Get On The Train
The Wall Street Journal seems to be trying to stir up some controversy with this report about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s comments about airlines and high speed rail. LaHood was speaking at an FAA conference and was asked by airlines about HSR. His response was that airlines should support HSR, but the set-up by Scott McCartney of the WSJ is key:
The airline industry was left fuming last year when some $8 billion on federal stimulus money was appropriated for high-speed rail while air-traffic control modernization got no new funds.
Airlines see high-speed trains as competition that could further erode their customer bases, and they were left befuddled how rail projects decades away could be “shovel ready’’ when the next-generation air-traffic control system that airlines say will reduce delays and boost air-travel capacity didn’t get any action from the Obama Administration.
And how much money has the airline industry received in federal support over the last 100 years, compared to high speed rail? I’m sure that the next-generation air traffic control system is a good investment, but there’s every reason why the federal government needed to prioritize high speed rail – rising oil prices have throttled airline service, and the nation must develop alternatives before the price soars again.
LaHood’s response to the airlines concerns didn’t specify that reason, but nevertheless made it clear that airlines needed to get with the times:
“Let me give you a little bit of political advice: Don’t be against high-speed rail,’’ Sec. LaHood said. “It’s coming to America. This is the president’s vision, this is the vice president’s vision, this is America’s vision…. We’re going to get into the high-speed rail business.’’
In two or three decades, Mr. LaHood said, U.S. cities will be connected by high-speed rail – whether airlines like it or not.
“People want alternatives,’’ he said pointedly. “People are still going to fly, but we need alternatives. So get with the program.’’
While the WSJ seems to want to portray this as a government-vs-airlines situation, the truth of the matter is that many airline executives have been saying exactly the same thing for a few years now.
Back in 2008, as the oil price spike showed the future to the global industry, airlines began looking to HSR as both a reliever for short-haul flights that were becoming unprofitable as well as a new revenue source. Air France planned to enter the HSR market when EU rules kick in later this year forcing competition in areas where public enterprises used to have a monopoly. The new rules are deeply flawed, but Air France’s interest was a sign that they see a future in HSR.
Here in the US, former Southwest CEO Herb Kelleher predicted less air travel in 2008 as a result of rising oil prices. Notably, Southwest Airlines did not lift a finger to fight Prop 1A that year, even though they had played a key role in killing a Texas HSR project a decade earlier. Instead they have joined American Airlines in embracing HSR in Texas.
California airport managers are welcoming HSR with open arms even when studies show that airports will lose millions of passengers when HSR opens.
What explains this? To the uninformed, HSR might seem like some kind of mortal threat to airlines, something they would work hard to kill.
In reality, most airlines understand that HSR will benefit them significantly. HSR so far has been shown to work best on routes of about 400 to 500 miles’ distance. Beyond that, the travel times become too great to compete effectively with air travel. While HSR will grab a huge piece of the market share on the SF-LA corridor and from SoCal to Las Vegas, almost every other route from California to the rest of the nation will still be served by airlines. As oil prices rise, airlines can concentrate on those routes where air travel is still the best deal and most convenient choice for passengers, and let HSR help bring passengers to the airport terminals.
Rising fuel costs in 2008 forced many carriers to scale back flights, and one of the first places they cut was the LA-SF shuttle route. Many smaller airports in California, including those in the Central Valley, saw dramatic service reductions as well.
HSR, powered by renewable electricity and not by fossil fuels, won’t be dependent on an ever-rising price of oil. From an economic perspective alone, HSR is absolutely necessary to California’s future. From a transportation perspective, it makes all the sense in the world to use HSR to move people within the state, and for now, continue using airlines to move people between California and points beyond, while we work to continue upgrading and improving our interstate passenger rail networks.
So Ray LaHood was indeed correct. The airlines need to “get with the program” – and continue getting on the train.
