Why the 241 Toll Road makes the argument for high speed rail

Lately, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, who own and manage CA-241 and certain other toll roads, have been using a new website to promote extending the 241 south. Of note is this particular claim:

Extending the 241 will ease traffic on Interstate 5 by creating an alternative route for the hundreds of thousands of motorists a day who travel between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Without the toll road, travel from the San Diego/Orange County border to Mission Viejo will take one hour in 2025. With the toll road constructed, the same drive on Interstate 5 will take 25 minutes and only 16 minutes on the toll road. The 241 is also expected to take pressure off Interstate 15, currently used by many driving from eastern Orange County into San Diego County. The 241 Toll Road will carry thousands of vehicles that would otherwise be clogging neighborhood streets and Interstate 5.

This is highly interesting and applicable to the high speed rail program and conventional intercity travel for Southern California. Such a level of congestion would make even the current Pacific Surfliner route significantly faster for travel from Orange County to San Diego as well as the high speed rail route (however, travel from Orange County to San Diego is liable to be faster along the current Surfliner route due to the backtracking to Los Angeles and inland route; currently Irvine to San Diego is comparable according to Amtrak schedule and CAHSR Trip Planner, upgrades currently in the works and reasonably foreseen by 2025 would put the Surfliner in the lead).

Given the previous failures of the 241 to extend south, as originally intended, and its lack of actual connection to Mission Viejo, it is doubtful that they will succeed in this current venture, and such high levels of traffic congestion and delays will occur. If, however, Orange and San Diego Counties are able to cooperate on expanding rail service, increasing average speed, and cutting delays, intercity and commuter rail should prosper well and take the place that the 241 cannot.

Reasonableness of high CA HSR ridership projections

Those opposed to high speed rail projects in America, especially that of California, frequently deride the ridership and revenue projections for high speed rail projects, proclaiming that people will not abandon cars or planes for rail trips that are, respectively, more expensive and lengthier (in terms of pure transit time). As a result, the high speed rail system will turn out to be nothing more than an expensive boondoggle.

The reality, however, is quite different. Let's take just a single corridor for comparison, Los Angeles to San Francisco, without considering intermediate destinations. As such, we can refer to this as the California Express service. The primary market which will be attracted to switching over to rail travel from their current journeys is the air market. This is the market that already places a premium on speed of travel and has the disposable income to purchase a ticket. While automobile travel between the regions is equal to the air travel (Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions, page 37), we can assume that the increased marginal costs of travel by air or rail are sufficient to dissuade them from traveling on these modes, especially if they are doing so by group. The current rate of increase for gasoline prices, however, may change this situation by the projected opening of the CAHSR system in 2020.

Utilizing the Los Angeles World Airports flight schedule, we can see the daily flights between LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and Long Beach airports and the San Francisco and Oakland airports. For purposes of this post, we will assume that 70% of the seats are filled, on average, and that there are an equal number of flights departing San Francisco and Oakland to return to these airports. On Sunday, April 24th, there are 168 flights leaving the Los Angeles area for the Bay Area, 120 such on Monday, 184 on Tuesday, 70 on Wednesday, 100 on Thursday, 191 on Friday, and Saturday the 30th completes our examination with 60 such flights. A cursory examination of the information indicates the large majority of the flights to be Boeing 757s and 737s, which we will use as representative of the flights. Examination of a few selected flights at SeatGuru shows airplane capacities between 137 and 184 passengers, so we will use 160 as our average representative aircraft.

We have therefore, an assumption of 100,016 weekly and 5,200,832 annual passengers from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, or a total round-trip of 10,401,664 passengers (this is a simplistic analysis, however, and more professional ones indicate around 8 million such trips). How many might we expect to divert to rail from the air market? The experience of European high speed rail systems indicates that, should the California system successfully attain its mandated transit time of two hours and forty minutes, it's air-rail market share should for 60-85% of the joint market.

Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions, page 36

However, even within the context of America, we find plenty of support for the belief that such a high percentage of the market can be obtained by rail in competition with air. In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak holds 49% of the Boston-New York air-rail market and 63% of the New York-Washington, D.C. market (ibid., page 43). In the case of Boston, this is with the fastest trains taking 3:35 to complete the journey and most trains over four hours while air travel along the route averages 1:15-1:30 minutes. Nor is Amtrak significantly cheaper if the journey is pre-purchased, with numerous flights two months in advance being available for $69 one way while the four hour trains start at $49 and Acela trains starting at $99 (however, all Acela seats are at least business class). Similarly, in the case of Washington, the Amtrak journey times range from 2:45 to 3:30 with prices starting at $49 and $139 while the air journey times are 60-90 minutes, however with prices starting at $79 and only a few in that range; most air fares are approximately $119.

