Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well.
It Is a matter of total time to go from point A to point B ?
1. Before 1910 the only way for people to get around speedly ( relative term ) was by trolley or railroad.
2. As more automobiles were bought persons could get from their homes to another point quicker because there was either no parking or very limited parking around public transportation..
3. As well the transportation was hot in the summer and cold in the winter especially on the commuter cars as they were hand me downs from longer distance trains and transit.
4. WW-2 stopped this run away from public transport.
5. This dicotomy for loss of long distance travel was immediately pushed forward at the end of WW-2 with more autos, the rise of airlines and their ability to fly at night relatively safely..
6. The interstate system then crushed the shorter distance public travel since there was still limited parking at commuter public transportation nodes.
7. There were exceptions especially the high density cities that had a good local public transport such as NYC & BOS.
8. Starting in the late 1960s in the NEC and in California in the 1980s some rail was built with parking. Some Bus routes were co-ordinated with the train schedules out west. Then reduced time attracted some riders especially in southern CA however not to the extent of what transit promoters hoped.
9. The advent of the laptop computer has changed the time metric as travel on commuter rails enable ~~ 80% of that time to be used for laptop work or sleep if desired. Subway & bus probably not because of the worry about grab and run criminals.
10. Will the advent of Wi-Fi and cell phone 4G attract some additional riders? That question can only be guessed how many ? This is a definite chicken and egg situation as the spotty coverage that still occurrs on the NEC due to lack of adequate antenna coverage at many locations is an example.
On the other end the loss of time driving an auto becomes a factor as well.
11. If a person only occasionally takes an auto slow down on his trip then will not change modes.
12. If parking is a problem at a transit node then public transit is still problematic unless riders can take it as kiss and ride.
13. Once the auto trip and other end transport takes more time to complete a commute then some method will be devised to take the public transport.
Some examples of how the time metric will or does apply ------
14. The greatest ridership increases of HSR in France are commuters that are 1 Hr or less from the major cities. such as into PARIS.
15. Lynchburg, Charlottesville -- Still cannot figure this one out as it is now 2 - 1/2 hrs CVS - WASH. If those 112 miles could be transited in 1 - 1/2 hrs ???? Still this auto route is only served by the congested US 29 - I-66 corridor which indicates many riders that are not commuters.
16. The same can be said for Newport News / Norfolk - WASH. especially where the Richmond - WASH segment is also 2-1/2 hours. I-95 is very congested many days causing unknown arrival times ALX - WASH. Again parking in VA is a problem especially on the VRE portion.
17. The reduction to 1;45 time from Harrisburg - PHL route has seen 4 fold increased ridership.
18 .What probably is most important is that there is no increase in travel time by public transport. Examples were the big hits that intercity and commuter passenger trains took as the RR infrastructure deteiorated so timetable or actual travel times increased.
What IMO are the ways to reduce travel time by public transport..
20. 1st if we have an 110 mile section of that can be run all at 80 MPH then it can be transited in 1;20. To increase this section to 110 MPH takes a bundle of money ( maybe $400 M based on the work CHI - STL ) That will save ~~ 20 minutes ?.
21. Increase the speed on terminal tracks. AMTRAK is rebuilding all their NYP puzzle tracks ( approximately 1 mile + length of trains [max 1360 ft] ) at the west end of NYP from 10 MPH TO 20 MPH. So instead of ~ 6.5 minutes transit time is down to 3.25 minutes. Fortunately the restriction only plugs the interlocking when train routes cross each other. Not counted is the acceleration time going out not needing to wait to clear 10 MPH section. Both will save what 3.25 minutes per train ?
22. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken.
On freight RRs transiting a 30 MPH vs an 80 MPH turnout will save time for entering a long ( 10,000 + ft ) and allow opposing traffic to clear faster. Exiting on an 80 MPH turnout once past its signal will definitely save some time if the restriction of not going faster than last signal is mitigated. ( PTC may help that problem ) . I have no idea what the extra maintenance costs of higher speed turn out are although the need for moveable frogs is a definite cost ?
23. Slow curves . As most of our posters know anything greater than a a 1/2 deg curve will slow down Hr SR as well as HSR. The usual way of easing curve track to build inside of an existing curve. That will work but sometimes making a restricting curve an "S" curve may work better. Again getting rid of restricting speeds. Other posters have noted that the present 110 MPH section on UP has a restricting curve.
