The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[JSt0rm]

oh damn it I decided to do a quick google search and there are economic impact studies done on the her system in cali.

Why must everything be so difficult in here. People just flat out lie when anyone can just go look.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=economic+impact+study+done+on+hsr+project+in+california

 

[Darwin333]

Neither of those links backs up your claim that we are running out of airspace rather infrastructure. It ignores ever increasing infrastructure as well as the ever increasing plane size.

Aren't we talking about increasing infrastructure?

 

[davmat787]

Again, with population growth we will not be able to put more people in the sky. You have to concede this issue. So we need to look at alternatives to moving large amounts of people around.

You might want to read the report below. Every single report regarding the future of airline transportation I have read predicts growth in the number of airliner passengers year to year. Airlines are adding capacity, FAA and the aircraft manufactures are working on technologies to handle it, airports are being expanded, etc. Just look at the number of passengers in China today compared to 10 years ago, the growth is there. Why do you think this will all of the sudden stop?


http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200915.pdf


Table 1. Forecast growth in international air traffic
2008-2027 by various organisations
Sources: Boeing Current Market Outlook 2008-2027, Airbus, 2007 – (2007-2026) ICAO (2007),
Outlook for Air Transport to 2025.
In Table 2, reproduced from Boeing’s Current Market Outlook 2009, the expected growth in RPK
between various regions is presented. It seems quite surprising that traffic growth between Latin
America and Asia Pacific and Africa will be so bullish. This reflects the expected growth in GDP in
these regions (see Table 3). GDP growth has traditionally always been a significant driver in traffic
growth, and it appears there is a view that it will continue to do so – old drivers will be influential in
the future. If one looks at the ratio of RPK to GDP across these sets of countries, it varies from a low
of 1.3 between Latin America and Africa, to a high of 2.2 between Asia Pacific and Latin America; will
these be the primary nodes of economic activity

 

[davmat787]

oh damn it I decided to do a quick google search and there are economic impact studies done on the her system in cali.

Why must everything be so difficult in here. People just flat out lie when anyone can just go look.

Next time you are stuck in traffic, go look at the airspace you keep insisting that we will run out of. Then look back at the traffic and amount of space to expand roads. This is not an indictment against HSR, I just disagree with your assertion that we are, or will be, running out of "airspace".

 

[JSt0rm]

You might want to read the report below. Every single report regarding the future of airline transportation I have read predicts growth in the number of airliner passengers year to year. Airlines are adding capacity, FAA and the aircraft manufactures are working on technologies to handle it, airports are being expanded, etc. Just look at the number of passengers in China today compared to 10 years ago, the growth is there. Why do you think this will all of the sudden stop?


http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200915.pdf


Table 1. Forecast growth in international air traffic
2008-2027 by various organisations
Sources: Boeing Current Market Outlook 2008-2027, Airbus, 2007 – (2007-2026) ICAO (2007),
Outlook for Air Transport to 2025.
In Table 2, reproduced from Boeing’s Current Market Outlook 2009, the expected growth in RPK
between various regions is presented. It seems quite surprising that traffic growth between Latin
America and Asia Pacific and Africa will be so bullish. This reflects the expected growth in GDP in
these regions (see Table 3). GDP growth has traditionally always been a significant driver in traffic
growth, and it appears there is a view that it will continue to do so – old drivers will be influential in
the future. If one looks at the ratio of RPK to GDP across these sets of countries, it varies from a low
of 1.3 between Latin America and Africa, to a high of 2.2 between Asia Pacific and Latin America; will
these be the primary nodes of economic activity

I dont think the airspace above china is congested and probably has a lot of room to grow.

I also said that there could be technological advancements to increase the number of aircraft we can put in the air.

The problem is you can only have so many flights into and out of lax. Would you agree that there is a finite number of airplanes that can be flying around safely?

 

[davmat787]

I dont think the airspace above china is congested and probably has a lot of room to grow.

I also said that there could be technological advancements to increase the number of aircraft we can put in the air.

The problem is you can only have so many flights into and out of lax. Would you agree that there is a finite number of airplanes that can be flying around safely?

(damnit! I had a long reply all typed out but lost it! Not on my normal laptop, using an unfamiliar netbook, ugh)

I suppose, but we will never see that in our lifetimes. KSEA, my hometown airport, recently added a third runway to add capacity. Airlines often work on slots. United might "own" 100 daily slots at LAX. If customer demand says they need to fly in more passengers, they will upgrade a slot from an A320 to a 767 or whatever. FAA and Boeing work on air traffic control technologies so aircraft require less separation, instead of landing every 2 minutes, they might be separated by 90 seconds instead. I know the name of this technology/project, it escapes me at the moment, but I will find it.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think China's airspace is not congested, while ours is? What factors are you using? Also, how many other airports in the vicinity of LAX are there that are nowhere near capacity? Wasn't the Bob Bradley International Terminal at LAX recently upgraded?

