High-speed rail to link Tulsa\OKC\Dallas and more...

[Kerry]

Who is going to operate these high speed trains? In Europe they appear to be public sector corporations but the US doesn't fare very well with this kind of business structure (Post Office, Amtrak, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Maiden Lane).

Maybe it would be better for the US government to build the rails but for private companies to establish train service. This could give existing transportation service providers an opportunity to expand their operations beyond intercity bus and air travel. For example, maybe Southwest could run 3 trains a day between downtown OKC and downtown Dallas, American could run 2 trains, and Greyhound could run 1; each with different levels of services and on-board amenities. The only requirement is that the trains meet a minimum speed requirement to keep the system flowing. This would also allow service to smaller towns if a provider so chooses.

The goal of HSR should be to eliminate air travel under 3 hours and working with existing airlines could be a win/win. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting that HSR link airports together, just that airlines be allowed to operate HSR rail trains from city center to city center (or wherever the stations end up being – which might include airports).

This is just a thought. Of course, HSR would only make sense linking cities that had local rail at each end.

Here is an article about state owned railways buying each other in Europe.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5327300.ece

[Oil Capital]

The flying public has become very aware of the fees for baggage and I promise you that is a major consideration for many travelers.

The baggage fees are not a major consideration for enough travelers for it to matter. Continental was the last "legacy" carrier to charge checked bag fees. They finally did so because they were gaining zero customers. People didn't care enough about checked bag fees to switch airlines.

[Kerry]

The baggage fees are not a major consideration for enough travelers for it to matter. Continental was the last "legacy" carrier to charge checked bag fees. They finally did so because they were gaining zero customers. People didn't care enough about checked bag fees to switch airlines.

It stops me from traveling by air with the family.

[animeGhost]

As a less than wealthy person im game to pretty much any form of transportation that's gonna save me money! And for the airliner dude, im sorry your job is dependent on the airliners pricing situation... but maybe your company should lessen its revenue a bit and charge less for airfare to compete with alternatives transportation because for some ppl its just not affordable to fly especially with the extra fees and its just alot cheaper to drive, take bus or train than to fly. Maybe if they lowered the prices more ppl would fly, they wouldn't make as much profit percent wise but maybe the increased traffic could bring in more overall profit. This is something you can observe happening right now in the smartphone industry. With more smartphoes coming out for less than $100 or even free on contract more ppl are getting smartphones than ever. Its becoming commonplace to not just have a cell phone but to hav a smartphone! Just sayin it could happen.

[Kerry]

As a less than wealthy person im game to pretty much any form of transportation that's gonna save me money! And for the airliner dude, im sorry your job is dependent on the airliners pricing situation... but maybe your company should lessen its revenue a bit and charge less for airfare to compete with alternatives transportation because for some ppl its just not affordable to fly especially with the extra fees and its just alot cheaper to drive, take bus or train than to fly. Maybe if they lowered the prices more ppl would fly, they wouldn't make as much profit percent wise but maybe the increased traffic could bring in more overall profit. This is something you can observe happening right now in the smartphone industry. With more smartphoes coming out for less than $100 or even free on contract more ppl are getting smartphones than ever. Its becoming commonplace to not just have a cell phone but to hav a smartphone! Just sayin it could happen.

I think skywestokc's concern is using taxpayer subsidies to create public sector corporations that put private sector companies out of business. That wouldn't be good for anyone because any lower price achieved from that would be short lived and barriers to entry would prevent the re-introduction of competition. Once the private sector transportation companies are gone, they are gone for good. That is why I am concerned about who would operate a High Speed Rail system. Do we really want a government agency putting airlines out of business or would it be better to have private sector rail companies compete with private sector airlines? Or better yet, having existing airlines running some of the HSR trains.

Let's say there is a dedicated HSR line from downtown OKC to downton Dallas. Based on capacity, the system can handle 2 trains an hour for 16 hours a day (6AM to 10PM). Companies could then bid on which time-slot they want (highest bidder picks first). It would then be up to that company to make a profit on the service. Prices would be kept low because if a company tried to over-charge a different provider might have service 30 minutes before or 30 minutes after at a cheaper price. Of course, it is possible that not all hours would be picked up right away leaving excess capacity for future expansion of service.

[animeGhost]

I understand what your saying. I was simply stating what airliners could do to compete against private sector (fingers crossed) high speed, lower cost transortation. If it was up to me i would fly everwhrere (even work lol!) as i have an incredible love for airplanes. I wanted to be a pilot for the longest until i realized i wasn't very talented in math lol. Unfortunately i am not in a financial situation where i can afford to do so especialy in group situations where its much cheaper to rent a car than to buy 4 air tickets for a short trip.

