Taiwan's Airlines Reeling From HSR Success

In the year and a half that Taiwan High Speed Rail has been in operation it has captured a significant chunk of the island's domestic travel market. It has already achieved profitability and now the island's airlines are reeling:

Since the high-speed railway service began, half of the air routes between Taipei City and the country's western cities have been discontinued, with those from the capital to Taichung and Chiayi closed last year and the one to Tainan ended in August. While flights between Taipei and the southern cities of Kaohsiung, Pingtung and Hengchun--home to Kenting National Park--are still in service, operators recently stated that their future is uncertain, with reductions or cancellations being considered.

Mandarin Airlines, a subsidiary of Taiwan's China Airlines, is the only company still running flights between Taipei and Kaohsiung--once the nation's most lucrative domestic route that was also operated by three other local airlines, Uni Air, TransAsia Airways and Far Eastern Air Transport (FAT). Despite reducing its Taipei-Kaohsiung service to one flight per day Aug. 16, Mandarin Airlines also applied to the Civil Aeronautics Administration under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to pull out from the route as of Sept. 1.

"Summer is supposed to be the peak season of air travel, but our passenger occupancy rate is barely over 50 percent," said Irving Hsu, spokesman for Mandarin Airlines. "Airlines cannot survive with occupancy rates lower than 60 percent. It is increasingly difficult to maintain operations as more travelers now choose to take THSR's trains," Hsu explained.

Soaring ridership is the global rule and should finally put to bed any lingering argument that California high speed rail will have any problem meeting ridership projections.

The Taiwan Journal article I linked above used the headline "Romance of rail jeopardizes domestic air routes." But I'm not sure it's romance that's at work here. Instead it's likely simple efficiency and common sense. High speed rail is a fast, reliable way to travel. It's easier to do work on a train - you can make calls, perhaps get WiFi, and not be as crowded in as you are on a coach airline seat (with my 6'2" frame it's nearly impossible for me to even open my laptop fully). HSR trains usually serve city centers, whereas airports are typically located on the urban fringe by necessity.

Taiwan's experience, alongside that of Spain, France, and Japan (to name but a few) proves that if given a choice between flying and taking a high speed train, many if not most travelers will choose the train.

What of the economic impact on the airlines? They are already in crisis, and already cutting flights between LA and SF. US carriers are shifting their business model to emphasize medium and long-haul flights, and smaller cities like Fresno are in jeopardy of losing air service entirely. In this context HSR helps fill a vacuum for Californians and helps get the airlines make a shift they're already looking to make. The fact that no airline is spending a dime to fight Prop 1A should suggest how they really feel about it.

Additionally, the carriers that serve intra-California routes are not dependent on those routes. The days of PSA and AirCal are long gone, and even Southwest can survive without the LA-SF corridor.

High speed rail is essential to California's future. The airlines cannot be relied on to provide us fast, cheap transportation with our state. If we act now and pass Prop 1A we can ensure that California has affordable transportation for decades to come - an absolute necessity to a prosperous and competitive 21st century economy.

I-15 Express Lanes Force Rerouting of SD HSR

Caltrans is about to open 4.5 miles of new express lanes on Interstate 15, part of an ambitious project to add four reversible express lanes to the freeway between Escondido and Miramar. Whether you think more freeway lanes are going to be useful or not (I don't), what's relevant for us is that the LA to SD routing of the high speed rail line was going to run in the I-15 ROW.

The operative word is "was." The Caltrans I-15 project makes it difficult if not impossible to use I-15 between Escondido and Miramar for HSR tracks, so the Authority is exploring other options:

Two months before Californians vote on a $9.95-billion bond measure for trains, state rail officials are going back to the drawing board to map out a new route for 20 miles of high-speed railroad tracks in North County. Peter Gertler, project manager for the system's Los Angeles-to-San Diego corridor, said Wednesday that construction of express lanes on Interstate 15 between Escondido and Miramar will preclude laying down tracks next to the freeway.

Gertler is vice president and national rail director at HNTB Corp. in Oakland. HNTB is the lead consultant on the southern piece of the 800-mile statewide project and Gertler is coordinating preliminary engineering and environmental studies. Gertler said the original idea was to build the railroad along the west side of I-15. Now planners are looking for other routes because that idea no longer will work, he said.

There is a slight chance planners could keep the train in the I-15 corridor by elevating the tracks above freeway lanes, he said. But that may not be feasible.

"There's bridges in there that weren't there before," Gertler said.

I'm not deeply familiar with that section of San Diego County, but judging by the map nothing immediately presents itself, especially considering the hilly topography in the area.

