The Antiplanner

California High-Speed Rail in Trouble

9th July 2010

California High-Speed Rail in Trouble

posted in Planning Disasters, Transportation |

New reports have raised questions about and spurred opposition to California’s grandiose high-speed rail plans. First, last April, the California state auditor reported that the state’s high-speed rail authority suffered from “inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management,” which is not exactly what you want to hear about an agency that is about to build the most expensive state-sponsored public works project in history.

Second, a new report from the University of California found that the state’s ridership forecasts “are not reliable.” Based on a re-assessment by economist David Brownstone (who is fast becoming one of the Antiplanner’s favorite economists) and two UC engineering profs, the fares needed to cover the trains’ operating costs would have to be more than double the original projections, which is also more than the cost of flying. Since the measure approved by voters in 2008 forbade any state operating subsidies, such high fares would doom the project.

Many questions had been raised about the state’s ridership forecasts prior to this report. Of course, the Reason Foundation questioned the numbers as long ago as 2008. More recently, several California groups argued that the state rail authority developed a peer-reviewed model, then discarded it in favor of a questionable model that produced higher numbers. Some groups have gone so far as to sue the state for lying about the numbers.

The University of California report has led several newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune and San Diego Union-Tribune, to argue that the high-speed rail authority has lost its credibility and that the state should “abandon the high-speed train fantasy, spend the $2.25 billion in federal funds on more realistic rail projects and not sell any of the [$9 billion worth of] bonds” that voters approved in 2008.

In response, high-speed rail advocates complain that the media has given so much attention to the University of California report while it supposedly ignored a report from CalPIRG claiming that high-speed rail has been “successful” all over the world. (Update: It turns out the blogger who complained also happened to write the CalPIRG report — something he never mentioned in the blog post that purports to objectively review the report.) The reality is that, as one commenter notes, the press has given high-speed rail a “free pass” until recently, notably ignoring the Reason Foundation critiques when they were published two months before the 2008 election.

As for CalPIRG’s report, its definition of “success” is apparently, “if we subsidize it enough, they will come.” They note that heavily subsidized trains in selected markets managed to capture market share away from heavily-taxed autos and unsubsidized airlines. They also repeat Amtrak’s claims about its share of Boston-Washington travel without mentioning that Amtrak ignores intercity buses, which carry more travelers in that corridor than Amtrak.

In counting “successful” rail lines, CalPIRG ignored the line in China that was recently shut down because it could not compete with slower, lower-fare trains. It also ignored the line in Taiwan that went bankrupt late last year. Nor did CalPIRG bother to ask how much subsidy was needed to make the lines it did consider appear “successful.”

Meanwhile, at the federal level, the GAO just published a report arguing that federal high-speed rail plans were hastily drawn up and not well thought out. Unfortunately, the GAO mainly looked at high-speed rail as a part of the stimulus package and not on its own merits. As a result, it missed several important points.

For example, it divides rail into “conventional” (up to 79 mph), “higher speed” (80-150 mph), and “high speed” (150-plus mph). But the critical distinction should be at 90 to 110 mph, which are the maximum speeds that most railroads will allow passenger trains to run on the same tracks as their freight trains. Anything above that, whether 120 mph or 200 mph, will require construction of new tracks that will cost at least 10 times as much as improving existing tracks to run at 90 to 110 mph.

One major problem is that high-speed rail advocates want the public to pretend that capital costs don’t count, only operating costs — and then want the public to believe that fares will cover operating costs, when they won’t even in the most populated corridors.

Trains operating at top speeds of 90 to 110 mph (meaning average speeds of 60 to 75 mph) will not attract enough riders to make a difference in any market. Trains operating at top speeds of more than 200 mph (meaning average speeds of 140 mph or so) might attract more riders, but their extremely high cost makes them just as infeasible.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Planning Disasters, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 118 responses to “California High-Speed Rail in Trouble”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1 On July 9th, 2010, C. P. Zilliacus said:
The Antiplanner wrote:

> Many questions had been raised about the state’s ridership
> forecasts prior to this report.

The ITS Berkeley report makes for interesting reading.

What gives me the most heartburn regarding the forecasts is the extensive use of stated preference survey data (please see Wikipedia article about contingent valuation here for details) to develop the model that was used to project high-speed train patronage in California.

Quoting from that Wikipedia article:

Many economists question the use of stated preference to determine willingness to pay for a good, preferring to rely on people’s revealed preferences in binding market transactions.

[Emphasis added above]

I strongly agree. To use stated preference surveys to justify spending billions of taxpayer dollars for a new train system comes perilously close to malpractice.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 8:21 am
2 On July 9th, 2010, Hugh Jardonn said:
Not to worry. The CAHSRA and their consultants are sticking to their guns:

“Authority officials and consultants portrayed their estimates, which generally have shown tens of millions of annual riders and profits likely to attract major private investors, as state-of-the-art and realistic.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20100708,0,2173027.story

It might be a good idea to vote for Meg Whitman in the fall:
“Meg believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis,” said the Republican gubernatorial candidate’s spokeswoman Sarah Pompei in an e-mailed statement.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/09/2878527/the-buzz-atherton-resident-meg.html#ixzz0tCSELiY7

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 8:32 am
3 On July 9th, 2010, Frank said:
They note that heavily subsidized trains in selected markets managed to capture market share away from heavily-taxed autos and unsubsidized airlines.

Unsubsidized airlines? Is that your claim, Randall, or is that what “they” (CalPIRG) claim?

It’s old news that the federal government has subsidized airlines. State governments also subsidize airlines.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 9:45 am
4 On July 9th, 2010, MJ said:
Unsubsidized airlines? Is that your claim, Randall, or is that what “they” (CalPIRG) claim?

Frank,

The federal program you are referring to is the Essential Air Service program. It is funded by airline passengers through the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. It was initiated during airline deregulation in the late 1970s, and was initially supposed to be a temporary program. But like so many “temporary” federal programs it has not phased out, but rather grown in scope and lost its focus.

The state subsidies you refer to are generally efforts to entice airlines into providing services to smaller, marginally profitable markets. These programs aren’t particularly good policy either, but they are really “small beer” relative to the size and scope of the airline industry.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 10:14 am
5 On July 9th, 2010, MJ said:
CPZ,

I don’t necessarily agree that the use of state preference data is the most troubling thing about the HSR forecasts. Actually, stated preference methods were designed to address matters like this one, where a new product is being introduced to a market. Since there really is no high-speed rail service in California, or really in the US (Acela is closest), revealed preference data are not really an option here.

Unfortunately, that is what they (CS) tried to do. But rather than using the model that they fit to their travel survey data, they chose to fiddle with the model parameters until they got the “right” answer. This is not just bad practice, it is troubling on many levels.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
6 On July 9th, 2010, RJ said:
Asking people if they prefer a good where the costs are seriously underestimated and the benefits seriously overestimated is not how you discover real preferences.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
7 On July 9th, 2010, Frank said:
MJ: Small beer or not, the state and federal programs are still subsidies.

In fact, the “planes to nowhere” program (EAS) is growing. Some claim that the per-passenger subsidy on such flights is over $1000 per person. I would like to know the average subsidy per passenger mile (since that is the rate Randall prefers) on these flights.

Additionally, there was the 2001 bailout: $5 billion in cash and $10 billion more in loan guarantees.

Governments have also provided direct subsidies for airport development and operation. Some argue that user fees (airport taxes), which weren’t introduced until the early ’70s, cannot come close to repaying the estimated $1 trillion value of airport infrastructure, the creation of which was largely financed by government.

And how about air traffic control? The FAA’s budget has steadily increased every year to about $16 billion. Do taxes and user fees completely cover the cost of air traffic control?

According to a 1998 CRS report for Congress, “[a]s the industry has matured, the level and expense of the federal effort has expanded and spending for capital infrastructure and operational activities have become specific components of annual federal budgets.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong on any points, and I’m not sure how much user fees compensate for federal spending. However, I think the phrase “unsubsidized airlines” is not accurate and is actually misleading.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
8 On July 9th, 2010, Spokker said:
The California project is being scaled back so that it might actually come in close to budget. Shared track is being considered for Anaheim-Los Angeles, for example. This is 30 miles that definitely did not need dedicated tracks.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
9 On July 9th, 2010, Borealis said:
People please run the numbers. Just from the articles linked by supporters, the Essential Air Service runs $175 million. The subsidy on California high speed rail alone is $2.25 billion. They are not comparable except by people heck bent on wanting high speed rail.

I doubt there is one person out there who believes that the California high speed rail could recover its operating cost, even with all the capital costs subsidized by taxpayers.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
10 On July 9th, 2010, C. P. Zilliacus said:
MJ wrote:

> I don’t necessarily agree that the use of state preference
> data is the most troubling thing about the HSR forecasts.
> Actually, stated preference methods were designed to address
> matters like this one, where a new product is being introduced
> to a market. Since there really is no high-speed rail service
> in California, or really in the US (Acela is closest),
> revealed preference data are not really an option here.

But there is high-speed service between the major cities of California. It’s called air transport.

And I suppose that there are data available for travel between Washington, D.C.; Baltimore; Wilmington; Philadelphia; Trenton; Newark, N.J.; New York; New Haven; New London; Providence; and Boston.

You are correct that the N.E. Corridor is not like the French TGV service or Japan’s bullet trains, but I still assert that data could have been used to inform the travel demand forecasting work done for California’s proposed high speed rail system.

> Unfortunately, that is what they (CS) tried to do. But rather
> than using the model that they fit to their travel survey data,
> they chose to fiddle with the model parameters until they got
> the “right” answer. This is not just bad practice, it is
> troubling on many levels.

That’s also not new.

It provides more proof that travel demand forecasts should never be performed by a public agency that wants to build or expand a passenger rail line of any kind.

Such work should be done by an independent third party that gets paid even if the forecasts are so bad that the rail project never gets built.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
11 On July 9th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Frank,

The airline industry is and always has been self funded, even before deregulation. Any “subsidy” as you describe comes from the Aviation Trust Fund which is off budget and fully funded by system users. This funding method has been around since before deregulation. It is (was) intended to take aviation as a system off the governments books. The same way the highway fund was designed until politicians started robbing roadway money to pay for buses and trains.

Every item you mention as a subsidy including the cost of the FAA (Including the money for post 9/11 loans to the airlines) came or comes from the trust fund. The money for the trust fund comes from airline fuel taxes, airline ticket taxes and passenger facility charges. Not the general fund. Maybe high speed rail advocates like you should take notice???

Before you go off on a rant, you might want to validate your assertions. There wasn’t $1 trillion in airport infrastructure then and at best there is less than $500 billion in airport infrastructure today, the majority of which has been built since deregulation in the form of new terminals and runways with money from aviation system users.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
12 On July 9th, 2010, Frank said:
Borealis said: People please run the numbers…They are not comparable except by people heck bent on wanting high speed rail.

False.

I am not bent on wanting high-speed rail. And I’m not comparing numbers. What I have stated is that using term “unsubsidized airlines” is deceptive. Airlines do receive subsidies. That other modes of transport receive larger subsidies does not change this fact.

Nor does it change the fact that government subsidized and continues to subsidize the creation and maintenance of airports and the operation of air traffic control.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
13 On July 9th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 9th, 2010, Spokker said:
The California project is being scaled back so that it might actually come in close to budget. Shared track is being considered for Anaheim-Los Angeles, for example. This is 30 miles that definitely did not need dedicated tracks.
**********************

But it still costs $43 billion in taxpayer dollars and overe $100 million a year to operate. Is that supposed to make us feel better?

Here is what $43 billion will get you in the aviation world (these are what $43 billion could buy, you can’t get all of it):

40 runways, 10,000 feet in length.
The entire Southwest Airlines fleet (over 500 Boeing 737s)
The worlwide fleet of current generation Boeing 747s (over 150 aircraft)
A fleet of 240 ultra fuel efficient Boeing 787′s seatsing 250 passengers
Enough terminal space for 800 new aircraft gates.