 

[JSt0rm]

(damnit! I had a long reply all typed out but lost it! Not on my normal laptop, using an unfamiliar netbook, ugh)

I suppose, but we will never see that in our lifetimes. KSEA, my hometown airport, recently added a third runway to add capacity. Airlines often work on slots. United might "own" 100 daily slots at LAX. If customer demand says they need to fly in more passengers, they will upgrade a slot from an A320 to a 767 or whatever. FAA and Boeing work on air traffic control technologies so aircraft require less separation, instead of landing every 2 minutes, they might be separated by 90 seconds instead. I know the name of this technology/project, it escapes me at the moment, but I will find it.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think China's airspace is not congested, while ours is? What factors are you using? Also, how many other airports in the vicinity of LAX are there that are nowhere near capacity? Wasn't the Bob Bradley International Terminal at LAX recently upgraded?

Well I'm just assuming that being as undeveloped as they are they can have a lot more growth right now including in the airspace.

30 years ago they probably had very small civilian air travel so its logical that they would be able to grow that.

Getting to and from LAX is a bitch most always. If they go to 90 second drops on planes if the population of los angeles grows 40% by the year 2040 we will still have major transportation problems.

Here check this

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/10/local/me-population10

 

[JSt0rm]

oh and i hate it when i lose a long reply

 

[davmat787]

JStorm, you might want to read both Boeing and Airbus' Commercial Growth Forecasts, linked to below.

The latest Airbus Global Market Forecast provides an industry outlook through 2030, with an emphasis on such drivers and factors as fleet growth, aircraft size, emerging markets, innovation and environmental impact.
During this period, Airbus foresees the need for more than 26,900 passenger airliners with seating capacities of 100 seats and above, along with over 900 new factory-built freighter aircraft. In the same timeframe, the world’s overall passenger aircraft inventory will more than double from today’s 15,000 to more than 31,500 by 2030.

Airlines order aircraft years and sometimes a decade ahead of delivery, with expected usage of the new aircraft for 15, 20 or more years. If the airlines don't think capacity will grow, why have they bet billions of dollars buying all of these aircraft that are in the queue to be built and delivered?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/
http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/

 

[JSt0rm]

ok thats nice.

I'm talking about the population of California and you are talking about airplines as a growth industry. Both of these things can be correct. no?

 

[davmat787]

Well I'm just assuming that being as undeveloped as they are they can have a lot more growth right now including in the airspace.

30 years ago they probably had very small civilian air travel so its logical that they would be able to grow that.

Getting to and from LAX is a bitch most always. If they go to 90 second drops on planes if the population of los angeles grows 40% by the year 2040 we will still have major transportation problems.

Here check this

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/10/local/me-population10

You keep going back to LAX as your prime example for why there will be no more growth in the civilian aviation sector, I think that is a mistake to look at this issue in just that context. Hell, the western edge of LAX runs right up to the beach. But why wouldn't airlines use higher capacity planes as demand dictates, and/or look at other airports in the vicinity such as what Jet Blue did with LGB?

 

[davmat787]

ok thats nice.

I'm talking about the population of California and you are talking about airplines as a growth industry. Both of these things can be correct. no?

Again, as I said above I am disagreeing with your assertion that we are running out of airspace. Are you shifting the goal posts or are you only referring to the air corridor between LAX and SFO which would correlate to the alleged boondoggle at hand? Cause if that is the case I can shoot that down too but I am too tired, will check in the morning. :biggrin:

An airline capacity crisis does not have to be afoot for HSR to be viable. If that is the sole or a primary reason for justifying your HSR project, well I don't know what to say. I haven't looked into the HSR project since it is not in my state, but I do find the numbers shocking.

 

[JSt0rm]

You keep going back to LAX as your prime example for why there will be no more growth in the civilian aviation sector, I think that is a mistake to look at this issue in just that context. Hell, the western edge of LAX runs right up to the beach. But why wouldn't airlines use higher capacity planes as demand dictates, and/or look at other airports in the vicinity such as what Jet Blue did with LGB?

wait. I never said there wasnt going to be any more growth in the aviation sector. So I dont even know what we are talking about. I am talking about airspace congestion but I dont believe that will lead to negative growth in the airline sector. As you said there will be more airports but in addition to all of those things I think a high speed rail is a good idea. Because at some point the airport that is closest to me will be full.

