Cox - Vranich report results support high-speed rail for California
We imagine that our readers (... those few of you who remain ...) might conclude that this post is an early April Fool’s Day gag. It is not: Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich have predicted that more people would travel over each mile (or kilometer) of high-speed rail (HSR) in California than on most European HSR systems to date - and even on some HSR lines in Japan.
The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report was authored by Cox and Vranich and published in September 2008. The “Project Director” was Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D. The report was published by the Reason Foundation (see here), jointly with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (here) and Citizens Against Government Waste (here). The report may be downloaded from the Reason Foundation website (PDF format, here).
Cox and Vranich (2008) assess the credibility of preliminary demand forecasts for 2030, prepared for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA, (see here). These authors label the demand forecasts as “absurd,” and present their own “Due Diligence Ridership Projections.“
The Cox-Vranich “ridership projections” are 64-76 percent lower than corresponding CHSRA demand forecasts. However, in terms of passenger traffic density (we explain this concept here), the Cox-Vranich projections exceed the results actually obtained by most European HSR systems - and some HSR lines in Japan. In other words, Cox and Vranich (2008) predict that more people would travel over each mile (or km) of HSR in California than in most European countries - and even parts of Japan. This remarkable result was not disclosed in the report - a fact that does not surprise us.
Cox, a consultant and speaker based in the St. Louis area, is a well-known critic of public transit in general and rail transit in particular. Vranich, who has written extensively about U.S. passenger rail policy, is known as a frequent critic of conventional passenger rail services and as a supporter of Amtrak privatization. A longtime high-speed rail (HSR) advocate, Vranich is now a strong critic of the California HSR plan. Moore is Executive Director of the Reason Public Policy Institute.
The report led us to suspect that Cox and Vranich were aware of the results we describe below - but chose to bury them (so to speak) in footnotes, rhetoric - and strategic omissions.
The report also led us to suspect “strategic credulousness” (or “strategic misrepresentation”) on the part of Cox and Vranich. As we have explained previously (see here), “demand” forecasts prepared during early planning represent “theoretical maximum” levels of consumption (“ridership”) - without reference to service supply factors. A California HSR system would carry no passengers if it operated no service. It might carry remarkably large numbers if trains operated every five minutes, “24/7” (24 hours per day, 7 days per week). Thus, estimation of service consumption - that is, “ridership” - requires reconciliation between demand and supply parameters. In the “real world,” preliminary demand forecasts are revised during subsequent planning states as service-supply parameters and other details are developed. As we discuss below, CHSRA has begun this process (see here). We believe that Cox and Vranich were aware of these issues - but chose to imply that preliminary demand forecasts are “ridership projections.” This, we assert, tends to mislead readers, who might accept preliminary demand forecasts as fully-refined projections of service consumption.
Feasibility studies for HSR in California were started in 1993, and CHSRA was organized in 1997. Following environmental studies, the state Legislature planned to submit a bond proposal to the electorate in 2004. This was delayed to 2006, then to 2008. The proposal was submitted on the November 2008 general election ballot as “Proposition 1A,” the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.”
The timing of the Cox-Vranich report was not coincidental. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, co-publisher of the Cox-Vranich report, managed the campaign against Proposition 1A. The report was released less than two months before the election. Less than two weeks before the election, Vranich testified before a California legislative committee and called for dissolution of CHSRA (Vranich 2008). Nonetheless, Proposition 1A was approved on November 4, 2008. Nearly 53 percent of votes cast throughout the state were in favor. Proposition 1A attracted a majority “yes” vote in 21 of California’s 58 counties, which house nearly 58 percent of the state’s population.
Proposition 1A provides $9 billion for HSR construction, and $950 million for improvements to conventional passenger rail services. The law requires CHRSA to secure matching funds as a condition for receipt of state bond funds. California applied for $4.7 billion in federal funding in October 2008. Federal transportation officials announced in January 2010 that California would receive $2.25 billion for HSR development, and $100 million for conventional rail. Thus, California now has available a total of $ 4.5 billion for HSR and $200 million for conventional rail.
