Ridership forecasts on a California high-speed rail project unclear, study says

Ridership forecasts for the California high-speed rail project are so unreliable that is it difficult to predict whether the proposed bullet train will be profitable or suffer severe revenue shortfalls, according to a report released Thursday by transportation experts at UC Berkeley.

The analysis by the Institute of Transportation Studies challenges the optimistic ridership forecasts by the California High-Speed Rail Authority that indicate the 800-mile system from San Diego to San Francisco would be profitable.

Predictions of ridership are crucial to the $42-billion project because they form the basis of ticket income, public funding forecasts, private investment decisions and equipment needs.

Recent ridership predictions by the authority estimate that the system will have between 88 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2030. However, under various scenarios offered by the rail authority, the number of passengers could be as low as 40 million passengers a year.

“The forecast of ridership is unlikely to be very close to the ridership that would actually materialize if the system were built,” said Samer Madanat, a civil engineering professor and the institute’s director. “As such it is not possible to predict whether the proposed high-speed rail system in California will experience healthy profits or severe revenue shortfalls.”

The 57-page study is the first academic analysis of the rail authority’s ridership forecasts, which were included in the state’s successful application for federal stimulus money. In January, the Obama administration awarded the project $2.25 billion in funding.

In a written response to the researchers, the rail authority’s chief executive officer, Roelof van Ark, took particular issue with the new report’s conclusion that the bullet train could experience revenue shortfalls. He called it an “extraordinary statement” without foundation, adding his agency still believes its ridership estimates are a “sound tool for high-speed rail planning and environmental analysis. “

The firm that prepared the authority’s ridership projections, Cambridge Systematics, defended its work, saying it had followed standard modeling practices, brought 40 years of experience to the effort and had its work reviewed by experts. It said the rail authority and teams that developed the projections are of the “firm belief” that they meet their goals, including being “appropriate for preparing ridership and revenue forecasts.”  

The UC Berkeley review was requested by the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, which oversees the high-speed rail project. Funding came from the high-speed rail authority.

Researchers reported a variety of problems with the project’s ridership analysis, including inadequate sampling of long-distances travelers, statistical methods that exaggerated the importance of frequent service, and false assumptions about which station travelers would choose to use.

Cambridge Systematics developed its high-speed rail ridership forecasts for a variety of scenarios that included different routes, ticket pricing, travel time and frequency of service.

“The consulting firm is very well-regarded. One of the statistical methods it used was thought to be accurate at the time,” Madanat said. “But based upon our review, we believe that a new model is necessary if policy makers want to accurately forecast high-speed rail demand in California.”

-- Dan Weikel and Rich Connell
 

Comments

[S.S. Sam Taylor]

This is not going the direction that some of the true believers would be wishing, but there is nothing wrong with a peer review reality check.

Now, if the Authority wasn't gold plating their proposals and built the line 90 miles shorter, we could really be moving High Speed.

[Evad the Slayer]

Biggest boondoggle of all time. Complete waste of taxpayer money. Very few will actually bother to ride these trains. Americans, and particularly Californians are so glued to their SUV's Hummers Escalades Sierras and so forth and will always prefer flying to a train. I rode a train for many years as a commuter in Boston and think they are great. But, alas, SoCal residents don't do trains.
This foolish waste of money should be put to rest ASAP.

[patrick]

Build it and they will come.

[M.C.]

Time to kill this project and lay it to rest.

[John Burrows]

The first passenger railroad between Liverpool and Manchester opened for business in 1830. During the first year of operation, ridership was ten times greater than what had been projected. Within 20 years, annual ridership on English railroads increased from zero to 60,000,000. Obviously, we do not have the same situation here in California, but I doubt if our projections will be much better than theirs were 180 years ago. "Build it and they will come", I agree with Patrick.

[Fed Up]

Another "Money Pit". Look at Amtrack and Metro Link.

[Rick]

Right, let's compare Metrolink and Amtrak to the proposed High Speed Rail line because you know, Metrolink and Amtrak connect to all major California Cities on quality tracks.

This line should be built, LAX should eliminate all inter-state flights and be renovated to meet global demand. SO many inter-state flights are a huge burden on LAX and a total waste of valuable space at one of LA's largest economic engines. Overall, high speed rail is a piece of the larger picture. It's a shame the larger picture was put to rest in favor of the automobile and jet planes some 50 years ago.. but as traffic gets worse and planes get smaller and nickle and dime us, it's clear we're feeling the effects of that poor decision. Oh, and then there's peak oil.