For example a 40 MPH 1/2 mile curve on 80 MPH track assuming 1 MPH / sec acceleration will cost about 4 minutes. Slower curves probably occurr in metropolitan locations and probably be mitigated last unless an interim speed up is possible at minimual costs. NC DOT is relocating an obsolete I-85 bridge to allow the elimination of a slow "S" curve CLT - Greensboro.
24. every grade crossing needs elimination or 80 MPH protection.
25. remaining problem grade crossings that for what ever reason require slower speeds are expensive projects. Many times there is the need to eliminate more than one to enable higher speeds.
How should these speed ups be handled ??
26 IMO.it is important that published trip times be reduced very slowly.
a. If passengers know the trains are getting better on times then they are happy and will return with the present schedule.
b. If for any reason a speed up of the time table is not met then there are a lot of dissatisfied customers. wonder if it is 10 - 20 to 1 ratio ?
c. Slowly reducing travel times lets the passenger realize that improvements are being implemented with their tax dollars.
Many thoughtful points to consider. Thanks!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Lots to ponder.
One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 122. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken.
They are mostly #20 switches, which have a passenger speed of 45mph. As you point out, the higher speed diverging moves increase line capacity as well as reduce trip time. UP has some 60 mph interlocking for just this reason.
blue streak 1 Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well. It Is a matter of total time to go from point A to point B ? 1. Before 1910 the only way for people to get around speedly ( relative term ) was by trolley or railroad. 2. As more automobiles were bought persons could get from their homes to another point quicker because there was either no parking or very limited parking around public transportation.. 3. As well the transportation was hot in the summer and cold in the winter especially on the commuter cars as they were hand me downs from longer distance trains and transit. 4. WW-2 stopped this run away from public transport. 5. This dicotomy for loss of long distance travel was immediately pushed forward at the end of WW-2 with more autos, the rise of airlines and their ability to fly at night relatively safely.. 6. The interstate system then crushed the shorter distance public travel since there was still limited parking at commuter public transportation nodes. 7. There were exceptions especially the high density cities that had a good local public transport such as NYC & BOS. 8. Starting in the late 1960s in the NEC and in California in the 1980s some rail was built with parking. Some Bus routes were co-ordinated with the train schedules out west. Then reduced time attracted some riders especially in southern CA however not to the extent of what transit promoters hoped. 9. The advent of the laptop computer has changed the time metric as travel on commuter rails enable ~~ 80% of that time to be used for laptop work or sleep if desired. Subway & bus probably not because of the worry about grab and run criminals. 10. Will the advent of Wi-Fi and cell phone 4G attract some additional riders? That question can only be guessed how many ? This is a definite chicken and egg situation as the spotty coverage that still occurrs on the NEC due to lack of adequate antenna coverage at many locations is an example. On the other end the loss of time driving an auto becomes a factor as well. 11. If a person only occasionally takes an auto slow down on his trip then will not change modes. 12. If parking is a problem at a transit node then public transit is still problematic unless riders can take it as kiss and ride. 13. Once the auto trip and other end transport takes more time to complete a commute then some method will be devised to take the public transport. Some examples of how the time metric will or does apply ------ 14. The greatest ridership increases of HSR in France are commuters that are 1 Hr or less from the major cities. such as into PARIS. 15. Lynchburg, Charlottesville -- Still cannot figure this one out as it is now 2 - 1/2 hrs CVS - WASH. If those 112 miles could be transited in 1 - 1/2 hrs ???? Still this auto route is only served by the congested US 29 - I-66 corridor which indicates many riders that are not commuters. 16. The same can be said for Newport News / Norfolk - WASH. especially where the Richmond - WASH segment is also 2-1/2 hours. I-95 is very congested many days causing unknown arrival times ALX - WASH. Again parking in VA is a problem especially on the VRE portion. 17. The reduction to 1;45 time from Harrisburg - PHL route has seen 4 fold increased ridership. 18 .What probably is most important is that there is no increase in travel time by public transport. Examples were the big hits that intercity and commuter passenger trains took as the RR infrastructure deteiorated so timetable or actual travel times increased. What IMO are the ways to reduce travel time by public transport.. 20. 1st if we have an 110 mile section of that can be run all at 80 MPH then it can be transited in 1;20. To increase this section to 110 MPH takes a bundle of money ( maybe $400 M based on the work CHI - STL ) That will save ~~ 20 minutes ?. 21. Increase the speed on terminal tracks. AMTRAK is rebuilding all their NYP puzzle tracks ( approximately 1 mile + length of trains [max 1360 ft] ) at the west end of NYP from 10 MPH TO 20 MPH. So instead of ~ 6.5 minutes transit time is down to 3.25 minutes. Fortunately the restriction only plugs the interlocking when train routes cross each other. Not counted is the acceleration time going out not needing to wait to clear 10 MPH section. Both will save what 3.25 minutes per train ? 22. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken. On freight RRs transiting a 30 MPH vs an 80 MPH turnout will save time for entering a long ( 10,000 + ft ) and allow opposing traffic to clear faster. Exiting on an 80 MPH turnout once past its signal will definitely save some time if the restriction of not going faster than last signal is mitigated. ( PTC may help that problem ) . I have no idea what the extra maintenance costs of higher speed turn out are although the need for moveable frogs is a definite cost ? 23. Slow curves . As most of our posters know anything greater than a a 1/2 deg curve will slow down Hr SR as well as HSR. The usual way of easing curve track to build inside of an existing curve. That will work but sometimes making a restricting curve an "S" curve may work better. Again getting rid of restricting speeds. Other posters have noted that the present 110 MPH section on UP has a restricting curve. For example a 40 MPH 1/2 mile curve on 80 MPH track assuming 1 MPH / sec acceleration will cost about 4 minutes. Slower curves probably occurr in metropolitan locations and probably be mitigated last unless an interim speed up is possible at minimual costs. NC DOT is relocating an obsolete I-85 bridge to allow the elimination of a slow "S" curve CLT - Greensboro. 24. every grade crossing needs elimination or 80 MPH protection. 25. remaining problem grade crossings that for what ever reason require slower speeds are expensive projects. Many times there is the need to eliminate more than one to enable higher speeds. How should these speed ups be handled ?? 26 IMO.it is important that published trip times be reduced very slowly. a. If passengers know the trains are getting better on times then they are happy and will return with the present schedule. b. If for any reason a speed up of the time table is not met then there are a lot of dissatisfied customers. wonder if it is 10 - 20 to 1 ratio ? c. Slowly reducing travel times lets the passenger realize that improvements are being implemented with their tax dollars.
This is about setting expectations. Set them low and beat them, then people are happy The other side of this is you won't get people's attention unless something is different. "Faster" is different. I think you need to squeeze what ever time is there from improvements. There is some science in building train schedules. I'd let that rule the day.
The total time from the staring point (residence, hotel) city A to the ultimate goal (hotel, office) in city B, along with frequency of service and convenient departures will determine the preferred mode of travel: rail, auto, bus or plane. Cost is important but secondary if it's in the same ballpark.
oltmannd One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker.
blue streak 1 oltmannd One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker. Maybe I did not make it clear. Parking is only one part of the metric. IMHO The real driver in ridership may be the perception ( not necessarily what is reality ) of total time gained or lost. Many persons appear to need all the time possible to complete tasks. The total time wasted ( may be misconception ) while driving vs doing productive work while riding public transportation ( another misconception ? ) may influence some to ride public transportation?. the younger generation's use of laptops, texting, and cell phones has entered a whole new metric for whatever affecting ridership. All persons approach a task differently so how that affects their ridership will be different.. Of course travel safety is another consideration.
It's the "hassle factor". A guy who has a meeting three hours away (by car) isn't going to take the train if it takes 5 hours, no matter how long a nap or how much laptop time he can get on the train - particularly if he has first and last mile "hassles" with the train. However if there isn't much cruise control time in that 3 hour drive, he might think twice....
oltmannd It's the "hassle factor". A guy who has a meeting three hours away (by car) isn't going to take the train if it takes 5 hours, no matter how long a nap or how much laptop time he can get on the train - particularly if he has first and last mile "hassles" with the train. However if there isn't much cruise control time in that 3 hour drive, he might think twice....
If the total time by car or foot or bus plus train to the goal is 1:10 and driving is a only little quicker (50 min.), the hassle factor will lead them to take transit over driving most times.
schlimm If the total time by car or foot or bus plus train to the goal is 1:10 and driving is a only little quicker (50 min.), the hassle factor will lead them to take transit over driving most times.
Maybe in a single-person trip, but if you have two or more people in a car going the same place, most of us would snap up the auto trip in your hypothetical. The train would have to be a lot faster to tilt the choice the other way.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Yes. They (2 or more) very well might, but it would also depend on various factors such as what the drive is like in terms of traffic and stress and parking fees. On a longer, more rural drive, the auto would have an edge, hence the need for quicker trains to be competitive, along with a smooth ride in a pleasant surrounding. But since most cars on the road have only one occupant, only some potential riders would be lost to the auto.
