Sacramento International Airport (SMF)

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

Expanding the streetcar system beyond the short starter system is absolutely part of the plan, they just want to start with a short system and work out from there. That's what Portland did, for example--in fact, they started their first expansion of the streetcar system shortly before they completed the track on the starter line.

The problem is that streetcar systems get less efficient the farther out they go. Imagine a streetcar network like a bicycle tire: each line gets farther apart the farther you get from the central city, making far-out locations less practical from a single hub. The result during the streetcar era was star-shaped urban development: cars actually made cities denser on a whole because they allowed people to live on the inexpensive land between the transit "spokes."

That makes sense...

Originally Posted by wburg

According to my wife, who is an economist and way smarter than me, the real breakpoint where serious mode shifts in transportation start to happen will be around $7 a gallon. People thought that was kind of crazy a few years back, but people can definitely see $7 a gallon gas from here.

We really have been living in an absolutely unique period in human history. At any other time but the past century or so, people had to live close to the place they worked, and didn't travel all that much. Our abundance of power and human ingenuity at utilizing that power has given us a unique era, but that era may well be coming to an end.
We already know how to solve the problem--travel less, live close to your work, live closer together. Basically the way people have always lived. But we've gotten pretty used to our jet-set era, and people are upset about the idea of giving it up.

But talking about air travel specifically: The world of airlines is hardly a free-market environment, not with the billions in subsidies that airlines get every year (plus the occasional federal bailout.) Amtrak is subsidized, but not nearly to such an extent--and to a far smaller extent than national railroad systems in other countries. If rising fuel prices make air travel less practical, the greater fuel efficiency of trains for long-distance travel will start to become more important, as long as we decide to pay attention to that transit mode.

Very well said..

[TowerDistrict]

If you drive a car that gets 20 mpg, it will cost you $34 to drive from Downtown Sacramento to Richmond BART and back. If you take Amtrak, it will cost you $38 roundtrip. Just one year ago, it cost nearly half that to drive.

When I rode Amtrak down to the Bay on Mother's Day weekend, the train was nearly full on the way back to Sacramento.

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by wburg

According to my wife, who is an economist and way smarter than me, the real breakpoint where serious mode shifts in transportation start to happen will be around $7 a gallon. People thought that was kind of crazy a few years back, but people can definitely see $7 a gallon gas from here.

Would you care to explain why you (or your wife I guess) thinks $7 a gallon is the breaking point?

I feel bad for people who are genuinely hurt by these high gas prices, but I hope some good can come from it. It seems to me, that the cost of gas is going to be so high that the politicians will have to stop addressing congestion problems by building new roads and start putting that money into public transportation. What good is a new road if no one can afford the gas to drive on it?

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by wburg

the real breakpoint where serious mode shifts in transportation start to happen will be around $7 a gallon. People thought that was kind of crazy a few years back, but people can definitely see $7 a gallon gas from here.

It's a mixed blessing. I wish rising fuel prices worked the way of directing more attention and money into public transportation options - but it seems like the focus is equally, if not more focused on greater fuel efficiency and alternative fuel cars.

That will help with our dismal air quality, but doesn't do anything for commute times and parking issues, and sprawl. In fact, if in the near future you have an all-electric car with a 120 mile range, you could commute from anywhere in the "mega-region". Maybe developers in Yuba City start offering said vehicles as incentives to buy in their new subdivisions?

[wburg]

jsf: Gasoline is an example of a product with inelastic demand. People buy it because they have to, and if the price changes they still have to buy it. Two other such products are housing and cigarettes. People pretty much have to pay rent or a house payment to live someplace. Only in conditions of severe economic stress do people make the conscious decision to no longer pay rent--and the consequences of not paying rent are severe. Thus, demand is relatively inelastic.

Cigarettes are another example. The cost of smokes has gone up considerably over the past generation, and while smoking has reduced somewhat, smokers generally still smoke because they're addicted. Like other addictive drugs, users must maintain their habit in order to remain comfortable, even though the price goes up. So they spend less in other parts of their budget to maintain the habit.

