Could N.American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail?

[rrandb]

I do not know about the rest of the country but "user" fees in Missouri are unable to even keep up with maintenace for highways.When it was suggested that the trucking industry pay for the actual cost of the use they get from roads they said it would bankrupt them overnight. There is no transportation system that receives no help from government. Its just the railroads receive less than others. Having said that many could not have been built without land grants but that was a long time ago. [:(]

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Gentlemen and Ladies, may I again point out that while user fees may cover most of all of the costs of maintaining, improving, and expanding the highway system, they do not in any way compensate for the loss of real estate tax revenue to general welfare purposes on the land the highway system occupies nor the tax revenue of useful use of that land for agriculture, factories, or housing.

It is the free land use that is the big subsidization of highway transportation.

The "total cost" of the automobile including "external costs"(which includes lost property tax revenue as well as costs for policing, parking lots, air and water pollution, etc.) has been calculated at $1.20 per vehicle mile. The cost of passenger rail at $1.55 per passenger mile does not include any of these "external costs" including lost real estate tax revenue on government owned right of way.

Both passenger rail lines and highways can enhance the value of adjacent land and facilitate its use for factories, housing and business thus increasing tax revenue. Developement along passenger rail would be more likely to be spots of very high density, than developement along highways. Some may see this as a benefit of rail.

[daveklepper]

Gentlemen and Ladies, may I again point out that while user fees may cover most of all of the costs of maintaining, improving, and expanding the highway system, they do not in any way compensate for the loss of real estate tax revenue to general welfare purposes on the land the highway system occupies nor the tax revenue of useful use of that land for agriculture, factories, or housing.

It is the free land use that is the big subsidization of highway transportation.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

A Rose, is a Rose, is a Rose, by any other name. . . . . The same applies to taxes, subsidies and government grants. The all come from and are financed by the same form. Somebody's pocket, earnings of a business or realized interest and/or earnings on non tax exempt securities, sales taxes, user fees and a lots of other immaginative ways that governments have of getting more of what belongs to someone else, legally one has very little choice in but agreeing to pay no matter what its use may be.

A user fee is not a subsidy. They are not all financed by the same form.

Cool! So all passenger service could simply be paid for with *user fees*? Problem solved![;)]

In theory, yes, although I speculate that would require ticket prices to skyrocket so that most if not all of the costs were covered, and therein lies the problem. Amtrak's user fees aka it's ticket prices cover only a fraction of the total cost of government operated passenger rail service as defined by Amtrak's 1930's logistical mentality. Non Amtrak users are paying the rest, ergo most of Amtrak's operating costs are covered by non-user fees aka subsidies.

And if Amtrak was forced to cover all it's operating costs via ticket sales or go out of business, well, we all know what would happen then.

Now, if railroads were forced to participate in paying fuel taxes along with truckers and buses, with the railroads' portion returned as track construction/maintenance funds for tax exempt e.g. public by proxy ROW's, maybe a modern passenger rail operator could actually cover it's operating costs within the confines of ticket sales.

The average cost per passenger mile for all rail types (from trolleys through AMTRAK) has been calculated at $1.55 per passenger mile, the average fare $0.22. On average rail fares would have to increase 700% to break even. Some commuter oriented trains come close to the break even point during rush hour, but most trains are big money losers most of the time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

A Rose, is a Rose, is a Rose, by any other name. . . . . The same applies to taxes, subsidies and government grants. The all come from and are financed by the same form. Somebody's pocket, earnings of a business or realized interest and/or earnings on non tax exempt securities, sales taxes, user fees and a lots of other immaginative ways that governments have of getting more of what belongs to someone else, legally one has very little choice in but agreeing to pay no matter what its use may be.

A user fee is not a subsidy. They are not all financed by the same form.

Cool! So all passenger service could simply be paid for with *user fees*? Problem solved![;)]

In theory, yes, although I speculate that would require ticket prices to skyrocket so that most if not all of the costs were covered, and therein lies the problem. Amtrak's user fees aka it's ticket prices cover only a fraction of the total cost of government operated passenger rail service as defined by Amtrak's 1930's logistical mentality. Non Amtrak users are paying the rest, ergo most of Amtrak's operating costs are covered by non-user fees aka subsidies.

And if Amtrak was forced to cover all it's operating costs via ticket sales or go out of business, well, we all know what would happen then.