As a pilot and flight instructor, I’m a big advocate for NextGen. However, I do not see where the “competition” between NextGen and HSR funding is. HSR funding is billed as stimulus funding, meant to both employ lots people soon as well as build the foundation for the future. Funding for NextGen would only help accomplish the second.
It seems that any airlines opposed to high speed rail are missing a trick here. Airlines should be in the business not of transporting people by air, but transporting people from point to point. Airlines are well posed to bid for ticketing systems, and to set up joint ticketing arrangements with through checking of luggage from Anaheim to Beijing, Merced to St. Louis. Airlines should work with the system during the planning phases to ensure an end-to-end interoperable passenger transportation system that uses the most comfortable, convenient, and efficient mode for each journey segment. By supporting high speed rail, they will multiply the number of destinations directly served by their service, leading to larger market share and increased competitiveness as compared to automobile transportation. Don’t sell someone a ticket from SFO to Beijing, sell them as much of the door-to-door package as possible and increase profits and market share as you go.
Bobierto Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Looks like Matthew and I see eye to eye. He said it way better …
Victor Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Me too.
Matt Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Check out the LA/ONT International Airport Master Plan in Ontario, California. Ontario High Speed Rail Station will be constructed here with people movers to take you from the airport to the adjoining new rail station and to the convention center. The Metro Gold Line will also station here connecting LA Union Station and Pasadena to the Inland Empire airport. In the future, Ontario plans to build the tallest office and condo towers in the city on this property, just north of the airport. The tower complexes are planned to be multiple urban villages. Tower heights could reach up to 500 ft / 50 story towers. These “villages” will be some of the tallest buildings in all of Greater LA due to the massive airport and the un-restrictive building height limits. Los Angeles will always be taller by 20 floors but Ontario is expected to be a close second. Ontario is planned to be the size of present day Phoenix. Also check out the New Model Colony in the southern portion of the city. This new residential district expects over 100,000 new citizens when fully built out. It is fully walkable and is smart growth.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
[blockquote]
Ontario is planned to be the size of present day Phoenix.
[/blockquote]
What? Phoenix is over 500 square miles, Ontario is barely 50. Perhaps you meant the airport?
In any case, it’s wishful thinking that Ontario is going to become the second city in the LA Metro area. Los Angeles World Airports (i.e. the City of Los Angeles) owns Ontario Airport and would be just tickled pink if the arrival of HSR kept pressure off it’s flagship airport, LAX by allowing Ontario to serve more passengers and possibly have more international flights.
Instead, in all likelihood HSR will just spur a housing bubble outside of Riverside in the Inland Empre and do little to make this a reality.
Samsonian Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Los Angeles World Airports (i.e. the City of Los Angeles) owns Ontario Airport and would be just tickled pink if the arrival of HSR kept pressure off it’s flagship airport, LAX by allowing Ontario to serve more passengers and possibly have more international flights.
Well, tickle away.
The LAWA is owned by the City of LA, and LAX is their flagship airport, but LAX has some problems.
It’s overcrowded, has poor transit (though that will change), can’t expand to handle more flights and bigger planes (like A380) due to community opposition, the local community wants less emphasis on LAX and more on the other airports, and LAWA has already acquiesced.
ONT getting a HSR station is no accident, LAWA asked for it. And it makes some sense to do this and relieve LAX, even though it’s better to serve downtowns with HSR instead of airports. If only Palmdale and LAWA would create a plan to develop PMD and integrate the HSR station into an air terminal like Rafael has discussed before.
Ben Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Matt–
“In the future, Ontario plans to build the tallest office and condo towers in the city on this property, just north of the airport. The tower complexes are planned to be multiple urban villages. Tower heights could reach up to 500 ft / 50 story towers. These “villages” will be some of the tallest buildings in all of Greater LA due to the massive airport and the un-restrictive building height limits. Los Angeles will always be taller by 20 floors but Ontario is expected to be a close second. ”
This makes no sense. The FAA will not allow these buildings if they obstruct the navigable airspace. This is from the FAA (https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp).