Just a little reality.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
14 On July 9th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
I’m sorry Frank. But you are wrong, dead wrong.

You can’t subsidize an air carrier or an airport using general fund monies. It creates an anticompetitive environment benefiting one private corporation over another or one special district over another special district or private airport operator which violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. It’s also why money generated from the operation of an airport can’t be spent on roads and other forms of transportation.

There’s a ton of case law on this out there. It’s also why some want to re-regulate making it public transportation so they can rob the trust fund to pay for things like High Speed Rail.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
15 On July 9th, 2010, Frank said:
Maybe high speed rail advocates like you should take notice???

Before you go off on a rant, you might want to validate your assertions.

And maybe readers of this blog ought to check their assumptions (and grammar). I am not an advocate of high-speed rail. Quite the opposite; I think it’s a waste of money. Additionally, I have not ranted; there is nothing vehement or violent in my previous comments.

As for subsidies, some smaller airlines do receive them. The LA Times article I linked states, “In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data, Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely — about $4,500 per person.”

Congress appropriates funds to the DOT to operate EAS, and DOT calls the program a subsidy.

These are the indisputable facts. Some airlines (mostly smaller but also including larger ones such as Alaska Air and UnitedExpress) are subsidized through the EAS program.

Yes it is small when compared to other transportation subsidies. BUT. A $4,500 per person subsidy to fly to Ely, Nevada is ludicrous. When people voice concerns about those riding MAX not paying the full fare (and on this issue, I agree), but choose to portray airlines as subsidy free, it reeks of bias.

You also failed to respond to the fact that the federal government bailed out the airlines with taxpayer funds in 2001.

Additionally, according to a paper printed in the Journal of Air Transport Management, “airport authorities…generally finance investments with State-guaranteed tax-free revenue bonds—an advantage that can be equivalent to about a one third capital subsidy, as Bombardier calculated for the Texas High Speed Rail project” and “receive direct capital subsidies from state, local and federal administrations.”

I think we ought to stop pretending that air travel is not subsidized. It, along with rails and roads, is subsidized. Again, I acknowledge the amount varies from mode to mode.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
16 On July 9th, 2010, Ryan1200 said:
I don’t necessarily agree that the use of state preference data is the most troubling thing about the HSR forecasts. Actually, stated preference methods were designed to address matters like this one, where a new product is being introduced to a market. Since there really is no high-speed rail service in California, or really in the US (Acela is closest), revealed preference data are not really an option here.

Unfortunately, that is what they (CS) tried to do. But rather than using the model that they fit to their travel survey data, they chose to fiddle with the model parameters until they got the “right” answer. This is not just bad practice, it is troubling on many levels.

I’ve done some work with discrete choice analysis and often when using stated preference data to derive the choice models they include “inertia” factors that are calibrated in some manner with revealed preference data. This is, of course, where the models can be cooked since some data sources may not be applicable to the SP data being analyzed (or perhaps no RP data are used at all). So I wouldn’t say SP data are necessarily worse than RP data since they can be calibrated with reasonable inference and assumptions from RP data. I haven’t read the UC paper completely through, but if any of the factors in the demand forecast models were in fact cooked, then it would likely be the inertia factors.

BTW, first post but I’ve been a regular reader of this blog for about a year. Currently finishing up a MS in civil at Portland State with a research emphasis in freight logistics. As a side interest (I’ve also taken a few urban planning courses), I’ve found many of the controversies and debates within urban and transportation planning to be very fascinating.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
17 On July 9th, 2010, Spokker said:
ITS found no evidence of fraud carried out by Cambridge Systematics and Dr. Brownstone made that very clear at the HSR board meeting on Thursday.

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
18 On July 9th, 2010, busandrail said:
For those of you whose professional memory extends beyond my own, how much is history repeating itself? I recently came across a reference to work Jonathan Richmond did in refuting HSR (then refered to as the “Bullet Train”) ridership/revenue forecasts almost 30 years ago. Are recent events just more of the same?

posted on July 9th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
19 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Frank,

You aren’t getting this.

The LA times is wrong because they don’t understand how the Trust Fund is funded, nor do they evern attempt to explain this. Its not a subsidy from the general fund (i.e. – taxpayer money). Its a subsidy from the Aviation Trust Fund who’s funds come from the operation of the aviation system. Yes, they call it a subsidy, but it is self subsidization. They dont’ take money from your income taxes and give it to the airlines. They take money from teh airlines and give it to other airlines. Thats why its called an appropriation and why the FAA goes through reauthorization where system user fees and fuel taxes are adjusted to fund the system.

Second, the funds for the “bailout” were loans guranteed by funds from the trust fund. Again, self funding. I might add they’ve been paid back already as well.

Finally, airports do not receive capital subsidies sir. You are wrong. Flat out wrong. They issue bonds, build infrastructure and pay them back from revenue derived from the operation. Airports don’t have taxing authority to take money from local taxpayers, payign taxes on those bonds is nothgin more than double taxation.

It’s ironic you use the Bombardier case given that the courts ruled in favor of the airlines on what was and wasn’t a subsidy with regard to high speed rail.

And by the way Frank, if you can’t grasp this what makes you think a reporter from the LA Times can?

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 4:21 am
20 On July 10th, 2010, Frank said:
But the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund IS taxpayer money. Income taxes are not the only revenue source used for subsidies. The AATF is funded though taxes on airline tickets, cargo, fuel, international departures/arrivals, flight between the continental US and Hawaii and Alaska, Frequent Flier programs, and flights from rural airports. Some of these tax funds (and yes, it might be small beer, potatoes, or whatever food metaphor you’d like) are diverted to airlines that serve rural populations to decrease the price of fare to make it affordable for the consumer and to keep the airline in business. (If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…)

(As an aside, this is not entirely unlike how user fees at larger, self-sustaining national parks, such as Yosemite, are used to subsidize visitation at smaller parks, like Eugene O’Neill NHS, where the actual cost per visitor is several hundred dollars.)

Say I fly JetBlue the first week of August round trip from PDX to JFK. The ticket costs $564 and taxes are $64. Some of that $64 will subsidize airlines and their passengers to fly to Ely or Pendleton or other rural towns. Some of it will subsidize FAA research and development grants. Some of it will end up on the AATF books as a surplus; the fund had a $2.7 billion surplus in 2007, which raises the question of whether the taxes collected are excessive and the taxpayers are getting their fair (fare;) share of benefits. Some of it, but not all, will go toward FAA operations. (The AATF’s share of FAA ops was $5.4 billion in 2007; where did the FAA get the other ~$10 billion in its budget? The General Fund?)

As for the “direct capital subsidies from state, local and federal administrations”, that comes from a paper from the Journal of Air Transportation Management.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 8:01 am
21 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
1. The trust fund is not taxpayer money, its aviation system user money so that the aviation system can be self sustainable. You play you pay. Yes, it runs a surplus so that when a big project comes up the money is there to pay for it rather than going to taxpayers for General Fund money, or if revenues fall short there is money there to pick up the difference. The can’t deficit spend, so they have to run a surplus. Hence the term “Trust Fund”. This is a big differnece compared with HSR financing that is completely on the backs of taxpayers, whether you use the system or not. The only time you contribute to the AATF is if you fly. Period.

2. So what if your ticket tax subsidizes another air service route? Its all part of the same transportation system. This is a far cry from taking airline ticket taxes to pay for running a train. Taking money from one source and spending it on another source within a transportation system benefits the system as a whole. Its just like if you have a system of HSR stations and revenue from a large city station like LAX subsidizes a small station in say Bakersfield.

3. Only a portion of airline ticket taxes and fuel taxes goes to the trust fund, the rest is paid directly to fund operations – FAA trust fund money goes to R&D and equipment allocation such as NextGen. There are concerns about long term viability which is why everyone is fighting over how things will be structured financially in the future (ie General Aviation vs. the Airlines in terms of who pays what and hw much). Some beleive in higher fuel taxes others support higher system user fees and yet other support a direct fee system like Europe. Regardless how it shakes out, General Fund money won’t be a part of that.

As far as the Journal of Transportation Management, the term “subsidy is misused. If anything, airports directly subsidize cities. Airports don’t get the sales tax when you buy something at the airport such as a magazine or a cup of coffee or rent a car.

This is in contrast to what it proposed funding wise for HSR.

There are no ticket taxes proposed to fund a trust fund to ensure capital paybeack, that’s on taxpayers. There are no facility fees to maintain the stations. Any shortcomings will be borne by the taxpayer. That is a problem.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 8:49 am
22 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
From the FAA Budget:

FAA Reauthorization: The Vision 100 — Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, as extended by Congress, expires on September 30, 2009. Starting in 2011, the Budget assumes that the air traffic control system will be funded with direct charges levied on users of the system. The FAA’s current excise tax system is largely based on taxes that depend on the price of customers’ airline tickets, not FAA’s cost for moving flights through the system. The Administration believes that the FAA should move toward a model whereby FAA’s funding is related to its costs, the financing burden is distributed more equitably, and funds are used to pay directly for services the users need. The Administration recognizes that there are alternative ways to achieve these objectives. Accordingly, the Administration will work with stakeholders and the Congress to enact legislation that moves toward such a system.

The FAA prefers a fee based system in lieu fo the current excise tax on users system.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
23 On July 10th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

The OMB website shows for 2011 about $7 billion in general fund subsidies for Air Traffic Control, Aviation Security through the TSA, and Essential Air Services, out of a total cost of roughly $21 billion.

There are other hidden subsidies which are not as obvious, such as the lack of property taxation on airline infrastructure (railroads are taxed), the lack of a requirement for airports to operate at a profit and earn a return on investment (railroads must borrow money from Wall Street or generate it via earnings), and the development costs spread over the creation of planes for the Department of Defense (a big problem with EADS/Airbus but also with Boeing).

There is also the social cost of the private airline industry being funded through its continual bankruptcies and failure to earn a reasonable return by massive investments by public pension funds. Its not like Hedge Funds and Investment Bank trading desks are buying the stock shares of these turkeys.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 9:31 am
24 On July 10th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“Finally, airports do not receive capital subsidies sir. You are wrong. Flat out wrong. They issue bonds, build infrastructure and pay them back from revenue derived from the operation.”

If they aren’t operating as private corporations paying taxes, dividends, etc., and working with opportunity cost and needing to earn their cost of capital, they are receiving capital subsidies.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 9:36 am
25 On July 10th, 2010, Andrew said:
All:

The ridership estimates for California High Speed Rail are obviously ridiculous. Ridership on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor is around 14 million including the Harrisburg, Albany, and Springfield branches. About 50 million people live between Boston and Richmond, while less than 35 million live between Sacramento and San Diego.

Yes, high Amtrak fares drive some potential rail ridership away, or over to Metro North, SEPTA, and New Jersey Transit. But those fares are needed to pull in the high revenue ($90+ million per month) Amtrak does on the Northeast Corridor.

The Northeast Corridor is also up against a congested toll road network in the northeast for the driving alternative. In California, they are FREEways. Its hard to swallow their projections as realistic.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 9:52 am
26 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Andrew:

ATC is an authorization, not funding. What that means is the excise tax structure charged to users must be set up in a way to generate the $7 billion. The TSA is funded from security taxes on your airline tickets. They aren’t trust fund based, but its a net zero item. Your assertions concerning Boeing are also unfounded teh WTO just ruled on this, Airbus is a different story, but last time I checked, Airbus is a foreign company.

As for the societal costs, how is that any different then any other corporation that is considered “unsubsidized”?