[Kerry]

lower cost transortation.

That is one of the concerns, without the subsidy I'm not sure how low the cost would be.

Company A completing against Company B is easy. Company A competing against Company B + Government is hard.

[SkyWestOKC]

Kerry hit it spot on. If a private company wants to compete with the airlines via rail, fine, it's up to the airlines to compete. But using my personal money (via taxes) to compete with my company, where many like me (or me) would be out of a job....sounds great. Using my paycheck against myself. UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete with USPS, only the USPS (govt. entity) is allowed to offer parcel post (the mail) except for time critical shipments. UPS and FedEx are unable to compete in the largest freight sector. I'm afraid widespread government operated HSR would place mandates that the airlines would not be able to carry local traffic (Origin and Destination) on those flights. For example, if OKC and Dallas had HSR connecting the two, American Airlines would be unable to sell tickets from OKC-DFW, only tickets connecting in Dallas, but not ending in Dallas. If Joe Schmo with a ton of money and a ton of investor friends brainstorm and come up with the money to convert the existing rail to HSR, buy a few trains and make a private company to compete with the airlines. Awesome, I'm sure we'll compete just fine. But allow the government to enter the competition, and the government will make rules that will help it's service, while limiting the competition. And the private sector can't do anything about it, because the government made it law.

[animeGhost]

As a less than wealthy person im game to pretty much any form of transportation that's gonna save me money! And for the airliner dude, im sorry your job is dependent on the airliners pricing situation... but maybe your company should lessen its revenue a bit and charge less for airfare to compete with alternatives transportation because for some ppl its just not affordable to fly especially with the extra fees and its just alot cheaper to drive, take bus or train than to fly. Maybe if they lowered the prices more ppl would fly, they wouldn't make as much profit percent wise but maybe the increased traffic could bring in more overall profit. This is something you can observe happening right now in the smartphone industry. With more smartphoes coming out for less than $100 or even free on contract more ppl are getting smartphones than ever. Its becoming commonplace to not just have a cell phone but to hav a smartphone! Just sayin it could happen.

[betts]

I don't think high speed rail will ever replace travel in the US, except perhaps for short hops. Very few people have the time to travel even vis high speed rail, and I find it hard to believe prices will be competitive, unless the government heavily subsidizes rail travel. Why should they do that? I'm fine with taking the train to Tulsa or Dallas, if I can get there quickly and I have a transport option once I get there. But I have no interest spending a eight hours getting to Atlanta via rail when I can fly there in two.

[MustangGT]

A dedicated HSR track/corridor would be prohibitively expensive. It would have NO grade crossings, minimize curves. The straighter the better. Completely fenced in to prevent people and animals from getting on the track. I could see a dedicated line say LAX-LAV. I agree with betts it is a pipe dream at best unless and until the track costs can be lowered dramatically.

[ljbab728]

The baggage fees are not a major consideration for enough travelers for it to matter. Continental was the last "legacy" carrier to charge checked bag fees. They finally did so because they were gaining zero customers. People didn't care enough about checked bag fees to switch airlines.

This may not be a factor for you but I'm in the travel business and deal with it every day. I assure you it does matter to a majority of the public. I am asked about that continously. That doesn't mean they will all fly with Southwest but it is definitely taken into consideration. For a family of four planning to fly for a vacation it can be a major consideration.

[rcjunkie]

I don't think high speed rail will ever replace travel in the US, except perhaps for short hops. Very few people have the time to travel even vis high speed rail, and I find it hard to believe prices will be competitive, unless the government heavily subsidizes rail travel. Why should they do that? I'm fine with taking the train to Tulsa or Dallas, if I can get there quickly and I have a transport option once I get there. But I have no interest spending a eight hours getting to Atlanta via rail when I can fly there in two.

If you add in the ime it takes to go through baggage check in, safety screening, etc;, that 2 hour flight is probably close to 8 hours.

[betts]

More like 3 and a half hours. It takes me ten minutes to get to the airport, and I've never gotten to the airport more than an hour early. Ah, I might take the train once, but not regularly. Eight hours is probably terribly generous for high speed rail too. I seriously doubt we're going to get express trains that go from OKC to Atlanta. They would stop in Little Rock, Memphis, Birmingham, I suspect, which would add considerably. Again, I really like the idea of rail for shorter, intercity hops, but we are a massive country and I can only imagine what it would cost to add a network of high speed rail across the country.

[Kerry]

Oklahoma City to Atlanta is 862 miles. That is like going from Paris to Dubrovnik, Croatia. You are not doing that in 8 hours on a train. Upgrades to the Tulsa/OKC route would be more than just a few million dollars.