We anticipate that the Cox-Vranich report will remain online indefinitely, no matter how thoroughly debunked (see here), but the opposition group “Derail HSR” has disappeared from cyberspace. Various HSR critics and opponents have not gone away, and will continue their efforts to modify, slow or stop the project - fair enough, we think, for such is democracy.
As described above, Cox and Vranich discounted the CHSRA demand forecasts substantially to produce their “Due Diligence Ridership Projections.“ We present details in Table 1, below.
 
TABLE 1:
CHSRA Preliminary Demand Forecasts and Cox-Vranich Ridership Projections
 
Intercity
Commuter
Total
CHSRA 2030 Base
65.5 million
22.5 million
88.0 million
Cox-Vranich, 2030 Base
%age difference from CHSRA Base
%age difference from CHSRA High
23.4 million
-64%
-76%
(8 million)
(-64%)
(-76%)
(30 million)
(70%)
(70%)
CHSRA 2030 High
96.5 million
20.5 million
117.0 million
Cox-Vranich, 2030 High
%age difference from CHSRA Base
%age difference from CHSRA High
31.1 million
-53%
-68%
(11 million)
(-53%)
(-68%)
(40 million)
(-50%)
(-70%)
See below for “Notes for Table 1.”
 
We emphasize that Cox and Vranich (2008) did not calculate the ridership forecasts in the columns labeled “Commuter” and “Total” - we did, and we assert that doing so was correct for the purpose at hand. Exclusion of “Commuter” ridership may be justified only if one believes that this would not occur. Cox and Vranich make no such statement. In fact, these authors acknowledge that a California HSR system would carry some “Commuter” ridership:
Commuter ridership is assumed to vary from CHSRA projections by the same percentage as intercity ridership, since insufficient ridership and revenue data is available in CHSRA documents. Further, commuter ridership is not integral to the financial success of the project. (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 39).
“Commuter ridership” is not “integral” to our findings, either - but we do not fail to address it.
We illustrate the degree to which Cox and Vranich discounted the CHSRA preliminary demand forecasts in Figure 1, below.
 
 
FIGURE 1:
CHSRA Preliminary Demand Forecasts and Cox-Vranich Ridership Projections
(millions of passengers)
 
Again, the purpose of Table 1 and Figure 1 (above) is to illustrate the degree to which Cox and Vranich discounted the CHSRA demand forecasts to produce their “Due Diligence Ridership Projections.“
As noted above, we rounded the “total” ridership estimates (Table 1, above) to the nearest 10 million, and the “percentage difference” statistics to the nearest 10 percent. This we did to address uncertainty (as described by Cox and Vranich 2008, above) and to avoid spurious precision.
Cox and Vranich calculated passenger traffic density (passenger-km per km of line length, or system length) of existing HSR systems, then compared these statistics with passenger traffic density levels implied by CHSRA preliminary demand forecasts. Again, we explain the concept of “passenger traffic density” here; Cox and Vranich used the label “ridership intensity” rather than “passenger traffic density.”
We calculated passenger traffic density statistics for all HSR systems in operation for which we could locate data, using the most current data available. We sought to avoid certain potentially misleading aggregations (e.g. for Japan) and disaggregations (e.g. Amtrak Northeast Corridor) used by Cox and Vranich. We calculated passenger traffic density estimates for the planned California HSR system based on the “Ridership Projections“ prepared by Cox and Vranich - and the most recent forecasts released by CHSRA (see here). We reiterate: although Cox and Vranich presented passenger traffic density estimates implied by CHSRA preliminary demand forecasts, they did not do so for their own “ridership projections.” We find this omission glaring - but not surprising. We have arranged various HSR systems (and HSR forecasts for California) in order of annual passenger traffic density in Table 2, below.