Now, if railroads were forced to participate in paying fuel taxes along with truckers and buses, with the railroads' portion returned as track construction/maintenance funds for tax exempt e.g. public by proxy ROW's, maybe a modern passenger rail operator could actually cover it's operating costs within the confines of ticket sales.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

A Rose, is a Rose, is a Rose, by any other name. . . . . The same applies to taxes, subsidies and government grants. The all come from and are financed by the same form. Somebody's pocket, earnings of a business or realized interest and/or earnings on non tax exempt securities, sales taxes, user fees and a lots of other immaginative ways that governments have of getting more of what belongs to someone else, legally one has very little choice in but agreeing to pay no matter what its use may be.

A user fee is not a subsidy. They are not all financed by the same form.

Cool! So all passenger service could simply be paid for with *user fees*? Problem solved![;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

A Rose, is a Rose, is a Rose, by any other name. . . . . The same applies to taxes, subsidies and government grants. The all come from and are financed by the same form. Somebody's pocket, earnings of a business or realized interest and/or earnings on non tax exempt securities, sales taxes, user fees and a lots of other immaginative ways that governments have of getting more of what belongs to someone else, legally one has very little choice in but agreeing to pay no matter what its use may be.

A user fee is not a subsidy. They are not all financed by the same form.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

A Rose, is a Rose, is a Rose, by any other name. . . . . The same applies to taxes, subsidies and government grants. The all come from and are financed by the same form. Somebody's pocket, earnings of a business or realized interest and/or earnings on non tax exempt securities, sales taxes, user fees and a lots of other immaginative ways that governments have of getting more of what belongs to someone else, legally one has very little choice in but agreeing to pay no matter what its use may be.

[DSchmitt]

The Highway system is not subsidized. It is paid for by user fees. Fuel taxes excise taxes and fees paid by the automobile owners/users and truck owners.

Local streets and roads are another matter. They are mainly paid for from local revenues: property taxes, sales taxes and sometimes special assesments (usually on developers) . If the auto never existed the Highway system would be much less developed, but local street and roads would still be necessary.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The taxpayers who foot the bill for all subsidies...[2c]

You're OK with your free ride ending at the bottom of your driveway? Ending subsidies means privatizing ALL public roads....ALL of them! And, the new owners would be responsible for all costs associated with - policing, making sure users had proper safety training, negligence for their lack of repair, cleaing ice and snow, cleaning up wrecks, collecting their use fees, etc.

Be careful what you wish for!

[daveklepper]

Say I am a commuter in a really transit oriented city like Toronto. I travel on a monthly pass, and can used the most convenient one seat or multi-seat modes from work in a Toronto suburb with local bus or streetcar service to downtown, usually using one of the subway lines part way. So I do get a call on my cell phone about an aging aunt needing immediate attention. I'm not stuck on the trolley or subway or bus. Simply hop off at either the next station or appropriate connection point to set off in the new direction to that aunt's home. Because Toronton has a system, not just a bunch of raidal lines from the center of town to outlying suburbs or parking lots. New York City would of course be special case, and there I would possibly do even better by transit than by private car.

I still think the USA needs a strong national public transportation system and not be dependant on the auto as much as it is.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bentstrider

New poster here, but I've posted everywhere else.
I dunno if any of y'all ever heard of "Peak Oil", but I'm a firm believer in it.
I tend to see cars as more of a toy than an actual thing to do everyday work with.
The way most cities are designed and/or crowded now, 15-25 mph is the speed you could really go without slamming into someones @$$.
I use my mountain bike to go all distances within 10-20 miles of my home, and I do it quite easily. Hang shopping bags from the handlebars or tie it down to the rack.
My Bronco II that I bought 2 years ago sits in the garage 90% of the year.
I only use it for long distance trips since medium/long distance passeneger bus/rail isn't available all that much up here in Victorville, CA.
We do have Amtrak and Greyhound, but even with all the suburbanites from Orange, LA and Riverside counties moving up here, no one is even lifting a finger for the addition of a Metrolink line to the High Desert.
As far as the whole of passenger rail goes, we could very well see it coming back again due to rising petroleum costs.
Joe Sixpack and the rest of his dumb family will have to get used to riff raff of the transit. Because unless he's able to shell out $100-$200+ a fill-up, his SUV will be doing what mine has been doing for the last two years.
If it isn't in the scrapyard by then.
Oh, and a sidenote, I've only had my drivers license for 2 1/2 years.
I was 20 when I got it , and after driving in horrible traffic for six months, back to the bicycle I went.