As for EAS:

“…Public Law 100-223 authorized the Department to enter into agreements and
to incur obligations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the payment of subsidy
for the provision of EAS, effective fiscal year 1992. (Previously, the program was
funded from the general fund.)…”

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/x-50%20role_files/essentialairservice.htm#Q&A

As for the ridership, you are dead on and that is what concerns me. This thing is looking like perpetual taxpayer debt.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
27 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
What is the trust fund:

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), created by the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, provides funding for the “federal commitment to the nation’s aviation system” through several aviation-related excise taxes (MS Excel). Funding currently comes from collections related to passenger tickets, passenger flight segments, international arrivals/departures, cargo waybills, aviation fuels, and frequent flyer mile awards from non-airline sources like credit cards.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aatf/

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
28 On July 10th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
The TSA is not just Aviation:

TSA employs a risk-based strategy to secure U.S. transportation systems, working closely with stakeholders in aviation, rail, transit, highway, and pipeline sectors, as well as the partners in the law enforcement and intelligence community. The agency will continuously set the standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, processes, technologies and use of intelligence to drive operations.

http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/what_is_tsa.shtm

Airline ticket taxes and fees:

http://www.airlines.org/Economics/Taxes/Pages/GovTaxesandFeesonAirlineTravel.aspx

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
29 On July 10th, 2010, Frank said:
I have certainly learned a great deal through this discussion. I’m still not completely convinced that airlines are 100% subsidy free, though. Certainly, other modes seem to be far more subsidized. At any rate, HSR, especially in California, is a stinker. Maybe if California legalizes weed, they can waste their weed tax on this boondoggle.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
30 On July 10th, 2010, Borealis said:
I agree this has been an enlightening discussion. Thank you to those who provided new information. Please keep doing so.

I have to wonder about the apparent requirement that the operating costs have to be covered by user fees/fares. It seems like the consensus here is that has no chance at all of happening. But you can’t prove or disprove that restriction until the capital investment has already been made, in which case you have a whole different issue of what to do with a built rail system. Interesting policy paradox.

posted on July 10th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
31 On July 11th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 10th, 2010, Borealis said:
I agree this has been an enlightening discussion. Thank you to those who provided new information. Please keep doing so.

I have to wonder about the apparent requirement that the operating costs have to be covered by user fees/fares. It seems like the consensus here is that has no chance at all of happening.

******************

And thats the issue I have with this. If they had a funding mechanism that would pay for this thing and ensure its long term financial viability, including the capital cost – not just the operating cost – I’d support it(and I might even be willing to accept a few billion in seed money). The problem is at this point its $43 billion (pre cost over-runs), plus another $20 billion or so in interest, and enough passenger demand to only cover the cost of operating it (if that much because the initial model was based on 100 million riders) which means taxpayers are basically on the hook for $63 billion. No private investor in their right mind will invest in something this far upside down financially and taxpayers aren’t going to take that. Its like the Highway Trust fund. It ran a surplus for years, then it got raided. Now when we want to build roads, it’s on taxpayers backs – or a toll road. I’d rather pay an additional $1 a gallon for gas in the form of a fuel tax if it were wholly devoted to road and have better roads because of it vs. half of my existing fuel tax be diverted to other forms of transportation.

If we don’t move to pay to play – and I mean pay what it costs to play, we are headed for a transportation distaster.

posted on July 11th, 2010 at 6:52 am
32 On July 11th, 2010, Hugh Jardonn said:
Anybody who believes that CAHSRA will bring in High Speed Rail for $43 billion is smoking crack. Just out of New York comes word on more cost overruns for 2nd Avenue Subway and East Side Excess:

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/feds-see-%E2%80%98grim%E2%80%99-delays-overruns-second-ave-subway-east-side-access

“All told, the situation involving East Side Access and the Second Avenue Subway tells a story that is all too frequent with giant public sector projects. The projects were approved and sold to the public with one price tag, only to see the budget prove far too insignificant (very rarely, if ever, do projects come in well below their initial projections). And once a project has started—once the foot is in the door—it becomes really difficult to pull the plug, even if the public would never have signed onto the initial price tag.”

posted on July 11th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
33 On July 11th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Spokker said:
The California project is being scaled back so that it might actually come in close to budget. Shared track is being considered for Anaheim-Los Angeles, for example. This is 30 miles that definitely did not need dedicated tracks.

THWM: I’d build HSR lines in the center of expressways.

Like I-5, I-280, I-205, Hwy 99 & etc.

1. It’s public land.

2. It’s already grade separated.

posted on July 11th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
34 On July 11th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

You can peruse the federal budget here. My assertions about airline subsidies are clearly spelled out in the document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/dot.pdf

See pg. 11 of 80.

In the third tabel labeled outlays, one can see the actual spending that is to occur, which is well up north of $9 billion, $3.7 billion of which is coming out of the general funds, not the Aviation Trust Fund.

You can also see that up until 2009, grants-in-aid to airports and other expenditures were being made directly out of the general fund to the tune of billions per year.

For Homeland Security (TSA) spending see:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/dhs.pdf

Pg. 10 of 66 is where it starts. If you read carefully, you will note it states that $3.4 billion is to provided from general funds for airline screening and security. As the whole operation is only $5.6 billion, those security fees on your ticket price don’t even cover half the actual cost.

You are also ignoring very studiously the initial investment made from general funds on a federal and local level years ago to buy the land and build the basic infrastructure of the airport system we have today. It would be almost impossible to replicate this investment today given the cost of land in urban areas. As the railroads also pointed out at the time, frequently Union Station was being taxed on its property value by municipalities and the money being taken and spent directly on building new airports to compete with the railroads. The vast sunk costs of the air system which could never have been paid by the flying public out of market price tickets are comparable to the tens of billions being spoken of as needed for high speed rail lines. There is no reason to think that if vast sums of money are spent on rail lines for 50 years, as they were spent on airports and highways from 1920 to 1970, that after many decades, a self-supporting operating system could be created from the fixed infrastructure created by the government.

Its always humorous to see the socialistic highway and airport systems defended as the outcome of the free market, and the privately built rail system damned as a bygone oddity.

posted on July 11th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
35 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Andrew:

You are right – and really starting to grasp at straws. The third label does say outlays and out of a $15.4 billion budget the General Fund outlay is $182 million ($179 million + $2 million). Meanwhile, Chicago O’Hare is spending $6.6 billion to realign its runways, about a third of that comes from the trust fund (AATF); the rest comes from the operation of O’Hare. As for the rest of the commercial airports there are about $40 billion in projects going on right now – all paid for from the trust fund and/or the operation of the facilities the projects are associated with – not taxpayers.

As for the TSA, I really don’t get your point. Is security and public safety not a function of government? That’s pretty much what everyone expects from their government, especially after they ignore the recommendations of air carriers in the 1990′s on security. Come to think of it, since they failed so miserably to listen, maybe passengers shouldn’t pay a dime for airport security. Never-the-less, in 2009 there were 695,911,762 enplaned passengers which generated $1.7 billion in TSA revenue alone just in ticket fees. Which other industry contributed that much to the TSA?

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 9:11 am
36 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
By the way, has anyone actually done a demand study on high speed rail? I don’t mean ridership, I mean demand. Is there even passenger demand for this or are we just building something on the hope that people will select an alternative mode of transportation because it’s there. As it is today, there doesn’t seem to be more demand for people flying along the routes that overlap high speed real. In fact, air capacity overlapping the system has been cut back in recent years. I ask because air service along the route won’t go away. America doesn’t have the ultra high fees which give rail and advantage in Europe.

Just a very basic question, because if there is too much air capacity (so much so that airlines have cut back capacity 10-15% from 2008 depending on the region) and ample roadway capacity is available – which is the present case, then rail which presumably compliments air and car would create an overcapacity condition resulting in even worse ridership and an even worse yield environment.

Don’t give me the environmental argument either, an insignificant number of people will chose a mode of transportation based on the environment.

Also Andrew, if aviation were to start from the ground up today they would start with a self funding mechanism because airlines are private corporations so the infrastructure they use would have to be self funded.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 9:25 am
37 On July 12th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

I just don’t think you are reading the document correctly.

Pg. 15 of 80 shows the “Trust Fund” accounting.

The Trust Fund has $12.65B in actual receipts and another bogus $250M in interest receipts (which are really just a payment from general funds since the trust fund doesn’t exist except as an accounting fiction because the money was spent long ago to cover the deficit).

The accounting shows expected sending of $6.046B for FAA operations out of a budget of $9.740B. The only source for the remaining $3.7B is general funds.

Note that this is a huge increase from last year, when the Trust Fund only paid $4B of the $9.7B operations budget. Essentially, Obama is proposing to spend more of the trust fund on the theory that either (a) receipts will go way up or (b) the trust fund should be spent down. Since the trust fund doesn’t actually exist outside a computer, this is really just $2B in additional debt being issued to the public by the US Government, not $2B more being suddenly generated by user fees.

As to the TSA, why should this be a government function? Railroads and public transit systems have their own internal security/police forces. Trucking and bus companies are also responsible for their own security at terminals. Shouldn’t the airlines provide their own security and be liable for damages caused by their operations? Other industries don’t get to socialize these costs among competitors and on the back of the public.

And obviously no other industries contribute much to the TSA because no other industries have any need for the TSA. We don’t have TSA agents at Greyhound terminals because buses cannot be loaded with thousands of pounds of jet fuel and flown into buildings at high speed. Ditto for trains and subways.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 11:20 am
38 On July 12th, 2010, Andrew said:
700 million enplanements and $7B unfunded by users. Why not just increase the taxes by $10 per segment to cover everything? That would result in a $40 mark-up per person on a typical round trip.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
39 On July 12th, 2010, Frank said:
Andrew, Thanks for providing those links and the analysis. I spent a lot of time researching the issue and trying to find the things you uncovered. It sure does seem like airlines are subsidized. I think Randall should recant his claim, use a qualifier, or defend his assertion (with evidence) that airlines are subsidy free.

However, I must take exception to your claim that the railroad system was “privately built”; I’ve argued this point before, but to reiterate:

1. Railroads received massive land grants (more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger than Texas), which economists consider a subsidy.

2. Railroads received loan subsidies, which have been shown to be “twice as large relative to investment costs as the land grant aid.”

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 11:49 am
40 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Andrew. Trust fund revenue is $12.65 billion. System expenses are $9.74 billion. That’s a $2.91 billion surplus Andrew. That’s some kind of new math.
Second, safety and security is a basic function of government. The TSA is a policing force under the Department of Homeland Security – just like the Coast Guard and Customs/Border Patrol. Are we all to pay a monthly fee for the Coast Guard? How about the Border Patrol? I suppose you think the government is going to allow 220 mph trains without passenger screening. =
BTW… If a government fails to enact policies to ensure that planes aren’t hijacked, then the government is liable. Airlines aren’t law enforcement agencies. They have about as much law enforcement ability as a mall cop.

Finally, your assertion that no other industry has a need for the TSA is flat out false as explained here:

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/index.shtm

He hasn’t uncovered anything Frank, he simply regurgitating the rail supporter talking points and misconstruing data.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 11:52 am
41 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Spokker…

Thats the common sense thing to do, but all that will provide a buffer for impending cost over runs. This thing is still $30 billion in the hole financially.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
42 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
And no Andrew, I’m not misreading the budget. Its a budget. It describes expected costs. If there is a shortfall, one of two things has to happen.

A. It has to be reduced.

B. The revenue model has to be adjusted to make up the differnece.

The only viable option B because it is understood that long term the model is broken and that airlines pay a disproportionate share of costs.

This is why re-authorization is taking so long. The FAA wants one funding structure, the Airlines want another and Business Aircraft owners want yet another. Politicians have to find the common ground.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
43 On July 12th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
I still fail to see how CAHSR can go into this thing without such a plan. Like I said, I might even go for some seed money, but I refuse to support a system that does not even come close to covering its true cost. This thing is miles from coming even close to being a financially responsible project regardless ones view on subsidization.

Here is the difference Andrew, and I think this is where we part on views:

If Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco wanted to build three new airports at a total cost of $43 billion, they could not ask taxpayers to foot the bill. They’d have to develop a cost model that makes sure that they make enough to operate the airport and pay down the debt.

