I need Help

A CBA of the Hyperloop as a New Mode of Transportation

in California

Abstract

A mode of transportation that could take you the 381 miles between San Francisco,

CA and Los Angeles, CA in just 35 minutes seems like something straight out of a

science fiction movie. This is exactly what the Hyperloop; a new mode of transportation

proposed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, intends to do. In this Cost Benefit Analysis we

monetize the expected benefits of the project including: travel time and vehicle cost

savings, safety benefits, ticket revenue, greenhouse gas reductions, and parking cost

savings. We also calculate construction, maintenance and operation costs. After

monetizing cost and benefits we perform a sensitivity analysis with the raw data to

calculate its NPV. We also discuss the encountered limitations while preparing this CBA,

mostly because this type of project has never been done. Lastly, because of its positive

NPV the construction of the Hyperloop is recommended as a new mode of transportation

in California.

Introduction

The possibility of a new mode of transportation in the United States have always been

a fascinating subject, but also full of uncertainties. Since the completion of the Interstate

Highway System in 1992 at a cost of $425 billion in 2006 dollars (Neuharth, 2006) the

United States Government have not undertaken a transportation project of such scale.

Every day, people in the United States commute an average of 25.5 minutes to get to

work (McKenzie, 2013), but in the State of California the average commuting time is

higher than the national average being 27.2 minutes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Furthermore, California ranks first in Mega Commuters. Mega Commuters being defined

as people traveling 90 or more minutes and 50 or more miles to work (Rapino & Fields,

2012).

One of the proposed alternatives for the aforementioned problem is the construction

of a Hyperloop. A Hyperloop is a conceptual high speed transportation system put

forward by entrepreneur Elon Musk (Musk, 2013). It is of special interest for the

residents of California since they spend six hours traveling a total of three hundred eighty

one miles (381) by car between the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles (U.S.

Department of Transportation, 2010); two of the most populated cities in California (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2014) , with Los Angeles being the most congested metro area in the

United States (Hess and Weigley, 2013). Contrasting this scenario is the Hyperloop,

which would be capable of traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco in

approximately 35 minutes, with a loading and unloading time of approximately 5 minutes

(Musk, 2013). In this cost benefit analysis we will analyze the net social benefits of the

Hyperloop, specifically the journey between the City of San Francisco and the City of

Los Angeles to eventually decide if its construction would be one of benefit for the

residents of California.

Costs and Benefits

As a simplifying assumption, all benefits and costs are assumed to occur at the end of

each year, and all benefits, maintenance, and operation costs begin in the annual year

immediately following the final construction year. Also, the benefits and costs of the

Hyperloop are estimated assuming the construction of the passenger and cargo capsules,

and transporting 7.5 million people each way per year.

Benefits

Time traveled savings: Recommended values of travel time savings were calculated

assuming a 78.6% of personal travel and a 21.4% of business travel. For personal travel

we use 70% of the total earnings per person-hour and for business travel a 100% of the

total earnings per-person hour, following guidance from the Department of

Transportation (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011). Because of the intercity nature

of the project, average earnings were calculated utilizing Los Angeles County average

salary ($25.48), and San Francisco County average salary ($33.34) (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2015).

Parking Cost Savings: Parking cost savings were calculated assuming 50% of the

parking was localized in San Francisco, and 50% in Los Angeles. The average parking

price per city was estimated by averaging the price data from fifteen parking spots per

city in San Francisco (SFpark, 2015), and using the average parking price provided by the

City of Los Angeles (LA Express Park, 2015). It is important to note that parking prices

in both cities varies with demand of the parking spot, and time of the day. The amount of

time a person stays on the parking space is around forty minutes according to the

Coronado Parking Meter Trial (City of Coronado-California, 2014), which was also taken

into account when calculating parking cost savings.

Vehicle cost savings: Vehicle cost savings were estimated assuming an average vehicle

occupancy rate of 1.15 (California Department of Transportation, 2012). Fuel costs are

typically the largest portion of vehicle operating costs, but not the only ones taken into

consideration in this analysis. Non-fuel costs were also calculated according to the

California Department of Transportation economic parameters.