The usual HSR deniers will use this to attack the Authority's route planning, but the SD branch is still in the development stage anyway. The Authority's board meeting yesterday included a presentation from SANDAG on their local transportation planning, including a multimodal transit center at Lindbergh Field that they want to include HSR. As Phase II of the project there is still time to nail down these details.

The I-15 issue does show the need for stronger leadership in this state on coordinating transportation projects, to ensure that things like potential rail corridors aren't paved over. The lack of coordination seemingly plagues rail projects around the state. San Diego officials, the Authority, Caltrans, state legislators, and anyone else I've forgotten need to work together to ensure that there is a workable HSR route solution.

Menlo Park HSR Meeting, Sept. 9

Next week the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Menlo Park City Council are going to hold a study session on Prop 1A and the HSR project. It will be in the council chambers at the Menlo Park Civic Center at 5pm on Tuesday, September 9. Expected to be in attendance are Rod Diridon, Dan Leavitt, and perhaps Quentin Kopp (his attendance is uncertain at this point). It should be a fascinating meeting, one I wish I could attend. Menlo Park has become known as a hotbed of anti-HSR activism, but perhaps the situation is more complicated than that.

Martin Engel is a persistent and vocal gadfly, and succeeded in swaying the councils of Menlo Park and Atherton to adopt a NIMBY position and sue the Authority to block the project. But is this NIMBYism representative of what Menlo Park residents actually believe, or did the squeaky wheel get the grease?

Comments should always be used with caution, but the comments on the Almanac article announcing the meeting suggest that there are plenty of Menlo Park residents who actively support high speed rail and oppose their city being party to the lawsuit. Some examples:

"We are already concerned that the study session may be "rigged" in favor of the train."

Typical comment. There is always a conspiracy going on when people show support for the HSR project. Martin, maybe you and your cronies should realize that a majority of people want this project to happen and that it is not always "rigged" as you mention.

Posted by Eric, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, 15 hours ago

Martin, how about the rigged closed session meeting for a vote your council had against the CAHSRA. Legal? I don't think so. Just shows the true colors of your city council.

GO HSR!

Vote yes on prop 1A

Posted by Justin, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, 15 hours ago

As neighbors on the peninsula we should be thrilled to have this type of transportation technology coming to our area! The economic and environmental benefits will be huge. In a day when gas prices are near $5.00 I'm bewildered by any one who could possibly argue against high speed rail in their area. It is truly a shame to see disagreement on this issue.
Posted by James W., a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, 13 hours ago


Opposition to the train reminds me of the San Mateo county idiots who refused to support BART way back when; now we are stuck with Caltrain lumbering along.
Posted by Doug, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, 35 minutes ago

get real, if you did some reseach you would realize it is not more of the same. Maybe you should and wake up to the twenty first century! This state needs a project like this.

As for Ether, nice comment about "economic boondoggle". Not possible put together. Talk about contradictory. Yes this project will have a great economic impact on the state at the right time and no, it is not a boondoggle. Gee, let's keep the same way of thinking about transportation as you have so we and our children can really fall behind the rest of the world. No thanks. Time to get out of you caves.

Build the train already!

Posted by dave, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, 19 minutes ago

yes Martin, bonds are a way of borrowing money. But unlike a mortgage, the money is not borrowed all at once. It will be spread out over ten years. But you also turn facts around about the train making a profit. All high speed trains around the world are making profits in the billion of dollars, yes billion dollars a year that pay for the money borrowed to build it, maintenance and have money left over to expand the entire system. Don't give us the amtrak never making a profit arguement. Different all together because it is a slow form of transport and can't compare. HSR is fast.

The child like drama you create in this city is really pathethic and embarrasing. Really giving us a bad name. Time to stop. People do support this bond proposal.

Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, 0 minutes ago

Obviously this is a contentious issue within Menlo Park. But the fact that there are vocal supporters of high speed rail there and in Atherton just goes to show how isolated the HSR deniers and NIMBYs really are. Far from being concerned about their city's supposed doom that will result from HSR, many residents actively support the project and want their community to help build it instead of trying to stop it.

It's a welcome development, if not surprising. The numerous benefits of HSR are self-evident, even to residents of Menlo Park and Atherton. Whether it's high speed connections to SF and LA, or cleaner and safer train operation within their communities, or the economic stimulus HSR will provide, or the significant environmental benefits, these residents see the need to support Prop 1A. The same thing is already happening around our state. Californians, like many Peninsula residents, are eager to vote for Prop 1A and move our state into the 21st century.

