Isn't it a case of, "Some things come before other things"? It's indicated that more information will become available once the EIS is completed. And I would think it would be an advantage to have people involved that are well-versed in navigating the political/regulatory thicket a project like this faces.
schlimmPerhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
In the case of many large companies, it is not up to the business traveler it is up to whom they sign their Corporate agreement with. So for example, IBM signed with Ameircan Airlines unless I can find a SWA flight offered cheaper, I have to fly American. In most cases the American fares are cheaper than SWA fares and before anyone on here tries to compare civilian fare to civilian fare.......it doesn't work that way due to the corporate agreement which lowers the business fare for advance purchase on most routes. The only time I have seen SWA competitve is with last min purchase like the day before and only sometimes. So most business travelers would stay with the airline whom their corporate agreement is with in most cases. Also have flown on corporate agreements of HP, Verizon (both were American). Flew on U.S. Airways once for an East Coast Client that had an agreement with them.
It's true that Corporate fares subsidize the commercial side in a lot of cases BUT the caveat is: #1 Last min purchases or changes, #2 Generally not on routes where SWA is in the competition, #3 Advance purchase tickets in a lot of cases that relationship is inverse........tourist subsidizing large corporate travelers. In the case of a last min change the airline such as American keeps you on their flight because they apply the refund of the old ticket to your new flight OR they offer you the option of a new ticket and to carry the refund on your account. The deal here is if you ever want to see that refund reimbursed via the expense report process, you need to apply it on the same airline towards another ticket. If you choose to carry the refund then YES, you could probably switch to SWA and find a cheaper last min ticket in some cases but then your screwing yourself unless you find a way to refund that unused ticket ASAP.
Oh yeah and it is actually IBM signing with American Airlines and American Express Travel. Travel reservations must be made via American Express Travel which monitors and looks over your shoulder for adherence to rules governing what your doing. So yeah, you can manipulate the system to an extent but you have to be crafty about it or American Express Travel will snitch to IBM and then IBM will refuse to reimburse you for the airline ticket.
One more item I will comment on. I am breaking the confidentiality rules here but I am no longer a consultant so I feel it is probably OK. RT between Dallas and Chicago ORD is $350-375 advance purchase and NON-REFUNDABLE for American but guess what? RT Dalas to Chicago FULLY REFUNDABLE was only $50 more RT on the same route. Now say your a traveling consultant, which fare do you choose? Obviously the FULL REFUNDABLE because the change fee is $200 per change plus the difference in airline ticket price. So the more expensive ticket is a better deal as it provides for insurance if the client wants you to stay longer or schedules a last min meeting plus you don't have to go through all the crap of airline ticket refunds and rescheduling a new reservation (takes time and seats might not be available on ORD to DFW usually the flights fill up 3-4 days prior to takeoff). On other less frequently flown routes by American the price difference between REFUNDABLE and NON-REFUNDABLE can be several hundred dollars in which case the change fee would be the lesser of two evils. For IBM travel when you have a change fee, IBM calls and asks the client if the change in flight was approved by them in advance (another rule), so in some cases you can't cheat with that either. Although I'll say most IBM clients always answer yes the change was approved instead of checking with the consultant because they are sick of IBM bothering them with ridiculous phone calls.
So there is another variable on why cheaper fare might not always apply.
schlimm CMStPnPSo again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher. Perhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
CMStPnPSo again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher.
Perhaps Sam was only looking at business travelers between Houston and Dallas, as that is the relevant comparison when looking at the HSR service. I would think many of those would prefer Hobby to Love via SWA to save time.
The initial issue was the percentage of passengers on SW between Dallas and Houston who are flying for business as opposed to leisure. We don't know! And without access to Southwest Airlines bookings or passenger survey database, it is impossible to answer the question.
Periodically, SW queries its passengers to determine why they are traveling. If it make the information public, I have never seen it.
DFW probably does have more business persons traveling between the Metroplex and Houston. It has an average of 68 flights a day between DFW and the Houston area compared to 48 for Southwest.
Which raises an issue for the proponents of TCR! If a sizeable majority of the business people traveling between DFW and Houston prefer to go out of DFW, what makes the TCR proponents believe that they will all of a sudden flock into Dallas to get on a train or vice versa?
Richard Lawless spent most of his career as a government bureaucrat. He was a CIA officer. How much he knows about running a business is unknown, as is the veracity of his projections for TCR.
Enthusiastic proponents of large projects tend to overstate the upsides of the project and understate the downsides, as noted by several GAO studies as well as at least one Swedish study.
