Small Cities Paying for Flights

I'm not really quite sure what to think about this. It seems as if we had a real national rail program that chambers of commerce and cities wouldn't have to be ponying up money to guarantee a certain financial minimum to the airline industry.

With airlines cutting back service in a weak economy, some cities that are too big to qualify for federal help but too small to keep the planes flying in have stepped up with ways to hang on: paying the airlines, either directly or indirectly.

Places like Duluth should have a faster connection to Minneapolis and the airport there. It doesn't really make sense to keep a slush fund that the airline can raid when the economics don't work out for them. There are many even smaller cities out there that depend on Amtrak for their carless connections out of the area. These smaller cities should be on the forefront of regional rail service to larger metro areas with major airports and service.

Southwest Airlines CEO Fires First Shot

And so it begins. the Southwest Airlines CEO believes that the federal government shouldn't give it a competitive advantage.

After his speech, I asked Kelly whether his company would likely oppose high-speed passenger rail, given how precious every dollar has become to the airlines. Southwest's opposition years ago was a key reason a previous effort to build a high-speed line linking Dallas, Austin and Houston died. (Trains are seen by many as likely to compete with and in some cases perhaps eliminate short-haul flights.)

He said it's too early to oppose any particular plan, but said federal support for bullet trains shouldn't put airlines like his at a competitive disadvantage.

Perhaps if you can't beat them, you should join them. But airlines aren't looking that far ahead yet. Perhaps they'll start screaming when gas prices go back up again. I don't quite understand why they can't see the future in which higher oil prices make life for airlines hard. If last summer wasn't a wake up call, they'll be getting water splashed in their face soon.

That's Expensive Signage

How hard is it to just make a sign? $2.2 million? Or better yet, just take the Hiawatha Line?

The Story in a Story

BART pays RENT at the airport? Doesn't this sound like the SFPD taking liberties with Muni funding?

SFO built the BART station at a cost of more than $200 million and pays $14.8 million annually for debt service on bonds sold to construct the station. BART pays SFO $2.5 million per year for rent on the BART station in the International Terminal, plus an additional $700,000 for custodial and electrical support services.

Am I missing something here?

Where's Your Parachute?

I agree with Ryan, Glaeser seems to forget all his own research when he wants to become Randall O'Toole's cousin. Here's the quote that gets me though:

For most workers in America’s sprawling metropolitan areas, no train is going to drop them within walking distance of their home or job. In Greater Houston, only 11.6 percent of jobs are within three miles of an area’s center and more than 55 percent of jobs are more than 10 miles away from the city center.

And your point is? No airplane will either. Unless we finally get our flying cars. Isn't that what HSR is competing against? 500 mile or less trips that could be made by train instead of plane? Especially in smaller cities between that don't have plane service. There is a huge untapped market out there.

I still think people don't quite get what HSR is supposed to do. They think train and think transit. I guess that's good because airplanes are basically flying buses. At least in a train you might have some room to yourself where the person next to you won't have his elbow in your ribs.

Rediculous Costs + Dumb Ideas

If you can't take a 2 of 6 lanes for rail or bus and get to the Oakland Airport just 3.2 miles away for $386 million dollars, there is something seriously wrong. I posted this a month ago, but after seeing this post, it seems as if BART is just not paying attention to what is going on in the world. No wonder people don't trust you to build the extension to San Jose. You're just trying to spend all the money you have when you don't really have to in order to get the job done. What a waste of money. It's not hard guys. Wake up.

Airport Rapid Streetcar?

It seems that BART has decided not to build a People Mover (NOT a light rail system as it says in the article) to Oakland Airport due to cost issues. The route is 3 miles long and while they state that they have already raised $250 million dollars, they still need $130 million more. Are they insane? Would it really take $380 million to go three miles??? A single track BART spur with a passing siding would be cheaper it seems.

If the money is already raised, why not build a rapid streetcar line between the Colosseum and the Airport terminal with limited stops. Currently the bus line comes every 10 minutes or so and actually makes money. One of the reasons is because its so packed all the time. There have been a few times when I have had to wait for 2 buses to pass in order to get to the airport. Even if the separated the streetcar from traffic, it would not cost $122 million per mile.

With the route I've drawn out below, it would promote office development and for more than just airport riders to take the line and provide a direct link to the airport. It would however be a little bit longer at 3.9 miles, but would get its own lanes and have a consistent travel time. I'm also pushing it through the stadiums because at some point, this land will be much too valuable to just leave as a parking lot and should develop more like urban ballparks and stadiums around the country with proximity to transit. This line could also use value capture strategies to fund improvements or the line itself.


At 3.9 miles, you could certainly build the rapid streetcar for the $250 million already raised. I bet they could have some money left over for other projects.

Trade Ya a Rail Line for a Runway

So say the Tories which would build a rail line instead of a third runway at Heathrow. Stephen Rees has more.

Houston Chronicle: Metro Is So Far-Sighted They Are Short-Sighted

What? Perhaps its because Houston has been such a car oriented city for so long, the editors at the Chronicle aren't sure how transit will work when there is a new energy reality. Before we get into more details, I'd like to debunk the myth that commuter rail lines primary transit function is to get people to airports.

