Not a bad bet considering the current travails of its nearest substitute:
DALLAS - Southwest Airlines Co., which had resisted the kinds of capacity cuts being made by other carriers, will eliminate nearly 200 flights early next year as it struggles with high fuel costs and a weakening economyI don't have a detailed cost-benefit analysis of whether or not this is in the money, but given that there are no longer passenger air services between Paris-Brussels as it is outcompeted by high speed rails, My guess is that a LA-SF rail line will be cost competitive as well.
According to CHSRA, SFO-LA would take about 2.5 hours, which, accounting for customs etc, is pretty time-competitive with respects to air travel.
22 comments:
I see a lot of problems with high-speed rail bond.
1 hour flight time between SFBay and LA is significantly less than 2.5 hours train travel time.
off the top of my head, some things to consider.
1. this in no way addresses cargo at the ports. It's trucks that clog up the 710, and the ships still chug out the dirtiest fuel right in the heart of the LB harbor.
2. many people make a day commute to the Bay Area for business. out at 7 a.m., arrive at 8, leave at 5 or 6, back at 7 or 8.
even high speed rail adds 3 hours to this round trip.
3. I'm really concerned about the environmental impacts and costs associated with building this.
4. there are much more critical pressing issues in California than a N-S highspeed rail line.
Such as -- protecting the state's water supply, which will need massive public funds to do so.
don't support just because it sounds good. read the fine print, read what critics have to say
what's also needed. money from L.A. mass transit, money for L.A. highways.
High speed rail?
Four L.A. area airports,
three Bay Area airports, + sacramento
serving passengers.
I have to see the language, and the arguments, but for now, $9 billion bond measure... not the right time when so many other infrastructure and transportation needs are more pressing.
The 1 hour flight from SF to LA is less than the 2.5 hr train ride... until you add in the airport check-in time, at which point HSR wins
interestingly enough,
the los angeles times had a report on the woeful state of California's state parks. $1.2 billion.
and that bond measure approved a few years back.. was only a few million dollars
some people say that investing in rail is racist because expensive, underutilized rail takes money from buses (heavily utilized by the poor). that's valid but naive about how effective transportation systems get off the ground.
region rail transport MUST happen and be part of a fully integrated system in LA. that said, "LA-SF high speed rail" is not part of that package. it sounds sexy but it's a distraction from more pressing problems in our state.
California chamber of commerce has come out today to oppose the bond.
http://www.calchamber.com/Headlines/Pages/CalChamberAnnouncesPositionsonNovemberBallotMeasures.aspx
interesting too in that the governor and the chamber, at least business-wise agree on many issues. Schwarzenegger supports this bond measure.
what also bothers me is the legislature altered this last minute, and it's going to make the election more costly.
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/story/1201850.html
LAT Sacto columnist George Skelton on Prop 1A:
"Bullet Train would be grand, but can we afford it?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap27-2008oct27,0,336890.column
He likes it, but also notes that:
"The bullet bonds would drain money from other general fund programs: education, healthcare, welfare, prisons, parks.
Also, while all Californians would pay, only those living along the line could easily ride."
"Also, while all Californians would pay, only those living along the line could easily ride."
All public projects have that characteristics. Why should I pay for airports when I don't live anywhere near it?
As for finance issue. This is actually a good time for the government to issue a bond because you'll get a lower rate now than during a boom time. If you wait until you're flush with money, then there is an actual issue taht you might crowd out private investment.
No? No so much.
The SacBee runs "conversations" with proponents and opponents of the state's ballot measures.
here's one person opposed to the project.
http://www.sacbee.com/740/story/1323641.html
someone who has advocated for high-speed rail lines, but sees several problems with this proposal. (two proponents are linked too)
The basic point is he believes the project's travel times and ridership estimates are exaggerated, and underestimating its cost and environmental impact.
The SacBee Editorial Board is also opposed to it for similar reasons
http://www.sacbee.com/324/story/1299709-p3.html
PROPOSITION 1A
Summary: Would provide nearly $10 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail network that would initially link the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.
Why we oppose it: Since this proposition was placed on the ballot by lawmakers, it meets one of our tests. Yet until California fixes its chronic budget deficits, it can't afford to increase its debt for projects that, while desirable, are not of vital necessity. In addition, the rail system that supporters are touting may not be as high-speed as advertised. Potential conflicts with freight service lines could make trains slower than those found in Europe or Japan.
This is a tough call. The state needs clean alternatives to air travel and freeway travel, and the Central Valley needs the economic development that could result. But if it passed, this proposition would take $647 million annually from the general fund that, without a tax increase, would have to come from other services. That's money the state can't promise. Vote "no"
This first concern is legit: whether or not the ridership estimates is too high.
