Who'd've Thunk It?

[kevin_standlee]

Thanks to Mark Evanier, I have now read a speech by the former CEO of American Airlines, Bob Crandall, where he not only calls for some limited re-regulation of aviation in the USA, but also calls for increased emphasis on rail for the shorter-haul corridors. Here's an excerpt:

Given the high level of congestion at our major airports and our desire to operate a more energy efficient transportation complex, I am similarly mystified as to why we have heard little or nothing about the development of alternative surface transportation systems for short haul journeys. At our major airports, a significant percentage of flights are to destinations less than 300 miles distant, which could readily be replaced by the modern high speed rail systems found in many countries around the world. Similarly, we could increase long haul aviation capacity to and from our major cities by linking near by airports to those cities with high speed rail links.

This is a former airline executive, not some crazy foamer railfan, saying this.

And in the meantime, our current administration has continued to try and destroy what little passenger rail we have, and the Republican candidate-presumptive is an implacable foe of Amtrak who would, it seems, be delighted to make all of the trains go away. And you still hear people saying how awful it is that we subsidize rail transportation, without apparently considering the subsidies, direct and indirect, paid for other modes of transportation.

I wonder when the government will ever get the message. Considering how long it takes to build a good solid rail system, we should have started thirty years ago.

Comments

[cherylmmorgan.livejournal.com]

I think its just a case of, "yeah, I know I'm asking you to subsidize my industry, but I'm asking you to subsidize this other one too." Judging by the short shrift that Crandall's speech got on economics blogs, I don't think it worked.

[n5red.livejournal.com]

I suppose having trains that actually ran to the airports would be right out...

[alanashinean.livejournal.com]

After living in the UK for the past four years, and growing up in a car-less American household(a rarity, I know!), I can't conceive of not having the convenience of a well thought out rail system in place. Intrastate travel is almost impossible in most states if you don't drive, or can't fly into an airport - unless you want to spend 8-10 hours on a Greyhound bus, something I would rather not be forced to do ever again. You would think the ever rising price of gasoline would serve as some kind of incentive to start seriously developing rail service all over. Alas.

[howeird]

Maybe it's because I just spent 23 hours on Amtrak, but to state the obvious, building a high speed rail system requires lots of real estate and messy construction which gets in the way of other surface transport.

Short haul air routes use existing real estate, and only require the additional planes. I have no idea what the relative costs of fuel for a high speed rail engine are vs. a short haul plane.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

building a high speed rail system requires lots of real estate and messy construction which gets in the way of other surface transport.

So does every other form of surface transportation. And a properly-engineered rail system can carry a lot more people than the equivalent freeway lanes and takes up less space.

(Even relatively slow commuter rail helps; I've heard it stated repeatedly that if you ripped out Caltrain, you'd have to immediately add two lanes on US-101 just to break even.)

Short haul air routes use existing real estate, and only require the additional planes.

That's true if you assume zero or negative growth. I've heard a figure of $9 Billion quoted for expansion of LAX -- the same amount as the down-payment on CAHSR, which would move more people than the additional capacity at the airport.

I have no idea what the relative costs of fuel for a high speed rail engine are vs. a short haul plane.

Rail is generally the most-efficient transportation system, fuel-cost-wise, but some of it depends on how you're measuring it. And assuming you build sufficient electricty generating capacity (which I know raised other issues), you don't have to carry the fuel around with you.

If it was only a 3-hour train ride to LA, and assuming you weren't obliged to turn up at the station hours ahead of time to engage in Security Theatre, wouldn't a train trip between the Bay Area and the LA Area be more attractive than air?

Moreover, high-speed rail affects more than just the endpoints. I know it as a retail user. You may recall the story I've told of my Japan travel from Hakata. The equivalent would be getting on a train in San Francisco heading for Los Angeles and getting off at the first stop in San Jose -- fifteen minutes later.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The trouble is soon you get the lunacy of the Ryan Air complaints about the channel tunnel, where they strip out the city centre-airport leg and compare 2.5 hrs to .75hrs of travel time, where in reality, the journey time is less by train.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Oh, ain't that the truth? And unfortunately, that sort of thing does apparently sell well when people make their mode choices. People seem to have difficulty understanding what I call "terminal delay" at the end points. It's like saying that because my office and my apartment are 25 miles apart, I should be able to travel door to door in about 20 minutes; this ignores the fact that peak speed and average speed aren't the same thing.

[howeird]

Thanks for the reply. The first answer is a sidestep, I was comparing air vs. surface, not advocating more freeways.

The expansion of airports had primarily been to create the facilities for the bigger capacity planes, not the short haul routes.

Good point about electric trains and fuel. And yes, total agreement on the advantages for all the stopping points on the rail routes. The PDX gift shop did quite well off our southbound trip.

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

The expansion of airports had primarily been to create the facilities for the bigger capacity planes, not the short haul routes.

That may be the majority of expansion needs, but San Diego flat out needs capacity. We have one runway and are almost maxed on our capacity for flights; short *and* long haul.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the reply. The first answer is a sidestep, I was comparing air vs. surface, not advocating more freeways.

I don't mean for it to be a side-step. I take it for granted that growth is going to happen and that we'll have to build something to accomodate it.

The expansion of airports had primarily been to create the facilities for the bigger capacity planes, not the short haul routes.

Doesn't matter. Small planes take the same number of landing slots as big ones. Add more flights, you need more runways and more terminal space. In fact, increasing use of smaller planes leads to more congestion as you clog up the air and terminal space with planes.

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

Shorter Bob Crandall: Please, Congress, kill off SWA, because they are kicking our ass even harder now.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I'm uncertain about airline re-regulation, but I am certain that we should be putting a lot more effort into high-speed rail systems in all of the identified corridors where it would be more efficient than the current air and road congestion we have now. That includes SF-LA, the Pacific Northwest Eugene-Vancover BC corridor, a system centered on Chicago, and others besides the existing medium-high-speed Northeast Corridor.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Of course this logic also plays nicely into Airbus hands which would upset a lot of people in _certain_ lobbies.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

Rail news! I just had my translink training, and I Know Stuff. Do you want me to post about it?