CFR Title 14 Part 77.13 states that any person/organization who intends to sponsor any of the following construction or alterations must notify the Administrator of the FAA:
any construction or alteration exceeding 200 ft above ground level
any construction or alteration:
within 20,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 100:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with at least one runway more than 3,200 ft
within 10,000 ft of a public use or military airport which exceeds a 50:1 surface from any point on the runway of each airport with its longest runway no more than 3,200 ft
within 5,000 ft of a public use heliport which exceeds a 25:1 surface
any highway, railroad or other traverse way whose prescribed adjusted height would exceed the above noted standards
when requested by the FAA
any construction or alteration located on a public use airport or heliport regardless of height or location.
Peter Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Yeah, there was a developer in San Diego who decided that he would ignore the FAA’s finding that the project they were building was incompatible with the nearby airport. He learned his lesson after he was forced to tear down the top 3 or 4 stories after it was completed.
frozen Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Yeah, the FAA rules and regulations applies to the building inside the flight path. However, the building proposed for Ontario is on the north side– away from the flight path. (The runways at ONT is East-West)
elfling Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Well said, especially when you consider how difficult it is for airlines to serve the Central Valley well. Suddenly travel gets much easier for people in Fresno and Bakersfield and even Lancaster, which makes them much more likely to travel on business or pleasure on short trips.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Oh great, another Matthew :)
I know that the airlines don’t generally have a lot of cash reserves right now but seems to me that they would be likely investors in California HSR. The big airlines don’t do intercity stuff – if I want to fly from San Diego to practically anywhere in California, I can’t do it on my preferred airline, American. Instead I have to fly on American Eagle, which despite its brand is a separate airline, with small, uncomfortable planes and a different standard of service (not that the majors offer much any more). If AA were an investor in HSR, itineraries could conceivably be coordinated. If I were flying to Tokyo, I would prefer to take a 2 1/2 hour train trip from SAN to SFO, than a puddle jumper up to LAX, then change terminals and hang around hideous LAX for a couple of hours, on the long layover that’s necessary for international itineraries, since those puddle jumper flights to LAX are often delayed and sometimes cancelled for no discernable reason. Airline investment in HSR could be a winner for HSR and for the airlines.
Steve Van Beek Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 5:31 am
Actually, San Diego has a high proportion of narrow-body aircraft that fly all over California. You just have to get off AMR and get aboard Virgin, Southwest or Alaska (among others). The intrastate air diversion is likely to be less from San Diego than the LA markets due to differences in time and cost. But HSR could be a winner for airports where stations are integrated into the airport, such as Ontario. It extends their catchment areas and offers the promise of increased service. If you have TOD around the airport so much the better.
Ben Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Matthew Coogan, Director of the New England Transportation Institute, had a presentation about high speed rail in California at the recent FAA forecast conference. He noted that something like 94% of the travelers between San Diego and Sacramento currently fly rather than drive because of the greater distances from the rest of the state. The promise for high speed rail with San Diego is the diversion of motorists who are going to other Southern California destinations to rail. Perhaps some north county residents will also use Ontario instead of Lindbergh, especially if LAWA was aggressive with landing fees at Ontario and carriers passed this on (unlikely) with lower ticket prices.
Does anyone have a quick overview of what exactly Southwest did to kill Texas HSR the last time around? I keep hearing that they were a big part of it, but have never found any real information about it.
My experience suggests that airlines view short-haul or shuttle flights as loss leaders if it gets you onto their lucrative long-haul flights. Last I flew trans-Atlantic, I found that adding the shuttle flight added about $60 to my fare, whereas flying the shuttle by itself costs about $200.
Peter Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
And if they can get booking fees or a referral commission for a trip without having to operate a plane because the passengers are riding a train, they likely make even more money…
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I think some of the airlines’ apprehension comes from the misconception (spread by many articles) that HSR is an airline killer. The truth is that it obliges them to reorganise and distribute their flights differently.
