QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond Some interesting thoughts here. I know in southern Ontario, there is the GO Transit and it is very popular. http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/home.asp I rode it quite a few times a few years back, and man....why would you want to drive a car through all those cities? Sit back, open up the laptop computer, or book, don't worry about road rage cause there is none. Plus the GO system integrates with a few of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway stations. While the subway does get crowded during rush hour, I think it is a fabulous way to commute. Plus there is VIA Rail and a couple other passenger rail system that integrate nicely into southern Ontario. From all my experience in commuting, I wish what they have in Toronto was futher deployed throughout the country......but then again Southern Ontario does have the population to drive the business.....but that's not to say one of those Coldorado self-powered cars couldn't be successful on some existing track.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 Oddly, rail may have in part been responsible for it's own demise. Before you say "we knew that..." When cities were concentrated entities - think "everything in walking distance," it made sense to travel by rail. You arrived at or near city center, could get where you wanted easily, then head back to the nearby rail station for your return trip. Many trolley/streetcar operators promoted the growth of "suburbs" whose residents would, in theory, use the streetcars to head for work, shopping, and play - downtown. In the process, however, they decentralized the cities, with "local" shopping and its attendent need for employees popping up in the new residential communities. That's why some suburbs don't really have a "downtown." As individual transport (ie, cars) came into the forefront, people discovered they could travel to the different suburbs, as well as "downtown." The problem was that transit carried people on the spokes to a central hub, and not radially around the suburbs. Hence, transit didn't go were the people wanted to go, so they drove. Business followed the population as well. That resulted in a situation where it was no longer convenient to take the train for a business trip, since there was going to be some driving involved as well. If the cost/time of driving was comparable to taking the train, that's what they did. [2c]
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:57 AM 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. So, if I may, I will choose to split the question into two parts: Could N American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of intercity passenger rail? Yes, with the qualifications of (1) increased average speeds that exceed nominal highway speeds, and (2) adaptation to and development of an autotrain business at the advent of the personal automobile, rather than the exclusive attitude that actually prevailed and which marganilized rail's usefulness to society. Could N American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of mass transit systems? No, no matter how it evolved, because mass transit is incompatible to individualistic freedoms which we so cherish. Just my two cents. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:00 PM [#ditto]A good two cents at that, or better yet a 2 cents that grew into a few dollars worth of logic. Dave I can't say that I agree with you a lot of the time, but this time I do have to hand it to you. Well said!!!! - Roy Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:06 PM Holy cow! Who is using Dave's computer today, and what have you done with futuremodal???[:o)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply CrazyDiamond Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Windsor Junction, NS 451 posts Posted by CrazyDiamond on Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:15 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon I find it interesting that while you describe a great alternative transportation system around Toronto that should be able encourage everyoneto get out of their automobiles and onto public transportation it fails to do so. The highways around Toronto are as clogged with people driving their cars back and forth to work as any other city in North America. Given the available alternative choices why do you think so many people still choose the auto over the train? I know Andrew, you are 100% right. Trust me it is an awesome system, but most people prefer to take their car and sit in traffic for hours. I know people that get up at 5 so they can get to work by 8, then when they leave at 4 they get home around 7 or later....make supper, eat, and then its off to bed to get a good night sleep cause they gotta get up at 5. I don't know why this is the case. For some people they simply cannot take mass transit cause it don't go where they are going. For most of the rest I think it is a case of mistakingly thinking mass transit sucks. Maybe the mass transit people of southern Ontario should do a better job of marketing the benefits. I will say one thing however. While I take the bus here in Halifax as often as I can, when I lived in Toronto I hated the bus. Frig those things were packed like sardines, and honestly...too many people smelt like sardines too! The subway/GO rail systems I enjoyed, but the buses I hated.....I guess there was not enough buses running. