Europe Car Use 90% of USA
Geenius at Wrok
On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
> (market share by person miles)]
>
> USA Europe
> Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
> Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
> Airline 11.2% 5.6%
> Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
>
> "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
> where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
travel is only half the U.S. rate.
And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
--
"If it's all the same to you,
I'd like to run for my life now."
-- "Lois & Clark"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"This must be what evil tastes like!"
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~geenius/
Analects 2:24
Merritt Mullen
Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>
> > Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
> > (market share by person miles)]
> >
> > USA Europe
> > Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
> > Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
> > Airline 11.2% 5.6%
> > Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
> >
> > "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
> > where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
>
> That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
> the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
> travel is only half the U.S. rate.
>
> And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
> takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
> conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
> because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
> an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
> European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
One of the fallacies of these kinds of numbers is they fail to take
into account whether people have an option as to which type of
transportion they will use. I'm sure it would be easy to find places
where "private vehicles" (presumably automobiles) are 100% of the
"market share".
Another fallacy is the failure to define a "trip". Short trips always
outnumber long trips. The shortest trips are done on foot. The next
shortest trips are usually done by "private vehicle" (bike or
automobile). As long as automobiles are economically feasible, they
will always account for a large percentage of total "trips". That is no
reason not to provide other options where they make social and economic
sense.
Merritt
George Conklin
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
>On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>
>> Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
>> (market share by person miles)]
>>
>> USA Europe
>> Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
>> Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
>> Airline 11.2% 5.6%
>> Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
>>
>> "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
>> where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
>
>That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
>the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
>travel is only half the U.S. rate.
>
>And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
>takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
>conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
>because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
>an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
>European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
>
>
>
bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
Loren Petrich
In article <5d5el8$h...@nina.pagesz.net>,
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
Complete with horrendous traffic jams, an excellent example of
the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
http://www.webcom.com/petrich/writings/TragCommons.txt
Transit users may recognize another occurrence of the Tragedy of
the Commons:
I've had numerous experiences of people crowding to get on or off
the many buses, trains, ferries, and airplanes that I've ridden for the
length of my life. For an individual, it may seem like the natural thing
to do, to get on or off quickly, but when a group of people tries, they
get in each other's way. However, waiting for the others to get on/off
means just that -- doing a lot of waiting.
As I had pointed out, there are two ways out -- creating a
society of virtuous anarchists and regulation by a central authority. The
first solution is partially implemented by the habit of waiting in lines;
the second one is rather common among airlines; first the passengers in
the rear seats get on, then those next toward the front, then those
further forward, all the way to the front. This is because passengers
getting to front seats may get in the way of those getting to seats
farther back.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
George Conklin
In article <32F6AB...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> > Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
>> > (market share by person miles)]
>> >
>> > USA Europe
>> > Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
>> > Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
>> > Airline 11.2% 5.6%
>> > Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
>> >
>> > "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
>> > where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
>>
>> That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
>> the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
>> travel is only half the U.S. rate.
>>
>> And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
>> takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
>> conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
>> because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
>> an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
>> European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
>
>into account whether people have an option as to which type of
>transportion they will use. I'm sure it would be easy to find places
>where "private vehicles" (presumably automobiles) are 100% of the
>"market share".
The data are not a fallacy at all. They are fact. And
the simple fact is that train lost 20% of its market in the
1980s in Europe as a whole. Providing expensive subsidies
for the well-to-do is all that train travel is about in the
USA.
Amtrak is a subsidy for the world's richest commuters.
George Conklin
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5d5el8$h...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
>
>> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>
> Complete with horrendous traffic jams, an excellent example of
>the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
>
Despite the ideology that people only have a 'right' to
take a train or something equally foolish, the steam era is
over, even in Europe. Myths that the USA will turn to
Amtrak if gas gets to $4 a gallon are disproved by looking
at France, for example. Those traffic jams exist because
Europe put its money into a few high-speed rail lines,
diverting money from where it would do the most good: the
roads. A few people get a faster trip. Most suffer. That
stale ideology does not need to be put into place here.
Eric McCaughrin
In article <32F6AB...@ridgecrest.ca.us>,
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> > Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
>> > (market share by person miles)]
>> >
>> > USA Europe
>> > Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
>> > Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
>> > Airline 11.2% 5.6%
>> > Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
>> >
>> > "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
>> > where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
That's one way of looking at it.
_The Extra Mile_ (Pietro Nivola and Robert Crandall)
has some good comparisons between the US and Europe. Page 10
shows a graph comparing Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled
per Capita. The US level was twice that of Western European
countries. As expected, motor fuel consumption per capita
was much higher as well.
On page 62, they write:
Perhaps the average American consumes far more motor fuel
than the average west European or Japanese because America,
in Antoine de Saint-Exupery's words, "is a continent, not
merely a nation." Presumably, Americans have to drive much
longer distances -- a powerful motive to resit onerous increases
in gasoline prices.
But this idea, too, is an oversimplification. Two-thirds of all
vehicle miles traveled in the United States are on urban roads,
not "open plains." Ninety percent of the trips are fewer than
ten miles long, and the average length of the trips appears to be virtually
the same as or shorter than in some other countries, including Germany
and Britain. "Americans," as Lee Schipper and his associates have recently
observed, "do not necessarily have further to go or go
farther." They mainly go more frequently, whereas Europeans more
often stay put, walk, or use other modes of transportation.
Public Transportation. The other modes include extensive systems of passenger
rail and bus service in and between many large cities abroad. Mass
transit (local and intercity) carries approximately 15 percent of total
travel in Europe, compared with about 3 percent in the US.
Europe's 15 percent, however, overstates the margin of
international difference between the automotive and nonautomotive
modal mix. The higher utilization of intercity rail transportation
in Europe, for instance, is partly offset by America's much more intensive air
travel. In any event, Europe's mass transit sytems obviously do
not suffice to explain the enormous disparity
in fuel consumption on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Automotive
travel accounts for at least 80 percent
of all domestic travel in virtually every developed country
except Japan, where it represents less than 60 percent. Again, a key
distinction seems to be that, on a daily basis, more people in the US take more
motorized trips.
Density. The oft-cited reason for this anomalous travel pattern is
the low population density of the US. To be sure, in
decentralized communities, characteristic of many US metropolitan
areas, cars are often the only practical way to get from
"here" to "there," not only when people are commuting to work
but for shopping, recreation, and virtually every other activity.
The result is a rising volume of automotive journeys, burning
more gasoline.
But only in this sense -- namely, the influence of the built
environment -- can American driving habits, energy demand,
and a keen preference for cheap fuel be
attributed substantially to density. The population per square
mile in Canada and in Australia is approximately 1/10 that
of the US. Yet taxation of gasoline is considerably lower
in the US, and per capita consumption is significantly higher.
Sweden has the same density as the US, but the Swedes tax
gasoline at many times the US rate and consume far less fuel
per head. America is a diverse place. The densities of some
American states resemble those of some dense nations in Europe.
For example, New Jersey has almost the same number of persons
per square mile as the Netherlands (and, incidentally, about
the same GNP). But the Dutch pay the equivalent of $3.00 a
gallon in gasoline taxes (compared with $0.25 in New Jersey)
and consume about 80 gallons a year per capita, compared with
about 450 a year by each resident of the Garden State.
--
Eric McCaughrin California has not had a day
me...@mti.sgi.com without a traffic fatality
http://reality.sgi.com/employees/meric_mti since May 1, 1991.
George Conklin
In article <5d7r6n$r...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>,
Your point that American consume more motor fuel per
capita is correct. But train travel will not reduce overall
BTU consumption unless Americans stop traveling.
Why? Off-hour service eats up peak hour savings. In
additional, trains carry around many tons of steel for a few
thousand pounds of people as cargo.
Energy Intensity of Transport Modes
(BTUs per person mile)
Mode Unadjusted Adjusted for Electrical % Compared
Losses etc.* to Amtrak
Autombile 3,558 4,270 +6%
Airlines na 4,647 +15.3%
Bus 997 1,196 -70.3%
Amtrak 1,975 4,029 ----
*Full title: Adjusted for Maximum Circuity and Electrical
Generation and Distribution.
Source: Hu and Young, 1990 NPTS Data Book, US Department of
Trans 1993.
Cato comments: "Even if Amtrak's ridership doubled, energy
consumption would be reduced by only 0.1 percdent."
These type of figures are not new, by the way. Stuff
like this has been known for a long time.
Now, we might ask ourselves why Americans as a group
travel more than Europeans. That is cultural.
Loren Petrich
In article <5d7850$m...@nina.pagesz.net>,
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5d5el8$h...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
>>> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>>>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>> Complete with horrendous traffic jams, an excellent example of
>>the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
> Despite the ideology that people only have a 'right' to
>take a train or something equally foolish,
There you go again. Whine, whine, whine.
the steam era is
>over, even in Europe.