Safety Benefits: Safety benefits are being presented as lives saved, utilizing the value of

the statistical life in 2012 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012) together with the

number of fatalities per miles driven from the same year (National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 2012).

Greenhouse gas reductions: Greenhouse gas reductions were calculated utilizing an EPA

calculator for Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies, estimating the number of miles driven and

obtaining the total metric tons of CO2 . This number was then converted to U.S. Tons to

be able to monetize the emissions accordingly (California Department of Transportation).

Ticket revenue: Assuming the City of California would have ownership of the

Hyperloop, ticket revenue would be of benefit for the project. One-way ticket prices were

suggested to be $20 per person on the Hyperloop preliminary study (Musk, 2013).

Costs

Construction costs of the project are outlined on the Hyperloop preliminary study,

totaling $7.5 billion dollars (Musk, 2013). Maintenance and operating costs were

calculated utilizing indirect market methods, in this case extrapolating data from

maintenance and operation costs of the California High Speed Rail System, the closest

type of transportation to the Hyperloop in actuality (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012).

Results

After monetizing impacts of the Hyperloop (Table 1) we obtained a total of the

project benefits ($2,717,267,692) and the project costs ($7,584,407,620). However, this

will only provide us raw data that needs to undergo a sensitivity analysis. When we are

looking at the raw data from Table 1 we are not accounting for the service life of the

project, nor any discount rate or annual growth rate of benefits.

Table 1. Monetized Benefits and Costs of the Hyperloop as a new mode of

transportation in California

Project Benefits

Travel time savings $884,477,200

Vehicle cost savings $1,252,926,757

Safety Benefits (Lives saved) $255,510,190

Greenhouse gas reductions $163,403,545

Parking costs savings $10,950,000

Ticket revenue $150,000,000

Total Benefits $2,717,267,692

Project Costs

Construction $7,500,000,000

Operations $8,207,620

Maintenance $$76,200,000

Total Costs 7,584,407,620

Sensitivity Analysis - The real discount rate this analysis uses for evaluating the costs and

benefits of the Hyperloop project is 4.0 percent. This 4.0 percent discount rate is

consistent with the Cal-B/C Framework (California Department of Transportation, 2012).

The annual growth rate of benefits (4.7 percent) was extrapolated from the

regional/commuter airline industry, which also provides services for faster intercity

traveling (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000). The Hyperloop system comprising

all infrastructure, mechanical, electrical, and software components will be designed so

that it is reliable, durable, and fault tolerant over a service life of 100 years (Musk, 2013).

Table 2. Assumptions used for the calculation of the NPV of the Hyperloop as a new

mode of transportation in California.

Assumptions

Annual Discount Rate 0.04%

Annual Growth Rate of Benefits 0.047%

Construction Cost $7,500,000,000

Annual Operations Cost $84,407,620

First Year Benefit $2,717,267,692

Table 3. The Net Present Value of the Hyperloop as a new mode of transportation in

