Update On Pricing For The Jerry Brown Bullet Train -- May 10, 2015

For the archives when our granddaughter are taking the Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2030. 

The top story in today's Los Angeles Time: the price of ticket on the "bullet train" from Los Angeles to San Francisco:

• seven years ago, riders were promised a $50 ticket-price
• today, 2015, the tickets are projected to be priced at $86
• at $86, about 20 cents/mile for the JBBT
• best rate world-wide: about 20 cents/mile 
• Beijing - Shanghai, 800 miles, 22 cents/mile, heavily subsidized
• Milan - Salaerno, 400 miles, 25 cents/mile
• Hannover (sic) - Wurzburg: 46 cents/mile 
• Paris - Lyon: 52 cents/mile
• Amtrak's Acela system, Washington, DC - Boston, 450 miles: 50 cents/mile
• at 50 cents/mile, the Acela would be $225 one way
• at Travelocity, Jet Blue, DC to Boston: $300 for purchasing ticket 24 hours in advance
• at Travelocity, Jet Blue, DC to Boston: $68 for purchasing same ticket 2 weeks in advance
• at Travelocity, United, LA to San Francisco: $198 for purchasing ticket 24 hours in advance
• at Travelocity, Jet Blue, LA to San Francisco: $78 for purchasing ticket 2 weeks in advance

From the linked article:

The current $86 fare is calculated in 2013 dollars based on a formula that prices tickets at 83% of average airline fares to help attract riders. The rail fare is an average that includes economy and premium seats, nonstop and multi-stop trains, as well as last-minute and advance purchase tickets. A premium, same-day nonstop bullet train trip would cost more than $86. 

Nothing in the article suggests the bullet train will succeed and this is the top story in the most liberal newspaper in the US. Another example from the article, again, at the very end of the story:

"With a family, it's four train fares versus one car, and taking the train may require a car rental at the other end," said Genevieve Giuliano, director of USC's Metrans transportation program. "I don't see high-speed rail as competitive in the family market."

Note: I often make errors on posts like these. If you are planning a trip by rail or by air in 2030, either on the west coast or the east coast, do not make any travel plans based on what you read here. Go to the source. Prices are likely to be different in 2030 than currently "advertised."

Deep in the article this interesting tidbit;

Shortly after the ridership figures were updated last year, a problem was found with the complex mathematical model used by Massachusetts-based Cambridge Systematics, a state consultant. It predicted more short trips than seemed logical, according to Cambridge. One example: The model suggested travelers would drive from Sacramento to downtown San Francisco and board a bullet train for the airport. Koppelman's panel agreed to an adjustment and urged Cambridge to develop a new version of the model.

Okay, read that again. The consultants assumed (and placed in their computer model), folks who live in Sacramento would drive all the way to San Francisco, to board the bullet train there, simply to take the bullet train to San Francisco airport. Hello! Folks who drive from Sacramento to San Francisco to catch an flight out of SFO would would drive directly to the airport rather than the extra hassle involved in making the change at the train station.

Those shorter bullet train trips were put into the model to a) increase ridership; and, b) increase revenue to help finance the bullet train.

It's interesting: it seems strange the state did not contract with the Stanford Graduate School of Business for the study. Stanford's MBA program was ranked 1st in the United States by U.S. News & World Report in its 2015 rankings.

*****************************

The California Drought

Again, for the archives.

First, a Tim Rutten commentary from the Pasadena Star News.

As the historian William Karl has pointed out, “The history of California in the 20th century is the history of a state inventing itself with water.” In fact, the invention that makes possible the world’s seventh largest economy with its annual GDP of $2.2 trillion is the largest, most complex and productive system for moving and distributing water in the history of mankind. Each year, California’s water system moves enough water to maintain 30 million people and to irrigate 29 million acres of incredibly productive cropland.

Many scientists, however, now strongly suspect that this sustaining system was put together during an unusually wet period in the region’s natural history. The roughly 20-year period when California’s population doubled — from about 1970 to the late 1990s — was one of the wettest on record. Paleoclimatologists have come to realize that, for most of discernible history, California and the Southwest were usually much drier than they’ve been for the past 150 years and — more sobering — were subject to centuries-long mega droughts. The two most recent of these occurred in the 13th and 9th centuries and lasted 150 and 200 years, respectively.

Whether the prolonged dry spell now withering so much of the Southwest signals another of these epic events is unknown. In any event, the scientists who believe that we’re in a period of accelerated climate change induced by human activity — and they’re a cross-disciplinary majority — predict that global warming will make for a slightly wetter Northern California in the years ahead, while the state’s central and southern regions, along with most of the American Southwest, will become markedly drier.

His conclusions (recommendations) are spot on, but I wish he had steered clear of invoking climate change (though in his defense he seemed fair and balanced on the subject).

Second, to be filed under "no good deed goes unpunished," a long article on the situation in San Diego as reported by KCRA. San Diego started preparing for this drought back in 1991 and its residents have paid much upfront to conserve huge amounts of water, but this is what Sacramento thinks about San Diego:

San Diego's march to independence earned little sympathy from the State Water Resources Control Board, which approved the cuts to achieve Gov. Jerry Brown's target of reducing urban water use 25 percent. Board officials say those who prepared for drought will be better off in the long run.

"This is not about being fair, giving kudos for past performance," said board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus. "This is about dealing with what is an emergency out in front of us that may not be right here, but we can see coming at us."

*****************************

Texas Drought

Nine days out of current 10-day run we will be having rain in DFW area. This is perhaps the biggest day for rain. Several hours, now, of non-stop rain coming down in torrents.