Re: When considering the alternatives You should do needs based planning.
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-12-2020 - 02:00
EU812 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LES Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > 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,
>
>
> Most European countries continue to build roadways
> and tollways. Off the top of my head I can think
> of major projects in Norway, France, Spain,
> Portugal, Italy, Germany and of course the
> countries that used to be behind the iron curtain.
> The EU is funding improvements on a dozen major
> corridors. Highway, rail, waterways.
>
> The reality of Europe is very different from how
> it is portrayed by the agenda driven US media and
> politicians.
Yep, both you and FUD get it. Especially the "ultra" conclusion first, needs second part. As such an analysis might discover that maybe "ultra" is not the most cost effective solutions, and as was pointed out, which may fail fail to actually find an optimal "market need" in the corridor. And, that a "needs" (aka travel market based) planning approach would indeed, also examine which kind of "HSR" option would also be likely to take a very large share of the many more highway trips, and serve more directly the whole Seattle-Tacoma "metro region" to the greater Portland-upper Willamette "metro-region" "rail servable" travel market share.
If one were using proper "needs" based planning, it might indicate that such a corridor could be better serve more "travel demands", more cost effectively (aka potentially profitably), with a 125 mph, or LA-LV-140 range, or a more common EU 160 range HSR alternative even, rather than "ultra" "end-point" to "end point" "only" service, without regard to looking at "corridor" competitive travel times, which serve more of the identified travel needs and real travel demands in that corridor, integrated fully into existing services, like the EU nations have done.
But, what I was really wondering once again, if our CAHSRA "uber alles" poster Les was working for the CAHSRA? I saw that the CAHSRA was caught on another social media platform discussion, with a consultant, who was possibly using Federal funds to "debate" what were clearly "policy" criticism's of the CAHSRA fiasco, in a way which the Federal auditors might consider an illegal use of Federal taxpayer funds to "lobby" the public on the project's behalf, and suddenly they pulled his posts.