Houstonians will still lack a reliable, affordable public transit option to get to the region's two major airports. Such links are a primary function of commuter rail in other cities.

It's nice to have a link to the airport, but they aren't the primary function. But let's talk about the reality of airports in an energy constrained future. Given that flights are having trouble currently with gas prices, I can't imagine what would happen when it gets even worse. Building lines to airports just to go to the airport seems a bit silly to me, at least when people are fighting over such small amounts of funds as it is and shorter flights could diminish extensively. If we were a place like Vienna with an existing extensive transit network, we can build lines directly from the Airport to the major subway transfer station downtown.

But for Houston, the North Line could be eventually built to have an express train on tracks that serve the neighborhoods to the North. But hopefully by that time there will also be High Speed Rail in Texas. Now we're just voting on it here in California, but if it were to happen in Texas, it would not stop at the airport but downtown at the commuter rail and light rail hub. And when you get off of that train, it is more important to have a network that gets you to all of the major job centers (orange below) and places of housing density in the core of the region rather than have an easy link to the airport. Christof always has wonderful maps...



Now they are looking into commuter trains and complaining that the inner-city network is shortsighted. Well what happens when those people get to the hub downtown on those commuter trains without a circulation network? I would guess less ridership because their trip ends there, they aren't going to hop on a bus to get to other parts of the city. It seems to me they are actually quite smart in fixing up the light rail network.

Long-distance commuter rail lines could relieve growing traffic congestion on area freeways, but there is no single agency empowered to plan and build them. Some major roadway projects, such as the recent Katy Freeway expansion, include no provision for future rail systems.

Not that commuter rail isn't needed on some corridors, but Houston has rather good express buses that take HOV lanes downtown from the far flung suburbs. My dad took one of these downtown to work every day which brought me more appreciation for transit. In addition to these existing facilities though, commuter rail could prove to quicker to get through the process of construction than light rail making the initial city circulation network genius. The issue of networks and overlapping service needs to be addressed more extensively, because we keep having these suburb, urban debates when we need to bring every different type for their strengths and build them all together. As discussed before, you wouldn't build a freeway without arterial and local streets, so why would we do that with transit modes?

AirFrance Getting into HSR Business

From Trains for America.

“More than half of all flights are connections, and in effect long-haul is where the value is. Short haul is just way for Air France to get passengers to Charles de Gaulle” airport in Paris, Van den Brul said.

Shifting passengers onto trains from planes would result in “significant” cost savings, a particular concern for airlines struggling to cope with record high oil prices.

Energy accounts for about 40 percent of an airline’s total costs, against only around 10-15 percent for rail.

Airplane Sprawl Exists

Apparently John Travolta's home is not only suburban sprawl, but Airplane Sprawl as well. I wonder what that house's transportation costs are...

Making Connections to the Airport

Recently there has been a lot of talk of connecting light rail with airports in cities around the country. There seem to be two discussions going on of how to connect to the airport; extending a line out to the airport, and running a line through the airport if its already passing the area.

If the city is building its first light rail line, I'm not sure a move to the airport alone is the best decision for a city to make. While its good to connect the airport to downtown for travelers, they don't make up a big enough share of transit users to justify a first line. The first line, as has been said a lot lately, should be a starter line that will get the highest ridership and connect the most destinations. Extensions can move to the airport and some airports might even be willing to build or pay for that connection such as TIA in Tampa.

In Sacramento, there is a discussion going on as to whether the DNA line should extend all the way to the airport. This is covered with good points by RT Rider. The line is going to go to Nantomas and I don't see a reason why at some point the line shouldn't be extended to the airport. Because so many people go to Sacramento to the state capitol, it would seem to me that there would be a lot more trips than general generated from the airport and would make the city a bit more competitive for jobs and growth.

In Dallas, some locals are upset that the new light rail line didn't get a tunnel to love field which it will pass along its alignment. It is silly for the federal government to base this decision on cost alone (cost effectiveness strikes again) because as Richard Layman discusses, there are much more external benefits that aren't counted in a traditional cost benefit ratio usually touted by the Reason foundation and the anti-transit faction who of course don't use that same measure for roads. But now, Dallas is looking to tax flights to pay for a people mover to connect the airport and light rail station in a subway.

Austin's Mayor and a council member have opened discussions recently to build light rail to the airport. If that line goes through Riverside and up Guadalupe, it would be a good extension, and could possibly spur TOD along Riverside towards the Airport. But perhaps a phase II scheme would be best.

Some here in San Francisco argue that BART to SFO should have never been built but rather Caltrain should have been electrified and a people mover connect the station to the airport. Obviously for me its easier with BART to the airport to get there because instead of a one seat ride I'd have a three seat ride. Obviously I like it, but it benefits me directly.

So what does this mean? Is it important to connect to the airport? Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think that an airport connection by rail is a sign that the city is moving in the right direction. It should be the goal of cities to make it easier for travelers to get places they visit without cars while also making it painless to get to the airport sans traffic jam. But the regional benefits and connections should be taken into account as well.