I asked you for a citatation for the time theories of either Meyer or Martland. Alternatively, you might have simply summarized the core of those theories. Instead, you sent a handout from a conference presentation by Mr. Alex Liu, who appears to be a grad student of Martland, along with a sarcasm of your own.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Just keeping it short as last time the complaint was the reference was too long and hence unreadable! Any comment on the content of the reference as it relates to the discussion or better yet a opposing reference?
Dr. Meyer wrote a 1960 textbook that was used until the late-70's titled The Economics of Competition in the Transportation Industries. http://www.worldcat.org/title/economics-of-competition-in-the-transportation-industries/oclc/123208442 It was part of the 1960's pileon following the 1956 Interstate Act, where intercity busses where pushed as policy on the public up until the 1000 mile trip mark where air was determined to be superior. I agree that air travel is superior over 1000 mile individual trip distances, but between the average intercity bus trip in the 300 mile range and 1000 miles is a large gap that covers a lot of intercity travel.
To properly understand and plan in this 300-1000 mile trip gap requires an understanding of the utility (value) of time to a traveler to determine market use and a full analysis of the financial costs borne incrementally by users. Interestingly, Dr. Meyer would later conceed that road travel was vastly undepriced on a marginal basis (each extra mile) but only slightly alter the conclsions against passenger trains based on total time economics.
We discussed this one of the many times before looking at the difference in Acela fares vs. regional fares when only a small marginal difference in total time exists and example calculations were provided using those real world numbers.
However, these were economic works and not financial works, hence they ignored where all the capital was coming from to build the interstates, namely taxing use of existing roads not tied to intercity travel and not funded by the fuel taxes but instead by property taxes.
Thanks. He was a real pioneer. However, in variuos summaries about his life work, I found no mention of a time theory to which you refer. He did study urban transportation and concluded urban flyer buses to be a better choice than rail transit (heavy commuter).
What about Martland?
Dr. Meyer 's book linked to above has his time theories, but it leads him to his conclusions just referenced. Say for example by supposing that there would be no economic difference between the ride quality and relative personal space between a commuter bus and rail in a rider's analysis. Many of the conclusions did not verify in the real world when these differences were neglected. He was a proponent of what would be called domestic intermodal.
Dr. Martland's time theories are briefly summarized on page 6 of the TRB handout (he wrote this as well, see the first page credits). There is a longer paper available.
The remainder of the TRB handout speaks in particular about how to serve a large metro area such as Atlanta in such a way that intercity rail plays to all its low access cost advantages, again it is worth a read at:
Thanks. I read.
1. I am very much in favor of passenger rail services, including lower speed connections to actual HSR.
2 I have a good deal of first hand experience with real passenger services, especially DB (and others) in Germany.
3. Much of what is said on page 6 (I will assume his time theory - disutility - concerns the notion that total time is less important than the quality, i.e., HSR with waiting and transfering is worse than a many-stop, slower train, aka, accessible rail) betrays the authors' lack of familiarity with European trains as a system.
The co-author to Dr. Martland, Mr. Lu, worked for Railtrack back in the day, and was associated with Reebie Associates research when they existed independently as well as UIC, so he has a pretty good US creds in my eye. I believe Dr. Martland is semi-retired, but Mr. Lu still does a lot of interesting consulting, see http://www.mit.edu/~uic/lexcie/index.html
Perhaps the UK is not true HSR by some definition, but it is a pretty fast average speed system where fine tuning of these time perceptions has to be figured out to make intercity rail work in a small, albeit dense country such as Britian, against automobile competition.
There is still a total time variable and a difference in time relative to fastest option variable in the dis-utility (quality) of time model, it is just not the only time associated variable as in vehicle time perceptions are also measured and weighted.
This model explains why people do things like select SUV's that cost say 40% more than a sedan to run and get them there perhaps slightly slower, but give them a better space perception and seating posture comfort. It also explains why dome cars were such a revenue draw back in the days and why people pay more for an Acela seat over a regional running just a bit slower as they value the time spent productively in the entire journey, not just the absolute time difference times a massive per hour value of time.
I have to wonder if Amtrak's gate dragon boarding process and mysterious seat assignments mentally blocks many from imagining ordinary coach travel as relaxing.
When I was a passenger in Germany I was keenly aware that some ICE trains took different paths along the same general direction so as to connect more cities without a transfer.
Remember there was opposition to the Atlanta belt line abandonment as it was though it would serve as a distribution loop as described.
V.PayneI have to wonder if Amtrak's gate dragon boarding process and mysterious seat assignments mentally blocks many from imagining ordinary coach travel as relaxing.
Amtrak's boarding (and alighting) process is slow and inefficient.
One concept you seem to favor is multiple stops around metro hubs. In Germany, ICE or IC trains generally make only one or two stops in an urban area besides the central terminus. Hamburg (3 other stations) and Berlin (possibly 2-4) being exceptions. The most likely connections are arranged to be cross platform on a tight headway, which I suppose reduces dis-utility time.
I don't think we have to wonder. I'd be surprised if it wasnt' true. It's ridiculous.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.