Paul Milenkovic Maybe in a single-person trip, but if you have two or more people in a car going the same place, most of us would snap up the auto trip in your hypothetical. The train would have to be a lot faster to tilt the choice the other way.
blue streak 1Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well.
Your theory boggles my mind, Streak. But there is one thing that strikes me.
I have a friend in his 30's. He is always at work. Always. For a while his job required some driving to meet people. His only objection was that he was expected to be at work while he was driving. Now he's gotten rid of the driving and things are a lot better.
This "always at work" situation arises because of the internet. So the ability to work while you travel on a train means that when you arrive you don't have a back log of undone work and when you get home you don't have a backlog. If you were driving you would have a backlog and you would have to put in extra hours to clear it up. This is very different from the way things used to be.
John
blue streak 1 Paul Milenkovic Maybe in a single-person trip, but if you have two or more people in a car going the same place, most of us would snap up the auto trip in your hypothetical. The train would have to be a lot faster to tilt the choice the other way. Most of the time yes but if there are time constraints then even 4 persons might want to go on faster public transit service.
The hypothetical was that driving was faster. The presupposition was that there was so much "hassle" in driving that the choice for taking the train would be biased towards the train unless the train were much slower.
In the local passenger train advocacy group, we would go to great lengths to take trains/transit to get to distant meetings. In the local model train club, train enthusiasts, yes, but not passenger train advocates, we split the gas money, we stuff 4-6 guys in a small SUV, and we don't even bother figuring out how to get places by trains/transit.
A person needs to step outside the bubble of how a train enthusiast makes a transportation choice and how the average person makes that decision. The general view is that any other choice besides the on-demand door-to-door one-seat-ride of a car is a "hassle" that one is reluctant to undertake unless 1) one is without access to a car or a ride from someone with a car, and 2) there is a considerable time advantage to the common carrier mode.
All the folks from Illinois "headed up North" towing campers and boat trailers? A train is not an option.
blue streak 1Of course travel safety is another consideration.
2010 was a good year. Only 35,885 people were killed in auto crashes. 2.24 million people were injured.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf
With public transit of any kind--trains, planes or buses--there are all sorts of rules and safety precautions that do keep people quite safe. In private automobiles there are crashes related to texting while driving. Then there are drug and alcohol related crashes.
There is, of course, the human tragedy of all of this carnage. And there are the dollar costs--loss of financial support by families when a bread winner dies, costs of medical care and costs to the public in disability benefits and health benefits.
Your view is limited by living in a great area too small for metro rail transit. The view in major metro areas where tail transit is an option to get into the central city is quite different.
schlimm Your view is limited by living in a great area too small for metro rail transit. The view in major metro areas where tail transit is an option to get into the central city is quite different.
Does growing up in Chicago count, along with my "life story" of Dad moving the family out to the suburbs to follow his job? Of Mom taking me along as a kid on an all-day transit journey to Marshall Field's? I mean, the entire market for what she was shopping for has switched to the suburban and exurban "Big Box store", and does anyone take long transit journeys to shop in a Downtown location these days?
Does the time in the mid-70's when Dad moved the family to Detroit count, when we made frequent trip between Chicago and Detroit as part of a protracted move? The Chicago-Detroit trip was about a choice between "planes, trains, and automobiles." We lived in a commuter rail suburb of Chicago, and we had a 3-seat ride -- commuter rail to Downtown, we may have just walked between then Northwestern Station and Union Station, and then an Amtrak Turboliner ride to Ann Arbor. Detroit had nothing like the transit in Chicago, so the final leg meant leaving a "train car" parked in Ann Arbor.
There was and still is multiple Chicago-Detroit train departures a day, but when you factor arriving-in-time for the train and the change to commuter rail in downtown Chicago, that trip ran something like 8 hours whereas we were doing it in something like 6 1/2 door-to-door, even in the day of the 55 MPH speed limit. I remember newspaper stories of the cops with radar in Michigan City, Indiana handing out tickets to the Amtrak crews for exceeding the 25 MPH municipal speed limit -- did Michigan City not want frequent and fast Amtrak service linking them to Chicago and Detroit and points in between?
I remember taking the train trip a few times, and then reverting to driving, especially if it were more than one of us going.