Why shouldn’t rail be held to the same standard?

You say, well, the airports are in place so that’s a subsidy. Well, these are new airports, so existing infrastructure does not matter. If I’m not mistaken there are miles of rail in place today to, so that too is a subsidy.

So I ask Andrew, why should rail not be held to the same financially responsible standards as airports? Why no trust fund from ticket taxes? Why no fees for using the terminal?

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
44 On July 12th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Though there also other places along the way from SF to LA.

Any ways what would be a good thing to do in the mean time is extend Amtrak Surfliner service from LA to SF.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
45 On July 12th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains and Frank:

Lets try this once more.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/dot.pdf

FAA’s budget from the link I previously provided includes:

Income:
$12.650 billion income excluding fictious interest payments on the non-existant actual trust fund
$0.050 billion income for non-stop overflights of US airspace

Expenses:
$9.793 billion for operations
$3.550 billion grants-in-aid for airports
$2.970 billion for ATC facilities and equipment
$0.190 billion for R&D
$0.182 billion for Essential Air Services and Rural Airport Improvements

Total expenses (over $16 billion clearly noted on pg. 11 of 80) for the FAA exceed income by nearly $4 billion. As I noted, this does not include the annual operational deficit run up by the TSA’s airline and airport operations.

Others have previously noted that billion’s of dollars were given out after 9/11. The ARRA act also gave out over $1 billion for airport spending from general funds.

As I noted, the overall deficit is not big compared to the airline industry, but it is nontheless a subsidy, and it has been an ongoing subsidy which only recently, 80+ years in to the era of commercial aviation, which has begun to be seriously shrunk in the budget.
There is NO surplus.l

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
46 On July 12th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“So I ask Andrew, why should rail not be held to the same financially responsible standards as airports? Why no trust fund from ticket taxes? Why no fees for using the terminal?”

I agree, the railway ticket tax should be reinstated at a 10% level to help fund passenger rail infrastructure. A trust fund with the receipts and earnings including interest for the ticket and waybill taxes collected from 1942 to 1962 would be worth around $50 billion today. Do you support giving that money back to the passenger rail industry in that manner?

There are no fees for using rail terminals because the railroads (especially Amtrak) own the major passenger terminals themselves. United and Delta don’t own any airports or terminals.
Really, the better question is why the CAHSR is estimated to cost so much. New track, signals, stations, catenary, power systems, minor structures, etc. are $10 million or so per mile for a double track line. That means well north of $30 billion plus is being estimated for land acquisition, grading, and major civil structures (tunnels and bridges). $40+ million per mile to acquire, grade, and clear a 100-200 ft. wide strip of land seems excessive. Its only 12 to 25 acres per mile of line, and most of the line is rural or wasteland – should be under $100,000 per acre which would be $1-2 million per mile. $20 per cubic yard for cuts and fills. If we leave $10 million per mile for structures and tunnels, that’s implying 1.5 million cubic yards of earthwork per mile – I don’t think so.

So where is the cost being run up in California? The French are building Paris-Strasbourg (252 miles) for 4 billion Euro’s including trains. Why is the California system projected at 4 times the cost per mile????

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
47 On July 12th, 2010, C. P. Zilliacus said:
Ryan1200 wrote:

> I’ve done some work with discrete choice analysis and often
> when using stated preference data to derive the choice
> models they include “inertia” factors that are calibrated
> in some manner with revealed preference data. This is, of
> course, where the models can be cooked since some data
> sources may not be applicable to the SP data being analyzed
> (or perhaps no RP data are used at all). So I wouldn’t say
> SP data are necessarily worse than RP data since they can
> be calibrated with reasonable inference and assumptions
> from RP data. I haven’t read the UC paper completely through,
> but if any of the factors in the demand forecast models were
> in fact cooked, then it would likely be the inertia factors.

I am suspicious of stated preference data because there (seems
to me) to be huge potential for using such a survey as
a so-called “push poll” to advocate for (or against) something.

> BTW, first post but I’ve been a regular reader of this blog
> for about a year. Currently finishing up a MS in civil
> at Portland State with a research emphasis in freight
> logistics.

Freight does not (IMO) get enough attention when
transportation policy is discussed.

> As a side interest (I’ve also taken a few urban
> planning courses), I’ve found many of the
> controversies and debates within urban and
> transportation planning to be very fascinating.

Ever heard of Maryland’s under construction Md. 200
(InterCounty Connector) toll road?

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
48 On July 12th, 2010, Andrew said:
Frank:

“Railroads received massive land grants”

SOME (not all) railroads received land grants at a time when the Federal Government had set the price of land at $0 per acre through the Homestead and Mining Acts. The railroads just got more land, not land at a different (subsidized) price. Also, less than 19,000 line miles of line got land grants in a system which at one point totalled near 300,000 line miles. The purpose of the grants was to allow the railroad to help develop the countryside they were traversing to make the land have an actual value. The railroads could hardly make much money off the grants when land was available free inside the outline of the grant as the railroads only received every other square mile in the grants in a checkerboard pattern. The land grants were ended in 1971 at a time when the system had but 50,000 miles of line. The development to well over 200,000 line miles was done without this aid.

Lastly the railroads repaid the land grants over time by providing discount shipping of goods and transportation of employees to the Federal Government for nearly 100 years. This fact somehow is never mentioned by anti-rail partisans who bring up land grants.

“Railroads received loan subsidies”

Again, this was done for SOME early railroads, not all to facilitate construction, and often it was for lines which would be quickly abandoned or privately rebuilt due to the primitive style of construction under government auspices. It would be equivalent to using bonds with tax incentives today in terms of the probably level of subsidy. The vast majority of railroad construction was undertaken by sale of stock and bonds on the open market without any subsidies.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
49 On July 12th, 2010, Frank said:
“SOME (not all) railroads received land grants…”

Including Union Pacific, incorporated by the federal government. Today, Union Pacific (the name and assets having survived bankruptcy) owns and operates more miles of track than any other railroad company.

“Lastly the railroads repaid the land grants over time by providing discount shipping of goods and transportation of employees to the Federal Government for nearly 100 years. This fact somehow is never mentioned by anti-rail partisans who bring up land grants.”

Regardless of whether or not the loans were repaid, the fact remains that they were government loans, financed by taxes. If not a subsidy in your lexicon, it’s definitely government assistance. And it seems to be the point that planesnotrains has been making about loans (bonds) to build airports. No?

I said:

“Railroads received loan subsidies…”

Andrew said:

“Again, this was done for SOME early railroads…”

and

“As I noted, the overall deficit is not big compared to the airline industry, but it is nontheless [sic] a subsidy…”

This is one area where size doesn’t matter, and you can’t have it both ways. A subsidy is a subsidy. Just because not all railroads received land grants, it does not follow that some railroads, particularly the largest companies, did not receive subsidies, financial assistance from the government, whatever you want to call it.

It’s really interesting to see the different characters who comment on this blog claim that their preferred mode is subsidy free, the result of the free market, or free of government intervention. The truth is that all transportation has been subsidized to some degree. It’s too bad that those who comment here can’t see that or recognize the corporatist system we’ve had for more than a century.

posted on July 12th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
50 On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
Frank:

“Including Union Pacific, incorporated by the federal government. Today, Union Pacific (the name and assets having survived bankruptcy) owns and operates more miles of track than any other railroad company.”

Actually, the original Union Pacific went bankrupt TWICE before coming under the control of E.H. Harriman around 1897, who completely rebuilt the railroad with private money from the ground up (literally!) and set it on its modern trajectory of dominance. The modern power of the Union Pacific is very hard to credit to the initial shoddy construction accomplished by the government hired contractors. All they did was lay two streaks of rust through the dirt of the prarie. The entire enterprise was worthless until Harriman rebuilt it with modern construction and technology.

“Regardless of whether or not the loans were repaid, the fact remains that they were government loans, financed by taxes.”

Land grants are not loans and are not financed by taxes. I think you are mixing up forms of assistance. The land grants were a form of free land giveaways which were also available to any other American, just made on a very large scale given the size of the enterprises involved, rather than being limited to 160 acres.

“Just because not all railroads received land grants, it does not follow that some railroads, particularly the largest companies, did not receive subsidies, financial assistance from the government, whatever you want to call it.”

The largest, wealthiest, and most prosperous railroad companies traditionally were those in the “Official Territory” – east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio – the Pennsylvania, the New York Central, the Baltimore and Ohio, etc. These railroads did not receive federal assistance and they comprised most of the industry by revenue, passenger-miles, and ton-miles until 50 years ago. The recent modern dominance of the western transcontinentals and southern roads dates only to the 1960′s and the development of the American sunbelt along with the transfer of population and industrial production from the northeast and midwest to the south and west.

“The truth is that all transportation has been subsidized to some degree.”

Exactly, because it is a legitimate function of the government to tie the country together with arteries of trade, communication, and travel. Hence the directives of the US Constitution for the congress to establish Post roads and regulate commerce among the several states.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 6:21 am
51 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
So Andrew, the FAA doesn’t have its own expenses as an indepedent regulatory agency (which by the way costs about $3 Billion a year)? Is a cop on the street a subsidy? Government has functions that only they can be responsible for as a duty to society. Oversight of rail, and its costs are not a subsidy either.
Giving taxpayer money to rail for construction or giving it money to keep it afloat is.

*****************
Andrew:
I agree, the railway ticket tax should be reinstated at a 10% level to help fund passenger rail infrastructure. A trust fund with the receipts and earnings including interest for the ticket and waybill taxes collected from 1942 to 1962 would be worth around $50 billion today. Do you support giving that money back to the passenger rail industry in that manner?

Amtrak already spent it so all is even.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 9:07 am
52 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 12th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Though there also other places along the way from SF to LA.

Any ways what would be a good thing to do in the mean time is extend Amtrak Surfliner service from LA to SF.
****************

You’re making too much sense…. In my eye, upgrading the surfliner route, extending it, electrifying it and adding higher speed service is $9 billion better spent….

Obviously billions will be spent in California…. Better its spent on something people actually use… I mean, I’m just dying to pack up the kids and jump on the train to go to Bakersfield!!! Anyone with me????

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 9:26 am
53 On July 13th, 2010, ws said:
Rail operates on private lines (that pay taxes) for them and are mostly privately funded. Airlines operate on publicly owned terminals and runways.

Amtrak profits and losses per line:

http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/amtrak/table/

Amtrak has never received more than 2 billion a year from the general fund. FAA routinely gets more annually. The airline industry received billions after 9/11, as well.

http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
54 On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
“the FAA doesn’t have its own expenses as an indepedent regulatory agency (which by the way costs about $3 Billion a year)?”

I’m not sure where you get that number from, or what you think this independent regulatory function is.

“Is a cop on the street a subsidy?”

It is to a firm that no longer has to hire its own security agents because a cop is provided in lieu of that personal responsibility.

“Oversight of rail, and its costs are not a subsidy either.”

The FRA costs a $243M annually for its non-Amtrak functions (safety and reasearch), and collects $50M to offset this. The Surface Transportation Board costs another $25M.

I don’t believe the rail industry ever asked for this regulatory apparatus to be established and limit its freedom of action. Traditionally the railroads performed their own safety oversight and funded their own research and coordinated it among themselves through their trade organization, the Association of American Railroads.

If the FRA went away tomorrow, the rail system would hum right along. I can’t think of any reasons why the FRA is strictly necesssary.

OTOH, movement of planes through the air without the FAA would be a disaster, and the FAA’s predecessors were formed at the request of the aviation industry.

“Amtrak already spent it so all is even.”

If you took the old railway ticket tax money, escrowed it in an imaginary trust fund and paid it interest on imaginary treasury notes deposited in it, and then began to dole it out to Amtrak over time from 1971 to present, there would still be $25+ billion in the account given the earnings power of the early money accrued from 1942 to 1962.