Given that flight and rail times are directly comparable for Washington to New York, it seems evident that the California high speed rail system should attain at least that 63% share and quite possibly higher. In such a case, we would see 6.5 million passengers along solely the California Express service. With airline fares averaging $99 between LAX and SFO for a two month advance purchase ticket, not counting various fees and surcharges, annual revenues could easily equate to some $650 million dollars if the high speed rail system chose to charge a direct equivalent to airline fares. As airlines continue to raise fares in the face of oil price increases, the room for higher rail ridership and revenue marches steadily higher as well, raising the specter of a billion dollar per year revenue line simply from the express trains. Indeed, that may be the more reasonable assumption for 2020 given oil and population growth trends.

Even should fares be discounted compared to airline fares, it seems evident that, based upon comparisons with rail operations in Europe and elsewhere in America, the first phase of the high speed rail project should easily maintain sufficient ridership to generate an operating surplus.

CAHSRA to apply for $1.2 billion in rejected Florida funds

Via the Merced Sun-Star:

High-speed rail may come to Merced sooner than expected, as the California High Speed Rail Authority will announce today it's asking for $1.2 billion in funding that was rejected by Florida.

If the request is approved, it would mean the first phase of track will run from Merced to Bakersfield. Also, instead of building a station just in downtown Fresno, stations will be built in Merced and Bakersfield. The authority is also looking at building a station in Tulare County.

"This is very good news for Merced," said Mayor Bill Spriggs on Sunday afternoon. "The City Council has always supported high-speed rail. We were disappointed when the Corcoran-to-Borden route was announced."

"If we get a portion of Florida's money, we'll able to complete the entire backbone of the project," Jeff Barker, deputy director of the rail authority, told the Sun-Star Friday.

In December, after receiving federal money from canceled high-speed rail projects in Wisconsin and Ohio, the authority announced it was building the first leg from Shafter to Borden. That was quickly dubbed "the train to nowhere" by some critics and disappointed advocates.

The application deadline is April 4 for the $2.43 billion that Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott turned down. Barker said the state will provide a 30 percent match from state Proposition 1A funds that will bring the total to more than $1.7 billion.

"We already have $5.5 billion to start construction from Borden to Shafter," he said.

Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, who wrote Proposition 1A, which voters approved in November 2008, said "It's not a question of whether were going to get the money, but how much."

The staff will make its recommendation to the authority's board Wednesday.

"With the extra money we think we can do one of two things," Barker said: Extend the track to south of Bakersfield to at least Te-hachapi or build the track 39 miles beyond the triangle at Chowchilla toward Los Banos and San Jose.Laying the "keel" of the high-speed rail in the Valley, Galgiani said, "gets us closer to getting private money on the table. It signals to the private investment community that we are serious."

FL DOT: High speed rail would have been even more profitable than expected

High-speed rail is profitable, study says

TALLAHASSEE -- Three weeks after Gov. Rick Scott put the brakes on high-speed rail, the Florida Department of Transportation on Wednesday released a study showing the line connecting Tampa to Orlando would have had a $10.2 million operating surplus in 2015, its first year of operation.

The study showed the line would have had a $28.6 million surplus in its 10th year.

The numbers are more optimistic than a 2009 study, which concluded the line would have not seen an operating surplus until 2021.

The $1.3 million study, conducted by the forecasting firms Wilbur Smith Associates and Steer Davies Gleave, shows the line would have had 3.3 million riders in its first year. The previous analysis predicted the line would have had 2.4 million riders in 2015.

Scott, who last month cited concerns about operating losses due to low ridership when he decided to kill construction of the project by rejecting $2.4 billion in federal money, dismissed the ridership study results.

“I had been briefed on their ridership study and I looked at other ridership studies and I’m still very comfortable with the decision I made that I don’t want the taxpayers of the state on the hook for the cost overruns of building it, the operating costs or giving the money back if it’s shut down,” he said.

He said he made the decision based on a verbal review of the ridership study, as well as documents provided by the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Scott said he feared the 84-mile line would be a burden to Florida taxpayers, even though private vendors had indicated they would be willing to cover any operating losses or construction cost overruns, and federal officials said Florida would not have to repay the $2.4 billion if the project failed.

A spokeswoman for Scott said he doesn’t trust the studies.

“The governor has said all along he believes ridership projections for this and other rail projects are overestimated,” said spokeswoman Amy Graham. “Numerous studies support this conclusion.”

Wilbur Smith Associates, one of the companies that conducted the study, is a transportation and infrastructure consulting firm founded in 1952. It has 56 offices in eight countries, according to the company’s website.