Who needs steam when one can use diesel or electricity?
... Myths that the USA will turn to
>Amtrak if gas gets to $4 a gallon are disproved by looking
>at France, for example.
Amtrak, that's *intercity* rail.
... Those traffic jams exist because
>Europe put its money into a few high-speed rail lines,
Mr. Gconklin, you'd be *surprised* at the economics of high-speed
rail in Europe -- it is actually *profitable* in many places.
>diverting money from where it would do the most good: the
>roads.
Double loss here: a loss of the profits of high-speed rail and a
loss of money to build those flat roads. Not to mention the political
difficulties involved in trying to build big freeways through some of
Europe's cities, which is what you presumably want, Mr. Gconklin.
A few people get a faster trip. Most suffer. That
>stale ideology does not need to be put into place here.
Whine, whine, whine. Can you do anything *else*, Mr. Gconklin.
George Conklin
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5d7850$m...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In article <5d5el8$h...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>>>George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
>>>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
>
>>>> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>>>>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>
>>> Complete with horrendous traffic jams, an excellent example of
>>>the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
>
>> Despite the ideology that people only have a 'right' to
>>take a train or something equally foolish,
>
> There you go again. Whine, whine, whine.
Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
European train routes are a hopeless drag on their economies
which they can ill afford given high unemployment rates and
no-growth economies. Train travel is a luxury they can no
longer afford.
Even in Europe, costs are going to catch up with them and
SNCF now faces crippling strikes as it tries to cut out the
biggest money losers.
Loren Petrich
In article <5d9t8v$3...@ns1.ntrnet.net>,
George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
>European train routes are a hopeless drag on their economies
>which they can ill afford given high unemployment rates and
>no-growth economies. Train travel is a luxury they can no
>longer afford.
That seems awfully whiny to me; the answer is to make them go fast.
> Even in Europe, costs are going to catch up with them and
>SNCF now faces crippling strikes as it tries to cut out the
>biggest money losers.
One of the problems that SNCF faces is not running the RR's per
se, but the rather generous pensions that its employees get.
I'm sure that the SNCF would be more profitable if it did not
have to pay so much in pensions.
George Conklin
>George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
>>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>
> How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
on passenger travel than anyone else.
Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
money drain.
fly...@ism.net
Please site data source on deficets...also, given both the usually sited
cost of auto ownership and the "hidden" cost of auto ownership how do
you know that automobile transportation is not running a deficit?
Peter Saint James
> Your point that American consume more motor fuel per
>capita is correct. But train travel will not reduce overall
>BTU consumption unless Americans stop traveling.
>
> Why? Off-hour service eats up peak hour savings. In
>additional, trains carry around many tons of steel for a few
>thousand pounds of people as cargo.
Sort of like cars: lots of dead weight for little pay load?
> Now, we might ask ourselves why Americans as a group
>travel more than Europeans. That is cultural.
>
If you consider tax and subsidy structures as cultural, this is
correct. Mostly folks in the US travel more because things are father apart
because of all the parking lots and freeways in between.
Loren Petrich
In article <5dalkt$9...@ns1.ntrnet.net>,
George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>on passenger travel than anyone else.
You didn't answer my question -- I'm sure that someone like
Clemens Tillier might be better able to answer on the question of
high-speed-rail economics than I.
I may add that RR-pension expensiveness is one of the drags on
Amtrak also.
> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
>money drain.
The Chunnel loses money because it was godawful expensive to
build and because the company that runs it does not get enough revenue
from the trains going through it to pay it off -- the Chunnel trains
manage to make an operational profit.
And I'd be surprised if there will be much airport construction
in Europe in the coming decades.
Bracken C. Craft
George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
: Providing expensive subsidies
: for the well-to-do is all that train travel is about in the
: USA.
:
pardon me, george, but when I took the train this past Monday from
Charlotte to Greensboro, NC, I assure you that there were no millionaires
on the train.
well to do my ass/ your brain.
George Conklin
In article <5dbda8$b78$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
You have no way of knowing anything about who was on that
train. The bias of train travel is for the upper classes.
It is a subsidy of the well-to-do. The poor take the bus.
George Conklin
In article <32F929...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>> Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
>> >>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>> >
>>
>> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>> on passenger travel than anyone else.
>>
>> money drain.
>
>cost of auto ownership and the "hidden" cost of auto ownership how do
>you know that automobile transportation is not running a deficit?
Why don't you give data on your secret costs? After all,
you just state that your are out there saving the world, and
that world salvation is a 'hidden cost' the rest of the
world does not consider, so we have to start all over again.
The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
vast waste any more.
Alan P Howes
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:44:49 -0700, fly...@ism.net posted to
misc.transport.urban-transit:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>> on passenger travel than anyone else.
>>
>> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
>> money drain.
[Why does my server show so many holes in this thread? I'm reading it
on m.t.u-t]
Comparing Amtrak with European railway systems isn't comparing like
with like. The European systems include a lot of loss-making suburban
and/or rural operations (assuming freight is separated out correctly,
which often loses money in Europe). Inter-city is usually more
profitable than anything else. Certainly in the UK there are
profit-making intercity operations, e.g the new GNER franchise
(London - Newcastle - Edinburgh etc.) - despite the inflated
infrastructure charges they have to pay.
I don't see planes as the answer. Too much congestion of skies and
airports already. Too little land for new airports, particularly
close to city centres. Big problems of congestion on the ground
(landside) at the larger airports.
In any case, it's the trips under (say) 50 miles that make up the
vast bulk of traffic anyway, and they won't use the plane. IMO the
answer lies in enlightened planning with the goal of travel
reduction, plus other travel reduction strategies. For instance, many
UK residents could walk or cycle to the supermarket - but they drive
to bring their shopping back. A good delivery service, together with
other incentives, could encourage non-motorised modes.
--
Alan P Howes, Public Transport Consultant
Alan Howes Associates, Perthshire, Scotland
alan...@dial.pipex.com
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/alanhowes/
(under construction)
fly...@ism.net
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <32F929...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
> >> Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <5d9t8v$3...@ns1.ntrnet.net>,
> >> >George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
> >> >>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
> >> >
> >> > How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
> >>
> >> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
> >> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
> >> on passenger travel than anyone else.
> >>
> >> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
> >> money drain.
> >
> >cost of auto ownership and the "hidden" cost of auto ownership how do
> >you know that automobile transportation is not running a deficit?
>
> Why don't you give data on your secret costs? After all,
> you just state that your are out there saving the world, and
> that world salvation is a 'hidden cost' the rest of the
> world does not consider, so we have to start all over again.
> The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
> you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
> planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
> vast waste any more.
"hidden" cost...heres one for you...each year the state of vermont
determines the cost of each fatality...last year each fatality "cost"
Vermont over $900,000...we are currently doing this for our city, only
we are looking at all crashes...
Geenius at Wrok
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 fly...@ism.net wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
> > Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
> > efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
> > on passenger travel than anyone else.
> >
> > Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
> > money drain.
>
> Please site data source on deficets...
Conklin is defining government subsidization as "deficit." Which, of
course, it isn't -- it's a revenue source. It's only a deficit if the
government funding is cut off and the railway can't meet its budgets.
> also, given both the usually sited
> cost of auto ownership and the "hidden" cost of auto ownership how do
> you know that automobile transportation is not running a deficit?
Automobile transportation is ALSO running a "deficit," by Conklin's
definition, because the government subsidizes road-building and oil
exploration.
George Conklin
In article <32fdcaf2...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Alan P Howes <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:44:49 -0700, fly...@ism.net posted to
>misc.transport.urban-transit:
>
>>
>>> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>>> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>>> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>>> on passenger travel than anyone else.
>>>
>>> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
>>> money drain.
>
>on m.t.u-t]
>
>Comparing Amtrak with European railway systems isn't comparing like
>with like. The European systems include a lot of loss-making suburban
>and/or rural operations (assuming freight is separated out correctly,
>which often loses money in Europe). Inter-city is usually more
>profitable than anything else. Certainly in the UK there are
>profit-making intercity operations, e.g the new GNER franchise
>(London - Newcastle - Edinburgh etc.) - despite the inflated
>infrastructure charges they have to pay.
If isolated runs make some money, this should not be
surprising. But the system cannot. And it takes a sytem to
keep the big routes fed.
>I don't see planes as the answer. Too much congestion of skies and
>airports already. Too little land for new airports, particularly
>close to city centres. Big problems of congestion on the ground
>(landside) at the larger airports.
Airports handle the traffic. Amtrak? Even if it
disappered, it would not be noticed.