California

Years Construction

Cost

Operational

and

Maintenance Cost

Annual Benefit

Ticket Revenue

Annual NB

PV Annual NB

0 $7,500,000,000 $0 $0 $0 -$7,500,000,000 -$187,500,000,000

1 $0 $84,407,620 $2,595,289,104 $150,000,000 $2,660,881,484 $66,522,037,103

2 $0 $84,407,620 $2,478,786,155 $150,000,000 $2,544,378,535 $63,609,463,371

3 $0 $84,407,620 $2,367,513,042 $150,000,000 $2,433,105,422 $60,827,635,547

4 $0 $84,407,620 $2,261,234,997 $150,000,000 $2,326,827,377 $58,170,684,425

5 $0 $84,407,620 $2,159,727,791 $150,000,000 $2,225,320,171 $55,633,004,271

6 $0 $84,407,620 $2,062,777,260 $150,000,000 $2,128,369,640 $53,209,240,991

7 $0 $84,407,620 $1,970,178,854 $150,000,000 $2,035,771,234 $50,894,280,838

8 $0 $84,407,620 $1,881,737,205 $150,000,000 $1,947,329,585 $48,683,239,622

9 $0 $84,407,620 $1,797,265,716 $150,000,000 $1,862,858,096 $46,571,452,406

10 $0 $84,407,620 $1,716,586,166 $150,000,000 $1,782,178,546 $44,554,463,660

11 $0 $84,407,620 $1,639,528,335 $150,000,000 $1,705,120,715 $42,628,017,867

12 $0 $84,407,620 $1,565,929,642 $150,000,000 $1,631,522,022 $40,788,050,538

13 $0 $84,407,620 $1,495,634,806 $150,000,000 $1,561,227,186 $39,030,679,641

14 $0 $84,407,620 $1,428,495,516 $150,000,000 $1,494,087,896 $37,352,197,410

15 $0 $84,407,620 $1,364,370,121 $150,000,000 $1,429,962,501 $35,749,062,518

16 $0 $84,407,620 $1,303,123,324 $150,000,000 $1,368,715,704 $34,217,892,612

17 $0 $84,407,620 $1,244,625,907 $150,000,000 $1,310,218,287 $32,755,457,171

18 $0 $84,407,620 $1,188,754,448 $150,000,000 $1,254,346,828 $31,358,670,695

19 $0 $84,407,620 $1,135,391,068 $150,000,000 $1,200,983,448 $30,024,586,190

20 $0 $84,407,620 $1,084,423,178 $150,000,000 $1,150,015,558 $28,750,388,956

21 $0 $84,407,620 $1,035,743,246 $150,000,000 $1,101,335,626 $27,533,390,642

22 $0 $84,407,620 $989,248,563 $150,000,000 $1,054,840,943 $26,371,023,581

23 $0 $84,407,620 $944,841,035 $150,000,000 $1,010,433,415 $25,260,835,365

24 $0 $84,407,620 $902,426,967 $150,000,000 $968,019,347 $24,200,483,678

25 $0 $84,407,620 $861,916,874 $150,000,000 $927,509,254 $23,187,731,351

26 $0 $84,407,620 $823,225,286 $150,000,000 $888,817,666 $22,220,441,641

27 $0 $84,407,620 $786,270,569 $150,000,000 $851,862,949 $21,296,573,722

28 $0 $84,407,620 $750,974,755 $150,000,000 $816,567,135 $20,414,178,385

29 $0 $84,407,620 $717,263,377 $150,000,000 $782,855,757 $19,571,393,917

30 $0 $84,407,620 $685,065,307 $150,000,000 $750,657,687 $18,766,442,181

31 $0 $84,407,620 $654,312,614 $150,000,000 $719,904,994 $17,997,624,859

32 $0 $84,407,620 $624,940,415 $150,000,000 $690,532,795 $17,263,319,872

33 $0 $84,407,620 $596,886,738 $150,000,000 $662,479,118 $16,561,977,954

34 $0 $84,407,620 $570,092,396 $150,000,000 $635,684,776 $15,892,119,390

35 $0 $84,407,620 $544,500,855 $150,000,000 $610,093,235 $15,252,330,885

36 $0 $84,407,620 $520,058,124 $150,000,000 $585,650,504 $14,641,262,589

37 $0 $84,407,620 $496,712,630 $150,000,000 $562,305,010 $14,057,625,249

38 $0 $84,407,620 $474,415,119 $150,000,000 $540,007,499 $13,500,187,484

39 $0 $84,407,620 $453,118,548 $150,000,000 $518,710,928 $12,967,773,190

40 $0 $84,407,620 $432,777,982 $150,000,000 $498,370,362 $12,459,259,061

41 $0 $84,407,620 $413,350,509 $150,000,000 $478,942,889 $11,973,572,214

42 $0 $84,407,620 $394,795,137 $150,000,000 $460,387,517 $11,509,687,927

43 $0 $84,407,620 $377,072,719 $150,000,000 $442,665,099 $11,066,627,482

44 $0 $84,407,620 $360,145,864 $150,000,000 $425,738,244 $10,643,456,092