Steer Davies Gleave has 16 offices worldwide, including locations in Boston and Denver according to its website.

The sunny numbers came way too late for rail proponents, who criticized Scott for turning down the money before all the information was available.

“Now we see more evidence that shows just how profitable high-speed rail would have been,” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa. “Private firms had been clamoring to bid on Florida’s high-speed rail initiative. Now, unfortunately, because of the governor’s rigid ideology, these private companies will look to other states. The jobs and economic benefits will follow.”

Sen. Thad Altman, R-Melbourne, who unsuccessfully fought Scott’s decision in the state Supreme Court, said he doubts an earlier release of the ridership study would have made a difference to the governor.

“His conclusion was political, not based on economics, good business or even protecting the taxpayers,” Altman said. “As time passes and more information comes out, you can see the injustice that was done to the state of Florida.”

In the wake of the study, Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is clinging to the idea that the line could be built.

“I still have a sliver of hope that common sense and the facts will prevail,” he said.

Others, though, want to just let the matter go.

“Frankly, it’s Day 2 of session,” said House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. “That issue, unless the governor changes his mind or does something differently, is behind us. So we’ve got to move forward.”

A poll conducted by the Tampa Chamber of Commerce shows that 59 percent of Hillsborough County registered voters support a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa to Orlando. The survey questioned 400 voters likely to participate in the November 2012 election between March 2 and 6 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is expected to announce by the end of the week which states will receive Florida’s money. According to an attorney for the governor, the state had already spent about $110 million on the project when Scott announced that he did not want to go forward with it.

Again, we can see that Rick Scott's decision to cancel the project was entirely political in nature rather than being founded in actual concern over cost overruns and state subsidies.

Florida High Speed Rail Funding Withdrawn

It looks like high speed rail in Florida is dead for the time being

About $2.4 billion in federal funds for a high-speed rail project in Florida will go elsewhere after the state's Republican governor rejected the deal out of hand, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on Friday.

LaHood said the Obama administration was pulling the plug on the financing after speaking with Rick Scott, Florida's Tea Party-backed governor, Friday morning in a last-ditch attempt to win his approval.

The money, which many Floridians hoped would bring thousands of jobs to a state burdened with record-high unemployment, would now be spent in other parts of the country, LaHood said.

"I know that states across America are enthusiastic about receiving additional support to help bring America's high-speed rail network to life and deliver all its economic benefits to their citizens," LaHood said in a statement.

Under LaHood's offer, Washington would have paid for all but $300 million of the $2.7 billion high-speed line. The project was originally approved in late 2009 by former Governor Charlie Crist and by state lawmakers, who set aside funds to finance the state's share.

Scott rejected LaHood's offer at least three times, saying the state could not afford it and, if the line were built, taxpayers would be responsible for operating losses. The Tampa-Orlando line would be the first phase of a longer line to Miami at a cost of billions more.

"Put simply, the proposed high-speed rail line is far too uncertain and offers far too little long-term benefit for me to consider moving forward and ultimately putting taxpayers at risk during an already challenging fiscal climate," Scott had written in a Feb. 16 letter to LaHood.

All hope is not lost however. Given the bipartisan backlash against the rejection of the rail funds, it is almost certain that it will be a major issue during the next election and will probably serve as an important element of his downfall. While the program will now be delayed by a few years, there is nothing inherently preventing it from being funded again in the near future, and in the meantime, the money will most likely turn into valuable upgrades on the Northeast Corridor and in extending the California high speed rail system.

Korea's high speed rail kills several airports

High Speed Rail Has Basically Killed A Dozen Airports In South Korea

Eleven of the 14 airports managed by the Korean Airports Corporation lost money in 2009 and 2008. Several are ghost airports with no regular flights. Still more developments were suspended and never completed.

KAC is now trying to sell these loss-making airports, according to JoongAng Daily, putting Cheongju Airport on the market after it lost $5.1 million in 2009.

How did South Korea end up with all of these useless airports?

First, local governments keep building giant infrastructure projects, including empty airports and empty office buildings.

Second, airports can't compete with the new high-speed rail network, which travels from one end of the country to the other in less than three hours.

This story should terrify airlines (and automakers) everywhere. And you wonder why high-speed rail gets blocked in America.

Because of the long distance nature of many of the flights, it's rather unlikely that you would see the same effect upon American or even simply Californian airports, but this does show that high speed rail will dominate the short distance regional market. In turn, this will free us from the need to add capacity or build additional airports at tremendous expense and cut down on pollution, through which we prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs.

If Bill Nye is for it, it must be good

Ok, this one is pretty much just tongue in cheek, but even Bill Nye is for high speed rail.