>In any case, it's the trips under (say) 50 miles that make up the
>vast bulk of traffic anyway, and they won't use the plane. IMO the
>answer lies in enlightened planning with the goal of travel
>reduction, plus other travel reduction strategies. For instance, many
>UK residents could walk or cycle to the supermarket - but they drive
>to bring their shopping back. A good delivery service, together with
>other incentives, could encourage non-motorised modes.
>
Above you talk about long distance making money. Now
you say most trips are under 50 miles. They lose money.
Therefore, driving is the only answer. Sending people to
the store to await the arrival of their goods by delivery is
a nice model for the world where housewives stayed home all
day to await packages. Going back to 1920 is out of the
question. I think people drive to the market for rational
reasons. They will continue to do so. I actually grew up
in a city without a car. My mother would have to stop
almost every day to pick up some food item on the way home
from work. Transit was very slow. Getting free of that
siutation was like getting out of jail.
Jim Atchison
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <5dbda8$b78$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
> Bracken C. Craft <bcc...@is.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
> >
> >: Providing expensive subsidies
> >: for the well-to-do is all that train travel is about in the
> >: USA.
> >:
> >pardon me, george, but when I took the train this past Monday from
> >Charlotte to Greensboro, NC, I assure you that there were no millionaires
> >on the train.
> train. The bias of train travel is for the upper classes.
> It is a subsidy of the well-to-do. The poor take the bus.
yourself by posting this kind of nonsense. Buses can be ridden by people
other than poor...they do it in the Bay Area all the time, every day on
the way to work in the City. To buy an average home in this county you
need to have an approximate family income of $115K...and these folks
ride buses. These same folks are seeking rail as a commuting
alternative, but believe me, it has nothing to do with their economic
status.
Please stop being so prejudiced in your posts...you can't grow and help
your community if you continue to close your mind. But then, are you
trying to help your community?
Jim
Wolfgang Schwanke
jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin) writes:
>>>>> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>>>>>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>>
>>>> Complete with horrendous traffic jams, an excellent example of
>>>>the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
>>
>>> Despite the ideology that people only have a 'right' to
>>>take a train or something equally foolish,
>>
>> There you go again. Whine, whine, whine.
> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
Europe is not abandoning train travel, and if it were, it would
be a bad decision. Where I live, heavy rail construction is underway ..
not enough, but still a good thing.
Simple fact: Not everyone owns a car
Those who don't need to get around anyway.
Those who do are invited to abandon their car.
>European train routes are a hopeless drag on their economies
>which they can ill afford given high unemployment rates and
>no-growth economies. Train travel is a luxury they can no
>longer afford.
You mean the road business is cost free or even cheaper??
BTW it would be a good idea to rechannel some of the money that goes
into road construction and build some rail lines instead.
They also might consider to close down some of the motorways.
Cheers
wolfgang
--
Elektropost: wo...@cs.tu-berlin.de | wo...@berlin.snafu.de | wo...@techno.de
WeltweitesSpinnweb: http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/
IRC: wolfi | htrae no ecalp a nevaeh ekam ll'eW
RealLife: Wolfgang Schwanke | tsrif semoc evol nevaeh ni yas yehT
Wolfgang Schwanke
jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin) writes:
>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5d9t8v$3...@ns1.ntrnet.net>,
>>George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry again. I am not whining. I think Europe is doing
>>>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>>
>> How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>Amtrak. Who are you kidding?
Rail services cost public and private money, we know that.
Road construction and entertainment, traffic security, car parks,
hospitals and funerals also cost money.
You might be surprised which of the two systems generates more costs.
However, money alone is not the key issue. The major objection agains
cars is cultural: They are a nuisance.
Alan P Howes
On 3 Feb 1997 14:38:10 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
>The real
>change over the next 10 will be a dramatic increase in air
>travel. It is already happening, and please note that the
>chunnel is doing poorly economically because plane travel is
>still faster, easier and there are interconnections.
I really don't think it's worth bringing the chunnel into this
discussion. The reasons for its poor financial performance are not
primarily to do with market share. They are more to do with
construction cost over-runs and all the problems connected with such
a high-profile, one-off trans-national project. Also, we Brits
haven't managed to connect the tunnel to London properly yet.
Centre-to-centre the chunnel is about as fast as air, and the
interconnections are far better from Waterloo and Gare du Nord than
from the airports - depending, of course, oon where you want to go!
Alan P Howes
On 6 Feb 1997 12:17:38 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
>In article <32fdcaf2...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>Alan P Howes <alan...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>Comparing Amtrak with European railway systems isn't comparing like
>>with like. The European systems include a lot of loss-making suburban
>>and/or rural operations (assuming freight is separated out correctly,
>>which often loses money in Europe). Inter-city is usually more
>>profitable than anything else. Certainly in the UK there are
>>profit-making intercity operations, e.g the new GNER franchise
>>(London - Newcastle - Edinburgh etc.) - despite the inflated
>>infrastructure charges they have to pay.
> If isolated runs make some money, this should not be
>surprising. But the system cannot.
We are not talking about isolated runs, I just gave an example. Even
under bureaucratic, inefficient British Rail, the UK intercity rail
passenger business has been profitable overall in several years in
the last 10 - probably the majority.
> And it takes a sytem to keep the big routes fed.
Arguable. Where are you drawing the boundary of this system? I don't
think Amtrak functions as a system, for a start - neither does it
interact with US commuter rail to any extent. In Europe, suburban
rail (which is much more than just commuter) does lose money, and
always will, provided non-user benefits are not considered. However,
it is increasingly segregated from intercity rail both physically and
financially. And how do people get to airports? They certainly don't
fly. In Europe they may travel by loss-making transit, or (like most
in the US) on a loss-making road. I'm sure the point has already been
made that roads don't make a profit.
>>I don't see planes as the answer. Too much congestion of skies and
>>airports already. Too little land for new airports, particularly
>>close to city centres. Big problems of congestion on the ground
>>(landside) at the larger airports.
> Airports handle the traffic. Amtrak? Even if it
>disappered, it would not be noticed.
Anyone got modal share figures for the NE Corridor? And on the
figures you quoted, European air handles less traffic than both rail
and bus, and even US air pax miles are outnumbered 7.5 to 1 by the
auto. (BTW, I assume your European air travel figures exclude travel
between Europe and non-European destinations?)
>>In any case, it's the trips under (say) 50 miles that make up the
>>vast bulk of traffic anyway, and they won't use the plane. IMO the
>>answer lies in enlightened planning with the goal of travel
>>reduction, plus other travel reduction strategies. For instance, many
>>UK residents could walk or cycle to the supermarket - but they drive
>>to bring their shopping back. A good delivery service, together with
>>other incentives, could encourage non-motorised modes.
>Above you talk about long distance making money. Now
>you say most trips are under 50 miles. They lose money.
>Therefore, driving is the only answer.
Not necessarily, but I agree that the car confers a level of mobility
that transit can seldom match - assuming there is somewhere to park
your car at your destination. However, this mobility imposes a cost
on the community in environmental and other terms that has to be
taken into account.
>Sending people to
>the store to await the arrival of their goods by delivery is
>a nice model for the world where housewives stayed home all
>day to await packages. Going back to 1920 is out of the
>question. I think people drive to the market for rational
>reasons. They will continue to do so. I actually grew up
>in a city without a car. My mother would have to stop
>almost every day to pick up some food item on the way home
>from work. Transit was very slow. Getting free of that
>siutation was like getting out of jail.
The delivery scheme is just one idea, which I believe would work well
in certain types of community - although it would need careful
attention to detail, and would need to take modern living patterns
into account. It could well be though, that in 20 years time people
will spend more time at home than they do now, what with increases in
unemployment and tele-working, and earlier retirement. (Purely
anecdotally, I reckon that's already happened in my town - partly due
to a large number of early-retired British Rail managers!)
My main argument with you, George, is not the message you are trying
to give America, but your total misinterpretation of European
experience, and your suggestion that we should be following the
American example. In many respects America shows us the future - and
in the case of land use (non-) planning and transport, it's a future
few Europeans relish. Seen from over here, it seems the US has used
its plentiful natural resources most unwisely, and that future
generations' well-being has been compromised. (If I said the rot
started with the slaughter of the buffalo (let alone the Native
Americans), I would no doubt get labelled <g>). We (and I'm talking
of the whole world now) just can't go on consuming resources at the
rate we are now - and transport, a derived demand, has to be a prime
candidate for cut-backs. However, anyone who pretends there are easy
answers is kidding themselves.
[NB; Don't get me wrong - I like the US, and most of its people that
I've met.]
Alan P Howes
On 5 Feb 1997 07:09:03 -0500, jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
> I think Europe is doing
>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>European train routes are a hopeless drag on their economies
>which they can ill afford given high unemployment rates and
>no-growth economies. Train travel is a luxury they can no
>longer afford.