THE VOICE OF A PROPHET CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS. -----ONE DAY IT MIGHT JUST HAPPEN THE WAY YOU SAY, UNLESS SOMETHING BETTER COMES ALONG.------I SAY SOMETHING WILL, PERSONAL FREEDOM THAT IS AFFORDED BY THE AUTOMOBILE IS SOMETHING THAT MANY WILL HAVE A MOST DIFFICULT TIME GIVING UP----MY 2 CENTS - PL

[Anonymous]

New poster here, but I've posted everywhere else.
I dunno if any of y'all ever heard of "Peak Oil", but I'm a firm believer in it.
I tend to see cars as more of a toy than an actual thing to do everyday work with.
The way most cities are designed and/or crowded now, 15-25 mph is the speed you could really go without slamming into someones @$$.
I use my mountain bike to go all distances within 10-20 miles of my home, and I do it quite easily. Hang shopping bags from the handlebars or tie it down to the rack.
My Bronco II that I bought 2 years ago sits in the garage 90% of the year.
I only use it for long distance trips since medium/long distance passeneger bus/rail isn't available all that much up here in Victorville, CA.
We do have Amtrak and Greyhound, but even with all the suburbanites from Orange, LA and Riverside counties moving up here, no one is even lifting a finger for the addition of a Metrolink line to the High Desert.
As far as the whole of passenger rail goes, we could very well see it coming back again due to rising petroleum costs.
Joe Sixpack and the rest of his dumb family will have to get used to riff raff of the transit. Because unless he's able to shell out $100-$200+ a fill-up, his SUV will be doing what mine has been doing for the last two years.
If it isn't in the scrapyard by then.
Oh, and a sidenote, I've only had my drivers license for 2 1/2 years.
I was 20 when I got it , and after driving in horrible traffic for six months, back to the bicycle I went.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

BTW, do any of you transit users live in New York City? Bummer, huh? Well, my auto may need an oil change and a diagnostic lookover once in a while, but it has never gone on strike!

I think you'll find trying to drive a car in New York City is a bummer right now too.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

If Amtrak LD trains only used small suburban stations at intermediate large cities, would that cut costs significantly?

How?? Most of them are unmanned platforms (some of which actually have a pay phone), or are unmanned (by Amtrak) transit facilities. It works the other way, the status quo cuts into the revenue side.

[MJ4562]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

#1 That is your opinion. I know lots of people who have one or more cars in their driveway and they still prefer commuting to/from work via mass transit including rail.

#2 http://www.serco.com/about_serco/markets/transport/Rail.asp
Interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004

Revenue £1,074.9m £804.5m up 33.6%
Profit before tax and amortisation, £43.7m, £34.4m, up 27.0%
Earnings per share before amortisation, 6.78p, 5.53p, up 22.6%
Profit before tax, £37.3m, £30.7m, up 21.5%
Earnings per share, 5.61p, 4.84p, up 15.9%
Dividend per share, 0.91p, 0.81p, up 12.3%

Just because North American companies can't do it, doesn't mean other companies can't. Note: Those numbers include other business, but you can't bet your car that Serco will not enage in business it cannot make a profit in.

Take a closer look at that annual report. Serco is a professional management company that makes money managing operations in a variety of industries and providing consulting services. It is not a railroad company and it does not own the railroad. Making money on a contract to manage a railroad is not the same as making money owning a railroad. The UK taxpayers are footing the bill for the physical plant and operating expenses. The UK gov't simply outsourced the management of the operation to Serco and that is what it is making money on.

All European railroads are government owned and heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The only place where a free market in passenger service has existed is the US. The best that any passenger operation did was break even on the operations, which doesn't include the cost of maintaining roadbed, wear and tear on equipment and providing a return on invested capital. This took place under the best of circumstances, short runs of densly packed commuters.

That said, although passenger ops are a money loosing proposition I think they have their place as a government service just as government funded highways do. Unfortunately they are only viable in certain heavily urbanized parts of the US. I have a friend that takes the Metro into work every day and loves it. However, his personal auto is still his preferred mode of transportation when he's not going into the office.

[Anonymous]

The current Amtrak weekly specials show 70% off on fares between the Twin Cities and Whitefish, MT (skiing?) on the Builder.

If Amtrak LD trains only used small suburban stations at intermediate large cities, would that cut costs significantly?