 
TABLE 2: High-Speed Rail Passenger Traffic Density Statistics and Projections
System
Length
(km / mi)
Annual
Passenger
Traffic
and Year
(millions)
Average
Travel
Distance
(km / mi)
Annual
Passenger
Traffic
Density
and Year
(millions)
Japan
Tōkaidō Shinkansen
515.4 / 319.5
150.7
(FY 2008)
308 / 191
90
China
Guăngshēn Railway
147.3 / 91.3
83
(2009)
100 / 60
55
Japan
San-yō Shinkansen
553.7 / 343.3
62.9
(FY 2008)
252 / 156
29
France
TGV Paris-Lyon-Marseille
774 / 480
32
(2008)
600 /370
25
Japan
Tōhoku Shinkansen
593.1 / 367.7
84.8
(FY 2007)
168 / 104
24
Republic of Korea
KTX Seoul-Busan
408.5 / 253.3
33
(FY 2008)
280 / 170
23
Taiwan
Taiwan High Speed Rail
335.5 / 208.0
32.3
(2008)
215 / 133
21
France
TGV Atlantique
279 / 173
30
(2008)
200 /100
20
Japan
Tōhoku, Jōetsu and Hokuriku Shinkansen
980.0 / 607.6
133.3
(FY 2007)
150 / 93
20
United States - California
Cox-Vranich - 2030 High
1,200 / 750
40
(2030)
550 / 350
20
United States - California
California High-Speed Rail Authority - 2035
840 / 520
41.0
(2035)
400 / 250
20
United States - California
California High-Speed Rail Authority - 2025
840 / 520
36.5
(2025)
500 / 300
20
France
TGV Nord
333 / 206
20
(2008)
300 /200
20
Japan
Jōetsu Shinkansen
269.5 / 167.1
38.3
(FY 2007)
126 / 78
17
China
Jīngjīn Intercity Railway
116.9 / 72.5
18.7
(2008-2009)
100 / 60
16
Republic of Korea
KTX - all
674.7 / 418.3
38.0
(FY 2008)
280 / 170
16
United States - California
Cox-Vranich - 2030 Base
1,200 / 750
30
(2030)
550 / 350
10
France
TGV Est
300 / 186
27.2
(2008)
270 /170
10
United States
Northeast Corridor - all
731.9 / 453.8
80
(FY2009)
80 /50
9
Japan
Hokuriku Shinkansen
117.4 / 72.8
10.1
(FY2007)
82 / 51
7
France
TGV - all
8,000 / 5,000
114.0
(2008)
443 /275
6
Norway
Flytoget
51.6 / 32.0
5.6
(2008)
51.6 / 32.0
6
Spain
LAV - Madrid-Barcelona
619 / 998
5.7
(2009)
500 /300
5
Spain
LAV - Madrid-Andalucía
648 / 402
10.7
(2009)
250 /150
4
United States
Northeast Corridor - Amtrak
731.9 / 453.8
11.5
(FY2009)
260 /160
4
Spain
LAV-all
1,447 / 897
18
(2009)
325 /200
4
Germany
ICE - all
6,550 / 4,060
74.7
(2008)
312 /194
4
Japan
Kyūshū Shinkansen Kagoshima Route
126.8 / 78.6
4.2
(FY2008)
103 / 64
3
Sweden
Arlanda Express
39 / 24
3.2
(2008)
39 / 24
3
Italy
Frecciarossa
1,001.9 / 621.2
10
(2010 - est.)
300 / 200
3
Sweden
X 2000
1,667 / 1,033
15
(2008)
200 / 100
2
United States
Keystone Corridor - all
165.6 / 102.7
6.7
(2009)
40 /25
2
Spain
LAV - Madrid-Valladolid
180 / 112
1.7
(2009)
150 /90
1
United States
Keystone Corridor - Amtrak
165.6 / 102.7
1.2
(2009)
85 /55
0.6
Notes for Table 2:
As noted above, systems are arranged in order of annual passenger traffic density. This in turn refers to the number of passengers who travel over each mile (or km) of line or system length. Again, we explain this concept here. See below for additional notes for Table 2.
