Respondents to survey favor high-speed rail instead of air travel
By: Mike Aldax
March 23, 2009
 |
| Cost of travel: Of those surveyed who were against fewer flights to California cities, about 37 percent wondered what would be the cost to taxpayers to run a high-speed rail. (Courtesy rendering) |
SAN FRANCISCO — A majority of California voters favor cutting flights between airports to boost ridership on a high-speed rail in the state, according to a new survey.
California is working toward building a high-speed rail line that would shuttle passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in just under three hours.
Even though a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco takes about an hour longer than a flight between those cities, 56 percent of the survey respondents said they’d prefer stifling airport activity in order to lure more riders onto a high-speed rail.
Rod Diridon, a member of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said he’s not surprised by the survey results. Many Bay Area residents know that the time it takes to travel to airports, check in for flights, walk through security checkpoints and file onto the plane makes a short flight longer than a high-speed-rail trip connecting both cities’ downtown areas.
“I take the trip from the Bay Area to L.A. frequently, and I can’t get into downtown in less than four hours,” Diridon said.
He also pointed out that trips to airports often include extra costs for cab rides or other travel options.
And though the question was asked under the assumption that a round-trip flight between the Bay Area and Southern California would cost about the same as the fare for 220 mph trains, Diridon said he envisions a one-way high-speed-rail trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles to cost $55, which he said is typically less than a one-way flight.
Even without a mandate for fewer in-state flights, San Francisco International Airport is expecting domestic flights to drop off slightly with the addition of the high-speed rail.
The airport, however, supports building the system since it will help increase SFO’s cross-country and international flights by providing better access to the airport, spokesman Mike McCarron said.
“Easier access ... would more than compensate for these [interstate-flight] losses,” he said.
The survey by BW Research Partnership, a public-opinion research firm, asked as many as 2,000 registered voters questions about how they would envision the future of the major airports in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.
Seventeen percent of those surveyed were against the idea of limiting air travel, with 26 percent saying they were not sure. The remaining refused to comment, survey authors said.
Of the people against mandating fewer flights to California cities, about 37 percent said their biggest concern would be the cost to taxpayers to run a high-speed rail. Another 15 percent of respondents said high-speed rail would take too long between destinations, 12 percent said they wouldn’t want transportation choices regulated or mandated and 11 percent said they did not think the state needed a high-speed-rail system.
High-speed rail vs. air travel
The majority of survey respondents said they would support limiting in-state flights in order to boost future high-speed-rail use.
Would you support limiting flights to cities in California and having passengers use a high-speed-rail system to get to destinations in Central and Southern California?
Support: 56%
Oppose: 17%
Not Sure: 26%
No answer: 1%
Would you still support limiting flights if you knew that the high-speed rail would cost about the same as air travel, but would take 2½ hours to get to Southern California?
Yes: 79%
No: 8%
Not sure: 12%
No answer: 1%
Source: BW Research Partnership