Another reason why public transit is rebuffed? Strikes. Transit has to be dependable, no matter what.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45

#1 - Public transportation is a last resort. People only use it if they can't afford a car or it's not practical to own/drive a car like in Europe and certain parts of the eastern USA.

#2 - Please provide an example of a passenger railroad that ever consistently turned a profit. Feel free to select from any railroad, anywhere in the world and at anytime in history. I know you can't do it because it's never happened.

#1 That is your opinion. I know lots of people who have one or more cars in their driveway and they still prefer commuting to/from work via mass transit including rail.

#2 http://www.serco.com/about_serco/markets/transport/Rail.asp
Interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2005

Just remember that passenger train franchises in the UK are subsidised by the taxpayer, so although the operator might make a profit the service as a whole doesn't.

A few people who've posted here seem to have a strange idea of the relative standard of living (and personal freedoms) in the US and Western Europe - I would have said that most households in the UK own at least one car, but a lot of people choose to travel by train (or bus) if that's the best option for the journey (and there isn't the same stigma in Europe - compared to the US - about using public transport).

Tony

[rrandb]

The taxpayers who foot the bill for all subsidies...[2c]

[Anonymous]

Better yet eliminate all subsidies to all forms of transportation period and everybody sinks or swims in true competition. Who would come out on top of that one?

[Anonymous]

BTW, do any of you transit users live in New York City? Bummer, huh? Well, my auto may need an oil change and a diagnostic lookover once in a while, but it has never gone on strike!

Auto 11
Transit 0


CrazyDiamond, just for the record I for one do not think that the concept of intercity passenger rail cannot be profitable, just that in North America (and frankly most of the world) passenger trains are operated under the auspices of 1930's logistics, and in North America they are further hampered by being the sole property (read: monopoly) of a government agency (e.g. no accountability, no innovation, no economic elasticity, et al) and of having to operate over a rail network seemingly dedicated to an average train speed of 25 mph. That's why North American intercity passenger trains cannot be profitable unless they operate under a tourism basis.

That being said, commuter rail cannot be profitable under any circumstances. Just my opinion.

[rrandb]

North America will evolve just as soon as it becomes profitable for investors to make money on passenger transit. The railroads couldn't, Amtrak can't and virtually all commuter roads are government opperated. When and if it becomes profitable you will not be able to stop people from throwing cash at rails and eguipment... [2c]

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45

#1 - Public transportation is a last resort. People only use it if they can't afford a car or it's not practical to own/drive a car like in Europe and certain parts of the eastern USA.

#2 - Please provide an example of a passenger railroad that ever consistently turned a profit. Feel free to select from any railroad, anywhere in the world and at anytime in history. I know you can't do it because it's never happened.

#1 That is your opinion. I know lots of people who have one or more cars in their driveway and they still prefer commuting to/from work via mass transit including rail.

#2 http://www.serco.com/about_serco/markets/transport/Rail.asp
Interim results for the six months ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004

Revenue £1,074.9m £804.5m up 33.6%
Profit before tax and amortisation, £43.7m, £34.4m, up 27.0%
Earnings per share before amortisation, 6.78p, 5.53p, up 22.6%
Profit before tax, £37.3m, £30.7m, up 21.5%
Earnings per share, 5.61p, 4.84p, up 15.9%
Dividend per share, 0.91p, 0.81p, up 12.3%

Just because North American companies can't do it, doesn't mean other companies can't. Note: Those numbers include other business, but you can't bet your car that Serco will not enage in business it cannot make a profit in.

A few other interesting points...which I'm sure will be stated as false, and honestly I can't verify as being factually correct.:

* According to a new U.S. DOT study, automobile collisions nationwide cost $150.5 billion in 1994 in terms of personal injury and property damage, and more than two-thirds of that cost is passed on to others through insurance premiums and public agency costs.

*The Empire Builder is an enigma to Amtrak's senior management. Its solid economic performance confounds every perception and "theory" the northeastern transit politicians who run Amtrak have about rail service. The train (west of Fargo and Grand Forks and all the way to Spokane) traverses a demographic wilderness, some of the least populated geography in the 48 states. The Empire Builder in Montana is farther removed from the rest of the route system (or what's left of it) than any other Amtrak train ever is, even the Sunset Limited. It traverses the most challenging climate of any Amtrak train -- winter weather often reaches extreme cold temperatures of 30 degrees below zero with windchills of -80 degrees and worse. It runs (at best) only once a day. It runs on a heavily trafficked, mostly single track, main line of the BNSF, the former Great Northern "high line."

