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.
How 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.
I'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.
I 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?
Did 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.
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.”
They 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.
You asked for most revenue, not most profit. Ticket volume directly correlates, especially when one source accounts for 80% of the volume.
But I’m sure you have sources for your moved goalposts, right? Please, show me how commutes are the most profitable. Or most revenue. Or literally anything where they are considered “most” when it comes to air or HSR.
Once again, it’s ok to say you’re wrong about something. Doubling down by constantly moving the goalposts is probably the most idiotic way to make your point.
Asking for a source is not being upset, but way to bring an ad hominem into it along with the moved goalposts. You’re just going for all the fallacies aren’t you?
I guess it’s easier for you to move goal posts and make claims than it is to back them up when pushed to do so.
You literally have not provided a single thing to back anything you’ve said up and are pretending like somehow I’m the unreasonable person.
Next time, just be consistent in your claims and back your shit up. It’s really not that hard.
Do you have a source yet? Or are you just going to ad hominem and move the goal posts again with “the larger point”?
> 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?
You implied commuters are the major source of revenue for flights. I have asked you for a source four times now for this claim. You have consistently refused to do so.
Provide the source or stop wasting all our time with these theatrics.