Have you driven from burbank to santa monica? A kid I hired to help me on a project did that this morning. He left his house in burbank at 8am and got to me in santa monica at 10:40am.

We have light rail planned here in la that will connect to this high speed rail. We need this.

 

[JSt0rm]

Again, as I said above I am disagreeing with your assertion that we are running out of airspace. Are you shifting the goal posts or are you only referring to the air corridor between LAX and SFO which would correlate to the alleged boondoggle at hand? Cause if that is the case I can shoot that down too but I am too tired, will check in the morning. :biggrin:

I'm saying that

1. a airport like lax can only eat and shit so many airplanes big or small.

2. to get to another airport is retarded in LA.

3. We need rail.

I dont feel like my goal posts are changing. This is all I have ever been saying.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think people dont truly understand what traffic is like here. I used to date a girl in riverside and if I went to her house on a friday it would take me over 4 hours. I would idle down the highway to her house. Idle! the entire way!

 

[monovillage]

wait. I never said there wasnt going to be any more growth in the aviation sector. So I dont even know what we are talking about. I am talking about airspace congestion but I dont believe that will lead to negative growth in the airline sector. As you said there will be more airports but in addition to all of those things I think a high speed rail is a good idea. Because at some point the airport that is closest to me will be full.

Have you driven from burbank to santa monica? A kid I hired to help me on a project did that this morning. He left his house in burbank at 8am and got to me in santa monica at 10:40am.

We have light rail planned here in la that will connect to this high speed rail. We need this.

Why didn't he just take the L.A. subway or the metro rail?

 

[davmat787]

I'm saying that

1. a airport like lax can only eat and shit so many airplanes big or small.

2. to get to another airport is retarded in LA.

3. We need rail.

I dont feel like my goal posts are changing. This is all I have ever been saying.

In post #306 you said airspace "our airspace is full". Since you don't fly from LAX to other LA airports, and given the context of this thread, I am under the impression you are talking about the airline industry on the whole or maybe CA. At the minimum for it to make sense, you would have to be talking about the "airspace" capacity between LAX and SFO since the HSR runs between those cities right?

And you may have missed my edit to #338, it is below also. I guess I don't see the correlation between your assertion regarding airspace and the HSR project too. Will the HSR project help travel within the LA area?

Now, I really have to crash, going on 3 hours of sleep but this topic interests me. Isn't nice we were able to disagree and provide some corrections without resorting to calling people idiots and insults? Try it more often. Just sayN. ()

An airline capacity crisis does not have to be afoot for HSR to be viable. If that is the sole or a primary reason for justifying your HSR project, well I don't know what to say. I haven't looked into the HSR project since it is not in my state, but I do find the numbers shocking.

 

[JSt0rm]

In post #306 you said airspace "our airspace is full". Since you don't fly from LAX to other LA airports, and given the context of this thread, I am under the impression you are talking about the airline industry on the whole or maybe CA. At the minimum for it to make sense, you would have to be talking about the "airspace" capacity between LAX and SFO since the HSR runs between those cities right?

And you may have missed my edit to #338, it is below also. I guess I don't see the correlation between your assertion regarding airspace and the HSR project too. Will the HSR project help travel within the LA area?

Now, I really have to crash, going on 3 hours of sleep but this topic interests me. Isn't nice we were able to disagree and provide some corrections without resorting to calling people idiots and insults? Try it more often. Just sayN. ()

I treat people how they deserve to be treated. I'm talking about the airspace in general yes but more specifically the airspace around these airports is the problem.

And I don't believe I brought up airports in this rail thread. For some reason rail is now liberal and airplanes are conservative so the local retard brigade must attack one and use the other as a example as to why we don't need the liberal commie railroad.

 

[JSt0rm]

Oh and to respond to your edit. Look at those population projections for my state. That many people is going to be hell with a roads.aircraft only policy

 

[Patranus]

I'm saying that

1. a airport like lax can only eat and shit so many airplanes big or small.

2. to get to another airport is retarded in LA.

3. We need rail.

I dont feel like my goal posts are changing. This is all I have ever been saying.

There are what, 4 major airports in LA.
Long Beach is currently expanding.
Ontario International Airport is international.
John Wayne is building/improving terminals.

Plenty of room in LA to expand.

