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?
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.
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.
Attacking? Hardly. Just setting the record straight. Paul certainly makes some useful contributions, yes, but he mixes that with distortions of what other folks say. He characterizes people who believe there is an important role for intercity and transit rail as though we were all “enthusiasts” who think trains are “kewl” and espouse rationales that are not to his liking. Perhaps that was his experience with the Madison crowd? But many of the folks on this and other threads who believe in an increased role for passenger trains are quite rational, even hard-headed and some are in the transportation industry. Those of us who are what one might call “pro-passenger rail” hardly have a monolithic mindset. For example, Don Oltmann and I disagree with John WR on the value of long distance trains.
So let’s see if i got it straight. Paul’s point is that some of the advocacy groups oversell the train concept by including rationales that are unclear or in his view, of dubious validity. he has made that point many times. But to propose that only people with no alternatives ride trains, seems at the very least, questionable.
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 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)
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 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?
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…
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).
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.