[bluedogok]

More like 3 and a half hours. It takes me ten minutes to get to the airport, and I've never gotten to the airport more than an hour early.

Right now they are starting a new project to expand/upgrade the security areas at the Austin airport and I have known more than a few people saying it has taken them an hour just to get through security because of the new procedures. It took us about 30 minutes to get through security last June for an 11:00 am or so flight in the middle of the week, I would hate to try and fly on a Monday morning or Friday evening right now especially during SXSW or ACL Fest.

[Kerry]

We are already seeing the effects of high speed rail on the air travel industry in China. South China Air (the largest airline in China) has had to cut fares on routes it competes with HSR on by 80% in some cases and has resulted in some airlines abandoning the routes completely.

With our federal government I could easily see them not allowing people to buy tickets from OKC to Dallas/Houston/San Antonio/Austin/Kansas City/Tulsa if they had high speed rail connections. That would pretty much put Southwest Airlines out of business. I don't like the idea of government companies putting private sector companies out of business.

Like I said, if the government wants to build the tracks I am good with that, airlines don't build the airports either, but the train service should be provided by private companies. Imagine if we were like France and the SEIU could shut down all travel by going on strike.


http://coscc.ebizchina.net/2011/inde...sport-landscap

Wang Changshun, deputy head of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, told a conference on Tuesday that the fast trains have forced some airlines to cancel short-distance flights along high-speed rail lines.
For example, the Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway, where every few minutes trains zip between the two cities via Changsha, capital of Central China’s Hunan province, has carried 20.6 million passengers in the year since its opening in December 2009.

During that period the number of flights between Changsha and Guangzhou has been cut from an average of 11.5 flights a day to three flights a day, he said.
Hainan and Shenzhen airlines decided to withdraw from the market, leaving only China Southern Airlines carrying the three daily flights, Wang said.
The ticket price for those flights also dropped by 15 percent to attract travelers, but still the number of passengers flying between Changsha and Guangzhou dropped by 48 percent to 390,000 during 2010, he said.

“The opening of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed line next year will be another blow to the air transport industry,” Wang said, without forecasting how serious the impact will be.
Airlines have been urged to cut costs, reduce delays and seek cooperation opportunities with high-speed railways.

[ou48A]

What if the Government built grade separated dedicated tracks (much like they build airports) but had a process that had companies operating the day to day operation of the trains.
Most of the major airports already have parking, mass transit, car rental, security, highways, and other things that would support a train station.
You could more easily change forms of transportation. Weather would be less disruptive to travel.
The airlines are in the people moving business. If they wish, let them operate the trains and bid on routes.
Award the routs based on the lowest ticket price.

[Kerry]

What if the Government built grade separated dedicated tracks (much like they build airports) but had a process that had companies operating the day to day operation of the trains.
Most of the major airports already have parking, mass transit, car rental, security, highways, and other things that would support a train station.
You could more easily change forms of transportation. Weather would be less disruptive to travel.
The airlines are in the people moving business. If they wish, let them operate the trains and bid on routes.
Award the routs based on the lowest ticket price.

That is what I mean, but I wouldn't award the routes based on ticket price because different trains could have different amenities (I'll explain below). Determine the capacity and let the private sector bid on the times they want to serve. If American Airlines wants to get in on the rail service then let them. If you don't like the ticket price of the American train, wait 20 minutes and a Southwest train will be along.

Trains won’t just have one fare. Some seats will cost more than others, and in some cases a lot more. This is one of the problems China has. The HSR trains were setup for the high-end customers but when those high-end customers left the airlines, the airlines had hard time keeping the routes open because they don’t make much money off the coach seats. The result was the airline choosing not to compete with HSR lines.

This left the coach passengers with a problem – HSR tickets they can’t afford and no more airlines. It has caused a major traffic issue between cities (remember the traffic jam in China a few months ago) as people buying cars or taking the bus. As a result China has started modifying some of the trains with smaller seats and less leg room to get more people in. In some cases they have entire first class trains and coach class trains. I imagine the coach class trains are pretty darn uncomfortable.

[RoboNerd]

Come to think of it, the government shouldn't build roads designed for cars. It's putting horse-drawn carriage makers out of business.

After all, times and needs -- they never change.

Here's an idea: how about the taxpayers build the rails and control system, and private companies run the trains on them. Sorry, but I think regional airlines are a business model whose time has come and gone. Future air travel will be for long distances.

[Kerry]

Robonerd, no one is saying the government shouldn't build tracks. We are saying they shouldn't operate the trains.

[RoboNerd]

Robonerd, no one is saying the government shouldn't build tracks. We are saying they shouldn't operate the trains.