45 $0 $84,407,620 $343,978,857 $150,000,000 $409,571,237 $10,239,280,935

46 $0 $84,407,620 $328,537,591 $150,000,000 $394,129,971 $9,853,249,266

47 $0 $84,407,620 $313,789,485 $150,000,000 $379,381,865 $9,484,546,621

48 $0 $84,407,620 $299,703,424 $150,000,000 $365,295,804 $9,132,395,098

49 $0 $84,407,620 $286,249,689 $150,000,000 $351,842,069 $8,796,051,714

50 $0 $84,407,620 $273,399,894 $150,000,000 $338,992,274 $8,474,806,839

51 $0 $84,407,620 $261,126,928 $150,000,000 $326,719,308 $8,167,982,699

52 $0 $84,407,620 $249,404,898 $150,000,000 $314,997,278 $7,874,931,944

53 $0 $84,407,620 $238,209,071 $150,000,000 $303,801,451 $7,595,036,285

54 $0 $84,407,620 $227,515,828 $150,000,000 $293,108,208 $7,327,705,188

55 $0 $84,407,620 $217,302,605 $150,000,000 $282,894,985 $7,072,374,627

56 $0 $84,407,620 $207,547,856 $150,000,000 $273,140,236 $6,828,505,896

57 $0 $84,407,620 $198,230,999 $150,000,000 $263,823,379 $6,595,584,472

58 $0 $84,407,620 $189,332,377 $150,000,000 $254,924,757 $6,373,118,929

59 $0 $84,407,620 $180,833,216 $150,000,000 $246,425,596 $6,160,639,900

60 $0 $84,407,620 $172,715,584 $150,000,000 $238,307,964 $5,957,699,090

61 $0 $84,407,620 $164,962,353 $150,000,000 $230,554,733 $5,763,868,325

62 $0 $84,407,620 $157,557,166 $150,000,000 $223,149,546 $5,578,738,655

63 $0 $84,407,620 $150,484,399 $150,000,000 $216,076,779 $5,401,919,485

64 $0 $84,407,620 $143,729,130 $150,000,000 $209,321,510 $5,233,037,757

65 $0 $84,407,620 $137,277,106 $150,000,000 $202,869,486 $5,071,737,157

66 $0 $84,407,620 $131,114,715 $150,000,000 $196,707,095 $4,917,677,368

67 $0 $84,407,620 $125,228,954 $150,000,000 $190,821,334 $4,770,533,347

68 $0 $84,407,620 $119,607,406 $150,000,000 $185,199,786 $4,629,994,645

69 $0 $84,407,620 $114,238,210 $150,000,000 $179,830,590 $4,495,764,748

70 $0 $84,407,620 $109,110,038 $150,000,000 $174,702,418 $4,367,560,454

71 $0 $84,407,620 $104,212,071 $150,000,000 $169,804,451 $4,245,111,270

72 $0 $84,407,620 $99,533,974 $150,000,000 $165,126,354 $4,128,158,851

73 $0 $84,407,620 $95,065,878 $150,000,000 $160,658,258 $4,016,456,444

74 $0 $84,407,620 $90,798,355 $150,000,000 $156,390,735 $3,909,768,377

75 $0 $84,407,620 $86,722,402 $150,000,000 $152,314,782 $3,807,869,555

76 $0 $84,407,620 $82,829,419 $150,000,000 $148,421,799 $3,710,544,987

77 $0 $84,407,620 $79,111,193 $150,000,000 $144,703,573 $3,617,589,335

78 $0 $84,407,620 $75,559,879 $150,000,000 $141,152,259 $3,528,806,477

79 $0 $84,407,620 $72,167,984 $150,000,000 $137,760,364 $3,444,009,096

80 $0 $84,407,620 $68,928,351 $150,000,000 $134,520,731 $3,363,018,283

81 $0 $84,407,620 $65,834,146 $150,000,000 $131,426,526 $3,285,663,161

82 $0 $84,407,620 $62,878,841 $150,000,000 $128,471,221 $3,211,780,523

83 $0 $84,407,620 $60,056,200 $150,000,000 $125,648,580 $3,141,214,488

84 $0 $84,407,620 $57,360,267 $150,000,000 $122,952,647 $3,073,816,175

85 $0 $84,407,620 $54,785,355 $150,000,000 $120,377,735 $3,009,443,382

86 $0 $84,407,620 $52,326,032 $150,000,000 $117,918,412 $2,947,960,295

87 $0 $84,407,620 $49,977,108 $150,000,000 $115,569,488 $2,889,237,193

88 $0 $84,407,620 $47,733,627 $150,000,000 $113,326,007 $2,833,150,181

89 $0 $84,407,620 $45,590,857 $150,000,000 $111,183,237 $2,779,580,924

90 $0 $84,407,620 $43,544,276 $150,000,000 $109,136,656 $2,728,416,400

91 $0 $84,407,620 $41,589,566 $150,000,000 $107,181,946 $2,679,548,659

92 $0 $84,407,620 $39,722,604 $150,000,000 $105,314,984 $2,632,874,600

93 $0 $84,407,620 $37,939,450 $150,000,000 $103,531,830 $2,588,295,746