OK, now I've picked up the whole thread from alt.planning.urban, and
seen what a load of **** G Conklin has come up with. There are lies,
damn lies, statistics, and misinterpreted statistics.
"Europeans abandoning train travel"? This is based on his earlier
quote -
>Passenger rail market share in Europe dropped by 20% in
>the 1980s.
By no means does this necessarily point to abandonment of train
travel. It's far more likely just a case of car travel increasing. If
the European rail modal share for 1990 was 6.6%, GC's quote implies
the 1980 figure was 8.25% (6.6 = 80% of 8.25). But what was the
increase in total travel over the same period? My guess is that it
was a lot more than 20% - so total train travel probably went up,
albeit at a much slower rate than that for private travel. I wouldn't
be at all surprised if the air market share also fell over the same
period, for exactly the same reason. B****r market share, what we
need is volume figures. I'll look for them.
Has GC actually _been_ to Europe? You only have to travel around to
realise that rail is a big success, is heavily used, and developing
fast. The suggestion that it's being abandoned, by people or
governments, is so stupid as to be laughable. Privatisation of the UK
rail system has many shortcomings, but I am nevertheless sure that it
will lead to a substantial growth in the volume of passenger rail
traffic over the next 10 years - a view obviously shared by the
hard-headed businessmen who have invested in the franchises.
Having said all this, I don't know what lessons the US can learn from
the success of intercity rail in Europe. Other than the NE Corridor,
and as a tourist-carrier, Amtrak is (by European standards) a joke.
Perhaps the decline has gone too far ever to be arrested. California
should hold out some hope - it definitely needs some relief from
increasing auto traffic. But the land-use patterns are not at all
conducive to rail transport, and it would take some time to correct
that.
BTW, I'm a public transport consultant - but mainly bus, not rail. I
have no particular interest in promoting rail - just in getting the
facts straight (and the bus market is definitely declining, at least
in the UK!).
Geenius at Wrok
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Alan P Howes wrote:
> Arguable. Where are you drawing the boundary of this system? I don't
> think Amtrak functions as a system, for a start - neither does it
> interact with US commuter rail to any extent.
What's your definition of "interact"? I took Amtrak from Albany, N.Y., to
Chicago, then walked about 100 yards and got on the Metra to Evanston,
ending up about a mile a half from my parents' house. I didn't do it all
on one ticket, but the intermodality was there at least.
Dik T. Winter
In article <5dcgk8$6...@nina.pagesz.net> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
> you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
> planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
> vast waste any more.
And were do you think the space could be found to put the much larger
airports required?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
fly...@ism.net
I *love* the way "intermodality" rolls of youor tongue!
George Conklin
In article <32FA10...@atchison.com>,
Jim Atchison <j...@atchison.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <5dbda8$b78$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
>> Bracken C. Craft <bcc...@is.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> >George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) wrote:
>> >
>> >: Providing expensive subsidies
>> >: for the well-to-do is all that train travel is about in the
>> >: USA.
>> >:
>> >pardon me, george, but when I took the train this past Monday from
>> >Charlotte to Greensboro, NC, I assure you that there were no millionaires
>> >on the train.
>
>> You have no way of knowing anything about who was on that
>> train. The bias of train travel is for the upper classes.
>> It is a subsidy of the well-to-do. The poor take the bus.
>
>George, really now...turn brain on then make fingers go. Don't embarrass
>yourself by posting this kind of nonsense. Buses can be ridden by people
>other than poor...
>Jim
>
>
So what. The typical bus rider is a poor person. Trains
subsidize the rich.
George Conklin
In article <5dg8js$m...@nina.pagesz.net>,
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
In article <5df70a$qes$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin) writes:
>
>>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In article <5d9t8v$3...@ns1.ntrnet.net>,
>>>George Conklin <jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>>>
>
>> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>>Amtrak. Who are you kidding?
>
>Rail services cost public and private money, we know that.
>Road construction and entertainment, traffic security, car parks,
>hospitals and funerals also cost money.
>You might be surprised which of the two systems generates more costs.
>However, money alone is not the key issue. The major objection agains
>cars is cultural: They are a nuisance.
>Cheers
>
>wolfgang
>
Thank you for being so frank. Most people posting here
refuse to admit they are just biased against cars, and try
to hide their bias in claptrap such as global warming or
saving the whales. At least you are honest about your
biases. However, your particular views are held by a small
minority of Americans, all of whom seem to post here.
Robert Coté
> In article <5dcgk8$6...@nina.pagesz.net> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) writes:
> > The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
> > you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
> > planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
> > vast waste any more.
>
> And were do you think the space could be found to put the much larger
> airports required?
What makes you think larger airports are required? The trend has been to
SLOWER, QUIETER, shorter takeoff and landing AC. The price of the Chunnel
would have paid for sinking enough aircraft to walk across the channel.
"Ladies and gentlemen, please enter through the front and exit through the
rear of the aircraft." Wouldn't even need to take off. <G>
fly...@ism.net
where they belong!
George Conklin
In article <techscan-ya0240800...@news.west.net>,
The new stage 3 aircraft are so quiet you can stand next
to the runway and talk while one takes off. I was sorry to
see Fokker go out out business. The F-100 was a marvel of
engineering, a truly marvelous creation.
But the chunnel is an idea whose time has passed. It
will lose a lot of money.
Wolfgang Schwanke
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>>cars is cultural: They are a nuisance.
>a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Cheers
>>
>>wolfgang
>>
> Thank you for being so frank. Most people posting here
>refuse to admit they are just biased against cars, and try
>to hide their bias in claptrap such as global warming or
>saving the whales. At least you are honest about your
>biases.
Well, I hate cars for rational reasons, so "bias" it isn't.
They are technologically backwards compared to rail transport,
i.e. slower, antique type of engine, and no automatic control
that prevents crashes; roads, facilities for cars and the things
themselves take up far too much space which could be put to better use;
and they kill people orders of magnitude more than any other transport
system (and that is so just becaue they are so technically backwards).
And on top of all that they waste energy, kill whales and all that.
Therefore we need a cultural change away from the car culture towards
a more economical way of doing things.
It's going to happen anyway once the rich countries of this world
stop being so rich, so people can't afford that waste
any more, and/or the oil wells dry out. But it'd be wise to
build a different transport system before that happens in order
to be prepared. Fortunately we have one already.
And no, this is not a "green" position, as you might have noticed.
Doing away with cars is the cultural equivalent of introducing
drainage systems, namely the removal of a major health risk and a
rise in living standards.
>However, your particular views are held by a small
>minority of Americans, all of whom seem to post here.
I don't live in America nor do I plan to, so why should I care what you
do to your country? This thread has "Europe" in the subject line.
Your original claim that Europe is abandoning trains or public
transport is wrong anyway, which is what I originally responded to.
Greetings
Guy Clinton Greenwood
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970203...@magik.albany.net>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
> >On 3 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
> >> (market share by person miles)]
> >>
> >> USA Europe
> >> Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
> >> Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
> >> Airline 11.2% 5.6%
> >> Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
> >>
> >> "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
> >> where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
> >
> >That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
> >the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
> >travel is only half the U.S. rate.
> >
> >And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
> >takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
> >conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
> >because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
> >an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
> >European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
> >
> >
> >
> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
> bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
In many situations mass transit is simply not an option. Who would
double or trpple the length of their commute to take mass transit? To
half the length of my commute by car I would have to triple my commute
time and double my expense. Whenever practical, I prefer mass trasnsit.
The biggest problem with mass transit is its ineffectiveness outside
large urban centers, except for high frequency commute rail. In urban
centers it really shines, specially when the authorities display a lack
of tolerance for troublemakers and vandals.
David McLoughlin
Hi everyone,
I'd like to add my 10c worth to this flame thread which seems to be
summed up by whoever of you posted this:
> > The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
> > Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
> > efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
> > on passenger travel than anyone else.
I've taken the argument to be that trains lose heaps of money, and some
of you think they should be replaced with road or air transport, while
others of you say the cost doesn't matter because trains are so efficient
at moving people, freight etc. And so with urban transit.
Well, trains don't have to lose heaps of money. From my observation, the
reason many of the very well patronised trains and urban transit
systems in Europe and North America lose money is because they are
government or municipal-owned and grossly inefficient due to overstaffing
and bad management practices forced upon them by political masters
who resist progressive change because it might cost them votes or upset
the unions.
Here in New Zealand, our trains lost countless millions of dollars over
many decades because the government used them as job-creation schemes. By
the mid-1980s, NZ Rail had 25,000 staff, its passenger services were all
but replaced with buses to cut costs, every second freight wagon seemed
to vanish en route and taxpayers propped the system up with hundreds of
millions of dollars in operating and capital subsidies.
Then the system was (first) corporatised which meant it was given
statutory independence from politicians, an indepependent board of
commercial directors and charged with making a profit and returning a
dividend to the government. This turned the system round over five years.