 
Sources consulted by the authors did not provide passenger traffic statistics for dedicated HSR lines in Germany, nor for the component of “total” traffic on conventional lines in France, Germany and Sweden worked by “conventional” trains. For example, the lines worked by X 2000 trains in Sweden are also worked by “conventional” trains, but the authors did not locate passenger traffic data for such services.
The authors believe that annual passenger traffic density carried by the dedicated HSR segments in Germany is similar to that carried by dedicated HSR segments in France - 20 million - 30 million passenger-km per km of route.
We reiterate: Cox and Vranich described their “2030 Base” ridership projection as “most likely,” and their “2030 High” projection as “highest likely” (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 40, Table 6, emphasis added).
Cox and Vranich did not disclose either system length or average travel distance (ATD) used to estimate annual passenger traffic density. They state that “The system has been variously described in planning documents as having a route length of from 700 miles to 800 miles” (Cox and Vranich 2008, page 10). These authors state that “Base Ridership Projection passenger miles” were estimated from a table in the “Northern California Environmental Impact Statement.” Although cited frequently by Cox and Vranich, no document having this title appears in either the CSRA Library webpage (here) or the University of California online catalog (“Melvyl,” here). We determined the likely system length and ATD values used by Cox and Vranich to be 1,200 km / 750 mi and 500 km / 350 mi, respectively. We addressed uncertainty by rounding the annual passenger traffic density statistics implied by the Cox-Vranich ridership projections to a single significant digit.
We illustrate annual traffic density carried by various HSR systems (and HSR forecasts for California) in Figure 2, below.
 
FIGURE 2: High-Speed Rail Passenger Traffic Density Statistics and Projections
(passenger-km per km of route, millions)
The results depicted in Table 2 and Figure 2 (above) include several ironies. Cox and Vranich are labeled “HSR deniers” by some who support HSR development in California. Nonetheless, these authors predict a “most likely” level of HSR ridership by 2030 that implies passenger traffic density levels equal to that carried by TGV-Est in France - and greater than that carried by Japan’s Hokuriku Shinkansen. More striking are the comparisons between the Cox-Vranich “2030 Base” forecast and results obtained to date in Spain and Italy - where most of the route length used by HSR services is “dedicated.” Cox and Vranich forecast thats, by 2030, HSR in California would carry more than twice the traffic density than has yet been carried by HSR in Spain or Italy. As noted above this remarkable result was not disclosed by Cox and Vranich - a fact that does not surprise us.
The ridership considered “highest likely” by Cox and Vranich implies passenger traffic density levels equivalent to the current CHSRA forecast for 2035 - and results actually achieved in France (TGV Atlantique and TGV Nord). The Cox-Vranich “2030 High” forecast implies passenger traffic density levels greater than that carried by Japan’s Jōetsu Shinkansen and the Beijing - Tianjin HSR line - and just slightly less than carried by Taiwan’s HSR line.
In spite of the efforts of the Reason Foundation and other libertarian “Crib Clubs” (er, “Think Tanks”), U.S. passenger rail development has received strong support in the form of federal funding. In January 2010, the Obama Administration announced a series of grants totaling $8 billion for passenger rail development, using funds approved in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA. The Obama Administration has also pledged an additional $5 billion through the annual budget process. Among the states receiving more than $150 million are Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and New York (see here). Additional details may be found on the Federal Railroad Administration website (here).
According to plans current at the time of writing (March 2010), CHSRA planned to start construction of a 840 km / 520 mi Phase 1 line, between San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Anaheim, in 2012. Completion was planned for 2017, with the start of commercial service planned for 2020. Annual passenger traffic was was forecast at 13.5 million during 2020, 39.3 million during 2030 and 41.0 million during 2035. “Interregional” traffic during 2035 was forecast at 29.1 million. “Local” traffic, within the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, was forecast at 11.9 million during 2035. When evaluating these forecasts, readers should keep in mind that the state’s population is forecast to increase from about 38 million today to 50 million by 2035 - in other words, by nearly 32 percent over 25 years.