The second concern- that it will take away future cashflow, so what?. All bond measures do that. If this infrastructure improves the economy, it would pay for itself via higher economic growth.
then what are your thoughts about the speed estimates?
let's look at the map from the Yes on Prop 1A campaign.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm
forget about all the other data, except for the 418-mile distance between LA and SFO (not even downtown SF) stations.
Now if the train goes 200 mph, that entire distance, no time for getting up to speed and slowing down, just that speed the whole way. okay that's 2 hours and about 5 minutes. Now there are nine station stops between SF and LA. if the train is at each station for only 10 minutes each (I think this is generous. that's an additional hour and 30 minutes.
So now we're at 3 hours and 35 minutes from downtown LA to SFO.
1. Okay, now you know the train can't go 200mph the whole way. it has to go at a slower pace at least between LA and Sylmar, and again at San Jose all the way up the SF Peninsula.
2. 200 mph seems generous, if it's say 180 mph, again at a constant speed the whole way no stopping from right as you get on, that trip is now 2 hours 32 minutes.
you say so what if it takes away money from the state budget. you say that infrastructure will pay for itself with via higher economic growth.
Well, what if we build a system that is completely underutilized?
This still does nothing for regional traffic problems. In fact, it could worsen it. adding major inter-regional transit stations in downtown L.A., Burbank, Norwalk, City of Industry, Sylmar, Irvine and Anaheim... that would add even more cars in these particular areas.
wouldn't it be better for the state to invest in high-speed broadband wireless access for all, increasing ability to telecommute?
Wouldn't it be better for the state to invest in a dedicated truck corridor from the ports to the Inland Empire, taking truck traffic off the road?----
Oh, and this has to pass through the San Gabriel Mountains through Antelope Valley, the Tehachpi Mountains... AND through Pacheco Pass? With a combination of tunnels and cuts? How can the costs stay down, and that touted travel time stay down too?
Given that 200 mph train already exists and that this is a long term project, I don't see why you can't have a 200 mph train in California by 2050.
And the time estimates are of course for nonstop routes, it makes sense to stagger non-stop routes with trains that make regular stops.
So I'm not all that convince about the actual severity of those two objections.
As for the possibility that it might increase localized congestion, keep in mind that you are also decreasing congestion around airports, as well as congestion through bottlenecks such as 5 out of LA. So it's not certain that you'll have a net increase in localized congestion.
And even if it is, so what? Every project plan will have some sort of a localized drawbacks. LAX increased congestion around the area. We accept it because it improves mobility on the aggregate.
Finally, I'm not sure if building a dedicated truck corridor makes sense. Your land requirement will be far higher and more expensive, and I am not sure that it would be all that beneficial.
So what do you think a realistic time LA to SFO time would be with a 200 mph train?
Do you think 2.5 hours, as the Prop 1A campaign says it will be, realistic? considering all the info I just gave? again at 200mph, straight, accelerate at immediate start, immediate stop, no stops, is at 2 hours 5 minutes.
1. has to pass at slower speeds through through LA and SF urban areas.
2. has to pass up three mountain ranges. has a few tight turns too.
3. multiple stops.
and what total travel time would start to be unreasonable? 4 hours?
there's already a rail corridor btw, from the ports to downtown L.A., it's called the Alameda corridor. a truck corridor to the IE, would be worth a look.
The main point, there are signs that this expensive project will under-perform to claims, raising questions about how wise it would be to invest billions of precious state and federal funds.
especially when there will be critical major statewide infrastructure projects that need to be funded.
Is high-speed rail an attractive option for Californians as travelers? Yes.
Is THIS proposed high speed rail project an attractive project for the state to invest money, time and land in? especially, considering what the real costs, real travel times, and real ridership counts will be actually be? No.
Here's another opinion,
in the San Francisco Chron:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/07/EDB913D4MU.DTL
The California Rail Foundation has been a vocal advocate for high-speed rail, but this project frankly doesn't pass the smell test. In this year of global market meltdowns, voters should be cautious about a financially-leveraged proposal like Prop. 1A. The numbers don't add up and the High-speed Rail Authority refuses to explain how the system it proposes can be financed.
The California Legislature, wanting answers to its financial questions, demanded that the rail authority present a business plan by Sept. 1, and wrote that mandate into the initiative. At its Oct. 1 meeting, rail authority staff complained about legislative pressure and indicated it would not comply. Lehman Bros., the rail authority's financial adviser, is apparently out of business and unavailable to write the business plan. How can taxpayers trust the rail authority with $20 billion, given this record?
To promote the project, the rail authority made wild claims about ridership, energy and pollution benefits. It based its claims on a prediction that 117 million passengers will use this service annually, dwarfing the 29 million using Amtrak nationwide today. Amtrak's high-speed train, Acela, carries only 3 million annually.