You often hear the TGV killed the Airlines in France. Actually, it killed one airline, Air Inter whose livelihood was Paris-Lyon and Paris-Marseille. Other airlines were wiser and used some lateral thinking. They didn’t try, like Air Inter, to compete with the TGV on its corridors. Instead, they created new ones between regions that had no direct TGV links. France has now the highest airport/population ratio in Europe. Of course, some of the planes are 70-seat turboprops or even smaller. Some places will never have an HSR link because of geography or simple economics. So, regional airlines do have a future.
The Cato Institute once noted that airline ridership had increased in France and used the figures as evidence that the TGV was a failure. It did not point out that trains and planes did not serve the same corridors and, in fact, complemented each other.
European airlines now know they must concentrate on what they can do more efficiently than the train and give up the corridors where they can no longer compete.
Can the airlines reorganise their flights in California as they did in France? Or will they just try to compete on LA-SF, as Air Inter unfortunately did on Paris-Marseille?
Steve Van Beek Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 6:54 am
Actually, some of the highest yield flights for airlines are relatively short haul (think United’s hub in Denver which does very well to the midwest and Rocky Mountain states). That is why Southwest’s entry and expansion in Denver is a very big deal.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The Midwest to/from Denver isn’t short haul. Most places to/from Denver aren’t short haul.
Steve Van Beek Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Many of United’s high-yield markets from Denver are within 425km (Paris-Lyon) or 662km (Paris-Marseille) sorry if the terminology diverted you. In fact, Southwest’s entry has arguably made
shorter haul flights even more attractive to United as they face stiffer competition on the
let’s call them medium-haul flights.
dejv Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Note that those markets must be at the same corridor to make them comparable to P-L.
A lie repeated a hundred times becomes truth once again. Sigh.
New EU rules aren’t deeply flawed. Deeply flawed is french policy to pay old debt and new construction from LGV traffic.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
This might not last as TGV riders have had enough of being treated as the SNCF’s milk cows. The French state owns the SNCF. It can’t directly give it orders because it only has 7 representatives in an 18-member board. But it can influence its fare policy by not giving it money.
President Sarkozy wants everything to be profitable. Some people call him “Little Bush”.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Click the link to read Yonah Freemark’s in-depth explanation of the flaws of the new EU rules on HSR operations.
dejv Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 8:48 am
I’ve did so a while ago and replied in the comments. In short, it’s perfectly possible to maintain former TGV philosophy under new rules – if politicians decide to do so.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 11:54 am
The record in Germany is positive.
Fare and timetable integration is maintained, the public is seeing significantly better service, productivity and worker moral is up, and taxpayer subsidies to provide the service have fallen dramatically. DB Regio has been booted out of the dark ages in a way that captives of SNCF (grèves-r-us) can only dream of. DB Fernverkehr (long distance) operations are unsubsidized.
Competitively contracting operation of rail services can work very well indeed if the public contracting bodies choose to act in the public interest when designing, evaluating and awarding the contracts.
The public sector doesn’t have to follow our local model of being a cesspool of kickbacks, contractor capture, rent seeking and feather bedding, you know. At least one can aim for less than 100% of that, with a bit of public benefit on the side.
Competitively designed and procured public projects in California, hypocritical self-styled center of innovation and global capitalism? Surely you jest!
dejv Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
To be honest, the French did several key things way better:
- they built LGVs as passenger only, cutting construction costs and maximizing capacity
- construction was carefully phased to get maximum passengers per mile of track
- the fares were set to maximize ridership
IIRC, I’ve read on this blog that TGVs achieve 70 % occupied seats while ICEs are at 50 %, in spite of German multi-centric geometry.
Germans do very well in regional and city transport, a working Verkerhsverbund makes a real difference.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 7:49 am
It’s not really a French vs. German thing – it’s a central city vs. province thing. France is Paris-centric, so that Paris is larger and richer than any German city and has a higher rail ridership per capita, while its smaller cities are not as developed, with the partial exceptions of the Lyon and PACA areas. Germany is polycentric, so that it has good point-to-point intercity rail service and many good regional rail systems.