94 $0 $84,407,620 $36,236,342 $150,000,000 $101,828,722 $2,545,718,045

95 $0 $84,407,620 $34,609,687 $150,000,000 $100,202,067 $2,505,051,663

96 $0 $84,407,620 $33,056,052 $150,000,000 $98,648,432 $2,466,210,802

97 $0 $84,407,620 $31,572,161 $150,000,000 $97,164,541 $2,429,113,513

98 $0 $84,407,620 $30,154,881 $150,000,000 $95,747,261 $2,393,681,528

99 $0 $84,407,620 $28,801,224 $150,000,000 $94,393,604 $2,359,840,090

100 $0 $84,407,620 $27,508,332 $150,000,000 $93,100,712 $2,327,517,800

NPV=$1,407,204,013,830

As we can observe from Table 3 the Net Present Value of the Hyperloop totals 1.4

Trillion dollars. The NPV is positive, which means that the benefits of the project

outweigh the costs, and the Hyperloop will pay for itself over time when we include

social benefits.

Limitations

For the Cost Benefit Analysis of the Hyperloop as a new mode of transportation in

California we had several limitations. The first one being that a mode of transportation

like the Hyperloop has never been made. As a consequence of this, there wasn’t enough

data to monetize items that pertained directly to the Hyperloop. Some of the data was

extrapolated from the closest similar mode of transportation; the High Speed Rail

System, specifically the one proposed for the state of California and also from the

regional/commuter airline industry. Another limitation was the estimated price for the

one-way tickets of the Hyperloop. The price is suggested on the Hyperloop Preliminary

Design, but it doesn’t account for the service life of the project and it doesn’t make any

mention of eventually increasing prices. It also mentions that with a ticket price of only

$20 per one way trip the construction and operational costs would be amortized in around

20 years, but looking at Table 3 and taking into account the revenue of tickets minus the

estimated maintenance and operation costs that amortization doesn’t seem plausible in

just 20 (twenty) years. We can also observe Figure 1 which compares annual

accumulative costs, with ticket sales revenue. Annual accumulative costs were calculated

adding construction costs with maintenance and operational costs, and this also confirms

the implausibility of the aforementioned statement.

Figure 1. Annual Accumulative Costs and Ticket Sales Revenues. This figure illustrates

that taking into consideration only ticket sales revenue, the costs of the project could not

be amortized during the lifespan of the project.

Recommendation

Based on the cost-benefit analysis presented above, the following is recommended.

The outcome of the analyzed project or decision should be to pursue the construction of

the Hyperloop in the State of California, specifically where it would connect the corridor

of San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA. Our results show that the Hyperloop would

not only be able to shorten the amount of time spent driving between the 2 (two) cities,

but it would also reduce vehicle related costs and greenhouse gas emissions. This last one

is not only beneficial for the residents of California, but for the planet as a whole. Finally,

the construction of the Hyperloop is also recommended because of its long service life,

and intergenerational impact.

References

California Department of Transportation. Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic

Parameters 2012. Internet site:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/benefit_cost/LCBCA-

economic_parameters.html (Accessed July 18, 2015b).