The Builder's "peak loading" point (outside the Chicago-Milwaukee urban corridor), the point at which it typically has more people on board than at any other point on its itinerary, usually occurs near Wolf Point, Montana, which is in an extraordinarily unpopulated part of North America. But the typical boardings at Wolf Point rarely exceed four or five lonely souls per trip.

And yet ... run on a daily basis, and with a mail contract, the Empire Builder pulls in more revenue than any other single train in the system, and throws off more than $20 million in positive cash flow above direct operating costs. Why is this? How do we explain these seeming contradictions? Amtrak's senior management sure doesn't get it. What is it about the Empire Builder that can pull in more than $60 million a year from the amazingly unpopulated area it serves? The answer is simple and it is exactly the factor that management fears because of its flawed understanding of what drives costs and revenues in a national rail network. The answer is distance.

Source:
http://www.trainweb.com/travel/rambling/r961019.htm

Actually if you read the whole page, I'm surprised major passenger rail service is in shambles.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt
Actually this is not a fair comparison. The $1.20 cost for the auto include costs paid directly by the user plus costs to society (congestion, environmental, etc) not directly paid by the user. The rail costs (total rail $1.55) is operating plus capital only. Costs to society, travel time, environmental costs, land value, etc are not included.

Some of the "costs" not included in the figure for rail travel could be considered benefits to society rather than costs (i.e. reducing congestion on the parallel freeway).

The figures you provide are interesting. Of course since nobody actually pays the "true costs" so its the direct costs that primarly affect people's decisions.

Although I generally prefer commuting to work on the transit, I am the first one to admit that it is not just a matter of the cost. Many people will continue to use the car to travel to work regardless how easy and how cheap the buses and trains were to use.

[DSchmitt]

True cost?

I have tried to reasearch the "true cost" of the automobile vs other modes of tranportation.

In the United States, the true cost of the automobile has been estimated at $1.20 US per vehicle mile. Using a veh occupancy of 1.4 the tru cost of the automobile is $0.86 per passenger mile.

I have found other data which gave the following direct cost
Average cost per mile
Medium Car $0.51, Large Car $0.59, Luxury Car $0.68, SUV $0.65, Van $0.58 and another Table which gave "External Costs"
Costs Per Veh-mile
Traffic Services 1.2¢, Fuel Externalities 1.6 ¢, Roadway Land Value 2.6¢ Traffic Congestion 4.0¢, Environmental Costs 4.0¢, Roadway Costs 4.8¢,
Non-residential Parking 12.0¢, Crash Damages 10.0¢+, Land Use Impacts ?,
Equity Impacts ?,

Total External costs calculated 40.2 cents per vehicle mile

Total true cost about $1.10 +US per vehicle mile. Which seems to validate the $1.20 figure.




The figures, that I have found, for other modes are not "true costs", since they include direct costs only Operating and capitol, but no external costs. I found $1.55 US per passenger mile as the average for all rail. Of this amount the passenger pays $0.22 US and the rest is subsidized. Bus $1.86, passenger pays $0.26.

My conclusion:

True costs: Rail unknown but more than $1.55. Bus more than $1.86+, Automobile $0.86.

If people had to pay the "true costs" they would travel in automobiles.

Public tranportation is necessary to the functioning of society and the economy. Our cities could not function without it and it provides a needed service in other areas. However in most of the US the automobile provides better service as less "true cost" to the majority of the people.


I posted the following on a previous thread:
------

I found the following information at Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/

From: TDM Encyvlopedia -Transportation Costs $ Benefit , Table 15
Cost per vehicle mile for motor vehicles (2000 US dollars) is $1.20
costs incliude: travel time, veh ownership, crash damage, non residential off-street parking, vehicle operation, roadway costs, traffic congestion, environmental costs, roadway land value, residential parking, fuel externalities, traffic impacts.