Gasoline is another product we pretty much can't do without. Individuals can choose to cut out some trips, but there are trips we can't just eliminate. If you live farther than walking/biking distance from work, and there is no public transit alternative, you have to drive, no matter what gas costs. If you can't walk to the supermarket, you pretty much have to drive there. And because just about everything we buy is made somewhere else, we're actually paying for gas when we buy food or products, used to transport the consumer good to the store--and we usually drive to go buy it.

I'm not an economist (my wife is) so I don't know exactly why $7 is supposedly the breaking point, but that's her best guess as to when we'll start seeing significant changes in the way people and things get around. If it costs more to ship things than people can pay, they won't get shipped. If people can't afford to drive to work, they'll have to either relocate closer to work or get a job closer to where they live.

In either case, we're probably going to start seeing fundamental changes in the way our society gets around. These changes will be dramatic, probably painful, and most likely difficult. Individuals, and communities, that recognize these changes are coming, and take the first steps to deal with them, will probably be better off in the long run than those who choose to ignore them on the assumption that $1 a gallon gas, like $1 a pack cigarettes, are an inherent right and will be restored soon.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

That will help with our dismal air quality, but doesn't do anything for commute times and parking issues, and sprawl. In fact, if in the near future you have an all-electric car with a 120 mile range, you could commute from anywhere in the "mega-region". Maybe developers in Yuba City start offering said vehicles as incentives to buy in their new subdivisions?

If the only thing we used oil for was gasoline for commutes, maybe...but remember, we also need to move things on trucks, and planes, and ships, and, well, trains too, that all use petroleum fuels. Many fertilizers are also petroleum products. And a lot of electricity comes from fossil fuels. So just switching from gasoline cars to electric cars (or more efficient gasoline cars) is an incomplete solution.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

If you drive a car that gets 20 mpg, it will cost you $34 to drive from Downtown Sacramento to Richmond BART and back. If you take Amtrak, it will cost you $38 roundtrip. Just one year ago, it cost nearly half that to drive.

When I rode Amtrak down to the Bay on Mother's Day weekend, the train was nearly full on the way back to Sacramento.

If you commute regularly, you can get a ten-trip pass for like $144, so the cost for Amtrak is more like $29 round trip. And don't forget the toll bridge, and parking!

[travis bickle]

But talking about air travel specifically: The world of airlines is hardly a free-market environment, not with the billions in subsidies that airlines get every year (plus the occasional federal bailout.)

I can't think of any transportation system in America that is not subsidized in some form or another. That, of course, includes the airline industry. My point was that the airlines most certainly don't operate as a cartel and are, in fact, in robust and vigorous competition with each other. I also was interested in hearing how they "are as bad as big oil." This competition has brought the cost of flying down to the point where almost anyone can afford to fly. And although many smaller communities have lost air service, this competition and reduction in government regulation has resulted in a plethora of new service for airports like SMF.

According to my wife, who is an economist and way smarter than me...

Of this I have no doubt .

[travis bickle]

San Jose???

Starting August 25, Horizon will start 1x day service SMF-SJC. This service will actually be a continuation of one of the flights from Boise.

SMF-SJC... never saw that one coming.

[SacTownAndy]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

San Jose???

Starting August 25, Horizon will start 1x day service SMF-SJC. This service will actually be a continuation of one of the flights from Boise.

SMF-SJC... never saw that one coming.

How long of a flight will that be? 20 minutes?

[Pistola916]

Unless the plane tix is 20-25 bucks and get me there in 15-20 minutes, I'll stick to driving.

[TowerDistrict]

i'd be kinda pissed if i was flying from Boise and they landed in Sacramento first... is that the way it would work? bizarre.

I've driven from Sacramento to Milpitas in about an hour.

[BrianSac]

Well, I get kinda pissed when practically every flight east of Sac has to go through Vegas or Phoenix on Southwest.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Well, I get kinda pissed when practically every flight east of Sac has to go through Vegas or Phoenix on Southwest.

I'm not sure how you book flights, but i travel east quite frequently and NEVER go through either Phoenix or Vegas; to include when i fly on Southwest.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

i'd be kinda pissed if i was flying from Boise and they landed in Sacramento first... is that the way it would work? bizarre..