The 50% versus 70% seat occupancy figure comes from Drunk Engineer’s blog, I think. The explanation is that SNCF puts a premium on yield management and on matching train traffic to demand, whereas DB puts a premium on a clockface schedule. Asian systems, which vary traffic throughout the day and have semi-regular clockface patterns, have high seat occupancy as well.
dejv Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Germany isn’t that dispersed. There is quite strong north to west to south corridor in former BRD: Hamburg – Bremen or Hannover – Ruhrgebiet – Köln – Frankfurt – Mannheim – Stuttgart – Augsburg – München, still underserved by HSR. GDR settlement patterns are similar to France.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
This is irrelevant!
People were going on about how terrible and awful and dreadful contracting out public transportation services has to be I mentioned an example that shows that this isn’t necessarily the case.
This has nothing to do with the fact that Frankfurt or Munich don’t dominate one country the way Paris or London dominate another, or that SNCF has historically chosen to run (but is moving away from running) completely chaotic and non-integrated timetables. (It should be no surprise that I find the central-northern European ticketing/timetable model the most attractive and believe it is the one to which everybody should aspire, but that’s not the point)
I mentioned integrated ticketing and scheduling in the German examples (there are others) because the know-nothing “objection” to non-monopoly service provision is that those must be lost. That’s not the case, in Germany or France or in Sweden or where ever: if the tendering process is undertaken competently then the public doesn’t know and doesn’t care about who is being paid to run the trains. What they notice is more trains, cleaner trains, running more reliably, a better attitude from the employees they encounter, and no increase in the tax subsidies and fares they pay.
Or you can have Amtrak now and forever.
dejv Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
I completely agree with that.
I’m not in Amtrak area. It’s kind of similar though, we’re stuck with another dreadful monopoly over here and it won’t change in at least another 10 years. :( The DOT and regional governments managed to sign 10-year agreement just days before new EU rules requiring tenders kicked in.
Well my original point was that every system had its strenghts and weaknesses and Germany happens to lack anything else besides the funding.
The first system that will see actual HS competition will likely be Italy, where they finished HS spine recently and NTV is procuring new AGVs to dig into Frecciarossa market starting next summer.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 14th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The reason for the SNCF’s keeping TGVs at least 70% full is that fewer trains means less money spent on tolls and drivers’salaries. It even tried 85% but there were too many complaints from passengers.
Robert-
I attended the this forecast conference that the Secretary spoke at. Our buddy Poole-the-Fool was on the panel before Secretary LaHood made his remarks. Robert Poole has zero credibility complaining about subsidies for high speed rail when he advocates for a $5K subsidy for each general aviation aircraft owner: http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-reform-new-55. Jim Crites (http://www.dfwairport.com/pressroom/executives/pdf/crites.pdf), an executive at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was on the same panel as Robert Poole and he was supportive of high speed rail but also advocated funding for NextGen air traffic control technology. During the same panel, I think it was Jim May (President of the Air Transport Association) who noted that the block time (scheduled flight time) to fly from DC – NY is 73 minutes. He also noted that you have to be at the airport an hour before departure. Accela currently takes about 2 hrs 45 mins to get from DC – NY and it isn’t even high speed rail. The panelists also complained about aviation congestion at New York’s airports. I don’t know where they plan on building another runway at LaGuardia (about the same size of Lindbergh Field).
Here’s a link for the FAA’s forecast:
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2010-2030/media/2010%20Forecast%20Doc.pdf
The predictions about the price of oil are interesting. The FAA forecasts the price of oil as $104 per barrel in 2030 but provides another scenario with oil at $141 per barrel by 2030 (pg 58). Additionally, the House FAA reauthorization legislation proposes raising the Passenger Facility Charge from $4.50 to $7. The TSA will also have raise its fees by $1 per segment either next year or 2012. Assuming Congress agrees to the House’s PFC proposal, this is $7 in new fees per round-trip flight just by 2012.