If TCR fails without being a burden on Texas, JCR, as well as the investors, would have to eat the losses. Whether they would do that without seeking some direct or indirect relief from Texas and/or federal taxpayers is problematic.
The initial estimated cost for the California High Speed Rail Project (CHS) was approximately $33 billion. It ballooned to more than $98 billion before being scaled back to $68 billion, which is the most recent projection for the LAX to SF portion of the project. The estimated cost of the total project, which will extend the rail line to Sacramento and San Diego is $91.4 billion, as per numbers shown in Wikipedia and supported from various source documents.
The cost estimates do not include the cost to service the debt associated with the project.The CHS promoters proposed to fund the project from a variety of sources, including federal grants, state grants, A-1 bonds, etc. The cost of the debt is unknown, in part because only 13.2% of the estimated total cost has been funded.
If the project were funded mostly by California Municipal Bonds, at the current average Yield to Maturity for 30 year California municipal bonds of 4.3535 per cent, the total cost of the project could be as high as $124.1 billion. The rates were obtained via a download from Fidelity Investments Bond Center. This number may be conservative, because it assumes all the financing would be done up front, in one shot, which is unrealistic. It also overlooks the fact that interest rates are likely to increase and, therefore, subsequent tranches of debt would likely carry a higher interest rate, thereby boosting the cost of the project. Thus, it is possible that the total cost of the project could be considerably higher than $124.1 billion.
The initial route of the CHS is 492 miles. If the estimated total cost of the project, including financing, is reasonably close to my estimate, it works out to $252.2 million per mile. The bookends of the CHS go through some very congested and/or mountainous areas, which the TCR would not have to confront, except for north Houston, which is also congested.
If the same numbers were applied to the proposed TCR route, the cost of the project would be $60.5 billion. If the cost per mile for the TCR were half the cost per mile for the CHS, the cost of the project would be $30.3 billion. And if the cost per mile were just 1/3rd of the cost per mile for the CHS, the project would still cost $20.2 billion. These numbers include financing, which the TCR estimate does not appear to include.
I have a hard time, at least based on what we know now, believing that the TCR can be built for $10 billion, and there is no potential liability for Texans if the project sours.
Central Japan Railway originally had Florida in mind.
Excerpt from 2010 Wall Street Journal article:
The $8 billion "is oversubscribed by a factor of eight to one," said Richard Lawless, chief executive of U.S.-Japan High Speed Rail, a consulting company JR Central created to market the bullet train. "Of all the corridors we looked at, the one that looks the most promising and immediate is Florida."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704762904575024611266446690
Excerpt from Citylab:
"We will not structure this company in any way that will come back and be a burden to the state of Texas," says Lawless. "That is the risk that we take as a privately-funded, privately-owned and operated company."
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/the-big-texas-plan-to-copy-japans-high-speed-rail-success/372984/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
From the 2014 Business Traveler
Fastest Growing Domestic carriers by revenue (using the latest year over year revenue figure...June 2014 / BTN news):
1. Jet Blue
2. Alaska
3. American
4. Delta
5. Southwest
Corporate Travel Buyers ranking of airlines in 2013 (November survey / issue of BTN)
1. Delta Airlines
2. American Airlines
3. United Airlines
4. Southwest Airlines (their passenger volume has declined recently and usually they have place 5th in past years)
5. U.S. Airways. (must be doing terrible to have Southwest out rank them this year)
So again, given the above rankings by folks that purchase Corporate Travel on our domestic airlines, I would rate Southwest Airlines a relatively minor player with business travelers. I would say that if your looking at the Business Traveler in Dallas, it is more relevant to look at DFW Airport than it is Dallas Love field for comparisons as the volumes of business travelers through DFW is much higher.
PNWRMNMSam, I strongly disagree with your first point. If the proponents go for RRIF, they will be a railroad by the time they make application, so they qualify on the face of it. As to protection of financial information you may be correct, but I think there is some shield in place to protect it. Mac
Sam,
I strongly disagree with your first point. If the proponents go for RRIF, they will be a railroad by the time they make application, so they qualify on the face of it.
As to protection of financial information you may be correct, but I think there is some shield in place to protect it.
Mac
Streak,
Certainly, but these guys business plan, what we have seen of it, makes more sense than the Lost Vegas bunch. Including the Japanese adds a lot of credibility in my opinion.
The problem will be capital. Who will put it up and what will ROI be. Even if ROI looks good, underwriters/market will be skeptical that anyone can make money competing against airlines whose capital cost is funded by the Govt.
Any possibility that this is another Los Vegas Express ?