Second-stage expansion is outlined between Merced and Sacramento, between Anaheim and Irvine, and between Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego. These would bring the total system length to about 1,300 km / 800 mi.
Not everyone is pleased about all this - the libertarian “Crib Clubs” (sorry, “Think Tanks”) have worked overtime: Try, for example, a Google search such as: Why "Should Not Build High-Speed Rail" and count the “hits.” Also, count the number of states for which such reports can be found online. We doubt that these works will convince anyone other than “true believers” - in the world of the “Crib Club” (excuse us, “Think Tank”) pseudo-scholarship, the only thing that matters is “truthiness.”
We think it likely that Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy, would shave off his beard in disgust rather than admit the obvious - the findings of Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich tend to support high-speed rail development in California - if facts are more important than “truthiness.”
 
Notes for Table 1:
The CHSRA preliminary demand forecasts were prepared for the Authority by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., at 2007.
“Cox-Vranich, 2030 Base” is described as the “Ridership projection considered most likely by this report” (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 40, Table 6, emphasis added).
“Cox -Vranich, 2030 High” is described as the “Ridership projection considered highest likely by this report” (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 40, Table 6, emphasis added).
“Intercity” passengers are “those traveling between metropolitan areas rather than within them,” and “Commuter” passengers are “within the metropolitan areas of the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego” (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 28). “Commuter trains would operate within rather than between the larger urban areas, such as the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay area and the San Diego area” (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 156, Note 125).
Cox and Vranich (2008) did not project “Commuter” or “Total” ridership. We have calculated “Commuter” ridership forecasts based on assumptions described by these authors (Cox and Vranich 2008, Page 39). We rounded “Total” ridership forecasts to the nearest 10 million, and percentage difference statistics to the nearest 10 percent.
 
Notes for Table 2:
The Chinese, French, German, Italian, Korean, Norwegian, Spanish and Swedish fiscal years coincide with the calendar year. The Japanese fiscal year begins on April 1. The U.S. fiscal year begins on July 1.
Tōkaidō Shinkansen: This is the eastern segment of the Tōkyō – Fukuoka HSR line, and extends between Tōkyō Station and Ōsaka (Shin-Ōsaka Station). It was opened on October 1, 1964.
Guăngshēn Railway (广深铁路, Guăngshēn tiĕlù): This extends between Guangzhou and Shenzhen (广深, Guăngshēn, is an abbreviation meaning “Guǎngzhōu-Shēnzhèn”). The line was opened on October 8, 1911. A second track was built during 1984-1987, and a third during 1991-1994. The line was electrified during 1998-2000, and a fourth track was built during 2005-2007. Train speeds were lifted in stages from 1991. Today, one pair of tracks is dedicated for passenger service; the maximum permitted speed is 200 km/h (124 mph). The second pair of tracks is used by passenger and freight trains; the maximum permitted speed is 160 km/h (99 mph). The line was reorganized in stages from 1984 and became China’s first joint-stock railway company in 1996.
San-yō Shinkansen: This is the western segment of the Tōkyō – Fukuoka HSR line, and extends between Ōsaka (Shin-Ōsaka Station) and Fukuoka (Hakata Station). It was opened in two stages during 1972-1975.
TGV-Paris-Lyon-Marseille: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR lines LGV Sud-Est, LGV Rhône-Alpes and LGV Méditerranée.
Tōhoku Shinkansen: This line extends northward from Tōkyō to Hachinohe. It was opened in four stages during 1982-2002. Opening of the Hachinohe – Aomori (Shin-Aomori Station) segment, 81.8 km / 50.7 mi, is planned for December 2010. Passenger traffic statistics are inclusive of passengers carried aboard Akita Shinkansen and Yamagata Shinkansen trains while working on the Tōhoku Shinkansen.