Staff numbers were cut by 80pc to 5000, efficient management practices
were implemented, the trains ran on time and suddenly started making
profits at lower charges while carrying more freight.
The system was (second) privatised in 1993. The new owners, Wisconsin
Central of the US with a private NZ investor and now stock exchange
listing in NZ and Wall Street, continued the efficiency drive that began
under corporatisation and what's more have started reintroducing
passenger services abandoned under the old government regime. We now have
passenger trains that make profits as well as freight trains that make
profits.
All this was done with the support of the unions because the union
leaders realised how stupid the old way was.
(As an aside, the whole of NZ was restructured like this from 1984 to
1993 and while there were net job losses in the early years, the more
efficient economy since has produced massive job creation since 1991...
our unemployment rate has fallen from 11.1pc - one of the highest in the
OECD - to 5.9 pc - one of the lowest.)
I related the story of our railways to a Swiss businessman (at Nestle in
Vevey now you ask) a few years back and he was amazed, saying to everyone
in the staff cafeteria we were eating in "hey, the trains in New Zealand
make a PROFIT." His colleagues were staggered and got me to tell them,
over and over, what was happening here. Nestle decided almost on the
spot to buy NZ Rail, but Wisconsin Central beat them to it. I then hopped
on the massively subsidised but very efficient Swiss Bundesbahn and moved
on to Geneve to inspect the massively subsidised but very efficient tram
and trolleybus system there.
The way I see it, trains are good, whether long distance or urban
(assuming sufficient patronage etc to make the investment viable -- but
if NZ, pop 3.6 million can manage it, then the US and European countries
should be able to). I am a great supporter (and user) of public transit
especially urban transit but I also support calls to make transit
efficient, including cost-efficient, which tends to mean it should be
free of the political control that causes inefficiencies and massive
deficits. That doesn't have to mean privatisation but it does seem to
require legislation requiring statutory independence from political
meddling, which NZ instituted for government services in 1987 and city
services (including public transit) in 1991.
Freedom from politicians is the most important innovation needed to make
transit efficient. Just two examples of why: Amsterdam's fabulous trams
(streetcars) are virtually bankrupt and the management inept, but now
they are being forced to reintroduce conductors as a job-creation scheme
adding immensely to costs compared with driver-only buses. And as another
thread on M.T.U-T has said, San Francisco's streetcars and trolleybuses
are becoming decrepit, even the brand-new ones, because politicians keep
the fares so low MUNI can't afford to clean the vehicles, let alone
maintain them properly.
Efficient, attractive public transit that pays its own way or has clearly
transparent, competitively tendered subsidies for non-commercial routes
is the best answer to the road-motoring lobby there is and the best
chance long term to overcome urban traffic chaos. The road lobby has had
all the running against public transit for half a century now, hence our
choked cities and urban smog. To fight back, transit has to be made
efficient, and hidden road subsidies (everywhere bigger than transit
subsidies) have to be made as transparent as the very visible transit
subsidies so the public can see that a dollar spent on transit is much
better spent than a dollar spent on roads.
Then we might get somewhere. But that's another thread and I have to go a
a barbeque. It's midsummer here and a gloriously sunny Auckland day so
eat your heart out you winter-bound Northern Hemisphere folk.
Thank you for reading this thesis and I apoligise for its length. I hope
it provokes some discussion.
David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand
Colin R. Leech
>>> Total Travel: USA and Europe: 1990
>>> (market share by person miles)]
>>> USA Europe
>>> Private Vehicles 85.4% 79.0%
>>> Bus (intercity and urban) 2.5% 8.9%
>>> Airline 11.2% 5.6%
>>> Rail (including commuter and light rail) 1.0% 6.6%
>>>
>>> "The primary mode for travel in Europe is the automobile,
>>> where it roughly 90% of the U.S. rate."
>>
>>That's one way to look at it. Another is that rail usage is 6 1/2 times
>>the U.S. rate, bus usage is more than three times the U.S. rate, and air
>>travel is only half the U.S. rate.
>>
>>And it all means jack, unless you also specify how much of that travel
>>takes place in urban vs. rural areas (in rural areas, the private
>>conveyance has ALWAYS been the rule regardless of technology simply
>>because of the distances involved and the lack of sufficient demand for
>>an air hub or bus station). I'd love to see the figures for residents of
>>European metro areas with populations over 500,000.
It's also misleading to make statements like "6.5X" or "90% of X" when
using mode split numbers. What would be more accurate as well as more
revealing are numbers such as vehicle kilometres per capita by mode.
THEN you could phrase statements in this way.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
George Conklin
In article <E58nE...@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <d...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>In article <5dcgk8$6...@nina.pagesz.net> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> > The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
> > you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
> > planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
> > vast waste any more.
>
>And were do you think the space could be found to put the much larger
>airports required?
>
Larger airplanes make more airport space a luxury, not a
requirement. Our air carriers are using smaller and smaller
planes, despite the fact that that requires more runway
space, etc. A slow substitution of larger planes, not under
construction, would solve any growth issues for 50 years.
George Conklin
In article <32FC02...@iprolink.co.nz>,
David McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'd like to add my 10c worth to this flame thread which seems to be
>summed up by whoever of you posted this:
>
>> > The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>> > Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>> > efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>> > on passenger travel than anyone else.
>
>I've taken the argument to be that trains lose heaps of money, and some
>of you think they should be replaced with road or air transport, while
>others of you say the cost doesn't matter because trains are so efficient
>at moving people, freight etc. And so with urban transit.
>
>Well, trains don't have to lose heaps of money. From my observation, the
>reason many of the very well patronised trains and urban transit
>systems in Europe and North America lose money is because they are
>government or municipal-owned and grossly inefficient due to overstaffing
>and bad management practices forced upon them by political masters
>who resist progressive change because it might cost them votes or upset
>the unions.
Cost calculations can be made if you want assuming very
low labor costs. Passenger train travel is still not
cost-competitive. It does not save more than trivial
amounts of fuel due to the ratio of passenger weights to the
weight of the cars and the cost of off-hours service. In
addition, what really did the rail networks in in the USA
was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
more.
>Here in New Zealand, our trains lost countless millions of dollars over
>many decades because the government used them as job-creation schemes. By
>the mid-1980s, NZ Rail had 25,000 staff, its passenger services were all
>but replaced with buses to cut costs, every second freight wagon seemed
>to vanish en route and taxpayers propped the system up with hundreds of
>millions of dollars in operating and capital subsidies.
Buses save fuel.
People in the USA are not going to spend 3 days crossing
the country when they can fly for less money in 5 hours.
>
>Efficient, attractive public transit that pays its own way or has clearly
>transparent, competitively tendered subsidies for non-commercial routes
>is the best answer to the road-motoring lobby there is and the best
>chance long term to overcome urban traffic chaos. The road lobby has had
>all the running against public transit for half a century now, hence our
>choked cities and urban smog. To fight back, transit has to be made
>efficient, and hidden road subsidies (everywhere bigger than transit
>subsidies) have to be made as transparent as the very visible transit
>subsidies so the public can see that a dollar spent on transit is much
>better spent than a dollar spent on roads.
>
>Then we might get somewhere. But that's another thread and I have to go a
>a barbeque. It's midsummer here and a gloriously sunny Auckland day so
>eat your heart out you winter-bound Northern Hemisphere folk.
>
>Thank you for reading this thesis and I apoligise for its length. I hope
>it provokes some discussion.
>
>David McLoughlin
>Auckland New Zealand
So do you support the Cato Institute position? Remember
that we had private railroad passenger service until the
early 1970s and it failed from lack of ridership.
George Conklin
In article <5df6nm$q65$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
>>>>>>bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>>>
>>>>>the Tragedy of the Commons, a kind of Market Failure. See:
>>>
>>>> Despite the ideology that people only have a 'right' to
>>>>take a train or something equally foolish,
>>>
>>> There you go again. Whine, whine, whine.
>
>
>>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>
>be a bad decision. Where I live, heavy rail construction is underway ..
>not enough, but still a good thing.
>
>Simple fact: Not everyone owns a car
>
>
>
Then let the people who own cars have the freedom to
take others with them for $1 or so. That is made illegal to
give governments power over us. That would be a ready
market, called jitneys. They were wildly popular until the
1920s, when banned by greedy governments who wanted the
street car revenue. Vote for freedom for a change.
George Conklin
In article <5dgpng$3c4$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>
>>>cars is cultural: They are a nuisance.
>>a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>wolfgang
>>>
>> Thank you for being so frank. Most people posting here
>>refuse to admit they are just biased against cars, and try
>>to hide their bias in claptrap such as global warming or
>>saving the whales. At least you are honest about your
>>biases.
