blue streak 1 I forgot 2 items of annual costs for Don's car. Depending on the county he lives a new car tag and tax will be $500 + vs $ 100 - for his old car. emissions control is a wash so------- I would like to expand on DON's example; By not buying a new car yet he saves what $300 / mo car payments or for work 21 days a month or ~~ $ 14.25 / day car payments. Maintenance on car especially brakes ~~ $ 5.00 / day. Extra Insurance costs for driving to work ~~ $ 2.00 / day. So to be conservative ~~ $ 20.00 / day to not pay for driving. Savings per year ? If Don works 11 mo / yr = $7920 / yr. Of course the auto lobby and all its various branches do not want these figures well known.. Total costs = ~~ $8420 / year
I forgot 2 items of annual costs for Don's car. Depending on the county he lives a new car tag and tax will be $500 + vs $ 100 - for his old car. emissions control is a wash so-------
I would like to expand on DON's example;
By not buying a new car yet he saves what $300 / mo car payments or for work 21 days a month or ~~ $ 14.25 / day car payments. Maintenance on car especially brakes ~~ $ 5.00 / day. Extra Insurance costs for driving to work ~~ $ 2.00 / day. So to be conservative ~~ $ 20.00 / day to not pay for driving. Savings per year ? If Don works 11 mo / yr = $7920 / yr.
Of course the auto lobby and all its various branches do not want these figures well known..
Total costs = ~~ $8420 / year
Only if you can do without a car completely - or have handy Zipcar location near you for the few times you do need one. If you need the car to get to transit, some of those costs are sunk costs - time based depreciation, most of insurance, etc.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimmNow that MARTA has run trains in Atlanta for ~30 years, have the habits of commuters to downtown or Buckhead or Midtown changed?
Yes. Huge expansion in Midtown - both office, condo high rises have gone up - and are going up at this moment. Most of the the young folk coming to work here live "close in" even if they don't use transit.
blue streak 1 Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well. ... 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.
Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well.
...
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.
My recent experiences with commuting by rail (as opposed to 2 quarters at Cal commuting from Lake Merritt by BART):
First experience was two days of Jury duty in the Downtown San Diego courthouse - a three block walk to the courthouse was much nicer than trying to find parking near there and the trip did not involve transfer between transit modes.
Current experience is taking Amtrak to Orange County (SOL to IRV) brings up points 9 & 10. Being able to use a laptop and Wi-Fi does make taking the train more attractive, allowing to get work done in what otherwise would be lost time. Amtrak does acknowledge that in providing 120VAC outlets at every seat and providing Wi-Fi service as well - figure ~10 minutes of dead time in the hour travel time between SOL and IRV.
- Erik
blue streak 1I would like to expand on DON's example
The big saving comes from not having a car at all. Going from 3 cars to 2 cars or from 2 cars to 1 car saves even more money. Some people are reluctant to have one car because they want a backup for when their car is in the shop. However, when you consider the cost of insurance it is a lot cheaper to rent a car for the times your own is not available.
schlimmI think many prefer the reduction in stress and the ability to do something more fun (tablet or laptop, read, talk, etc.) or productive (work on job-related materials and projects).
I've always believe stress reduction is an important reason to use transit. In many ways stress is built into our lives and there is very little we can do to control it. However, riding a bus or train eliminates two blocks of stress every day. It has long been known that in our society men die younger than women do. I think that stress has a lot to do with that.
If there is no decent choice to driving for a commute, then of course you have to. But even if the commuter transit is somewhat slower and/or as or more expensive than the out-of-pocket expenses for driving the entire distance, I think many prefer the reduction in stress and the ability to do something more fun (tablet or laptop, read, talk, etc.) or productive (work on job-related materials and projects).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd 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)
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)
I think the stress/hassle factor is often overlooked, particularly when transit commuting isn't in the observer's recent experience. From my experience, different folks use different transit modes in a variety of ways while on board. Years ago I rode MARTA to Five Points daily: car to Stone Mtn., bus to Avondale (the line didn't go to Indian Creek then) and then on in on the train. I could read the newspaper or a book. At my work, some folks wondered why I traveled that way. Since the blue line had only opened one year earlier, rapid transit was new to most Atlanta residents, while for me it was just a continuation of my commuting patterns in Chicago, both from the suburbs on the CNW and on the CTA in the city on the Ravenswood L or Wilson bus or occasionally on the CNW. On the CNW, folks read, slept, talked played cards, etc. On the L or bus, folks sat and read or stood and held on. I do think one's own initial experiences with commuting and observed learning of parents' commuting habits plays a big role in choices later on. Now that MARTA has run trains in Atlanta for ~30 years, have the habits of commuters to downtown or Buckhead or Midtown changed?
schlimm I would politely suggest you observe Chicago Metra commuters and ask them why they ride the train to the Loop.
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.
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.
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.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.
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,
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.
John
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 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.