KTX - Seoul-Busan refers to Seoul – Busan HSR services. For additional information, see KTX-All.
TGV Atlantique: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line LGV Atlantique. The authors have addressed uncertainty, arising from apparent inconsistencies in source documents, by rounding to a single significant digit.
TGV Nord: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line LGV Nord-Europe, including those carried aboard Eurostar and Thalys International trains. The authors have addressed uncertainty, arising from apparent inconsistencies in source documents, by rounding to a single significant digit.
Jōetsu Shinkansen: This line diverges from the Tōhoku Shinkansen at Ōmiya, and extends to Niigata. It was opened on November 15, 1982.
Jīngjīn Intercity Railway (京津城际铁路, Jīngjīn chéngjì tiĕlù): This line extends between Beijing and Tianjin, and was opened on August 1, 2008 (京津, Jīngjīn, is an abbreviation meaning “Běijīng-Tiānjīn”). Passenger traffic statistics pertain to the first full year of operation.
KTX-all: The first phase of the KTX (“Korea Train eXpress”) system was opened on April 1, 2004. The project may be described in brief as:
1.) electrification of the existing Gyeongbu Line, Seoul – Yongsan – Siheung junction – Daejeon – Daegu (Dongdaegu Station) – Busan, 441.5 km / 274.5 mi,
2.) electrification of the existing Honam Line, Daejeon – Mokpo, 252.5 km / 156.5 mi, with a branch to Gwangju 13.7 km / 8.5 mi,
3.) Construction of the initial segment of dedicated HSR line, the Gyeongbu High-Speed Line, extending Siheung junction – Daejeon – Daegu (Dongdaegu Station), 223.6 km / 138.6 mi. The current Seoul – Busan distance, via the new line, is 408.5 km / 253.3 mi.
KTX-all refers to all KTX services using the Gyeongbu and Honam lines. See also KTX - Seoul-Busan, above.
The system length statistics are exclusive of segments that have infrequent service by KTX trains (e.g. Daejeon – Gimcheon – Dongdaegu).
TGV Est: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line LGV Est européenne, which was opened on June 10, 2007
Northeast Corridor - all: Statistics include all passengers carried on the Northeast Corridor line between Boston, New York and Washington, DC, whether aboard National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) trains or not.
Hokuriku Shinkansen: This line diverges from the Jōetsu Shinkansen and extends to Nagano. It was opened on October 1, 1997. Opening of the Nagano – Kanazawa segment, 228.0 km / 141.4 mi, is planned for December 2014.
TGV-all: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard TGV trains, on dedicated HSR lines (Lignes à grande vitesse, LGV) or not. System length statistics are the total length of lines, LGV and conventional (classique), worked by TGV trains. The total length of LGV segments was 1,893 km / 1,174 mi at 2008. This figure includes connections to conventional lines.
Flytoget: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard Flytoget trains, which are permitted a maximum speed of 210 km/h (130 mph). These use the Gardermobanen, a new railway built to German ICE 200 km/h standards. The new line was opened in stages during 1998-1999. The Flytoget airport service was started on October 8, 1998. The line is also used by express passenger trains operated by Norges Statsbaner AS, and by freight trains.
LAV - Madrid-Barcelona: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line between Madrid, Zaragoza and Barcelona.
LAV - Madrid-Andalucía: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line between Madrid, Toledo, Córdoba, Sevilla and Málaga.
Northeast Corridor - Amtrak: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) trains between Boston, New York and Washington, DC.
LAV-all: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR lines Madrid – Zaragoza – Barcelona, Madrid – Toledo / Córdoba – Sevilla / Málaga, and Madrid – Segovia – Valladolid.