A remember a couple years back, looking into the bus ride to Chicago Union station to meet up with the Detroit train to attend a wedding in Jackson, MI. Part of the motivation for this was Governor Name-too-Long having had every toll road along with the Dan Ryan Expressway torn up at the same time -- we never thought we could make it past Chicago.
Well, we left at sensible times not to impose ourselves on the Chicago rush hour, we followed the Illinois DOT advice for taking Stony Island instead of the Dan Ryan, and getting through Chicago was no big deal. Also, we didn't have to rent a car at the other end, what with the wedding, reception, our hotel room, and the sister-in-law-to-also-visit scattered over hundreds of road miles in south-central Michigan.
The point of this is not be "difficult" or "ruining the enjoyment" of train enthusiasts for this Web site. The point of this is that the automobile sings a compelling siren-song of the door-to-door one-seat ride, dispatchable on demand. As David Lawyer on his Web site on transportation energy efficiency points out, we made do without automobiles during the Golden Age of Trains, but we didn't travel anywhere near the passenger miles on trains back in the day as we do now on automobiles owing to the flexible journeys the auto has opened up. Mr. Lawyer suggests that "back in the day", we didn't "get out much" or go many places.
This thread started out with suggestions on "tweaks" that the rail network could to do to speed up passenger train travel times, useful ideas on how to cut down on the speed restrictions to bring up the average speeds that do not compete well with automobiles. I am told that I only criticize and never offer support, well, I am offering support for these low-tech ways of making trains better.
But then the suggestion is made that once we "tune up" to trains, that we will all be patronizing the trains, even if the train still requires a substantially longer end-to-end travel time. Well yes, many of us are restricted in our driving or regard driving to be a "serious hassle", and I had indicated that I support trains to accomodate that. But I cautioned on extrapolating to the population at large with its love of cars. It is not so much the love of the car but the route and schedule flexibility that allows us to take trips we would not have dreamed of with trains, to commute to jobs that would be impractical with transit.
Where this is headed is a realistic passenger train advocacy that is not based on unfounded beliefs and assertions, an advocacy that stands a chance of being more successful that what we had in the past 40-50 years.
Paul M; At no time do I or most of the posters on this thread state that there will be a mass migration to rail or public transit. If only the # of long distance increased by 1 % of total intercity or 10 % of local travel there would be a mass overcrowding of the systems. These percentages are only speculative.
The point is and always is -------- You cannot make one size fit all -----
Even WW-2 did not do that even with the national ( ? ) 35 MPH auto speed limit.
It is all about time. 1. Total time saved 2. Time that can be used for other items instead of driving
blue streak 1Paul M; At no time do I or most of the posters on this thread state that there will be a mass migration to rail or public transit.
Simply ignoring others' actual positions and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position is the essence of the straw man fallacy.
schlimm blue streak 1Paul M; At no time do I or most of the posters on this thread state that there will be a mass migration to rail or public transit. Simply ignoring others' actual positions and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position is the essence of the straw man fallacy.
So no one around here is talking about a mass migration to rail or public transit? So if a mass migration to rail and transit is not in the cards, how do we square this with people who are advocating for trains, here and elsewhere, based on fuel savings, diminished CO2 emissions, pollution, air and highway traffic congestion?
How do we square this with the safety concerns of driving? I just saw a post raising the safety question whereas I have just been told that no one is considering a mass migration to the rail mode. How can trains make any meaningful reduction in the carnage on the highways if Amtrak fails to transport orders of magnitude more passengers than today?
Someone asserts that the train is a preferred transportation choice, even it it takes longer. I assert, that at least for most people, that is indeed not the case apart from the segment of the population that cannot, will not, or prefers not to drive, and that I offer that the case is to be made for Amtrak to accomodate people in that position. So what did I say that ignores anyone's position, exaggerates anyone's position, or misrepresents anyone's position?
Paul MilenkovicSomeone asserts that the train is a preferred transportation choice, even it it takes longer. I assert, that at least for most people, that is indeed not the case apart from the segment of the population that cannot, will not, or prefers not to drive, and that I offer that the case is to be made for Amtrak to accomodate people in that position. So what did I say that ignores anyone's position, exaggerates anyone's position, or misrepresents anyone's position?
Please cite where anyone on here made reference to a mass migration to rail or public transit? You echo the same claim of sam1, that no one will choose to ride the train or transit train "apart from the segment of the population that cannot, will not, or prefers not to drive." On earlier threads there was plenty of evidence, statistical and with various folks' "liein' eyes" that for many and increasing numbers in metro areas, commuter rail when an option is the mode of choice as opposed to the only way.
