people that local trips are going to be by car, and I-5 is still going to have to be widened to accommodate those trips to work and to the grocery store that HSR will never serve.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seatac (currently spilling over onto Paine) and VIA are bursting at the seems and need
> their precious space for international travel.
Except very, very little of Sea-Tac's capacity is used for flights to/from Vancouver, Portland and Eugene. And even of those flights, the vast majority of them are flown using sub-100 seat turboprop aircraft, whereas most HSR systems in the world replaced airline shuttles using mainline (130-200 seat) aircraft - or in the case of Japan, domestic configured 747s with over 500 seats per aircraft. If Sea-Tac is really out of room, it could easily be accommodated by forcing Alaska to fly fewer, but larger, aircraft instead of its Horizon Q400s.
> Widening I-5 is becoming more and more onerous. Just look at what it has taken to get a
> single 100 year old bridge (CRC) replaced
Except HSR will have absolutely zero impact there, since HSR and I-5 serve two very different purposes. So even with HSR, I-5 is still going to be clogged and congested, because HSR won't serve >99% of the trips that I-5 supports. HSR replaces short-distance air travel, NOT freeways. (Otherwise, why is Germany still building and expanding its Autobahns?)
> with land restrictions and the Northwest's propensity for regular flooding I don't see
> them adding much more in lane capacity to I-5
Those factors also work heavily against HSR. Any HSR route, which must be relatively straight/flat/level, will have tremendous environmental impacts on protected wetlands and coastlands, tidal flats, rivers, and not to mention the 100 or so miles of metropolis between Tumwater and Marysville and the tens of thousands of homes that would have to be destroyed while within a housing crisis. The proponents of HSR think that we can just build homes in Centralia and Kelso to replace the lost stock, but isn't that just creating urban sprawl and destroying even more protected land and farmland?
The biggest bang for the buck is going to be more local transit to get local trips out of the car. That means more bus service - busways/bus lanes, larger (articulated buses) and more frequent. Once we've accomplished that, then move to light rail and commuter/regional rail for the longer trips - WHILE MAINTAINING a high level and quality of bus service.
Building HSR is only going to convince people that local trips are going to be by car, and I-5 is still going to have to be widened to accommodate those trips to work and to the grocery store that HSR will never serve.