ICE-all: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard ICE trains, on dedicated HSR lines or not. Schnellfahrstrecke (SFS) refers to an HSR line in general. Neubaustrecke (NBS) refers to a purpose-built HSR line, and Ausbaustrecke refers to a line upgraded from an existing railway. The system length statistic is the total length of lines, NBS, ABS and other, worked by ICE trains. The total length of SFS (i.e. NBS and ABS segments) was 1,300 km / 800 mi at 2008, including connections to conventional lines.
Kyūshū Shinkansen: This is the first stage of an HSR line between Fukuoka, Kumamoto, Yatsushiro and Kagoshima. It extends between Yatsushiro (Shin-Yatsushiro Station) and Kagoshima (Kagoshima-Chūō Station), and was opened on March 13, 2004. Opening of the remaining segment, Fukuoka (Hakata Station) – Kumamoto – Shin-Yatsushiro, 103.5 km / 64.2 mi, is planned for March 2011. Trains will operate through between Ōsaka and Kagoshima.
Arlanda Express: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard Arlanda Express trains, which are permitted a maximum speed of 200 km/h (124 mph). The airport railway proper extends 17 km / 11 mi. The line was opened on 1999 November 24.
Frecciarossa - 2010 (estimate): Italy opened an HSR trunk line between Torino, Milano, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Salerno, 898.9 km /557.3 mi, in stages during 1977-2009. The new Frecciarossa HSR services were introduced on December 13, 2009. At the time of writing, the Trenitalia website stated that these carried “a million passengers a month.” The authors used this as the basis for a passenger traffic density estimate for 2010, addressing uncertainty by rounding to a single significant digit.
X 2000: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard X 2000 trains, which are permitted a maximum speed of 204 km/h (127 mph). The system length statistic is exclusive of segments that have infrequent service by X 2000 trains (e.g. Gävle – Östersund, Sundsvall – Östersund).
Keystone Corridor - all: Statistics include all passengers carried on the Northeast Corridor line between Boston, New York and Washington, DC, whether aboard National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) trains or not. Amtrak trains are permitted a maximum speed of 177 km/h (110 mph) on upgraded segments of this line.
LAV - Madrid-Valladolid: Statistics include all passengers carried on the dedicated HSR line between Madrid, Segovia and Valladolid.
Keystone Corridor - Amtrak: Statistics include all passengers carried aboard National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) trains between Philadelphia, Lancaster and Harrisburg.
 
Acknowledment:
The authors express sincere appreciation to Edson L. Tennyson, P.E. (former Deputy Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and former Deputy Commissioner for Transit Engineering, City of Philadelphia), who suggested inclusion of the Keystone Corridor in the tabulation above, and who provided data to facilitate this.
 
References:
Cox, Wendell, and Joseph Vranich. 2008. The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation (with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Citizens Against Government Waste).
Die schnellsten Züge der Welt (André Werske).
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Track 2–Corridor Programs: Application Form, Corridor Program Name: Ca-SF/SanJoseHSR-Design/Build, Date of Submission: 10/01/09 (by: California High-Speed Rail Authority).
Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.
KTX vs 新幹線 徹底比較(仮)[KTX vs shinkansen tettei hikaru (kari)].
九州のうんゆ 2009年4月 [kyūshū no unyu 2009 nen 4 getsu]. Tōkyō: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
Le portail des trains à grande vitesse. http://leportailferroviaire.free.fr/tgv/index.html
Ministry of Transportation and Communications R.O.C. http://www.motc.gov.tw/
Bureau of High Speed Rail, Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
Report to the Legislature, December 2009. Sacramento: California High-Speed Rail Authority.
SOeS – Les comptes des transports en 2008 (tome 1) – juin 2009 - V – Les transports de voyageurs.
Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation. http://www.thsrc.com.tw/en/?lc=en
Vranich, Joseph. 2008. Testimony before the Transportation and Housing Committee, California Senate, Sacramento, California, October 23, 2008.