On the other hand, if you took all the airport construction and air traffic control spending from the pre-1970 period and started debiting against a non-existant trust fund and charging that fund interest to be paid back later on the loan of money at those times, you would find that the airline industry is in debt to the government for $10′s of billions if not more.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
55 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:

I’m not sure where you get that number from, or what you think this independent regulatory function is.
*************

Regulatory functions. Writing and enforcing regulation, certification of airlines, pilots and mechanics. Certification of airports. Things that if an airline or airline paid for would create a financial conflict of interest. Things a government should be responsible for.

WS: Airlines operate on publicly owned terminals and runways.
****************

Airports are publicly held for both liability issues and equal protection issues. A private airport is permitted to exclude a class from operating at the airport, a publicly held airport is not. There are private airports that do just that. You’d have anarchy if all airports went private tomorrow. What is your point?

Andrew: OTOH, movement of planes through the air without the FAA would be a disaster, and the FAA’s predecessors were formed at the request of the aviation industry.
***********

The FAA as an air traffic controller could go away tomorrow, be replaced by a private corporation and do just fine. Second, the industry wanted safety oversight, not a hostile takeover which is what politicians did. This is why they fought for deregulation.

If the FRA went away tomorrow, the rail system would hum right along. I can’t think of any reasons why the FRA is strictly necesssary.
**********

Now you’re really full of it. No oversight of rail? Surely you are joking. Then again, no one actually uses it so maybe you’re right.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
56 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
It is to a firm that no longer has to hire its own security agents because a cop is provided in lieu of that personal responsibility.
**********

Are you suggesting the only security at an airport is the TSA? If so I have swamp land you might be interested in buying. Airlines and airports spend bilions on security and police services outside of passenger screenign provided by the TSA. In cases where airports don’t have their own police force, they pay rediculous amounts of overhead costs to local police (and fire) departments thereby subsidizing local government, usually on the order of 120 to 150% of direct costs. In comingled fund cities, billions were tranfered from cash rich airports up until the late 1990′s to pay for stadiums, parking structures and convention centers before the government cracked down on the abuse – nearly sending several to jail in Detroit. So who is subsidizing who?

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_lrd_002.pdf

Except
for many small airports, most U.S. commercial airports
are self-sustaining, with revenue collected from businesses
(concessionaires), passengers, and airlines covering
most airport operating expenses. In fact, about half
of the smaller commercial airports (nonhub primary
and nonprimary commercial service airports) in the
United States do not break even. Likewise, most general
aviation airports are subsidized by their owners.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
57 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
From the above link – Page 4:

“… once built, an airport must earn sufficient
revenue to pay its operating expenses and retire its
debt. Revenue comes from a number of sources, including
rents, aeronautical fees, concessions, and parking.8
Operating costs include expense items such as interest
and depreciation or amortization on debt, taxes, and
maintenance and administrative costs, including salaries,
power, and repairs.”

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
58 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Andrew:

United and Delta don’t own any airports or terminals.
****************

No, but they lease the property from the airport at market rates.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
59 On July 13th, 2010, Spokker said:
Looks like the COO of Jet Blue is getting fired.

http://consumerist.com/2010/06/jet-blue-flying-from-nyc-to-boston-is-stupid.html

“I may be shooting ourselves in the foot here, with five daily flights from JFK to Boston. But it just may not make that much sense for an airplane on a 150-mile route to fly over 300 air miles to get there. Maybe there’s a different mode of transportation that may be better to carry those customers from point A to point B.”

Or is he…? Here’s a piece of an interview with Jet Blue’s CEO: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/JetBlue-chief-says-airlines-high-speed-rail-can-coexist-98219504.html

“Do you see nationwide high-speed rail as a threat or complement to the airline industry?

It’s a complement. I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.”

*strokes beard suggestively*

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
60 On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“Now you’re really full of it. No oversight of rail? Surely you are joking.”

The FRA’s regulations are mainly a series of safety regulations which the railroad industry already accepted and practiced. The primary safety function in the rail industry is performed by the railroads themselves as a matter of quality control. The FRA acts as an agent of quality assurance – i.e. it fines railroads and workers who are not following their own procedures which the FRA has adopted as their safety requirements by performing random audit checks.

“Are you suggesting the only security at an airport is the TSA?”

Well, the only security on a railroad is its own police force! Local police and fire generally will not enter the property until escorted by the railroad police because of concern for their own safety.

Before the TSA existed, the airlines were required to provide their own security. 9/11 shows us how diligent they were in this. Congress stepped in to save the industry from lawsuits that would have rightly ruined these negligent copmanies and left all their assets in the possession of their victims.

The airline industry has diligently spent decades blaming the US Government for its own shortcomings when it comes to hijackings and bombings to the point where people simply accept this as the natural course of things. We would never accept a railroad or trucking line that blamed the US Government for its own failure to secure hazardous materials in its cargo manifest, or that allowed trains and trucks to be comandeered and crashed through lax control of their vehicles and control systems.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
61 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:

Before the TSA existed, the airlines were required to provide their own security. 9/11 shows us how diligent they were in this. Congress stepped in to save the industry from lawsuits that would have rightly ruined these negligent copmanies and left all their assets in the possession of their victims.

The airline industry has diligently spent decades blaming the US Government for its own shortcomings when it comes to hijackings and bombings to the point where people simply accept this as the natural course of things.
*******************

You have just clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what aviation security is about today or how it was structured before 9/11.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
62 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 13th, 2010, Andrew said:

We would never accept a railroad or trucking line that blamed the US Government for its own failure to secure hazardous materials in its cargo manifest, or that allowed trains and trucks to be comandeered and crashed through lax control of their vehicles and control systems.
***************

Yet high speed rail supporters stress the time benefit of not having to go through security when comparing themselves to air travel. Sounds to me like you’re willing to do just that.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
63 On July 13th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 13th, 2010, Spokker said:

I don’t think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles.”
**********

Someone should tell him there are less than 100 such flights and they’ve declined from 150 a day just 10 years ago. Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.

posted on July 13th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
64 On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“Yet high speed rail supporters stress the time benefit of not having to go through security when comparing themselves to air travel. Sounds to me like you’re willing to do just that.”

And what, pray tell, would be the benefit of airport style screening of rail passengers?

With this sort of comment I have to wonder, have you ever ridden a train? Do you understand how trains operate? What threat would require intensive security theater?

“You have just clearly demonstrated that you have no concept of what aviation security is about today or how it was structured before 9/11.”

Before 9/11, airlines were required by the FAA to screen passengers and baggage on their own (meaning that in theory they should be liable for breechs of their own security which causes damages and injuries), and did so by contracting out control of access to their gates to private security companies.

With this comment, I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever fly before 2001? Having been a flier since around 1976, I can certainly attest to a very long history of travel in airports in the old days.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 5:55 am
65 On July 14th, 2010, Spokker said:
“Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.”

Is recession-level travel demand going to last forever?

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 9:26 am
66 On July 14th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 14th, 2010, Spokker said:
“Sounds like travel demand is falling between the very markets HSR is being set up to serve.”

Is recession-level travel demand going to last forever?
*************

We’ve been in a recession for 10 years? The flights were declining before the recession. Here are the daily flights between the bay and LA by year:

2000 142
2001 142
2002 115
2003 107
2004 107
2005 103
2006 100
2007 100
2008 96
2009 81
2010 78

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 9:57 am
67 On July 14th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:

And what, pray tell, would be the benefit of airport style screening of rail passengers?
******************

Signed,

Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

And we are a much bigger target than Spain.

On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:

Before 9/11, airlines were required by the FAA to screen passengers and baggage on their own (meaning that in theory they should be liable for breechs of their own security which causes damages and injuries), and did so by contracting out control of access to their gates to private security companies.
***************

Using guidelines enforced by the government that the airlines felt were insufficient, yet the Goevenrment made them adhere to because of concerns about profiling and illegal search and seisure.

On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:

With this comment, I have to ask, how old are you? Did you ever fly before 2001? Having been a flier since around 1976, I can certainly attest to a very long history of travel in airports in the old days.
******************

With over 20 years of experience in air transportation (airlines and airports), I’m 100% certain I’ll at one time forget more than you will ever know about air transportation.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 10:04 am
68 On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

Security theater would only have stopped people from boarding the train. But anyone can get up on to train tracks almost anywhere and cause mischief.

The point of railroad security is not to keep people off the right of way, which is almost impossible given its extent, but to inspect the right of way regularly and identify and detain suspicious people, and to operate the system such that it self detects common acts of sabotage (i.e. broken rails cause a red signal which stops the train).

If we are a much bigger target, why no strikes against the US rail system?

“Using guidelines enforced by the government that the airlines felt were insufficient”

So you are saying the airlines consciously participated in a process they believed corporately was flawed and dangerous to their customers? This excuse is why they had to be immunized from lawsuits for 9/11.

One simple post 9/11 change that would have made 9/11 impossible – securely locking cabin doors that are made unbreachable by design – didn’t require a federal mandate to accomplish did it? Why wasn’t it done after the first few hijackings in the 1960′s? Hijackers can’t comandeer a plane that they can’t enter the cockpit of.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 11:44 am
69 On July 14th, 2010, Scott said:
That reduction in flights between The Bay & LA could be because of larger planes or higher % filled. Passenger count is needed. It is likely thought that passenger count has dropped, but maybe not quite as the # of flights.

Regardless, amount of flights seem small for 2 major UAs. A big item touted by the SHR proponents is the airport capacity. I have not read the portion of airports devoted the cities in question. Perhaps because when it’s realized that <5% of flights are involved, that item will be dropped.

Also, the # of flights, 78-142, is a small amount to try to replace with $50+ billion of new capital. The CA HSR passenger estimate is incredibly high, equal to more than each CA resident taking a round-trip every year.

The timeliness is exaggerated, in that other transport modes are still need to get to/from the train station vs the airport. Door-to-door should be considered, for each.

Security will (or should) be taking about as long as at the airport. The risk & likelihood could even be worse on the trains. There is also danger of track sabotage & just regular damage.

It's strange to go back to old methods. Trains replaced wagons & canals. Airlines replaced trains, for personal travel (not most goods) in the 1950s. It's ridiculous to go backwards.

The conditions in other countries, that "allow" for HSR, do not exist in the US–mainly, density, in UAs & overall (much space between UAs).

Why do proponents ignore the US reality example of the Acela?
The amount of people who want to travel between UAs is just not very high. It’s strange that proponents are try to encourage longer commuting as a benefit–inducing travel.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
70 On July 14th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Scott; It’s strange to go back to old methods. Trains replaced wagons & canals. Airlines replaced trains, for personal travel (not most goods) in the 1950s. It’s ridiculous to go backwards.

THWM: Roads have been around for millenia & I don’t think you’re going to stop using your horseless carriage any time soon.

Nahum 2:4
“The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall jostle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightning.”

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
71 On July 14th, 2010, Scott said:
Highman, that’s you true, but adds nothing to the discussion.
What’s your point?

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
72 On July 14th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:

If we are a much bigger target, why no strikes against the US rail system?
***********

Because no one rides it, therefore, there is no significant psychological impact. De-rail a 200 mph train heading into a major city, and its a whole different situation.
++++++

On July 14th, 2010, Scott said:
That reduction in flights between The Bay & LA could be because of larger planes or higher % filled. Passenger count is needed. It is likely thought that passenger count has dropped, but maybe not quite as the # of flights.

The peak was in 2001 at 5.4 million passengers. In 2009 it was 3.8 million.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
73 On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
The passenger count is probably dropping because you should be able to make the drive door to door faster than you can fly, especially if you need to rent a car on the other end.

Short distance flights make little sense when it comes to actual travel time compared to just using a car.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
74 On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott:

“The conditions in other countries, that “allow” for HSR, do not exist in the US–mainly, density, in UAs & overall (much space between UAs).”

Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong. The size and population density of either France or Spain, for example, is near that of the US from New York State south to Virginia and east through Ohio EXCLUDING New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. While California is smaller than those places, it is just as dense. So are Illinois and Michigan without the peninsula. Florida is denser!

France – 211K sq. mi., 279 people/sq. mi.
Spain – 195K sq. mi., 201 people/sq. mi.

California – 159K sq. mi., 232 people/sq. mi.

Florida – 66K sq. mi., 338 people/sq. mi.

New York – 54K sq. mi., 408 people/sq. mi.
Pennsylvania – 46K sq. mi., 274 people/sq. mi.
Virginia – 42K sq. mi., 194 people/sq. mi.
Ohio – 44K sq. mi., 256 people/sq. mi.

Illinois – 57K sq. mi., 223 people/sq. mi.
Lower Michigan – 41K sq. mi., 237 people/sq. mi.

I’m constantly amazed at how ignorant people are of the vast size of Europe and the actual density of the larger US states. Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic is roughly the same size as the continental US + Mexico + the border strip of Canada, and is only marginally more populated (730M vs. 450M). People seem to have it in their heads that Europe is tiny and people are packed in like sardines.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
75 On July 14th, 2010, Frank said:
“Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic is roughly the same size as the continental US + Mexico + the border strip of Canada, and is only marginally more populated (730M vs. 450M).”

Europe is larger than the Continental United States, it’s true. (“Marginally” more populated? Ha. Only if 61% more is “marginal”. Distort much?) Europe’s population density is almost twice the Continental United States. Exclude Scandinavia and Russia, and you’ve got a smaller area than the US with a much higher population density.

Not taking a position on the claims attached to this. Just trying to rectify geographic and statistical distortions.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
76 On July 14th, 2010, Frank said:
“We’ve been in a recession for 10 years?”

Yes, after 9/11 and the dotcom bubble burst, a recession began, but the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. It’s like giving drugs to an addict. Thing seemed ok for a bit, but the crash was much worse than it would have been.

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
77 On July 14th, 2010, Scott said:
Andrew, the density figures that you listed are irrelevant.
I already covered that in my original post.
Regional densities (states) don’t have much meaning.
I really don’t want to take the time to fully explain why your reasoning is flawed.
Take a group of people, obese & bulimic. According to you, they are all healthy because the avg BMI is okay.
I’ll give you a hint: Look at the major UAs in Europe, their density & how far apart they are.

In Illinois, where [from Chicago] will you go, for medium distance? Twin Cities, Detroit, St. Louis.
How many travel between?

posted on July 14th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
78 On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott:

“Europe is larger than the Continental United States, it’s true. (“Marginally” more populated? Ha. Only if 61% more is “marginal”. Distort much?)”

61% more? Or 38% less? 38% less doesn’t sound like as much a difference does it? Distort much? That’s why I gave actual population – 730M vs. 450M.

“Europe’s population density is almost twice the Continental United States.”

I was discussing the CONUS+Mexico+the Canadian border region. Density is roughly 180 in Europe vs. 110 for that.

“Exclude Scandinavia and Russia, and you’ve got a smaller area than the US with a much higher population density.”

Okay, do that, and density is 308 per sq. mile.

The eastern US without its unpopulated corners of Maine and Mississippi plus California and you’ve got a smaller denser North American area too – 233 per sq. mile.

No one is proposing high speed rail across Wyoming and Montana. Where it is being proposed, the average overall population density is the same as in France and Spain.

“I’ll give you a hint: Look at the major UAs in Europe, their density & how far apart they are.”

Paris-Berlin – 700 miles
Hamburg-Vienna – 680 miles
Paris-Madrid – 790 miles
Milan-Naples – 480 miles
London-Munich – 720 miles
Copenhagen-Brussels – 680 miles

Was this the point you were trying to make, or am I picking the “wrong” city pairs?

European and American Metro Areas (sample – European ones are somewhat hard to get land areas for the Metros)

Paris – 12M, 5600 sq. mi.
Madrid – 6M, 4000 sq. mi.
Berlin – 5M, ~5000 sq. mi.
Rhine-Rhur – 11M, 3500 sq. mi.

New York City – 19M, 6700 sq. mi.
Chicago – 9M, 10800 sq. mi.
Philadelphia – 6M, 4600 sq. mi.
Miami – 6M, 6100 sq. mi.
LA – 15M, 5000 sq. mi.

I’m really not seeing this huge qualitative difference in size and densities either.

“In Illinois, where [from Chicago] will you go, for medium distance? Twin Cities, Detroit, St. Louis. How many travel between?”

In 1995, it was around 1 million round trips each per year. Surprisingly to many, midwest regional travel is not that high in number.

In California and Las Vegas, by way of comparison, there were 50 million round trips between the major cities in 1995. That is more than the 45 million round trips in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Norfolk.

If the relatively non-high speed trains of the northeast have 1/6 of the total travel market, its not unreasonable to think real high speed trains in California could get 1/4 of the market (25 million trips).

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 7:28 am
79 On July 15th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 14th, 2010, Andrew said:
The passenger count is probably dropping because you should be able to make the drive door to door faster than you can fly, especially if you need to rent a car on the other end.
*****************

Even on the worst day, air travel is faster than a car will ever be.

On July 14th, 2010, Frank said:

Yes, after 9/11 and the dotcom bubble burst, a recession began, but the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates. It’s like giving drugs to an addict. Thing seemed ok for a bit, but the crash was much worse than it would have been.
***************

I gather its more indicative of the lack of a manufacturing base in California. That and much of the traffic 10 years ago was connecting traffic that now bypasses Los Angeles and San Francisco instead going to Denver, Phoenix and Salt Lake City.On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:

If the relatively non-high speed trains of the northeast have 1/6 of the total travel market, its not unreasonable to think real high speed trains in California could get 1/4 of the market (25 million trips).
***********

There aren’t 25 million trips.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 8:33 am
80 On July 15th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Total 2009 Air Passengers between the points which will be served by CAHSR:

13.2 million a year. (Source: BTS Data, December 2009)

HSR would have to capture 100% of all air travel on the route to even have a chance of meeting their projections, which will not happen because over 60% of those passengers are connecting to other flights where rail is at a disadvantage because it will be easier to clear security at the small airport and connect at LAX or SFO than it will to get of off the train, transfer to the airport, then go into crowded LAX or SFO to clear security.

Andrew: In California and Las Vegas, by way of comparison, there were 50 million round trips between the major cities in 1995. That is more than the 45 million round trips in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Norfolk.
**********

That’s nice, but this system will not include Las Vegas. You take Las Vegas out of that and the market is cut to less than half.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 8:55 am
81 On July 15th, 2010, Scott said:
Andrew, the European Union is triple the density of the contiguous US.

In the comparison, for France & Spain, take that population of 110 million, there is not a similar area in the US that has that many people.

Do those Euro-city pairs have HSR? Are there comparable pairs in the US? Rarely in the same state–that’s part of the reason why state densities are irrelevant, and not interconnected, being wide clusters.

Metropolitan areas (whole counties in the US) give a poor indicator of density because of rural area included. Part of the point about UA density (& the core too) is for the # of people near a HSR station. The public transport network within those UAs is important too.

Of those 5 US city-pairs shown, only one is medium distance, w/the others being over 1,000 miles apart.

For Chicago, you mentioned that travel to nearby major cities is low, <million. So, no HSR needed.

I question the 50 million round-trips (between major cities) in CA & NV. An indication of it being wrong is that the Northeast corridor has a smaller amount of trips, while there are more people at closer distances there. Over once/capita? I'm guessing that's mostly by car. A big portion of that is for Las Vegas. More tax $ for people to take vacations?

People still need transport to & from each station & around the visiting city, plus (vs car) there's the extra time to/from each station & time in lines.

Your estimate for CAHSR trips is 1/3 of the agency's. And LV is not a destination.

Check out the HSR maps.You’ll see smaller distances between more major cities.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 9:25 am
82 On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott and PlanesnotTrains:

This is the raw travel data from that 1995 BTS survey. Number of trips listed is total round trips by all modes between metropolitan areas. Trips to the Las Vegas or Reno areas are 14 million of 51 million total round trips. Since high speed rail is being proposed to Las Vegas, it certainly doesn’t seem unreasonable to consider the 11+ million round trips made from LA and San Diego to Vegas.

Los Angeles Sacramento 1,631,660
Sacramento San Diego 302,194
Los Angeles Salinas 356,898
Los Angeles San Diego 10,466,883
Los Angeles San Francisco 7,049,954
Los Angeles Santa Barbara 2,036,605
Sacramento San Francisco 5,337,613
San Francisco Stockton 475,895
Salinas San Francisco 677,352
Salinas Santa Barbara 341,478
San Diego San Francisco 2,415,188
Fresno San Francisco 571,533
San Diego Santa Barbara 362,563
San Francisco San Francisco 335,487
San Francisco Santa Barbara 399,637
Bakersfield Los Angeles 1,135,519
Fresno Los Angeles 1,070,261
Los Angeles Modesto 694,280
Fresno Stockton 451,925

Las Vegas Los Angeles 9,120,296
Las Vegas San Diego 2,213,871
Las Vegas San Francisco 418,797
Reno Sacramento 644,983
Reno San Diego 344,230
Reno Stockton 324,960
Reno San Francisco 1,704,123

Since California and Nevada have grown considerably since 1995 (over 10%), these numbers are probably low today by at least 5 million round trips.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 10:31 am
83 On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott:

“In the comparison, for France & Spain, take that population of 110 million, there is not a similar area in the US that has that many people.”

France+Spain = 109 million people, 406,000 sq. mi.

MA+CT+RI+NY+NJ+DE+PA+OH+IN+IL+MI+VA+NC = 117 million people, 401,000 sq. mi.

For good measure, you could add the 48 million people and 200,000 sq. mi. of SC+GA+FL+Lower Ontario+Lower Quebec if you were so inclined. That would give a total land area a little larger (~40K sq. mi.) and population just a little smaller (15 million less) than Italy, Spain, France, and Potugal combined. That small 10% gap in population would probably be closed by the time a system was up and running.

So if high speed rail is justified in France, Spain, and Italy based on density and size, does that also make it justified between Montreal and Miami and Boston and Chicago?

We can do this all day.

Germany – 138,000 sq. mi., 80 million people.
NY(w/o Adirondacks)+RI+MA+CT+NJ+DE+MD+PA+OH+DC – 150,000 sq. mi., 70 million people.

So are we justified in building a German style rail network crisscrossing Boston to Cincinatti and Buffalo to DC?

Do you really just not know what you are talking about with respect to American and European geography and population distribution?

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 11:10 am
84 On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“There aren’t 25 million trips.”

You are right. There were 102 million one way trips between major metros in CA and NV in 1995. That is a very big market, with most of it being in personal cars.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 11:12 am
85 On July 15th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 15th, 2010, Andrew said:

You are right. There were 102 million one way trips between major metros in CA and NV in 1995. That is a very big market, with most of it being in personal cars.

***********

CAHSR doesn’t go to Nevada, so your point is…. Pointless. It also doesn’t go to other cities you mention like Santa Barbara and Reno. Nevermind the fact that your data is 15 years old and completely useless to the discussion.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
86 On July 15th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Using your numbers, when you factor out the Nevada routes that are nothing more than paper trains you drop to 32,972,642. Going further, when you add the reality that the extension to San Diego is unlikely to ever be built you lose another 13,148,265.

Sad really when your theoretical demand for 102 million gets crushed down to a paltry 19.8 million. Assuming a 100% capture, which as noted will never happen, primarily because this thing doesn’t go anywhere near LAX where it could theoretically take advantage of connecting traffic like it does at multiple airports in Europe.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
87 On July 15th, 2010, Scott said:
Andrew,
Good job at selecting states to total similar amounts.
To be more of a coherent polygon, 6 other states should be included.
That doesn’t mean much though.

