[setitimer]

How? It's still too expensive for most people to use on a daily basis. It still requires some way to get from the train station to your final destination, which adds yet more cost. The end result is that the only people who will really use it are the same people who currently fly regularly between LA and SF, which means about 12 million people annually. Nowhere near enough ridership to support the kind of prices that are being bandied about.

Edit: more like 6 million people fly between LA and SF annually. I was thinking of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor ridership, which is about 12 million annually.

[waterlesscloud]

No, that's not what it means.

If it was that cheap and fast I'd think nothing at all about travelling between the cities a couple times a month. Not daily, but far more frequently than I do now. I wouldn't be the only one.

[ericd]

The paper outlines an amortization period that shows where that price comes from. Did you not read the paper?

[setitimer]

Assuming the paper's optimistic predictions are feasible, the amortized cost per passenger of a one-way ticket is $20 plus operating costs. So, sure, the round trip cost will hopefully be somewhere below $100, if we ignore the cost of local transportation at either end. This is, as I said, too expensive for most people to afford on a daily basis.

Beyond that, the paper also claims a total annual ridership of 7.4 million people, so approximately the same ridership as currently served by air travel. So, other than acting as a jobs program, in what way will this alter the economic landscape of California?

[milesskorpen]

A $20 ticket isn't enough that many people would commute on a daily basis (though many would), but a 40 minute trip is less than my commute to San Jose! You could come to SF to go to Napa or visit a concert, return south to LA for a movie premier or to hit the beaches, all as _day__trips_. How would this not have a huge impact for both cities?

[ericd]

I'm not arguing that it'll be used on a daily basis.

Given how fuel dominates the cost of operating an airline, I'd say that something that is net neutral in terms of energy usage should be able to compare quite favorably in terms of marginal operating cost. I think that that $100 each way figure is very conservative in terms of what it would cost to transport a person.

I'd say the ridership assumptions are very conservative, the experience described is so much better than flying that I would guess that ridership will increase quite a lot. I would visit LA many times as frequently as I do now. It should also cannibalize car traffic quite a lot.

As far as economy goes, this would make intercity business much easier, decrease congestion of the freeways, save many man-years of time that would be otherwise spent in airports or driving, and it would be generally more efficient.

[lambda]

Why do you think this would need to be viable to use on a daily basis to be viable? There are probably enough people who need to have a meeting once a week or once a month in another city, or who want to visit for a weekend, or who want to get to a medical specialist in the other location, to make it work out.