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?
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.
https://mic.comotion.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Keepi...
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.”
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 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.
https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Re... -> “Leisure travel accounted for over 80% of domestic travel”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers... -> majority personal/leisure
But please, tell me exactly how commuters somehow are the primary users of both air travel and HSR.
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.
> what sort of ticket/buyer do you think accounts for the bulk of domestic airlines' revenues?
Provide a source specifically for commuting accounting for a majority of revenue, which was your original claim.
Moving the goal posts and saying the equivalent of “trust me bro” does not a compelling argument make.
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.
> 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.