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 18, 2005 6:54 PM Our area has what I would call rudimentary public bus system that is well run. I think one of the main sticking points is a car is waiting there for your use when you want it. With a bus, you have to adhere to the bus' schedule. Another thing you have to plan for. Reply Edit MJ4562 Member sinceOctober 2005 From: Central Texas 365 posts Posted by MJ4562 on Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:39 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond Could North American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail, instead of a society dependant on the automobile. When I say "successfull" I mean: #1 People want to use the passenger/commuter RR service, versus using their car. (For a variety of reasons) #2 The passenger RR is making a profit, and infrastructure is very well utilized. #3 There is a good healthy amount of competition. #4 The message in most cars commercials is "buy your first car", instead of "get the car that gives you a DVD player, and room for 8." #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. #3 - See #2 #4 - See #1 Although the automobile has a lot of negative consequences and Americans are a little car crazy, the overall impact of the automobile has been overwhelmingly positive. Most people would not want to live in a world where American's did not embrace the personal car. --Allied victory in WW II was brought to you by the American automobile industry. --The automobile brought new demand for oil, which brought new oilfield and refining technologies, which brought us plastics, medicines, pesticides, fertilizers and many many more things that you probably would not want to live without (if you really think about it) or may only be alive because of. Of course there are many many more positive things that came about because of the automobile but time is short. Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:43 PM 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 19, 2005 6:37 PM But in this discussion nobody has talked about the "the true cost" of driving a car. True cost go beyond the purchase price of a car. What are the environmental costs? What are the related coats to accidents? A study by a group in Ottawa Canada suggested, when you added up ALL costs, to attend a minor fender bender with minor injuries, it costs the City of Ottawa about $50,000. If car users had to pay out what it really costs to drive, would individualism really matter? Would the wallet win out over the individualsimof the car? Consumers once took public transit to go shopping and stores had delivery vans to get your purchases home the next day. Another study found in certain American cities that property values go up on streets that are either on or close efficent public transit. Houses alone the GO Transit routes in Southern Ontario have a higher realestate value. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 19, 2005 7:28 PM 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. Reply Edit MJ4562 Member sinceOctober 2005 From: Central Texas 365 posts Posted by MJ4562 on Monday, December 19, 2005 8:27 PM 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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 19, 2005 8:52 PM 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] Reply Edit andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Monday, December 19, 2005 11:25 PM 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. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, December 19, 2005 11:25 PM 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. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:18 AM 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. Reply CrazyDiamond Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Windsor Junction, NS 451 posts Posted by CrazyDiamond on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:45 PM 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. Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:47 PM 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] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:43 PM 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. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:54 PM 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? Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:48 AM The taxpayers who foot the bill for all subsidies...[2c] Reply owlsroost Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Cambridge, UK 419 posts Posted by owlsroost on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:55 AM 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 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:43 AM 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. Reply Edit MJ4562 Member sinceOctober 2005 From: Central Texas 365 posts Posted by MJ4562 on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:29 PM 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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:49 PM 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. Reply Edit andrewjonathon Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 304 posts Posted by andrewjonathon on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:11 PM 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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 25, 2005 2:31 PM 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. Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon I find it interesting that while you describe a great alternative transportation system around Toronto that should be able encourage everyoneto get out of their automobiles and onto public transportation it fails to do so. The highways around Toronto are as clogged with people driving their cars back and forth to work as any other city in North America. Given the available alternative choices why do you think so many people still choose the auto over the train?
QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond Could North American society have successfully evolved into heavy use of passenger rail, instead of a society dependant on the automobile. When I say "successfull" I mean: #1 People want to use the passenger/commuter RR service, versus using their car. (For a variety of reasons) #2 The passenger RR is making a profit, and infrastructure is very well utilized. #3 There is a good healthy amount of competition. #4 The message in most cars commercials is "buy your first car", instead of "get the car that gives you a DVD player, and room for 8."
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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]
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
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.
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.
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
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain If Amtrak LD trains only used small suburban stations at intermediate large cities, would that cut costs significantly?
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!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.