Schlimm,
In his first numbered item the original poster referred to trolleys. That was mass transit 100 years ago.
You and a couple of others here provide lots of entertainment by attacking the one passenger proponent who tempers his enthusiasm with a bit of logic and reality.
Paul generally makes sense. Why he continues to try to educate those of you who consistently attack him is a wonder to me.
Mac
PNWRMNMn his first numbered item the original poster referred to trolleys. That was mass transit 100 years ago.
Well yes, Mac, but not the only mass transit. The Boston Subway opened in 1897. And people in the 1850's commuted by train.
PNWRMNM Schlimm, In his first numbered item the original poster referred to trolleys. That was mass transit 100 years ago. You and a couple of others here provide lots of entertainment by attacking the one passenger proponent who tempers his enthusiasm with a bit of logic and reality. Paul generally makes sense. Why he continues to try to educate those of you who consistently attack him is a wonder to me. Mac
schlimm For example, Don Oltmann and I disagree with John WR on the value of long distance trains.
I guess that means you're not going to agree with my idea for a train that starts in Boston and goes west to the Hudson River, crosses on a car float, continues west to the Delaware River, goes south along the Delaware until it comes to the old Reading line and takes that through West Trenton and Philadelphia before proceeding to Washington.
I figure we can save a lot of time by not going through all of those tunnels in and out of Manhattan.
Only people without access to cars, who are uncomfortable with driving, or have an enthusiasm for trains are the only one's riding the train as often times, the train is indeed slower than driving? I guess you could say that is what I am saying,
I have a personal enthusiasm for trains, and I also have an enthusiasm for flying. But my personal perspective is that all of the common carrier modes, travelled often enough, become just another kind of bus. I don't see the "me" time or whatever kind of "work" time you get on a train compensates for taking longer to get there by train.
It was certainly the point of the parent post to this thread that the right level of speedup in the train , achieved by "low tech" means such as higher frog-number switches and faster interlockings, boosts train ridership dramatically. Questionable? In light of that evidence, what I propose should at least rise to the level of being arguable.
I would politely suggest you observe Chicago Metra commuters and ask them why they ride the train to the Loop.
I do think there's more to it than trip time. I have alternately ridden commuter buses, rail transit and driven during my career. Rarely has the trip time using transit time beaten the time to drive. Rarely has the first/last mile portion of the trip been easier on transit than driving. The out-of-pocket cost to drive was almost always a wash with the cost to us transit.
So, why use the train or the bus? Lack of hassle plus alternative use of my time. There is value to it that more than offsets the lack of speed.
Example. Right now, I drive 7 miles to get to a commuter bus to take me 25 miles to work. The 7 miles is at right angles to the direction I need to go to get to work. The bus costs $5 each way and drops me off a block from work - although the drop-off route starts 2 miles beyond my office.. Parking, a block from work is $5. I drive a 14 year old car that gets 22 mpg driving to the bus and about 25 mpg if I were to commute, so it would cost me about a gallon of gas each way to commute - about $7 a day. The gas cost to get to the bus is about $2.50 a day, so the total out of pocket cost is a wash. Sometimes, I have to wait outdoors in bad weather waiting on the bus in the afternoon.
The door-to-door time for the bus is 1:10 - 1:20. Most days, driving would be 0:50 - 1:00.
So, why do I do it? Because, driving during rush hour here is a pain. It's a lot of work and I would arrive home stressed. When I ride the bus, I read, then usually fall asleep and arrive home in a much better mood. It's strictly a quality of life calculation to me. I would pay a good bit more to ride the bus - $5 is a bargain. (and I do realize that is allowing me to keep that 14 year old Camry on the road a few more years than it would otherwise)
schlimm I would politely suggest you observe Chicago Metra commuters and ask them why they ride the train to the Loop.
As one of those commuters, I might be able to answer that question. I ride the train to and from work every day because of convenience and cost. Parking in the Loop area and Near West Side is quite expensive on a daily basis and when you add the price of gasoline and the aggravation factor, it's cheaper and easier for me to park at Oak Lawn and take the Southwest line to and from work.
As an aside, prior to around 2008, the Southwest Service was a rail-bus operation, with express buses covering off-peak and some rush-hour service. My monthly Metra ticket was honored on the bus, and I preferred even an express bus to driving.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.