Anyways, here you go

Traffic by calendar year
Passengers	FAA Aircraft Movements	Air Freight in tons	Air Mail in tons
1994	51,050,275	689,888	1,516,567	186,878
1995	53,909,223	732,639	1,567,248	193,747
1996	57,974,559	763,866	1,696,663	194,091
1997	60,142,588	781,492	1,852,487	212,410
1998	61,215,712	773,569	1,787,400	264,473
1999	64,279,571	779,150	1,884,526	253,695
2000	67,303,182	783,433	2,002,614	246,538
2001	61,606,204	738,433	1,779,065	162,629
2002	56,223,843	645,424	1,869,932	92,422
2003	54,982,838	622,378	1,924,883	97,193
2004	60,704,568	655,097	2,022,911	92,402
2005	61,489,398	650,629	2,048,817	88,371
2006	61,041,066	656,842	2,022,687	80,395
2007	62,438,583	680,954	2,010,820	66,707
2008	59,815,646	622,506	1,723,038	73,505
2009	56,520,843	544,833	1,599,782	64,073
2010	59,069,409	575,835	1,852,791	74,034
Source: Los Angeles World Airports [42]

As you can see, flights have DROPPED while passengers and cargo has increased.

 

[JSt0rm]

There are what, 4 major airports in LA.
Long Beach is currently expanding.
Ontario International Airport is international.
John Wayne is building/improving terminals.

Plenty of room in LA to expand.

Anyways, here you go

Traffic by calendar year
Passengers    FAA Aircraft Movements    Air Freight in tons    Air Mail in tons
1994    51,050,275    689,888    1,516,567    186,878
1995    53,909,223    732,639    1,567,248    193,747
1996    57,974,559    763,866    1,696,663    194,091
1997    60,142,588    781,492    1,852,487    212,410
1998    61,215,712    773,569    1,787,400    264,473
1999    64,279,571    779,150    1,884,526    253,695
2000    67,303,182    783,433    2,002,614    246,538
2001    61,606,204    738,433    1,779,065    162,629
2002    56,223,843    645,424    1,869,932    92,422
2003    54,982,838    622,378    1,924,883    97,193
2004    60,704,568    655,097    2,022,911    92,402
2005    61,489,398    650,629    2,048,817    88,371
2006    61,041,066    656,842    2,022,687    80,395
2007    62,438,583    680,954    2,010,820    66,707
2008    59,815,646    622,506    1,723,038    73,505
2009    56,520,843    544,833    1,599,782    64,073
2010    59,069,409    575,835    1,852,791    74,034
Source: Los Angeles World Airports [42]

As you can see, flights have DROPPED while passengers and cargo has increased.

See this is the kind of guy who only shits information one way. I just got done talking about traveling to john Wayne airport (santa monica to burbank) being insane.

California. 60 million people. 2050. figure it out.

 

[Patranus]

See this is the kind of guy who only shits information one way. I just got done talking about traveling to john Wayne airport (santa monica to burbank) being insane.

California. 60 million people. 2050. figure it out.

Answer the question.
If you compare the number of people traveling in 1994 to 2010 and it has increased by ~8 million while the amount of freight was increased by ~225,000 tons and the number of flights have decreased by 114,000 how is capacity going to be a problem?

That is a ~15% increase in people and ~13% increase in cargo while the number of flight have decreased by ~17%.

Now, the population of LA in 1990 (closet to 1994) was ~3.4 million while in 2010 (closest to 2011) it was ~3.8 million. This represents a ~11% increase in the city population.

So we increased the population by ~11%, increased air travel by ~15% and cargo by 13% but decreased the number of flights in/out LA by 17%.

Technology is already solving the "problem" you describe.

 

[PeshakJang]

oh damn it I decided to do a quick google search and there are economic impact studies done on the her system in cali.

Why must everything be so difficult in here. People just flat out lie when anyone can just go look.

Do you always make it this easy? The conclusion of your own linked paper states that there would likely be no net economic benefit from HSR, and that any effect would most likely be simply distributive and superfluous.

I know it's got a lot of words and charts and shit, but maybe you should read the shit you post before you make an idiot out of yourself.

Thanks for destroying your own argument though. Guess we can close this case.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Real HSR (220mph) in the Northeast would be wildly successful. The NEC hooks directly into established and well used local transit systems that already carry millions of riders daily. Implementation would run $100-$120B, seems like a better deal than CA HSR at this point.

Chicago would also be a good candidate for fast rail links of 110mph+ to Detroit (in the works), St. Louis (construction nearly complete), Milwaukee, and Indianapolis.

Many discussions on this. The only problem is ROW/private property.

Too many people LIVE here to make it practical.

A HSR between NYC and Boston (maybe a stop at Hartford) would be EXTREMELY useful (NYC to Boston via road ~60mph = 4 hours. A plane? 30 minutes in the air + 30 checkin+30 taxi/takeoff+30 landing/disembarking, etc etc etc....)