For the 3rd time, the density relevance is on UAs & distance between. Look at the extreme, suppose state & country densities were uniform–the same # of people in each sq.mi. That would make any kind of centralized transportation, useless.

That trip data shows a small amount of travel. Certainly not enough for $50+ billion. What % of those will go to HSR & what % of all travel? The cost per passenger-mile is incredibly high. The energy & emissions difference is mostly negligible, maybe worse.

Look at Amtrak. Very low passenger count. A slight decrease in time will not make much difference.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
88 On July 15th, 2010, Scott said:
The EU actually doesn’t have much HSR. Many lines are below 140 mph.
On the map, for routes 140mph+, I see 4 major cities as hubs (none connected) with few lines & major cities as destinations.
Madrid to 1) Seville 2) Barcelona
Paris to 1) London 2) Amsterdam 3) Brussels 4) Lyon & Marseilles
Milan to 2
Rome to 2

To really do a comparison analysis, look [in a list] at the major UAs & the distances, for the US & those in the EU, which have HSR routes.

In addition to denser urban areas, at closer distances, don’t forget that in the EU: more tourism; Europeans seem to visit more; fewer have cars; heavy gov subsidization; extra gas tax; smaller freeway network; etc. Plane tickets might cost more, not sure.

How about Japan? Even much denser.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
89 On July 15th, 2010, Scott said:
Here’s a map to visualize the UAs in the US
That might help you get away from your preoccupation with chosen political boundaries & their average density.

posted on July 15th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
90 On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

“CAHSR doesn’t go to Nevada, so your point is…. Pointless.”

DesertExrpess high speed rail does, and the ultimate build-out plan of both includes linking them up.

“It also doesn’t go to other cities you mention like Santa Barbara and Reno.”

The Amtrak northeast corridor doesn’t go to Long Island or Loudon County or northwestern suburban New Jersey, but people ride to/from those places on it regularly.

“Nevermind the fact that your data is 15 years old and completely useless to the discussion.”

If you have newer BTS data, please share it. It would undoubedtly only show an even larger market.

“Sad really when your theoretical demand for 102 million gets crushed down to a paltry 19.8 million.”

That should be 39.6 million one way trips. You need to keep the numbers consistent between either one-way trips or round trips.

I don’t agree that the San Diego extension is a pipedream. Obviously that is the line with the highest potential demand, and the lowest costs per rider. Normally, it would be what should be built first.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 5:41 am
91 On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott:

“Good job at selecting states to total similar amounts.”

Thank you. You said it couldn’t be done, so I wanted to show you that it could, and could in fact be much larger than what you asked for with Florida and Ontario.

“For the 3rd time, the density relevance is on UAs & distance between.”

Fine, the northeast US is the same size and density as France. The French system forms a cross with Paris being an offset center. Boston-Norfolk is the same distance as Lille-Marseilles. Strasbourg-Bordeaux is somewhat longer than Philadelphia-Detroit. This suggests that we could “mimic” the French system in size and results by building Boston-Norfolk, NYC-Buffalo-Cleveland-Cincinatti, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Detroit.

“What % of those will go to HSR & what % of all travel?”

As I pointed out, Amtrak northeast corridor ridership+intercity ridership on the commuter railroads is about 1/6 of the total travel market. I don’t believe these services have been optimized by price to maximize ridership.

“The cost per passenger-mile is incredibly high.”

Do you mean per annual passenger-mile? Assume for a second that the whole system was built for $50 billion, including the private Las Vegas proposal, and that 25 million one way trips are captured with an average distance of 200 miles. That’s 5 billion passenger-miles per year, so sunk capital costs are $10 per annual passenger-mile. I agree that seems high.

What is your upper limit on cost per passenger-mile?

“The energy & emissions difference is mostly negligible, maybe worse.”

I really don’t care about environmentalist issues. But if this is important to you, you should note that much of the power for Amtrak’s northeast operation comes from Susquehanna River hydropower, which is essentially “free” and “zero emissions”. California could be powered the same way if that were important.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 6:22 am
92 On July 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Andrew, You seemed to missed the sarcasm & the point that you “cherry-picked” states to arrive at comparable totals.
To be fully literal in finding an area & population the size of France & Spain, one would need to overlay it’s ~figure-8 shape on the US. Of course that’s not necessary, but a rectangular or elliptical shapes would suffice. You chose contiguous states, but in a hodge-podge, like gerrymandering.

Still, that’s not really the point. Look at how close the population centers are. And secondarily, as I briefly stated, how many people in each UA are likely to travel to a HSR station, based upon time & convenience.

You seemed to have proven that rail won’t work well in the US by pointing out some UAs sets similar to France. See, in capitalism, if there is a need to be paid for, businesses will provide. Rail used to be predominantly private & had much higher ridership. There are more efficient ways to transport.

Are there cities in the US comparable to stations for the TGV that, that could achieve a sufficient ridership, while covering costs? Again, Amtrak should be a gauge & that fails.

The Acela should “optimize price”? How? Meaning? If prices are lower, people will purchase more? How brilliant. Seriously, you’re being ridiculous. Do you think that Acela has a huge surplus? More riders carries more costs. Sure, base capital can be amortized over higher numbers, but there are limits. To cover costs (fixed & operating), any HSR will have to be 2-3 times the cost of Acela.

Adding LV to the CA HSR will raise price way above $50 billion. regardless, it’s good you realize that the capital cost is very high.

HSR is often touted as having big savings in energy & emissions. False. I didn’t state “caring”. Selecting a certain power source is flawed. When there is a grid, that is inaccurate. One can easily say that certain rail gets power from coal & the homes get power from hydro. Even with energy sources directed at certain uses, if there was not “X” user, then “Y” sources could be cut.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 9:38 am
93 On July 16th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
DesertExrpess high speed rail does, and the ultimate build-out plan of both includes linking them up.
+++++
DesertExpress is vaporware at this point and it’s still irrelevant because you’re trying to use its ridership to justify demand for the CAHSR system which does not include DesertExpress.
—
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
The Amtrak northeast corridor doesn’t go to Long Island or Loudon County or northwestern suburban New Jersey, but people ride to/from those places on it regularly.
++++
Apparently you are geographically challenged. Do you even know where Santa Barbara is in relation to the nearest HSR station? Its 2-3 hours smart guy.
—
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
If you have newer BTS data, please share it. It would undoubtedly only show an even larger market.
+++++
First, it’s not undoubtedly an even larger market. I’ve already demonstrated it has fallen using not only 2000 BTS data but also 2009 BTS data.
—-
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
That should be 39.6 million one way trips. You need to keep the numbers consistent between either one-way trips or round trips.
+++++
Wait, so now you claim a one way trip automatically means a round trip? You’re full of it.
—-
On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
I don’t agree that the San Diego extension is a pipedream. Obviously that is the line with the highest potential demand, and the lowest costs per rider. Normally, it would be what should be built first.
+++++
The San Diego leg is a pipe dream over and above the $34 billion initial expense. CAHSR only threw them a bone to get votes. Per the results, San Diego clearly saw threw this heaping pile of crap.
—-

Give up Andrew. Your data is flawed, your analysis is flawed and you’ll say and do anything to make HSR look viable. Just like CAHSR.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am
94 On July 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Oh, for TGV routes, you already did mention some cities. I mean elaboration, in figs for riders, distance, population, density, stations, alternatives, tourists, etc.
Of course, that’s a big order & not expected to be fully answered.
But the original point is that there are big differences between the EU & the US. Urban density is still a big factor. Again, on your selection of the US Northeast Corridor (BosWash) have negative results for HSR.

Another thing to consider, that I brought up recently, is that not that much of EU rail is really high speed.
That actually casts more serious doubt on rail in the US, because the claim is made that Amtrak ridership is not comparable because of low speeds, but in the EU there are many riders at moderate speed.

Conclusion: the elasticity [of riders to speed] is low, in the US; in the EU, people still ride rail, being mostly indifferent to speed.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 10:19 am
95 On July 16th, 2010, Scott said:
One can pick withing these agglomerations, to find a possible need, within cost, for HSR, but not realistic.
Now go between those regions, it’s too far & even more cost-prohibitive.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 10:32 am
96 On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
Scott:

“One can easily say that certain rail gets power from coal & the homes get power from hydro. Even with energy sources directed at certain uses, if there was not “X” user, then “Y” sources could be cut.”

Power stations making 25 Hz power are making it specifically for the northeast rail electrification system. There are no other signficant users of that type of electricity. The plants were built specifically to sell power to the Pennsylvania Railroad.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
97 On July 16th, 2010, Andrew said:
PlanesnotTrains:

Most of what you’ve written is not worth responding to at this point. More bluster and less substance by the post. But I will address the following:

“First, it’s not undoubtedly an even larger market. I’ve already demonstrated it has fallen using not only 2000 BTS data but also 2009 BTS data.”

You showed trips taken on a plane have dropped, not overall travel between the regions. I suspect trips on the plane have dropped because more people are driving (or riding a bus or train), having decided that the time spent driving to/from the airport and waiting to board the plane and sitting on the taxiway plus actual flight time is equal to the or near enough the time to just drive I5 straight to where they are going.

“Wait, so now you claim a one way trip automatically means a round trip? You’re full of it.”

No, I pointed out the BTS data said 51 million ROUND trips between the city pairs I noted. That is equal to 102 million ONE-WAY trips. I had to convert the nuumber because ridership of planes and trains is normally given in one way trips.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
98 On July 16th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
Andrew,

As I stated, intrastate flying has declined because people now have access to connecting hubs outside the state and are less dependent on LAX and SFO to get places. It does not mean more people are driving or taking the train. What it does mean is that the level of travel demand along the route proposed for HSR has declined because people no longer have to go to LAX or SFO. People who drive do so for a reason -> mobility on arrival. Air Fares are already cheaper than driving and that doesn’t divert anyone, neither will rail.

And no, you said 102 million trips and then ran off a list of cities that aren’t within 200 miles of a proposed HSR train station to boost your numbers. When you deduct your bogus cities, the count drops to 19.8 million. Then you tried to double that number.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
99 On July 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Andrew, I’m guessing that you’re kidding now, that there is a certain type of electricity, only for railroads made over a century ago, which is relevance for unbuilt HSR.

I’m guessing too that you have dropped your objections because you realize that rail habits could not be developed by people in the US as in other countries.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
100 On July 16th, 2010, Spokker said:
I cum for high speed rail. Government subsidized loads all over my high speed train.

posted on July 16th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
101 On July 17th, 2010, Andrew said:
“you said 102 million trips and then ran off a list of cities that aren’t within 200 miles of a proposed HSR train station to boost your numbers. When you deduct your bogus cities, the count drops to 19.8 million. Then you tried to double that number.”

The city pairs below total 51 million ROUND trips per the BTS data = 102 million ONE-WAY trips. I’ve broken them up by the main line and various spurs. Please note the list does not include city pairs with less than 300,000 round trips, therefore, total travel from these cities is higher than is shown, and it does not include travel to more rural areas near these cities. The LA-SF-SD-Sacramento system proposed has nearly 33 million round trips on its own ignoring any spurs or exterior travel to non-system points.

Main Line LA-SF – 11.534M round trips
Los Angeles San Francisco 7,049,954
Bakersfield Los Angeles 1,135,519
Fresno Los Angeles 1,070,261
Los Angeles Modesto 694,280
Salinas San Francisco 677,352
San Francisco San Francisco 335,487
Fresno San Francisco 571,533

Spur to San Diego – 12.882M round trips
Los Angeles San Diego 10,466,883
San Diego San Francisco 2,415,188

Spur to Sacramento – 7.928M round trips
Los Angeles Sacramento 1,631,660
Sacramento San Diego 302,194
Sacramento San Francisco 5,337,613
San Francisco Stockton 475,895
Fresno Stockton 451,925

Desert Xpress – 11.753M round trips
Las Vegas Los Angeles 9,120,296
Las Vegas San Diego 2,213,871
Las Vegas San Francisco 418,797

Spur to Santa Barbara – 3.141M round trips
Los Angeles Santa Barbara 2,036,605
Salinas Santa Barbara 341,478
San Diego Santa Barbara 362,563
San Francisco Santa Barbara 399,637

Spur to Reno – 3.016M round trips
Reno Sacramento 644,983
Reno San Diego 344,230
Reno Stockton 324,960
Reno San Francisco 1,704,123

I would insist on including spurs off the main high speed route because just like is done in Europe (and also on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor), high speed trains in California would eventually serve those places either via connections, or via through trains that exit the dedicated high speed tracks and run to their final destination on shared trackage.

posted on July 17th, 2010 at 8:39 am
102 On July 17th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Andrew, SCOTT LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT!