No European high-speed train comes close to the rail authority's claimed performance. France's best route, the TGV-Southeast had 17.5 million passengers in its 10th year of operation, and 12 million of those passengers used trains before high-speed service started. How could California trains instantly outperform European trains that link larger populations and benefit from superb transit connections?
The rail authority claims that the project will have no operating deficit, but the legislative analyst says the operating cost would be about $1 billion annually, and suggests a portion of this cost would have to be subsidized. Where would the money for this subsidy come from? The danger is that it will come from draining state public transit funds that support existing bus and train networks.
Millions of Californians, ourselves included, sincerely want high-speed rail. The problem is that a vote for Prop. 1A only guarantees billions of dollars will be spent. High-speed trains may never run, as the revenue bond is only a small fraction of the total amount required. The rail authority's idea is apparently to start a very big hole in the ground, then come back and ask for $30 billion to $70 billion more from taxpayers. Federal funding, following the Wall Street bailout, is as unlikely as private investment.
Rather than digging California deeper into high-interest bond debt, we favor improving rail using the federal railroad infrastructure loan fund. It has $34 billion available, but does require project advocates to demonstrate that they can repay the loans from revenues. Prop. 1A has no such guarantees.
Energy costs are causing us all to think more locally, and that is good. Few Californians have trouble getting from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Many have trouble getting from home to work. First priority for public spending should be to improve existing rail routes and highways, and help ease the chronic congestion that plagues commuters each day.
Let's not get taken for a high-speed ride by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and its slick promoters. In today's tough economic times, the last thing we need is more debt for yet another badly conceived project. Join many rail supporters and vote no on Prop. 1A.
Anything under 4 will make it competitive, epecially given al the hassles of going to and from airports.
There's no hassle going from the airport if you have no checked bags.
You get off the plane, then go to the transportation option of your choice and your on your way.
And why would there be that much less hassle on the train, versus plane?
you will likely still have to pass through some kind of security, or at least a bottleneck.
still to be answered -- frequency.
LA has five airports, Bay Area has three. between Jet Blue and Southwest, there are 39 flights on a weekday, before noon. from LA, to the Bay Area. And this doens't even count Sacramento, an important destination due to it being the seat of government.
What has not yet been answered, how many trains, how frequent they travel.
the _low_ estimate by the proponents is 88 million riders per year -- roughly 241,000 riders per day. (whoa!)
The Chunnel ridership was grossly overestimated and still today, years after its opening, is still woefully below projections.
here's one guy's argument for voting for them.
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-fi-lazarus2-2008nov02,0,3310321.column?page=2
An LAT columnist who's for it, quoting a state transportation expert:
"There's a risk that a bullet train could turn into a white elephant," said Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. "It doesn't make sense in a lot of ways. Nobody knows what ridership would be. But we've got to do something."
"I'm torn," Sperling said. "As a transportation analyst, I would say it doesn't make sense. There's no business plan to make any of this successful. On the other hand, we're heading toward 50 million people and we want to reduce oil imports. This is one way we can do that.
"Sometimes," he concluded, "you just have to have faith."
It's a huge hassle even if you don't have bags. I had to fly out to PHX for a day on a monthly basis. I had to get there 1.5 hours in advance to get in line, clear security, and wait for clearance to take off. It takes about an hour to fly, then it takes another 30 minutes get off teh tarmac. That's 3 hours without any check-ins.
this has been trending down
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2293.pdf
In July 56% of voters said yes, with 30% no and 14% undecided.
Now it's down to 47% yes, with 42% opposed and 11% undecided.
more than likely, it's the economy that's taken it down, this was supposed to be on the ballot a few years back and kept getting pushed back and pushed back
I concede that ridership estimate is a legimtimate concern.
However, the Paris to Brussel line is a more appripairte analogy.
Which doesn't makes sense, you should spend money when the economy is down and save it when it's not.
This is the reason I thought it was a bad idea that high schools such as SPHS was spending all that money to primp up itself during the late 90's- they would have gooten a far cheaper deal if they had simply saved the money and start it today.
I don't know if Paris to Brussels is as good analogy. it's 180 miles, about about three hours by car from Paris to Brussels
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=paris+to+brussels&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.682395,67.851563&ie=UTF8&z=8
you mentioned previously that this shut down flights..
well this is about L.A. to San Luis Obispo distance. Car is almost a better option than rail.
Now.. if HSR can take on cars... well, I might have voted for it.
you need to find two major cities about 400 miles apart -- say Washington DC to Boston type distance -- where high speed rail has alleviated traffic in the air, and on the roads.
Post a Comment