In principle I agree, but I wonder how feasible it's going to be for at least a starter period, say, the first 10 years or so. This may be one of those cases where a public corporation has to lay the foundation... then sell it off after a fixed period of time.

The question here is, what's the most likely approach to ensure success in the long term? Pragmatism must trump ideology.

[Kerry]

The problem is the US doesn't have a very good track record with public corporations. Having the government run the initial 10 years will actually damage the brand. A business is only worth the revenue it can generate and if the government runs a loss or small profit the service won't be worth as much then if the private sector just buys it on day one. And heaven forbid that the taxpayers have to subsidize the public corporation because then the private sector will make the case they should get the subsidy as well. The last thing we need are more subsidies.

But before we even get to that stage where do we get the trillion dollars HSR is going to require? I know you are saying to yourself, China is only spending $200 billion for their system. Well, the average person in China makes $2 a day so you can do the math. As this author points out:

http://gas2.org/2010/12/03/the-cost-...gh-speed-rail/

China doesn’t have to worry about the EPA, lawyers, property rights or any of that nonsense. They say the train goes here, and that’s where the train goes. Since high-speed trains need long, flat surfaces, it isn’t as though they go around a protected temple or private homestead. The train goes through it, and that is that.

Environment impact statements alone will cost a billion dollars.

[Kerry]

I was reading through some of the articles written about China high speed rail and have come to the conclusion that OKC/Dallas/Houston should be the first route in America. There are several factors working in our favor. HSR needs a few things to work; level terrain, straight lines, access to abundent electricity, and open space. Trying to put China style HSR from Boston to DC would be so expensive with so many right of way and power issues it would be cost prohibitive. California (except for the central valley) has way too many mountain ranges and no hope of having straight rails through urban areas. Houston/Dallas/OKC though has all the requirments needed with local rail available at all three cities. It might be too late for America's mega-cities to get true HSR into their urban cores.

[HOT ROD]

That is what I mean, but I wouldn't award the routes based on ticket price because different trains could have different amenities (I'll explain below). Determine the capacity and let the private sector bid on the times they want to serve. If American Airlines wants to get in on the rail service then let them. If you don't like the ticket price of the American train, wait 20 minutes and a Southwest train will be along.

Trains won’t just have one fare. Some seats will cost more than others, and in some cases a lot more. This is one of the problems China has. The HSR trains were setup for the high-end customers but when those high-end customers left the airlines, the airlines had hard time keeping the routes open because they don’t make much money off the coach seats. The result was the airline choosing not to compete with HSR lines.

This left the coach passengers with a problem – HSR tickets they can’t afford and no more airlines. It has caused a major traffic issue between cities (remember the traffic jam in China a few months ago) as people buying cars or taking the bus. As a result China has started modifying some of the trains with smaller seats and less leg room to get more people in. In some cases they have entire first class trains and coach class trains. I imagine the coach class trains are pretty darn uncomfortable.

Kerry, do you have a source for your comments about China's CRH?

I spent very long durations of time in China the last few years, and the CRH wasn't designed for the upper crust (in an American way of thinking), it was designed as a sustainable method of travel connecting long distances while also improving the nation's infrastructure. America built a vast network of interstate highways, China is building a vast network of high speed rail (highways also). If you've ever been to China, you would know the reason for this (and it has NOTHING to do with Chinese not affording cars or riding bicycles) - the reason is, they have too many people. ... You DONT want everyone to own a car (much less 2 or 3 like many do in the USA), it would be chaos all around the nation.

Also consider, in the US, Airports were built by the government and Airlines were once regulated as a state monopoly. Sure the Airlines 'deregulated' and competition rose (much like what has happened in China), but the Trains really haven't purged much away from the airlines in total - because most common people couldn't afford regular plane tickets anyways.

You are right in one facet, high speed rail did purge away many premium seat airline customers. But you are not correct in my opinion and what I saw, that CRH was built for high end customer. ... There are two classes, but even the 'coach' class is quite first and the ticket price isn't much different between the two. The main difference I saw between First Class and 2nd class is the seating (First being 2 (pair) seats and even a few single seats), 2nd class having mostly 3 seats.

Yes, CRH is government run - but you can't really run a national train service highspeed unless a single entity does it. It works great in Japan and Europe, and there isn't much lost to their airlines. So in summary, yes CRH has had an impact on travel BUT air travel overall is still growing; it's just in the past China ONLY had airline (or very slow curvy freight sharing trains) and those airlines had multitudes of flights daily between city pairs; today - it's a more US like schedule and premium seats are still sold as air travel is still the fastest. CRH has opened travel up for everyone.