If it weren’t for big government he wouldn’t have FREEways along with a network of other socialist roads to drive on. =)

posted on July 17th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
103 On July 18th, 2010, Scott said:
Highman loves double standards & generalized exaggeration & false postulates?

Big gov is not needed for roads.
A limited gov is sufficient to provided protection & basic, general infrastructure.

Big gov has redistribution, from the the producers to specific groups. That’s not even close to roads.

Highmy, you’re again making the false binary of big gov or no gov.

There are tollways that are freeways. The freeways are free of traffic lights, being grade-separated. Most areas call them expressways. Interstates mostly fit to, but those are a certain type of freeway.

Would you prefer that freeways are fully user-funded, say by a $0.50/gallon higher gas tax? That would be just.
Property taxes pay for certain related infrastructure, such as local roads. Buildings cannot exist without roads.

You must be against public education & all sorts of other gov programs for the general population.

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 8:40 am
104 On July 18th, 2010, Andrew said:
the highwayman:

What constantly amazes me is the unblinkering support given by the supposed advocates of the free enterprise system to a transportation system where:

1) the government owns the means of transportation (roads and airports)

2) the government controls all movement on those means (traffic signal systems and air traffic control)

3) the government tightly controls your personal movement on those means (licensing of drivers for roads, airport security control)

4) the government tightly controls the private vehicles available to move on those means (registration of motor vehicles and airplanes, annual testing of vehicles for permission to continue using your supposed private property, private vehicles confiscated at the drop of a hat for trivial invented offenses like overparking a meter or driving without insurance).

Its all quite Orwellian when you step back, consider first principles of liberarianism, and examine the actual system for what it is. Slavery = Freedom.

What is truly disturbing to me as a libertarian is that the advocates of this system of transportation lobbied for it and created it with raw government power when there was already a parallel privately owned system of personal movement created by the free market – the railway, interurban, and trolley systems.

Roads for example, are presented as some sort of natural outgrowth of free enterprise supplanting the railroad, when in reality, private roads of the 1700′s and 1800′s were uniformly a financial failure superseded by the private rail system.

The most hypocritical part is that the true first advocates of this modern transport system of roads and planes who thoguht the whole thing out to its modern logical conclusions were committed socialists like Le Corbusier, who wanted it to create a system of waste to provide employment for people in jobs that would not exist without the motorized highway system and people racing about 20+ miles back and forth to work every day.

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 9:34 am
105 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Scott; Would you prefer that freeways are fully user-funded, say by a $0.50/gallon higher gas tax? That would be just.

THWM: Yo douche tard, GAS TAXES ARE NOT HIGHWAY USER FEES, THEY ARE TAXES ON GAS!

Tolls are highway user fees.

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
106 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:
Andrew said:
the highwayman:

What constantly amazes me is the unblinkering support given by the supposed advocates of the free enterprise system to a transportation system where:

1) the government owns the means of transportation (roads and airports)

2) the government controls all movement on those means (traffic signal systems and air traffic control)

3) the government tightly controls your personal movement on those means (licensing of drivers for roads, airport security control)

4) the government tightly controls the private vehicles available to move on those means (registration of motor vehicles and airplanes, annual testing of vehicles for permission to continue using your supposed private property, private vehicles confiscated at the drop of a hat for trivial invented offenses like overparking a meter or driving without insurance).

Its all quite Orwellian when you step back, consider first principles of liberarianism, and examine the actual system for what it is. Slavery = Freedom.

What is truly disturbing to me as a libertarian is that the advocates of this system of transportation lobbied for it and created it with raw government power when there was already a parallel privately owned system of personal movement created by the free market – the railway, interurban, and trolley systems.

Roads for example, are presented as some sort of natural outgrowth of free enterprise supplanting the railroad, when in reality, private roads of the 1700?s and 1800?s were uniformly a financial failure superseded by the private rail system.

The most hypocritical part is that the true first advocates of this modern transport system of roads and planes who thoguht the whole thing out to its modern logical conclusions were committed socialists like Le Corbusier, who wanted it to create a system of waste to provide employment for people in jobs that would not exist without the motorized highway system and people racing about 20+ miles back and forth to work every day.

THWM: I’m all for civil liberties, though I’m also for civil responsibilites.

People like O’Toole, Cox, Scott, Karlock, etc. aren’t really libertarian as much they are fascist & conformist.

They’ll tread on your liberty as fast as they can!

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
107 On July 18th, 2010, Scott said:
Highmy,
As normal you have avoided most of points.
You are stuck on semantics & did not contradict me though.
Reread your post.

Let me explain how gas taxes are user funded fees.
People drive cars, buy gas & drive roads.
There are very few user-type fees/taxes in gov.
It would be more just to have much more spending related to use.
Lawnmowers, snowmobiles & such are inconsequential.

There is a difference on tax money paid/per vehicle mile, but that is good to favor higher mpgs.

Pleas try again on the topics & questions that you missed.
Hey, are you still studying for a GED?
Or have you given up since your Stanford-Binet score is too low to be let out?

Oh, why do you equate roads as big gov?
It’s only 3% of all gov expenses?
Would you be happy if all travel was monitored & one had to pay accordingly?

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
108 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:
So Amtrak costs you as a taxpayer less than a Big Mac, a fry & a drink at McDonald’s a year.

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
109 On July 18th, 2010, the highwayman said:
The road infront of your home is there regarless if you drive on it or not and is paid for by property taxes. In some places instead of taxes people could provide labor instead for local road work at one time.

Gas taxes are sales taxes on gas, so gas burned on property taxpayer funded roads/streets is then a subsidy for expressways.

Tolls are user fees, not gas taxes.

Though gas taxes make more sense as carbon taxes now.

posted on July 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
110 On July 19th, 2010, Scott said:
Highmy,
What about Amtrak? All the wasteful gov spending adds up to many meals/capita & many more private jobs.

What’s your point about roads existing?
As I said, structures cannot exist without roads.
Think about the construction & the occupants’ needs (ie goods delivery).
It doesn’t matter if there are a few that don’t drive.
Should non-parents not have property taxes paid for schools?
That’s much higher than road expenses. Just because you somehow avoided public school doesn’t meant that others should.

Not sure how you can understand that gas taxes are suppose to be for the purpose of paying for the roads, paid for by users.
You avoided answering the question about people paying for each mile of road & sidewalk by monitoring.

posted on July 19th, 2010 at 8:17 am
111 On July 19th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 17th, 2010, Andrew said:
The city pairs below total 51 million ROUND trips per the BTS data = 102 million ONE-WAY trips. I’ve broken them up by the main line and various spurs. Please note the list does not include city pairs with less than 300,000 round trips, therefore, total travel from these cities is higher than is shown, and it does not include travel to more rural areas near these cities. The LA-SF-SD-Sacramento system proposed has nearly 33 million round trips on its own ignoring any spurs or exterior travel to non-system points.
Spur to San Diego – 12.882M round trips
Desert Xpress – 11.753M round trips
Spur to Santa Barbara – 3.141M round trips
Spur to Reno – 3.016M round trips
I would insist on including spurs off the main high speed route because just like is done in Europe (and also on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor), high speed trains in California would eventually serve those places either via connections, or via through trains that exit the dedicated high speed tracks and run to their final destination on shared trackage.

++++++++++++
There is no “spur” to San Diego, there is no “spur” to Santa Barbara, there is no “Spur” to Reno and DesertExpress does not exist, nor are any such spurs or systems included in the current cost of the system – as such, the ridership is irrelivant. Therefore, your suggestion that they are relevant is disingenuous and intentionally done to skew facts.
In other words, you are a liar. Chew on that for a while.

posted on July 19th, 2010 at 10:12 am
112 On July 19th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 18th, 2010, Andrew said:
What constantly amazes me is the unblinkering support given by the supposed advocates of the free enterprise system to a transportation system where:
1) the government owns the means of transportation (roads and airports)
2) the government controls all movement on those means (traffic signal systems and air traffic control)
3) the government tightly controls your personal movement on those means (licensing of drivers for roads, airport security control)
4) the government tightly controls the private vehicles available to move on those means (registration of motor vehicles and airplanes, annual testing of vehicles for permission to continue using your supposed private property, private vehicles confiscated at the drop of a hat for trivial invented offenses like overparking a meter or driving without insurance).
************
1. Local government owns airports to ensure full access to everyone. Tthe means of air transportation – a private, not public form of transportation – are owned by private persons and/or private corporations.
2. The government controls the movement or aircraft in the airspace and on some airports which are public use to ensure a safely functioning mode of transportation with adequate government oversight.
3. The government ensures the safety of passengers who use the air transportation system, it does not control the movement of persons nor does it set schedule, routing or price.
4. The government regulates the safety of air commerce; it does not tightly control what is available. Anyone can order and aircraft at anytime and start and airlines provided the aircraft is certified to standards established to ensure public safety and the aircraft is operated by qualified and competent crew members.

posted on July 19th, 2010 at 10:23 am
113 On July 22nd, 2010, the highwayman said:
Though open access with rail lines would be a good thing in the USA.

posted on July 22nd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
114 On July 22nd, 2010, the highwayman said:
PlanesnotTrains said: There is no “spur” to San Diego, there is no “spur” to Santa Barbara, there is no “Spur” to Reno and DesertExpress does not exist, nor are any such spurs or systems included in the current cost of the system – as such, the ridership is irrelivant. Therefore, your suggestion that they are relevant is disingenuous and intentionally done to skew facts.

THWM: Just as 30mph arterial roads feed trafic to 60 mph expressways, it would be the same sort of thing with HSR. Trunk lines with 200+ mph track conditions, with trains continuing on to or coming from lines with 80 mph track conditions & etc.

posted on July 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
115 On July 22nd, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
On July 22nd, 2010, the highwayman said:

THWM: Just as 30mph arterial roads feed trafic to 60 mph expressways, it would be the same sort of thing with HSR. Trunk lines with 200+ mph track conditions, with trains continuing on to or coming from lines with 80 mph track conditions & etc.
***********

1. Not included in the cost, therefore irrelivant.
2. No one in their right mind will take a three hour train ride to connect to a 2 hour train ride to cover what they can in their car in 6 hours or by air in 2.

Use some common sense.

posted on July 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
116 On July 24th, 2010, the highwayman said:
PlanesnotTrains said: 1. Not included in the cost, therefore irrelivant.
2. No one in their right mind will take a three hour train ride to connect to a 2 hour train ride to cover what they can in their car in 6 hours or by air in 2.

THWM: People are not changing trains, they are through running.

posted on July 24th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
117 On August 4th, 2010, PlanesnotTrains said:
THWM: People are not changing trains, they are through running.

********

There are no through trains from the cities he mentions. Santa Barbara, Reno and San Diego are not in the budget – there is no funding for LOSSAN. DesertExpress doesn’t exist and there is no funding. Furthermore, Santa Barbara and Reno aren’t even part of the proposed system. Therefore, you will have to connect from a slow regional train or bus to HSR.

posted on August 4th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
118 On August 15th, 2010, the highwayman said:
The French have even coupled diesel locomotives to TGV sets to bring service to rail lines where there wasn’t even electrification yet.

posted on August 15th, 2010 at 1:10 am