If i were flying from Boise I wouldn't care where i landed, so long as it wasn't back in Boise.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I'm not sure how you book flights, but i travel east quite frequently and NEVER go through either Phoenix or Vegas; to include when i fly on Southwest.

arent you special.

i fly quite frequently too, internationly and domesticaly.

it has been a while since i've been on southwest, but when I did most flights required at least one connection. I'm not talking about flights within California, rather flights from SMF to all points outside of California destinations on southwest.

[robw340]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

i'd be kinda pissed if i was flying from Boise and they landed in Sacramento first... is that the way it would work? bizarre.

I've driven from Sacramento to Milpitas in about an hour.

Last winter i flew a few times from SMF to Helena, MT, and the Horizon leg Seattle to Helena made a stop in Great Falls; now, nobody boarded on the Great falls to Helena leg...Horizon also has a PDX to Eureka loop that stops at Redding, once each direction, and almost nobody flies the Redding to Eureka leg (except of course for the continuing passengers)...so what Horizon is doing is basically combining their Boise to SJC and Boise to SMF into one loop, so you'll have Boise to smf/sjc passengers and sjc/smf to Boise passengers on a single route instead of 2, and I dont think Horizon expects to have many people on the SJC to SMF leg...Now I understand some individuals would be turned off by the fact of having a stopover, but considering Boise's market, they're lucky to have a single stop-same plane service to secondary markets.

[Pistola916]

American, blaming new fees, plans to cut one Sacramento flight
By Mark Glover - mglover@sacbee.com
Published 12:24 pm PDT Thursday, May 29, 2008

American Airlines said Thursday that it will cut one of its four daily Sacramento-to-Dallas flights in September. The airline said it made the move in response to Sacramento County's recent decision to raise fees American and other airlines pay to use Sacramento International Airport.

The service cut is effective Sept. 3, according to American spokesman Tim Smith.

Earlier this month, Sacramento County supervisors approved a major expansion of Sacramento International Airport. The $1.27 billion plan includes a new terminal, hotel, parking garage and people-mover tram.

The improvements will be partly funded by the airlines. The new fee structure, effective July 1, ranges from an average of $6 per passenger to $9 a passenger. Those fees are expected to top out at $13.63 in 2013 before being lowered in subsequent years

County officials proceeded with their plans despite angry objections from American and other airlines, which said the fee increases were too severe and unwarranted.

Sacramento airport officials said Thursday that American is cutting flights in response to high jet fuel prices, not because of the new fees."American is making similar cuts around the country," Sacramento airline officials said in a statement. "They recently pulled out of Oakland entirely. We understand that the airlines are challenged by jet fuel pricing right now, but our program is not the reason we see a softening of the market."

However, American spokesman Smith tied the Sacramento-Dallas flight cut directly to the fee increase: "It's based solely on those increases in charges that are being imposed by the airport, which we think are substantial and unreasonable. It's not related to reductions we've done elsewhere.

"Prior to this, we had no plans to reduce our at. capacity in Sacramento based on fuel costs."

[urban_encounter]

That's just nonsense..

They expect us to believe that they're cancelling one flight becuase of the new fees. Surely if one American flight is unprofitable with the new fees all of American's flights would be????

This has more to do with the fact that American uses MD-80's on their flight's between SMF and Dallas. MD 80's are some of the oldest planes in the American fleet and they're not exactly the most fuel efficient.


Bottom line; if the airlines can make a profit in Sacramento with the passenger loads; taking into account the equipment available for use, they will fly. If not they will cut the flight. But to suggest that one flight is being cut because of the new fees is asinine.

Those Dallas flights are usually pretty full; or at least that has been my experience when I lived in SA and flew from SA to DFW and from DFW to SMF (and back). I suspect they will reverse their decision within the year; if they don't go under first.


With the right aircraft that has to be a profitable route.

[urban_encounter]

btw both arriving and departing passenger traffic are up nearly 11% from Feb of 2007 to Feb of 2008.

arriving 10.88%
departing 10.94%