PNWRMNM From wanswheel What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. information. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical. end of quote I don't think there will be any public numbers. They are looking for sophisticated investors, probably in $100 million increments. Even if they go for RRIF money, I think there is a provision to keep proprietary financial date private. Just don't hold your breath is all I am saying. Mac
From wanswheel
What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. information. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical.
end of quote
I don't think there will be any public numbers. They are looking for sophisticated investors, probably in $100 million increments. Even if they go for RRIF money, I think there is a provision to keep proprietary financial date private.
Just don't hold your breath is all I am saying.
As per RRIF money, here is brief statement from the FRA re: the program:
"Eligible borrowers include railroads, state and local governments, government-sponsored authorities and corporations, joint ventures that include at least one railroad, and limited option freight shippers who intend to construct a new rail connection." The TCR does not appear to meet any of these criteria.
To day, with the exception of Amtrak and the Mount Hood Railroad, all of the RRIF monies have gone to freight carriers.
This language is taken from the FRA Final Application Checklist:
"Upon acceptance of the Final Application, FRA will conduct the review process, which includes: financial analysis by an Independent Financial Advisor (IFA), a legal review, recommendation to the FRA by the Department Of Transportation’s Credit Council, negotiation of loan agreement and any associated security documents and opinions, approval of the Credit Risk Premium by the Office of Management and Budget and approval by the FRA Administrator."
The application requires amongst other things audited proforma financial statements, as well as audited financial statements from an on-going entity, i.e. Amtrak, Kansas City Southern, etc. detailing the financial benefits anticipated from the project. It also requires a market study, amongst other documents, a benefits statement, etc.
None of the language says anything about not disclosing the application for a RRIF improvement loan.If nothing else, I suspect one could get a copy of the application under the Freedom of Information Act.
wanswheel Excerpt from Politico, June 6 Richard Lawless, Texas Central Railway’s chairman and CEO, said the company is now raising capital to fund the development stage of the proposed railroad, preferably without any federal or state money. He wouldn’t reveal the company’s investors but said that may come soon. The company won’t be competing for any grant money from the public coffers, Lawless said, and it won’t look to the government to subsidize any part of the operational expense of the system. “Absolutely not, we will not look to any government or public entity to subsidize the farebox,” Lawless said. But he left the door open to looking to the feds for other kinds of help, such as financing for the project. Lawless did not address the costs of building the line, but some estimates have put construction at $10 billion. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/texas-central-sees-90-minute-dallas-houston-commute-at-205-mph-107392.html#ixzz36FLsjB9f http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6igUibrfwc Texas Central video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrn2Vcmwqg lengthy talk video
Excerpt from Politico, June 6
Richard Lawless, Texas Central Railway’s chairman and CEO, said the company is now raising capital to fund the development stage of the proposed railroad, preferably without any federal or state money. He wouldn’t reveal the company’s investors but said that may come soon.
The company won’t be competing for any grant money from the public coffers, Lawless said, and it won’t look to the government to subsidize any part of the operational expense of the system.
“Absolutely not, we will not look to any government or public entity to subsidize the farebox,” Lawless said.
But he left the door open to looking to the feds for other kinds of help, such as financing for the project. Lawless did not address the costs of building the line, but some estimates have put construction at $10 billion.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/texas-central-sees-90-minute-dallas-houston-commute-at-205-mph-107392.html#ixzz36FLsjB9f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6igUibrfwc Texas Central video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrn2Vcmwqg lengthy talk video
All the proponents of the TCR have put out for the public is a set of glossies describing the wonderful benefits to be realized by people traveling between Dallas and Houston on a high speed train. And they may be correct. Time will tell.
If the proponents of the TCR are able to build it without any federal money, I will be the first to lift my hat to them. Many of the members of the leadership team know their way around Washington, Austin, and Tokyo. Why?
What the proponents of the TCR have not made available to the public or anyone else, as far as I can determine, is any ridership, revenue, cost, etc. projections. Until that comes along, we will not know whether the project is sound. Based on the outcomes of the California High Speed Rail Project, we should be at least modestly skeptical.
Interesting. I seem to remember at one point in the project they implied one or two of the Investors would be Japan based implying JCR or the Japanese Government via one of it's funding arms.
CMStPnP Sam1 How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game. As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements. Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors. You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up. Oh I understand fully, I still don't think you do.
Sam1 How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game. As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements. Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors. You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up.
How could a start-up company start with base year financial statements? It does not have any financial statements. Everything is proforma at this stage of the game.
As noted clearly, the name of the game is to have the proforma statements audited by an outside auditor to prevent abuse. The purpose of the audit is to make sure that the sponsors are not gaming the statements, i.e. presenting fraudulent accounting statements.
