This paper examines the full costs. defined as the sum of private and
social costs, of a high-speed rail system proposed for a corridor conn
ecting Los Angeles and San Francisco in California. The full costs inc
lude infrastructure, fleet capital and operating expenses, the time us
ers spend on the system, and the social costs of externalities, such a
s noise, pollution, and accidents. Comparing these full costs to those
of other competing modes contributes to the evaluation of the feasibi
lity of high-speed rail in the corridor. The paper concludes that high
-speed rail is significantly more costly than expanding existing air s
ervice, and marginally more expensive than auto travel. This suggests
that high-speed rail is better positioned to serve shorter distance ma
rkets where it competes with auto travel than longer distance markets
where it substitutes for air.