Re: When considering the alternatives You should do needs based planning.
Author: LES
Date: 12-11-2020 - 20:54
I think there are some big differences when comparing Cascadia to CAHSR.
1) City-pair distances are ideal, similar to what Texas Central has going for it.
2) Bill Gates. The guy has got money to burn. The line doesn't have to be a money maker of the likes of Paris-Lyon. It just needs to be somewhat reasonable.
3) Washington is as "Green" as state as it comes when compared to European standards. No way on earth are they going to build more highways, especially when they can put in a smaller foot printed rail system, a system that runs on electricity (Sound Transit is the first rail system in the country to run 100% on green energy so far). And now with the new study showing how tire chemicals are killing salmon, the idea of green power will only be further entrenched.
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erik H. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
> > n
> > 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.
>
> All good points, the title "ultra high speed" is
> mistake number one.... Assuming this should be
> the "answer" and then failing to do a "needs" up,
> based study of observed travel demand, looking
> across all modes (existing air, auto, pedicab,
> since it's Seattle and Portland, or whatever...).
> The next step should be to evaluate "all" relevant
> potential passenger rail operational and
> investment scenarios, which could attract and/or
> compete for that observed (and forecasted
> future...) travel demand, to identify costs and
> benefits of the trade offs between different
> alternatives, to identify the most cost effective
> options, at various investment levels and
> operational scenarios.
>
> Specifying "ultra high speed" is the same kind of
> reaching the conclusion "first" and never doing
> the real "due diligence" "needs based" planning
> (required of all federally funded highway and
> transit project)to see if it is the most cost
> effective or efficient operating or investment
> scenario "assumes" that since we are only here to
> study "ultra high speed", that it is the
> "answer".... Which is indeed very similar to the
> utterly incompetent planning approach that lead
> directly to the poorly planned, utterly
> mismanaged, gold plated CAHSRA "runaway money
> train" fiasco....