Steve Van Beek Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 6:52 am
PFC fees are discretionary and imposed at the local level under federal authorization. Therefore, a share of airports will seek and probably be approved for an increase, but many more will not.
Slightly off topic, but the first of the UK High Speed Two docs are out.
A best case scenario this time—— The year is 2030—- Our high speed rail system is 100% complete and ridership has exceeded expectations. In addition, auto manufacturers have finally gotten it right and every other vehicle in California is either electric or plug-in hybrid. On the down side, global warming has caused permanent snow pack reduction and hydroelectric power production is a fraction of what it once was. Will California be able to produce or buy enough electricity to run everything? It seems like the timeline necessary to bring a power plant online is usually measured in decades—- if it happens at all.
NCarlson Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
There’s really no reason that power plants need to take as long as they do. Even nuclear could be reasonably constructed withing a 6-8 year timeline if barriers were lowered and opposition was lower; which believe me it will be if we start having real power supply problems (not necessarily true at the NIMBY level, but the toleration of such behavior will go away pretty fast). As far as the legal aspects go, the law can change fast when it becomes more politically useful to complete projects than to hold them up.
I suspect that the supposed nuclear renaissance we’re having now is going to more or less go away, but come back in a BIG way in the next couple of decades. Whatever else it may be, nuclear is a fairly simple way to generate a lot of power with low emissions and is largely domestic to boot. My guess is that if things keep going the way they are now thats going to be irresistible long before we hit any power crisis so deep we can’t run trains.
wu ming Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 6:42 am
reduced snowpack doesn’t mean less water, it means less precipitation as snow, and more as rain, with earlier snowpack melt dates. so we’re not talking about less hydro so much as seasonally inflected hydro, with problems in late summer and fall, and massive amounts in the late winter and spring.
and of course, hydro isn’t the only non-carbon emitting way to get electricity. global warming won’t affect either wind or solar much at all, nor tidal generated power, nor biomass or biogas. and none of that deals with replacement of outdated turbines in hydro or other power plants with newer more efficient turbines that squeeze more electricity out of the same force, or the negawatts freed up by getting better about insulation and efficiency in appliances, lighting and housing design.
water’s a bigger problem with suburban patterns of life and CA agriculture (especially in a regional sense; the westlands water district should already be retired permanently, and will become even less viable as the temps go up) than for things like transportation.
Somewhat off topic, but I thought I’d post my little cartoon map of how I think a Las Vegas / Phoenix – Tucson buildout might look. Based on the number of air passengers between these cities, and that building through flat desert is inexpensive, back of the envelope estimates say it should make sense: [URL=http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=47262_586px_cahsr_mapsvg_copy1_122_581lo.jpg][IMG]http://img9.imagevenue.com/loc581/th_47262_586px_cahsr_mapsvg_copy1_122_581lo.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Apologies, here’s a link that should work:
http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=47262_586px_cahsr_mapsvg_copy1_122_581lo.jpg
It would be interesting if the airlines will continue to support HSR if it becomes sucessful enough in the state level that Amtrack decides to expand it nationwide. It would also be interesting if the airlines will support HSR if one day in the future, the trains can travel as fast as the airplanes. Will their support for HSR stops there?
Fair post overall. But, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund pays for approximately 75-85% of the FAA’s expenses including their facilities and equipment account, their operations, and the federal capital grants that flow to the nation’s airports. The system is more cross-subsidized than it is subsidized. So HSR advocates should be careful about saying the whole system is subsidized. Not true. The airline industry could retort that the HSR and rail networks should have a user trust fund (obviously not realistic until the buildout of many systems takes place).