Any accounting and financial statements can be manipulated. This is the reason why the financial statements of all public corporations and most private corporations are audited by outside auditors.
You don't appear to understand the difference between the financial statements for an on-going entity and the proforma statements (forecasts) for a proposed start-up.
Oh I understand fully, I still don't think you do.
"Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." This is your statement word for word, copied straight out of your post.
How would you get fully stated audited statements from a start-up company that is yet to begin operations? It does not have any accounting records and, therefore, cannot generate any financial statements that can be audited. It can only produce proforma statements.
I surely understand the difference between the financial statements of an on-going entity, which can be audited, and the proforma statements of a start-up company. A start-up entity does not have any financial statements. It can only produce proforma statements.
I am still waiting for the support for your statement that most DFW business persons fly out of DFW to Houston, as opposed to going on Southwest out of Love Field, so that they can presumably collect the frequent flyer points. Surely this is not another unsupported statement!
What is your educational background? Are you an accountant, financial analyst, auditor? What certifications do you have?
CMStPnP tin canPro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on... Bingo! And that is based on a business model or prototype. For example before Zappos became an ongoing venture and to prove their forecasts they ordered shoes from area retailers and sold them on the internet as a "prototype" to prove their underlying assumptions and projections. The biggest one being that consumers would buy shoes on the Internet without being able to handle them, see them or try them on. They didn't just flop out Pro Forma Statements and expect Investors to bite.
tin canPro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on...
Bingo! And that is based on a business model or prototype. For example before Zappos became an ongoing venture and to prove their forecasts they ordered shoes from area retailers and sold them on the internet as a "prototype" to prove their underlying assumptions and projections. The biggest one being that consumers would buy shoes on the Internet without being able to handle them, see them or try them on.
They didn't just flop out Pro Forma Statements and expect Investors to bite.
Who said anything about flopping out proforma financial statements, without their being audited? Who said anything about their being prepared in an unprofessional manner?
Checking the estimates, assumptions, calculations, formulas, etc. used to develop proforma statements is exactly why one should have them audited by an independent auditor.
The financial statements for an on-going entity are developed from the entity's accounting records. They can be audited and attested to by independent auditors. Proforma statements cannot be audited in the same way as the financial statements of an on-going entity. Because of the way they are prepared, the auditors can only verify the appropriateness of the estimates, assumptions, calculations, formulas, etc. This is the difference between audited financial statements and proforma statements.
Texas went through the trials and tribulations of high speed rail in the 90's. Southwest Airlines led the charge against hsr, assisted by landowners and NIMBYs, that effectively put an end to the concept.
Terminal points at the ends are crucial; airports at least have rental car agencies; parking structures, taxis and shuttles. All of the metro areas in Texas; Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio, suffer from urban spawl; a downtown terminal without local tranportation amenities is going to be a tough sell.
Pro-forma statements are a crucial part of any new business model. It is important to check the projected expenses against real world data to make sure that nothing is missing. Do the pro-formas match existing industry statements; are all the expenses listed and are they reasonable; are the projections for revenue realistic and obtainable; and many other points to compare? One of the most important tools for a proposed venture are the what ifs? What do we do if ridership does not meet expectations? What do we do if cost overruns deplete available capital? And so on...
CMStPnP Sam1 "Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." Definition of 'Pro-Forma Forecast' (Investopedia) A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales. If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc. Well you selectively edited what was stated in that online article or definition via cut and paste. Why did you leave this relevant part out?........ "However, companies can also manipulate their financial results under the guise of pro-forma financial statements to provide a picture that is rosier than reality. Let's take a closer look at what pro-forma financial statements are, when they are useful and how companies can use them to dupe investors." I stand by what I stated before and most CPA's will stand by the bolded statement above as well as what I posted earlier. I use two of them on a regular basis one in Texas and one in Wisconsin. When you forecast financial statements and use the pro forma approach you should also start with audited financial statements as a base year (they should represent year zero) and describe what was the approach you used to forecast and extend the forecast including the use of benchmark growth rates, past earnings, etc. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. You don't just flop pro forma statements out there with no base and say walla....these are pro forma statements. Like any forecast done in any field of study you need a solid base (or foundation) from which to start a forecast. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. If your just doing this as a hobby on the side with no deference to accuracy and just flopping them out there......I guess nobody cares but then........why go through all that trouble?.
Sam1 "Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements." Definition of 'Pro-Forma Forecast' (Investopedia) A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales. If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc.
"Anyways, again......bad to use pro forma statements for a financial analysis. That was in one of my first level college accounting courses as well. Always use the fully stated audited statements."