>
>Well, I hate cars for rational reasons, so "bias" it isn't.
>
>
>wolfgang
>
American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
go to work, and how you can travel. Car travel is also
inherently much less expensive than train travel.
George Conklin
In article <32fcf383...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>>the right thing by abandoning expensive train travel.
>>which they can ill afford given high unemployment rates and
>>no-growth economies. Train travel is a luxury they can no
>>longer afford.
>
>OK, now I've picked up the whole thread from alt.planning.urban, and
>seen what a load of **** G Conklin has come up with. There are lies,
>damn lies, statistics, and misinterpreted statistics.
>
>"Europeans abandoning train travel"? This is based on his earlier
>quote -
>>Passenger rail market share in Europe dropped by 20% in
>>the 1980s.
>
>By no means does this necessarily point to abandonment of train
>travel. It's far more likely just a case of car travel increasing.
Public transportation consultants, like you, are just
trying to make money by pushing the groups that support you.
You are simply one more special interest person sucking on
the public titty.
Loss of market share is abandonment by the people, who
are smarter than you are by quite a bit.
George Conklin
In article <32FC3C...@crl.com>, Guy Clinton Greenwood <k...@crl.com> wrote:
>> What the data do show is that European travel is quite a
>> bit like that in the USA. And getting more so too.
>
>double or trpple the length of their commute to take mass transit? To
>half the length of my commute by car I would have to triple my commute
>time and double my expense. Whenever practical, I prefer mass trasnsit.
Even when mass transit is available, using it may double
your transit times or even tripple them. I could in theory
take mass transit to work, covering 7 miles in about 1.5-2
hours using triangle transit, then Durham City Transit
(called DATA). Why should I do this? It is totally
irrational. Supporters of mass transit assume the public's
time is worthless.
>The biggest problem with mass transit is its ineffectiveness outside
>large urban centers, except for high frequency commute rail. In urban
>centers it really shines, specially when the authorities display a lack
>of tolerance for troublemakers and vandals.
Who says jobs are downtown? Why shold they be? Business
cannot afford those high downtown rents any more. Look at
Sears. City tower culture was killing them. They had to get
out or go broke.
George Conklin
In article <32faeed...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
The reasons for its poor financial performance are not
>primarily to do with market share. They are more to do with
>construction cost over-runs and all the problems connected with such
>a high-profile, one-off trans-national project. Also, we Brits
>haven't managed to connect the tunnel to London properly yet.
>Centre-to-centre the chunnel is about as fast as air, and the
>interconnections are far better from Waterloo and Gare du Nord than
>from the airports - depending, of course, oon where you want to go!
>
>Alan P Howes, Public Transport Consultant
>Alan Howes Associates, Perthshire, Scotland
> alan...@dial.pipex.com
>http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/alanhowes/
> (under construction)
You prove my point. Rail transit is inherently too
expensive to be competitive with any mode of transport other
than horse. It was a big improvement over horses. Cost
overruns? All projects have those. The Chunnel was too
expensive to start with.
And who says people want to go downtown London? They
probably want to go to Gatwick and catch a plane someone
else.
George Conklin
In article <5dhv0h$l...@nina.pagesz.net>,
space, etc. A slow substitution of larger planes, now under
Wolfgang Schwanke
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>>Well, I hate cars for rational reasons, so "bias" it isn't.
This is where I put quite a number of rational points that you
chose to delete and not respond to. You have a strange way of
avoiding to answer points made. Is it because you have nothing
to answer?
>>Greetings
>>
>>wolfgang
>>
> American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
>freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
>you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
>go to work, and how you can travel.
Oh really? Gosh, those Americans, let's all pause and admire them
for a moment. <insert moment>. Thank you.
Now back to real life: Have you ever considered who builds and plans
those fancy roads for your car to drive on? Who decides where to
build them and where not? And who pays for that? Once you've figured
out, tell me where's the crucial difference to rail plainning,
if you can find one.
Of course, I'd heartily welcome a retreat of the fascist government
from this interference with private decisionmaking, and let everyone who
wants to use roads construct them on their own in the spirit of true
liberty and free enterprise. I'm sure that you, sharing this spirit,
will agree.
>Car travel is also
>inherently much less expensive than train travel.
That claim has been refuted in the part you chose to delete, and in
points made by other posters.
fly...@ism.net
That would be a ready
> market, called jitneys. They were wildly popular until the
> 1920s, when banned by greedy governments who wanted the
> street car revenue. Vote for freedom for a change.
"Wildly popular"...I like that phrase! Well George now that you have
explained what lead to the demise of the jitney, perhaps you could
continue this history lesson and tell us what lead to the demise of the
street car. And please, don't give us the fairy tale version. George,
you are equating driving with a right...it is not a right, it is a
privilage.
fly...@ism.net
George Conklin wrote: what really did the rail networks in in the USA
> was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
> a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
> more.
The railroads were privately owned and received very little in the way
of government subsidy. Meanwhile, the government was pumping billions
of dollars into highway construction. That inequality of funding still
exist today. And I guess George, that statement contradicts yours about
fascist governments. If the government had invested 50% ....heck, if it
had invested 40% of what it has put into highways...back into rail
improvements, we would have fast efficent rail and street car service
today.
>
>
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <32FC9E...@ism.net>, fly...@ism.net wrote:
> George Conklin wrote: what really did the rail networks in in the USA
> > was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
> > a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
> > more.
>
> The railroads were privately owned and received very little in the way
> of government subsidy.
An overlooked fact: what railways could charge for shipping was regulated
by the ICC, while trucking freight was not.
> Meanwhile, the government was pumping billions
> of dollars into highway construction.
And marketing cars over trains to elementary age children (the next
generation) in our public schools.
> That inequality of funding still
> exist today.
At the rate of $2.25 per gallon of gasoline.
> And I guess George, that statement contradicts yours about
> fascist governments. If the government had invested 50% ....heck, if it
> had invested 40% of what it has put into highways...back into rail
> improvements, we would have fast efficent rail and street car service
> today.
Harry Truman tried to nationalize the railway system in the late '40s as
the result of a crippling railway strike that exposed the danger of a
nation unable to move armaments and warriors in a event of national
defense. The unified forces of special interests saw to it that it was
declared unconstitution and then declared the building of an interstate
highway system with taxpayers' money, stealing land from private citizens,
against their will, at a market rate declared by the government, a right
that European nations do not share, to be okay.
One person's fascism is another person's socialism.
In response to another poster:
Public ownership ownership of Amtrack systems since the 1970's, has vastly
improved its quality of service. The privately-owned railroads killed
themselves with bad management and poor planning. Now, according to a
report from the pro roads Uran Intitute at UNC-Charlotte, the shoe is on
the public foot at the Division of Highways. The single highest rate of
increase in highway construction and maintenance costs fall in the
"Administrative" column.
Bad management is bad management. It's not necessarily good or bad because
it's public or private sector. The public sector built the TVA
hydrolectric system, split the atom and put us on the moon!
Comparing rail to bus on the basis of fuel efficiency alone, is rather
like evaluating sex on the basis of how little time it takes.
Nelson
George Conklin
>> was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
>> a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
>> more.
>
>of government subsidy.
It was an industry which took its profits and put them
elsewhere, and did not invest in anything. It was not the
government's fault. Further, they lost money big time on
passenger traffic except during artifically deflated periods
of time like World War II. And then the war boards had to
ORDER more trains.
In order to maintan money-losing street car systems, the
anti-jitney laws were passed to prevent competition. That
destroyed public transit right there by cutting off all the
low-cost feeder routes.
George Conklin
In article <32FC9B...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>That would be a ready
>> market, called jitneys. They were wildly popular until the
>> 1920s, when banned by greedy governments who wanted the
>> street car revenue. Vote for freedom for a change.
>
>"Wildly popular"...I like that phrase! Well George now that you have
>explained what lead to the demise of the jitney,
Absolutely. There were outlawed the prevent 'unfair
competiton' for street cars, most of which were gone in a
few years anyway. People could not afford the fares and the
companies could not afford the costs of keeping them going.
The alternative was private cars and that is where people
went. Cheaper by far.
George Conklin
In article <5di1mk$acd$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>
>>>Well, I hate cars for rational reasons, so "bias" it isn't.
>
>This is where I put quite a number of rational points that you
>chose to delete and not respond to. You have a strange way of
>avoiding to answer points made. Is it because you have nothing
>to answer?
>
it. Buses may save on fuel; trains do not, and this has
been known for 75 years.
>
>> American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
>>freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
>>you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
>>go to work, and how you can travel.
>
>Oh really? Gosh, those Americans, let's all pause and admire them
>for a moment. <insert moment>. Thank you.
