Martin is right to question what the range of fares may be–and as we’ve seen with Deutsche Bahn’s and the SBB’s efforts, among others, it may not be as simple as “just one fare” or “one set of fares.” If things move forward with a carbon tax, that may further alter the car/train/plane cost balance. There’s plenty of uncertainty to go around.

On the Peninsula (or for that matter, the Tri-Valley), where could the train alignment go that is currently tranquil? The west side of the hills (i.e., 280 and parts immediately east and west) on the Peninsula is fairly quiet now, but would the train go there?

Where I live in the East Bay (West Oakland), I’m 25 – 90 minutes away from SFO depending on time of day and mode of transportation to SFO, but I’m still considered within their service area, which extends up into the North Bay and East Bay counties.

At the same time, the idea that high-speed rail must somehow pay for itself through passenger, freight, and ancillary revenue also seems mistaken to me, because it ignores very significant costs and benefits external to economics–not to mention the subsidies to all sorts of other transportation systems discussed in part above, which also include US housing policy (and California state law) favoring single-family dwellings (and car transportation). There are plenty of worthy social and environmental goals that can be advanced through CHSR, whether or not it can pay for itself.

Now if Californians want to build the project and are given real cost numbers, not numbers that are underestimated by at least 1/2 and ridership numbers that are overblown by a factor of 3, than that’s ok. What’s is not ok is the devious nature of this bond issue and promotion being carried out by this group. The Senate clearly pointed out their disgust with what has gone on in the past and with their extensive, although in-adequate revisions to AB-3034. Remember Lowenthal is a Democrat and for him to lead this charge really points to major problems in the CHSRA. SB-53 now revived in the assembly would really put the CHSRA where it belongs, perhaps completely out of business.

In sharp contrast, with CAHSR, the system is anchored by two metropolitan areas with populations of 17.8 million (LA) and 7.2 million (SF) respectively. The two spurs will serve metropolitan areas of 3.1 million (SD) and 2 million (Sacto) respectively, and the core line will pass through metro areas of 1 million (Fresno) and 780,000 (Bakersfield). That’s 32 million people – over 85% of the entire California population and 10% of the entire US population. I think it’s abundantly clear where the passengers will come from. I mean, how is that even a question?

For reference, the Paris-Southeast line of the TGV runs between two metro areas of 12.1 million (Paris) and 1.8 million (Lyon) and carries over 20 million riders/year. The Taiwan HSR runs between metro areas of 10 million (Taipei) and 3 million (Kaohsiung) and is currently averaging 31 million passenger/year (it’s still in its ramp-up phase).

Keep in mind that trade between areas roughly increases as the product of the populations, so the potential SF/LA market is roughly 6x larger than the potential Paris/Lyon market and 4x larger than the potential Taipei/Kaohsiung market. Even if you assume that CA HSR will be a massive failure in comparison to TGV and THSR, attracting only one-half or even one-third as many potential riders, you will still get ridership of 40-60 million on the core line, and 60-90 million on the whole system. For reference, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, and Santa Ana (Orange County) airports combine for a total of 80 million trips. Taipei + Kaohsiung handle 15 million trips; Paris + Lyon airports handle 46 million trips (the vast majority are international flights at Charles de Gaulle).

I don’t think if they will build it they will come, but I think if they build it and gas costs $7 a gallon, they will come big time. Southwest will go out of business, plain and simple, if ordinary people can’t afford to fly intrastate.

Finally, you say, “the usual counter-chorus of people who don’t want the thing shattering the tranquility of their peninsula neighborhoods.” Is that “usual?” And if so, why? Should they (we) want the thing to shatter the tranquility of their (our) neighborhoods? Would you? Are you saying that the ends justify the means? Tough nougies for us? Thanks.