But even if one were to address the issue of how people would actually afford the vehicles and how we would afford to widen the freeways to handle the increased traffic (our freeways are already at capacity in the state’s urban cores), there is a far more fundamental problem: we will run out of oil before these alternatives are developed to a point where they can satisfy our existing energy demand.

At least, that’s what UC Davis researchers concluded:

The global oil supply is set to run dry 90 years before replacements such as renewable energy are ready to satisfy the same amount of demand, according to UC Davis researchers.

Current policies that set targets for batteries, hydrogen, biofuel and other alternative energy sources won’t be enough, a study published Monday says….

The technologies in the market “may not be able to occupy a sufficient enough niche in the market by the time we need them to,” Niemeir said in an e-mail.

Their study is based on an assessment of market conditions and government incentives – and incentives for renewable energy are being scaled back all over the world as a consequence of the global Depression, as foolish and short-sighted austerity budgeting is leading to cuts in funding for things like renewable energy subsidies, feed-in tariffs, tax credits, and so on.

There’s a deeper problem, however. Oil is not easily replaceable because it has a greater energy density than other fuels. What that means is a certain amount of oil – let’s say a pound – yields much more energy than almost any other comparable form of fuel, certainly more than renewables. This is one reason why hydrogen fuel cells have never taken off as a replacement for gasoline-powered vehicles – you need to store a LOT more hydrogen on board a vehicle to get the same driving distance that you do with gasoline.

Electric vehicles have improved their range, sure, but that simply raises the same problem again – where do you get the energy to generate the electricity? You need to burn a lot more coal, or have a lot more solar and wind generation facilities, in order to match the energy yield of oil. Oil production is notoriously dirty and risky, as the Gulf Coast was reminded earlier this year – but its overall physical footprint is actually much smaller than coal, wind, or solar. California will have to be covered in solar panels and wind turbines in order to generate enough electricity just to replace our current level of oil usage. NIMBYs will object even more loudly than they already have, and the cost will be astronomical.

What this means is that it’s just not practical to assume that we can drive as much in the 21st century as we did in the late 20th century. We are going to have to drive less as part of the transition away from the oil economy. And high speed rail helps enable that, at a lower cost with a lower carbon and physical footprint. HSR opponents deny this reality (which why they are called “deniers”) because they cannot bear to part with their beloved 20th century ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and practices. Even though the evidence is staring us in the face that we must adapt to new circumstances and make some changes, we’re told we absolutely cannot do it because it will “lower our quality of life” or “ruin our communities.”

We are 90 years behind in the development of a sustainable transportation network. There is literally no time to lose.

• Chinese airlines cut fares to win back riders on new HSR lines

• Spain HSR overtakes flights on Madrid-Barcelona route, long one of the busiest air routes in the world

• Taiwan airlines “reeling” from HSR success – keep in mind this is from an HSR system that needed a government bailout thanks to a flawed funding method

• Acela takes over 40% of market share on Northeast Corridor – even though Acela isn’t real HSR, certainly not what we’re planning here in California

Other studies have indicated that California would experience similar benefits from HSR. The Brookings Institution produced a report last October that claimed SF-LA was one of the best corridors in the country for HSR.

That study is now boosted by a new report from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) showing that HSR will get at least 6 million riders per year from the three Bay Area airports combined:

SH&E forecasts that by 2035, San Jose would lose 12 percent of its projected passengers because of high-speed rail, followed by a 9 percent diversion at Oakland and a 4 percent loss at San Francisco. They figure the three airports would carry slightly more than 100 million total passengers without the bullet train but that each would carry about 2 million fewer travelers if high-speed rail is built as planned.

Translated to total airport activity, the train project is estimated to reduce overall operations at San Jose by 9.2 percent, at San Francisco by 5.3 percent and at Oakland by 5.2 percent….

The consultants say two-thirds of San Francisco and San Jose travelers headed to the Los Angeles area would switch to high-speed rail, and about half the Oakland passengers would do the same.

The study is based on the MTC/CHSRA ridership estimates prepared by Cambridge Systematics, and independent observers view those numbers as credible:

“There will be a giant sucking sound as you hear, especially business travelers, vacate airplanes in favor of high-speed rail,” said Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst with Forrester Research in San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. “It will be less susceptible to delays, more efficient, (will go) city center to city center, and there are just some additional pleasantries,” he said.

And the local airports aren’t concerned by it. SFO has long been supportive of HSR and welcomes the station planned for Millbrae. Mineta San José Airport, in the midst of a major and welcome expansion project, is also unconcerned:

California airports have long been supportive of the rail project. Stations are planned at the BART stop at San Francisco Airport, in San Jose and near Southern California airports.

“We recognize that if high-speed rail does affect our short-haul passenger traffic at the airport in the future, that makes it even more important to protect the airport’s ability to serve long haul routes in the future,” said David Vossbrink, spokesman for Mineta San Jose International Airport. The study indicated the diversion estimates represented “total aircraft activity.”

This is because they understand that the future of short-haul flights is not bright. Rising oil prices in 2008 led to a major reduction in those flights even on the busy SF-LA corridor. Southwest has only been able to maintain its low prices through the use of fuel hedges that allowed it to lock in low fuel costs. As oil prices rise, which they will do for the foreseeable future, Southwest will become unable to keep their fares low.

That is why we should welcome this study. California must move beyond relying on oil-based forms of transportation, including flights to get around our state. High speed rail will enable us to provide sustainably powered travel with a stable cost. Further reasons to ensure HSR gets built as planned.