>
>Now back to real life: Have you ever considered who builds and plans
>those fancy roads for your car to drive on? Who decides where to
>build them and where not? And who pays for that? Once you've figured
>out, tell me where's the crucial difference to rail plainning,
>if you can find one.
Roads give you freedom from the fixed schedules of
government-owned railroads. Further, the cars give you the
ability to escape from high density cities, which Amereicans
have been doing since 1900, causing city densities to fall.
This is what city planners do not like====people escaping
from their dictates of bad living conditions.
>>Car travel is also
>>inherently much less expensive than train travel.
>
>That claim has been refuted in the part you chose to delete, and in
>points made by other posters.
>
>wolfgang
No, you merely assert a lie and by assertion 'prove' it
is true. But lies are lies. The subsidy is so bad that a
coast to coast ticket in the USA costs the taxpayer $1,000.
The well-to-do ride the train. It is a subsidy for rich
tourists, who should pay their own bills.
iam...@bway.net
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> In article <5dgpng$3c4$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
> Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
> >
> >hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> >
>
> American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
> freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
> you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
> inherently much less expensive than train travel.
>
expensive public space to support autos (junk yards, gas stations, parking lots). The freedom stuff is a real joke. One "Home
Depot" in a neighborhood can bring so much traffic to make it uninhabitable.
iam...@bway.net
> wo...@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) writes:
> jep...@ns1.ntrnet.net (George Conklin) writes:
>
>. The major objection agains
> cars is cultural: They are a nuisance.
>
>
> wolfgang
>
While I share your hatred of the parking lots and cloverleafs of the world but the public investment decisions that drive auto
dependancy are made as a function of perceived economic standards. We cannot price a culture and unfortunately the cultural
weight in the US is in the back seat of a 57 Chevy. Urban land value economics is what most butresses public transportation
culture.
r...@inetworld.net
On 6 Feb 1997 06:51:36 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
wrote:
> Why don't you give data on your secret costs? After all,
>you just state that your are out there saving the world, and
>that world salvation is a 'hidden cost' the rest of the
>world does not consider, so we have to start all over again.
>The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
>you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
>planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
>vast waste any more.
He asked you first, George. Besides, the hidden costs of car
ownership have been cited on here over and over and over.
But tell me this; if Europe can't afford train travel anymore, how
come France and Germany are going ahead with Maglev lines? As I keep
telling you George, it's not the cost in bucks, it's the cost in time.
Offer trains that can move at even half the speed of an airliner, and
you'll see ridership go way up.
=Bob
fly...@ism.net
George Conklin wrote:
>
> No, you merely assert a lie and by assertion 'prove' it
> is true. But lies are lies. The subsidy is so bad that a
> coast to coast ticket in the USA costs the taxpayer $1,000.
> The well-to-do ride the train. It is a subsidy for rich
> tourists, who should pay their own bills.
What do you suposed the subsidy is to drive coast to coast? Lets say
3200 miles of subsidized interstate road miles? Man you are one thick
SOB if you can't see that USA taxpayers are subsidizing road building
too.
fly...@ism.net
I guess you don't know your history...for the most part street car fares
were controled by municipalities...NOT THE PRIVATE OWNER...companies
could not afford repairs because fares were "set" by government....the
same government that was beginning to subsidize road building...next
thing you'll be telling me the Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor.
George Conklin
In article <32fbe7be...@news.inetworld.net>, <r...@inetworld.net> wrote:
>On 6 Feb 1997 06:51:36 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>wrote:
>
>
>> Why don't you give data on your secret costs? After all,
>>you just state that your are out there saving the world, and
>>that world salvation is a 'hidden cost' the rest of the
>>world does not consider, so we have to start all over again.
>>The chunnel had to refinance and get loans forgiven. Why do
>>you think a train tunnel is going to work these days when
>>planes are the wave of the future? Europe cannot afford the
>>vast waste any more.
>
>He asked you first, George. Besides, the hidden costs of car
>ownership have been cited on here over and over and over.
You cite no evidence; just your ideology. Train travel
is 30 cents a mile no matter how you slice it. Plane
travel is about 13 max, and down to 7 on long-distance.
>But tell me this; if Europe can't afford train travel anymore, how
>come France and Germany are going ahead with Maglev lines? As I keep
>telling you George, it's not the cost in bucks, it's the cost in time.
>Offer trains that can move at even half the speed of an airliner, and
>you'll see ridership go way up.
>
>=Bob
>
>
Europe is putting more and more money into systems for a
smaller and smaller percentage of the trips. But at some
point they are going to have to join the real world and stop
wasting money. Industry cannot support all that waste.
For now, they also need the courage to abandon urban
packing schemes too.
George Conklin
In article <32FCF6...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <32FC9B...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>> >That would be a ready
>> >> market, called jitneys. They were wildly popular until the
>> >> 1920s, when banned by greedy governments who wanted the
>> >> street car revenue. Vote for freedom for a change.
>> >
>> >"Wildly popular"...I like that phrase! Well George now that you have
>> >explained what lead to the demise of the jitney,
>>
>> Absolutely. There were outlawed the prevent 'unfair
>> competiton' for street cars, most of which were gone in a
>> few years anyway. People could not afford the fares and the
>> companies could not afford the costs of keeping them going.
>> The alternative was private cars and that is where people
>> went. Cheaper by far.
>
>I guess you don't know your history...for the most part street car fares
>were controled by municipalities..
You don't know your history. I got my stuff from
history journals. You just run off at the mouth.
5 Cents was the fare for everyone at the time the
jitneys were banned. The jitneys went where needed; the
streetcars could not compete because they had fixed routes.
For the streetcars to survive, they would have needed twice
the far a jitney needed. And today three times.
Like Amtrak.
fly...@ism.net
George Conklin wrote:
>
> You cite no evidence; just your ideology. Train travel
> is 30 cents a mile no matter how you slice it. Plane
> travel is about 13 max, and down to 7 on long-distance.
Last time I check reimbursment for use of an auto was 27 cents per
mile...now lets factor in subsidy for road building...opps!....I guess
the auto is an expensive way to buy freedom.
>
> >
Geenius at Wrok
On 8 Feb 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> No, you merely assert a lie and by assertion 'prove' it
> is true. But lies are lies. The subsidy is so bad that a
> coast to coast ticket in the USA costs the taxpayer $1,000.
> The well-to-do ride the train. It is a subsidy for rich
> tourists, who should pay their own bills.
Given that the government pays only 20 percent of Amtrak's operating
costs, one would expect the cost to the taxpayer of a coast-to-coast
ticket (priced at roughly $400) to be around $80. It certainly would NOT
be 2.5 times the cost of the ticket itself.
As you say, lies are lies. Fortunately, yours are laughably easy to spot.
--
"We were trained to hurt people
in a variety of insensitive ways."
-- J. Eric Smith, USN
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"This must be what evil tastes like!"
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~geenius/
Analects 2:24
David Grant
fly...@ism.net wrote in article <32FD2A...@ism.net>...
> Last time I check reimbursment for use of an auto was 27 cents per
> mile
For 1996, the United States Internal Revenue Service allows a deduction of 31
cents per mile (19 1/4 cents per kilometer) for business use of an automobile.
I don't know what it'll be for '97 but it's been going up one cent per mile
each year for the last few years.
Wolfgang Schwanke
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>In article <5di1mk$acd$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
>Wolfgang Schwanke <wo...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
>>
>>>>Well, I hate cars for rational reasons, so "bias" it isn't.
>>
>>This is where I put quite a number of rational points that you
>>chose to delete and not respond to. You have a strange way of
>>avoiding to answer points made. Is it because you have nothing
>>to answer?
>>
> Points? You merely say you don't like cars, and that is
>it.
I gave you technical reasons.
>Buses may save on fuel; trains do not, and this has
>been known for 75 years.
Really? Well, for one they use electricity, not fuel, so I wonder
where you got that information.
Low energy consumption is however one of the minore advantages of train
travel. The other technical points are still hovering in your oblivion.
>>Now back to real life: Have you ever considered who builds and plans
>>those fancy roads for your car to drive on? Who decides where to
>>build them and where not? And who pays for that? Once you've figured
>>out, tell me where's the crucial difference to rail plainning,
>>if you can find one.
> Roads give you freedom from the fixed schedules of
>government-owned railroads.
Well, they don't give ME any freedom. They rater take large chunks
of my freedom away whenever I have to wait for the damn things to
clear the street so I can cross it. They also pose a danger to me,
which I can't do anything about.
>Further, the cars give you the
>ability to escape from high density cities, which Amereicans
>have been doing since 1900, causing city densities to fall.
And suburban trains do the exact same thing. Of course, only if
you have them in your city. The difference between the two concepts
is that the latter can be enjoyed by eveyone, not just car owners.