Assuming 1.4 passenger per vehicle cost per passenger mile (capital + operating) = 86 cents

From a report titled: Comprehensive Benefits of Rail transit Benefits
dated 12-May 2004
Table 6 US Transit Expenses and Revenues By Mode (APTA 2002)
note auto is not included in this Table
Total rail: Total exp/passenger mile 1.55 Fares paid $0.22 Subsidy $1.33
Percent subsidy 79%
All bus Total exp/passenger mile $1.86 Fare $0.26 Subsidy $1.59
Percent subsidy 83%
Costs include: Capital expences and operating expences

The Subsidy for Heavy Rail is 72% Commuter Rail 73% and Light Rail 91%
The Sibsidy for Bus 76% Trolley Bus 84% Demand Responce 90%

--------

Note that the subsidy per passenger mile for rail is $1.33, which is more than the cost per vehicle mile of the automobile $1.20.

Actually this is not a fair comparison. The $1.20 cost for the auto include costs paid directly by the user plus costs to society (congestion, environmental, etc) not directly paid by the user. The rail costs (total rail $1.55) is operating plus capital only. Costs to society, travel time, environmental costs, land value, etc are not included.

[andrewjonathon]

Dave,

You make some reasonable points most of which aren't applicable in my case. Its is true that I refer to the park n' ride model which does involve the driving the car part way. That is because I am not a complete environmental nutcase (i.e. there are two cars in our garage) and when you live in the burbs I think the park n' ride model creates a reasonable balance between the different transportation modes.

The buses and trains that I ride on are used strictly for long commuter purposes. Once the bus leaves the park n' ride it doesn't stop until it gets downtown. So it literally is faster than a single occupant vehicle since it uses the HOV lanes. That also eliminates the BO issue since the riders are other commuters on their way to work.

Downtown the bus stops within a couple of blocks of the office building so it doesn't involve any additional transfers or other complications.

These factors may not be applicable in the scenarios you refer to which just goes to show (as you have pointed out) everyone's situation is unique but for some folks a transit option is the rational option available.

By the way, for some of us not being able to listen to Rush Limbaugh is almost justification by itself to take the train. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Standard of living is measured by personal freedoms, not by how many toys you have. Using personal freedom as the measuring stick, I'll still pick the USA over any European country anytime. Hmmm, more personal income AND more personal freedom......[8D]

But how do you measure personal freedom?

If you live in Washington State and want to smoke in a bar or restaurant, your freedom will be feel pretty limited. In Europe, you'll that won't be a problem. So who has more personal freedom?

Of course on the otherhand I'll admit someone who equates carrying a handgun to personal freedom will find the US a preferrable place.

If you want to drive fast without being stopped by the police, the you'll probably find more freedom in Germany.

If you equate personal freedom to being able to walk through any area of a city without feeling your safety is a risk you'll probably do better in a European city than a North American city.

In the US, at many companies be careful who you say Merry Christmas to a work or it could cost you.

Once again, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Question: How many of you would do your Christmas shopping using trolley/commuter rail systems? Kind of a hassle to carry extra baggage on such systems, isn't it?

Auto - 1
Train - 0

Or you are in transit between home and work when you get a call on your cell from your elderly mother, who needs some maintenance ASAP for her AC. If you're driving your own vehicle, you simply take the next exit and head to the rescue. If you're stuck on the trolley, well, you're stuck....

Auto - 2
Train - 0

Or you're a soccer mom, taking one kid to practice, one to dance recital, and one to the doctor for a checkup........Need I say more?

Auto - 3
Train - 0

Or you are in transit when you spot an armoire at a yard sale that you know your wife will just love. Again, if you're in your SUV, you stop and pick it up. If you're on commuter rail..........

Auto - 4
Train - 0

Okay, you all get the picture. There is an inherent flaw in mass transit systems for urban transportation, and that is the inability to make spontaneous and practical travel decisions on the fly. And that is part of the reason the US has such a higher standard of living than Europe, freedom to change course in midstream (and to do so multiple times) is part and parcel of our higher standard of living.

Dave,

I don't disagree with the scenarios you layout. However, when I decide how to get to work each day I don't typically factor in my mother having an emergency with her AC. Here is a few things that do affect my transportation choice for getting to and from work.

1) The traffic getting to work is extremely thick. I'd sure like to use the car pool lane. Since I don' t have a neighbor driving to same location I'm headed lets see what are my options. Oh, yeah the commuter bus travels in the HOV lane. I could drive 4 miles to the park n ride and catch the direct bus or I could sit in start/stop traffic for an hour and half.

Transit 1
Auto 0

Well, we can parse this a little more for the fun of it.......

Of course, you still have to get from your home to the train station, from the train station to your place of work, and vis versa. Unless you live within walking distance of the train station....