A financial forecast based on pro-forma income statements, balance sheet and/or cash flows. Pro-forma forecasts are usually created from pro-forma financials, which are forecasted using basic forecasting procedures. Often, revenues will provide the initial groundwork for the forecast, while expenses and other income statement items will be calculated as a percentage of future sales.
If you forecasting you don't have audited financial statements. If you know what your are doing, you put together pro-forma financials and have them audited. The auditor will not attest to the financials, as in a normal audit, since there are no underlying source documents, but he can attest to the assumptions, formulas, consistency of principles application, estimates, etc.
Well you selectively edited what was stated in that online article or definition via cut and paste. Why did you leave this relevant part out?........
"However, companies can also manipulate their financial results under the guise of pro-forma financial statements to provide a picture that is rosier than reality. Let's take a closer look at what pro-forma financial statements are, when they are useful and how companies can use them to dupe investors."
I stand by what I stated before and most CPA's will stand by the bolded statement above as well as what I posted earlier. I use two of them on a regular basis one in Texas and one in Wisconsin.
When you forecast financial statements and use the pro forma approach you should also start with audited financial statements as a base year (they should represent year zero) and describe what was the approach you used to forecast and extend the forecast including the use of benchmark growth rates, past earnings, etc. Thats if you want to be taken seriously.
You don't just flop pro forma statements out there with no base and say walla....these are pro forma statements. Like any forecast done in any field of study you need a solid base (or foundation) from which to start a forecast. Thats if you want to be taken seriously. If your just doing this as a hobby on the side with no deference to accuracy and just flopping them out there......I guess nobody cares but then........why go through all that trouble?.
schlimm Aside from the cost, which the current developers seem to think is feasible, a train that can run most of the way at 160 mph (as they do in Europe a good deal) should be able to manage the 240 mile run in 1 hr, 45 min. That would take the lion's share of the downtown to downtown market for businessmen from air. Nudge the top speed up to 175 mph (again, done frequently in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China) and the airlines would have to vacate the market.
Aside from the cost, which the current developers seem to think is feasible, a train that can run most of the way at 160 mph (as they do in Europe a good deal) should be able to manage the 240 mile run in 1 hr, 45 min. That would take the lion's share of the downtown to downtown market for businessmen from air. Nudge the top speed up to 175 mph (again, done frequently in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, China) and the airlines would have to vacate the market.
The overwhelming majority of business people in the Metroplex don't work in downtown Dallas. They are scattered throughout the Metroplex, which has a footprint as large as LAX or perhaps larger. I don't know how many business persons work downtown Houston. I suspect it is more than downtown Dallas. Like Dallas, however, many business activities in Houston are located outside the CBD. NASA, for example, is 26.5 miles south of Houston.
As an example, one of the largest business centers in the Metroplex is Legacy Park. If I remember correctly, it is where Toyota plans to locate its headquarters. Whether the people from Legacy Park or any of the other North Dallas employment centers would go downtown to catch a train to Houston is problematic. Even more problematic is whether business persons or anyone for that matter in Fort Worth, Arlington, or the other mid-cities would go into Dallas to catch a train to Houston. DFW airport is much closer for them. Unfortunately, TCR has not presented any market studies of how its intends to attract people to its trains.
Per the Airline posts:
I stand by what I stated earlier. This isn't an airline cost accounting forum, no need to continue that line of conversation in this thread. .
I suspect pretty strongly they are looking for both airline and automobile market share on this route. I think as in the NEC, they will capture more airline than automotive though based on what I said in my posts earlier (on peoples behaviors that actually travel the route). I can't get a good read on if their projected speed limit is firm or not. The higher it is the more expense to run though.
To have this route work and make money you need on time operation. Much of that is not having any more train sets than possible. So turning the trains at the end terminating point is very important. 245 road miles average speed 120 MPH depart one city on the hour and other on the half hour every hour would require 5 operational train sets. with one spare at each terminal + 1 in medium maintenance makes a total of 8 sets.. More sets means more up front capital costs.
To keep the trains making OT turns the Japanese have devised a very smooth cleaning regimen. This link shows how to keep attracting repeat passengers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p020xlm1
My hunch, and it's a hunch, is that younger Americans are ready for something new in transportation. Something they can see as part of their generation. That and I think a great number of people see airline travel today as a necessary evil. Lots of calluses formed to weather the travel experience. I think if the bullet train hits the true high tech, high touch sweet spot, people will flock to it.
I do not think it is much of a real restate deal. I do think it is an attempt to sell Japanese rolling stock. If it were my project I would not have any intermediate stops as they slow the service down.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.