HSR could contribute to extending the life of airport facilities by peeling off some short-haul origin and destination traffic–that is a smart role that HSR could play given the inability of airports in places such as southern California to expand. But, connecting traffic will not be diverted to rail unless rail goes right to the airport and is seamlessly integrated into airport terminals (a la CDG, AMS, and other European airports).
A better case to call the airlines on is their request to the federal government to pay for equipping their aircraft for NextGen (air traffic control modernization).
YesonHSR Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
The airlines were helped along in a huge way by the federal goverment in the early years .at the expense of the private passenger railroads .so I dont care if they are upset and yes once HSR gets a footing it should have that same type of tax support. At this point it does not even have the bonding ablity that states and cities have to build the facilties that the airline industry uses.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 13th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
The FAA operations budget is regularly topped up out of the federal general fund when trust fund income falls short, relative to capital improvements that are approved. Congress approves capital spending from the trust fund, and if it comes up short, as it does quite frequently, there is an “emergency need” to fund the operations budget to keep planes flying.
More to the point, all the state and federal support for establishing airfields and building up airport infrastructure prior to 1971 was received as a free gift when the ticket trust fund was established. So the main difference with funding the out of state capital cost of Stage 1 from federal capital grants is that the capital subsidies to California’s system would last one decade instead of multiple decades.
AIP is funded from the AATF (supported by an array of ticket taxes paid for by pax), it is the FAA operations account that is topped off. The top 50 or so airports could be self-supporting (on both the operating and capital side) and exist without federal capital grants (if other parts of the regulatory structure were changed). A two-step (first federal support, then an industry trust fund supported by fees and taxes and supplemented with some public support to capture public benefits) is a reasonable strategy.
Armed with my trusty NewsMax Decoder Ring, it’s pretty easy to figure out what the Journal is trying to say:
[blockquote] The Obama Administration as part of its love affair with big government, believes that the nation’s deregulated and successful transportation system needs annother, perfunctory overhaul that will have government controlling more of the economy but forcing Americans to use trains. Commissar LaHood has made it clear that Fearless Leader believes that people will be powerless to resist his transformation of America if he can strike at the very core of national identity…free and fair passage between the states. [/blockquote]
Senator Durbin (D-IL) has an amendent to the FAA reauthorization bill being debated now in the Senate that would require the FAA and Federal Railroad Administration to conduct a study of airline and intercity rail code-share arrangements. As some of the speakers at the FAA Forecast conference noted, high speed rail can be beneficial to air carriers, especially if they formed cooperative partnerships. Continental already has a codeshare arrangement with Amtrak that allows passengers to earn Continental frequent flier miles on their trips to the airport (http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/company/alliance/amtrak.aspx). Continental passengers can also earn miles on Accela trips.
SA 3482.
SEC. 720. AIR-RAIL CODESHARE STUDY.
(a) CODESHARE STUDY.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration,
shall conduct a study of—
(1) the current airline and intercity passenger rail codeshare arrangements;
(2) the best methods for encouraging better integration of future airline and intercity passenger rail schedules; and
(3) the feasibility of increasing intermodal connectivity of airline and intercity passenger rail facilities and systems to improve passenger travel.
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—The study shall consider—
(1) the potential benefits to passengers from the development of a more efficient travel network through the implementation of more integrated scheduling between airlines and Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail carriers achieved through codesharing arrangements;
(2) statutory and regulatory challenges or barriers to greater integration of future scheduling through implementation of codeshare arrangements between airlines and Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail carriers;
(3) financial or other challenges to implementing more integrated codeshare arrangements between airlines and Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail carriers; and
(4) airport operations that can improve connectivity to intercity passenger rail facilities
and stations.
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after commencing the study required by subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit a report on the study to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. The report shall include any conclusions of the Secretary resulting from the study, the Secretary’s recommendations for improving intermodal connections between airlines and intercity passenger rail, and the Secretary’s recommendations for regulatory or legislative changes necessary to facilitate codeshare arrangements between airlines and Amtrak and other intercity passenger rail carriers.