California High-Speed Rail Authority. Revised 2012 Business Plan, Chapter 6:

Operating and Maintenance Costs. Internet site:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012Ch6_OpMaintCosts.pdf (A

ccessed July 19, 2015b).

California High-Speed Rail Authority, Brinckerhoff, P.—California High-Speed Rail

Project. (2012, April). California High-Speed Rail Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Internet

site: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012BCP.pdf (Accessed

July 19, 2015b).

City of Coronado, California—Coronado Parking Meter Trial. Parking Meter Pilot

Study: Summary of Findings. Internet

site: http://www.coronado.ca.us/egov/documents/1418845116_71004.pdf (Accessed July

19, 2015b).

City of Los Angeles, California—LA Express Park™. Rate Changes April 6,

2015. Internet site: http://www.laexpresspark.org/la-express-park-rate-changes-april-6-

2015/ (Accessed July 19, 2015b).

Gasparian, H. and Groves, K. “Which Transportation Model Better Suits the Needs of

California: The High Speed-Rail or the Hyperloop? A Cost-Benefit Analysis” Southern

California Policy Review (2013-2014)

Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E., D., Fields, M., & Feigenbaum, B. (2014). 21st Annual Report on

the Performance of State Highway Systems (1984–2012) (Vol. Policy Study 436). Reason

Foundation. Internet site: http://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf

(Accessed July 18, 2015b)

Hess, A.M, Weigley, S. 2013. Ten cities with the worst traffic. USA Today. Internet site:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/04/worst-traffic-cities/2127661/

(Accessed July 18, 2015b).

McKenzie, B. Out-of-State and Long Commutes: 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration. Pub. No. ACS-20, 2013

Musk E. —SpaceX. (2013, August 13). Hyperloop Alpha. Internet site:

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf (Accessed June

10, 2015b).

National Highway Safety Administration—Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

Encyclopedia. FARS Data Tables. Internet site: http://www-

fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx (Accessed July 19, 2015b).

Neuharth, A. (2006, June 22). Traveling Interstates is our Sixth Freedom. USA Today.

Internet site: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2006-06-

22-interstates_x.htm (Accesed July 18, 2015b).

Rapino, M.A., and Fields, A.K. (2012, November). Mega Commuting in the U.S. Time

and Distance in Defining Long Commutes using the 2006-2010 American Community

Survey. Poster session presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and

Management (APPAM) Fall Conference, Baltimore, MD.

SFMTA Municipal Transportation Agency. SFpark. Internet

site: http://sfpark.org/ (Accessed July 19, 2015b).

U.S. Department of Commerce—U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident

Population for Incorporated Places of 50,000 or More Ranked by July 1, 2014

Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Internet site:

http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2014/PEPANNRSIP.US12A

(Accessed July 19, 2015b).

U.S. Department of Commerce—U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Table S0801:

COMMUTING CHARACTERISTICS BY SEX: 2009-2013 American Community Survey

5-Year Estimates. Internet site:

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

(Accessed July 18, 2015b).

U.S. Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, April 22). Occupational

Employment and Wages in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, May 2014. Internet site:

http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-

release/occupationalemploymentandwages_losangeles.htm (Accessed July 18, 2015b).

U.S. Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, June 23). Occupational

Employment and Wages in San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, May 2014. Internet

site: http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-

release/occupationalemploymentandwages_sanfrancisco.htm (Accessed July 18, 2015b).

U.S. Department of Transportation. Benefit-Cost Analyses Guidance for TIGER Grant

Applicants. Internet site: http://www.transportation.gov/tiger/guidance (Accessed July 16,

2015b).

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2015, February 5). Economic Values Used in

Analyses. Internet site: http://www.transportation.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-

in-analysis (Accessed July 16, 2015b)

U.S. Department of Transportation—High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program-

California. The White House. Internet site:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rail_california.pdf (Accessed July 16,

2015b).

U.S. Department of Transportation—Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The Changing

Face of Transportation, Chapter 2: Growth, Deregulation, and Intermodalism. Internet

site:

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/the_changing_face_of

_transportation/html/chapter_02.html (Accessed July 19, 2015b).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.

Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

(Accessed July 19, 2015b).