Auto 1
Train 0

QUOTE:
2) Its Friday afternoon and the freeway is jammed including the HOV lanes (especially right before a holiday). Lets see is there anyway I can avoid those obscene traffic jams and still get home at the regular time instead of an hour late? I could take the train to a park n' ride stop 9 miles from my home. The train isn't affected by extra Friday or holiday traffic.

Transit 2
Auto 0

Again, if you have to drive to the station.....

Auto 2
Train 0

QUOTE:
3) Paying $200 a month for parking downtown seems excessive. Travelling 35 miles in traffic uses a lot of gas as well (to the tune of about $150 a month at $2.35/gallon) It sure would be nice to only pay $65/month instead of $350 by car for transportation to work. (Note: This is the cost of employer subsidized transit pass. However, even if I paid the full cost of $135 per month it would still be far cheaper than driving.)

Transit 3
Auto 0

Hold on a minute! Most places of work have their own parking lots. And you still are paying for gas to get from home to the train station, and having to take a gas using taxi to get from the downtown station to your place of work (and vis versa). Since your vehicle does the direct route while the car to train to taxi / taxi to train to car route is usually not direct, you may actually be using more fuel using transit than your own vehicle.

Auto 3
Train 0

QUOTE:
4) It sure would be nice to get an extra hour of sleep in the morning. Of course sleeping and driving don't seem to go together too well. How could I get some extra sleep without going to bed earlier? Hmm...

Transit 4
Auto 0

Sleeping in a transit compartment with all the inherent riff raff that typically use transit? Not a good idea if you want to hang on to your wallet!

Auto 4
Train 0

QUOTE:
5) It is pretty busy around the house. It sure would be nice to find some extra time for reading. But how can I squeeze it in? Hmm, perhaps on the afternoon commute home (if I'm not driving that is).

Transit 5
Auto 0

Ever heard of books on tape? Ever heard of reading the paper at breakfast like most people do? And with all the extra time you save going direct via your own vehicle rather than the convaluted route most transit requires.....

Auto 5
Transit 0

Then of course there's all those germs migrating through the transit car....

Auto 6
Transit 0

Did I mention the B.O. problem from the riff raff and the flower people?

Auto 7
Transit 0

Ever try listening to Rush or sportstalk radio on the trolley?

Auto 8
Transit 0

Ever try singing along with your favorite alternative rock station on the trolley?

Auto 9
Transit 0

And if you need to talk on your handsfree cell phone.......

Auto 10
Transit 0

QUOTE:
One note, I don't generally plan my commute around an emergency happening at home. In the unlikely event an emergency did occur, I could quickly catch a cab ride home which would get me there just as quickly as if I was driving my car. The cost of the cab would easily be covered by the savings I get from using transit.

So your wife never calls to have you pick up some grocery item, et al? Are you going to use a cab to get to and from the grocery store?

QUOTE:
By the way, the difference between the standard of living in Europe and the USA is in the eye of the beholder. If you are an American and measure standard of living in terms of the square feet in your house or the number of cars in your garage then America is the place to be. However, if you value free time, vacations, etc then Europe stacks up pretty well. Standard of living varies greatly by country. For example, it doesn't matter what measure you are using Norway compares favorably with anyone.

Standard of living is measured by personal freedoms, not by how many toys you have. Using personal freedom as the measuring stick, I'll still pick the USA over any European country anytime. Hmmm, more personal income AND more personal freedom......[8D]

[MJ4562]

True cost of driving a car? How is that different than the true cost of public transit? They are the same---everyone pays for with their tax money.

It costs the City of Ottawa $50,000 per accident? Who did that study, Public Citizen Committee for Public Transit? I would love to see the breakout of that ridiculous estimate.

Consumers were once much less affluent too.

I'm sure that study about real estate values is 100% correct, at least the part you mentioned---It's common sense. Of course real estate values are higher in high population density areas. Supply and demand. There's no question that public transit works well in dense urban areas, however, most places in the US don't fit that category.

Try visiting the central US sometime. Because land is relatively inexpensive even the cities are low density and spread out. Any place within 10 miles is considered next door--and it has to be because you usually don't have an alternative. Compounding the problem is that employment is spread out amongst low rise office buildings spread out over a geographically wide area. In other words, if you utilized passenger rail it would require an individual station for about every 25-250 people on average.

[Anonymous]

Mclare,
I think you're right. It's just that all these costs are lost in the mix. If people had to pay these out of their wallets every day, other choices would probably be made.