Powering the High Speed Train With Renewable Energy

Sitting here on the northbound Coast Starlight contemplating the past, the present, and the future. Off to the left is the Santa Barbara Channel with its oil rigs, representing a past that some believe, against all evidence, is still viable. The train is the present - a slow yet beautiful way to get from south to north, but reaching the limits of present capacity and stock. And I'm reading about the future - a high speed train that is not only a fast and efficient way to move people around our state, but that can provide massive benefits to our environment through the use of sustainable and clean technologies.

Back in the spring the California High Speed Rail Authority commissioned a study on powering high speed rail with a fully renewable electricity source. That study is now complete. Produced by Navigant Consulting, it will be discussed at tomorrow's board meeting in San Diego.

The report makes clear that California high speed rail can be powered by 100% renewable energy at an affordable cost - but only if the Authority is "committed early to renewable energy." In other words, to achieve the maximal environmental and economic benefits that 100% renewable energy provides, the Authority must decide soon whether it will commit to that goal.

While the details matter, and will surely be hashed out here on the blog and elsewhere in the state, it is my recommendation that the Authority pursue an all-renewable option and make it a priority in system planning.

Carbon Emissions: The report notes that HSR will save 12 billion pounds of CO2 annually, but the electricity it generates will produce about 5 billion pounds of CO2 per year. That's still a net reduction of 7 billion pounds of CO2 above where we're at today, which is laudable. Certainly there will be some HSR deniers who will point to the 5 billion pounds figure and say "omg this is going to wreck the environment" - but that attitude is akin to refusing to abandon a sinking ship for a lifeboat out of fear you might get cold. Still, HSR should maximize its carbon savings potential, and 100% renewable energy is worth pursuing for that reason alone.

Long-term savings: It's also economically sensible to pursue it - the report notes the "volatile" cost of natural gas, and considering the likelihood that fossil fuel costs will continue to rise over the coming years, 100% renewables is likely to provide a significant long-term savings to the Authority and to the state.

Affordable to the passenger: The report looked at how much renewable energy would add to fares, and found that it would be quite affordable, even without assuming greater innovations in solar energy that would bring down its cost. They considered three scenarios:

100% wind: 86 cents per ticket (on average)
80% wind/20% solar: $1.68
100% solar: $4.92

These numbers reflect the fact that wind is a "mature" technology whereas solar is not. Given the increasing amount of research being done on solar technology it's likely that its cost will decline by the time the system opens. But even if it doesn't, $5 per ticket is quite affordable.

Those costs are an average - shorter trips will see a smaller charge and longer trips will see something more, but even the long term trips will not be significantly more costly than the average.

Further, the cost to the passenger of renewable energy is likely to be much less than a carbon tax or cap-and-trade fee, either of which is highly likely to be in place in California by 2030. And the total ticket price even with renewables included will still be cheaper than airfare or multiple gas fillups will cost by 2030.

Stimulus to renewable energy generation: As a "reliable customer" the high speed rail project would provide a big boost to renewable energy developers, providing a stable and guaranteed purchaser of their product. It would boost California's efforts to achieve greater proportion of electricity generation from renewables - currently the goal is 33% by 2030. Proposition 7 on the November ballot would accelerate that to 50% by 2030, and even if that fails we are likely to see further efforts to achieve a more accelerated schedule. High speed rail would help the state meet those goals by providing a reliable customer, especially as the train will comprise about 1% of the state's daily electricity load.

Issues to resolve: The report identified two main issues that need to be resolved for high speed rail to be powered by 100% renewables. The first is that currently neither solar nor wind provide the full amount of energy needed at peak load times - which for HSR will be from 7-8 AM and 6-7 PM. Wind comes pretty close, and solar gets most of the way there but needs more refinement. Better storage technology, which is a central focus of renewables research right now, would alleviate that issue.

The second is logistical. The high speed rail route crosses areas served by twelve different utilities. The Authority will have to work to ensure that all of them are working together to meet a 100% renewables goal if the Authority adopts it (which they should). This isn't impossible, but to make this work they will have to start negotiating and planning now. The Authority's issues with Union Pacific have been overblown by the project's opponents, but it does suggest the need for the Authority to be proactive and diligent in bringing all 12 utilities on board with a 100% renewables goal. State and federal legislation could also help that process along, and here again, sooner is better.

Van Jones rightly called upon Americans to move "from opposition to proposition" - that the only way we will defeat ludicrous calls for more drilling is by giving America a better option. Not only is high speed rail that better option, but high speed trains powered 100% by renewable energy are an ideal option. Adopting a 100% renewables standard would make an already compelling project even more valuable and would help show Californians the value and importance of sustainable transportation.

The Authority should adopt a 100% renewables goal as soon as possible.