> No, you merely assert a lie and by assertion 'prove' it
>is true. But lies are lies. The subsidy is so bad that a
>coast to coast ticket in the USA costs the taxpayer $1,000.
How much does a car ride over the same distance cost the taxpayer?
Unless you do a comparison, throwing around numbers is meaningless.
It'd also be nice if you quit focusing all your examples on the USA,
because not everyone reading this is in that country. And in other
countries the numbers come out vastly different ... for reasons
that have to do with having a completely different traffic system
to begin with.
Cheers
ygrenyS
fly...@ism.net writes:
>George Conklin wrote: what really did the rail networks in in the USA
>> was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
>> a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
>> more.
>The railroads were privately owned and received very little in the way
>of government subsidy. Meanwhile, the government was pumping billions
>of dollars into highway construction. That inequality of funding still
>exist today. And I guess George, that statement contradicts yours about
>fascist governments. If the government had invested 50% ....heck, if it
>had invested 40% of what it has put into highways...back into rail
>improvements, we would have fast efficent rail and street car service
>today.
The problem you LOOTers face is that most people don't want
or need passenger trains. They wisely choose to drive cars because
cars are far more efficient and practical and convenient.
Virtually every person in the U.S. benefits a great deal from
cars and trucks and roads, even if they never drive, because they
receive lots of goods and services that are delivered via road.
Most people receive little or no benefit from transit scams, so the
public should not be forced to pay for mass-transit.
George Conklin
In article <32FD2A...@ism.net>, <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> You cite no evidence; just your ideology. Train travel
>> is 30 cents a mile no matter how you slice it. Plane
>> travel is about 13 max, and down to 7 on long-distance.
>
>the auto is an expensive way to buy freedom.
>>
mile. The equivalent train trip would be $1.50. That is
why trains can never compete.
Herc Wad
The troll formerly known as T. Mark Gibson wrote:
>The problem you LOOTers face is that most people don't want
>or need passenger trains. They wisely choose to drive cars because
>cars are far more efficient and practical and convenient.
That does not explain the successes of commuter rail like LIRR in New York
and Metrolink in L.A. Considering L.A. to be the carhead stereotype of the
U.S. (which, by the way, was shaped by transplanted citizens, NOT the
people who lived in L.A. all long), Metrolink has been a success. A little
under 1 1/2 hours to go from L.A. to San Bernadino by train is much better
than car. There's no way anybody can go that distance within legal speed
limits. LEGAL limits.
>Virtually every person in the U.S. benefits a great deal from
>cars and trucks and roads, even if they never drive, because they
>receive lots of goods and services that are delivered via road.
We do benefit from roads. We do benefit from trucks, because they can
carry enormous loads cheap. We do benefit from cars if they are always
full. Sorry, but more cars run empty than buses.
>Most people receive little or no benefit from transit scams, so the
>public should not be forced to pay for mass-transit.
Synergy implies that we should ride transit for free!
Unless Synergy is a revisionist, he cannot deny that transit was
profitable. Before Ike wanted a highway system, originally intended for
defense, virtually every form of public transit was private and
profitable. People were encouraged to drive cars. That's why the tables
are turned.
Also, what's easier to get running? A bus or a highway? A bus.
What's easier to stop from coming in your neighborhood? A bus or a
highway? A highway.
What actually adds property values? Good public transit or a highway? Good
public transit.
Might I suggest reading "The Asphalt Jungle"? It is a book on what
troubles our freeway systems have caused in the U.S.
***
"My gastronomic capacity knows no satiety."---Homer Simpson
SoCalTIP, Southern California's Comprehensive Transportation Information Page:
<http://socaltip.lerctr.org> (Temporarily offline. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
***
Note: I will gladly read all junk e-mail sent to me for $5.00 each.
***
David Reed
George Conklin wrote:
> If you put 5 people in your car, the cost is 5 cents a
> mile. The equivalent train trip would be $1.50. That is
> why trains can never compete.
Five people in one car is a mighty big if.
James D. Umbach
YOU>The alternative was private cars and that is where people
YOU>went. Cheaper by far.
Uh, actually the private automobile is MUCH more expensive than public
transit. Look!
CAR COSTS
Gasoline $1.30 / gallon * 30 gallons a month = $39.00
Depreciation .30 a mile * 200 miles a month = $60.00
Insurance $49.00 a month =
$49.00
Routine Maintance $20.00 a month = $20.00
TOTAL COST PER MONTH $168.00
not including occasional major repairs
Bus pass = $45.00
Total cost $45.00
So, you can see that over the course of a year one will have quite a
savings by using transit.
BTW: Yes, I own a car (actually a truck) and do drive occasionally.
Given the choice, however, I'll hop onto the bus/train. IMHO, it's
silly to drive somewhere when the bus goes there anyway.
JAMES D. UMBACH of CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
THE SECOND LARGEST CITY (pop. wise) IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY!
"A legislative session is round after round of hastily formed alliances."
- Robert Caro in _The Power Broker_
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail : apo...@visionnet.net or umb...@csus.edu
web : http://www.mother.com/~apostle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dik T. Winter
In article <techscan-ya0240800...@news.west.net> tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) writes:
> In article <E58nE...@cwi.nl>, d...@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
> > And were do you think the space could be found to put the much larger
> > airports required?
>
> SLOWER, QUIETER, shorter takeoff and landing AC.
Maybe, but Schiphol airport is now nearly full and will be completely full
in a few years. There is really nearly no space to expand. People are
already thinking about putting a new airport in the North Sea (take a
map: in front of IJmuiden).
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Dik T. Winter
In article <5di04l$m...@nina.pagesz.net> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> >And were do you think the space could be found to put the much larger
> >airports required?
>
> requirement. Our air carriers are using smaller and smaller
> planes, despite the fact that that requires more runway
> space, etc. A slow substitution of larger planes, now under
> construction, would solve any growth issues for 50 years.
Not for Schiphol Airport which will be full in a few years. We now have
the discussion about the fifth runway which will be a nuisance for people
living nearby.
David Grant
James D. Umbach <apo...@mail.mother.com> wrote in article
<5dlq5g$k86$1...@your.mother.com>...
> CAR COSTS
> Depreciation .30 a mile * 200 miles a month = $60.00
Not too many people with cars drive only 200 miles (320 km) per month...1000 to
2000 miles (1600 to 3200 km) is more like it for most folks.
George Conklin
In article <E5D1v...@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <d...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>In article <techscan-ya0240800...@news.west.net> tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) writes:
> > In article <E58nE...@cwi.nl>, d...@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
> > > airports required?
> >
> > SLOWER, QUIETER, shorter takeoff and landing AC.
>
>Maybe, but Schiphol airport is now nearly full and will be completely full
>in a few years. There is really nearly no space to expand. People are
>already thinking about putting a new airport in the North Sea (take a
>map: in front of IJmuiden).
>dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
>home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Schiphol may be full, but for transatlantic crossings,
Gatwick in UK is heavily underutilized.
George Conklin
In article <E5D23...@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <d...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>In article <5di04l$m...@nina.pagesz.net> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) writes:
> > >airports required?
> >
> > requirement. Our air carriers are using smaller and smaller
> > planes, despite the fact that that requires more runway
> > space, etc. A slow substitution of larger planes, now under
> > construction, would solve any growth issues for 50 years.
>
>Not for Schiphol Airport which will be full in a few years. We now have
>the discussion about the fifth runway which will be a nuisance for people
>living nearby.
>dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
>home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Are we talking about local traffic or trans-atlantic?
George Conklin
That was my family size when we did a lot of travel. By
train, we would have gone broke. In the car, 1 person or 5
was the same price. And that is why people drive rather
than fly or take a train. Only by yourself is any public
transporation remotely the same price. And my van holds 7,
by the way.
George Conklin
In article <5dlq5g$k86$1...@your.mother.com>,
James D. Umbach <apo...@mail.mother.com> wrote:
>hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> People could not afford the fares and the
>YOU>companies could not afford the costs of keeping them going.
>YOU>The alternative was private cars and that is where people
>YOU>went. Cheaper by far.
>
>
>Uh, actually the private automobile is MUCH more expensive than public
>transit. Look!
>
>CAR COSTS
>
>Gasoline $1.30 / gallon * 30 gallons a month = $39.00
>$49.00
>Routine Maintance $20.00 a month = $20.00
>
>TOTAL COST PER MONTH $168.00
>not including occasional major repairs
>
>Bus pass = $45.00
>Total cost $45.00
>
>So, you can see that over the course of a year one will have quite a
>savings by using transit.
>
>BTW: Yes, I own a car (actually a truck) and do drive occasionally.
>Given the choice, however, I'll hop onto the bus/train. IMHO, it's
>silly to drive somewhere when the bus goes there anyway.
>
>
>
>
>JAMES D. UMBACH of CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
> THE SECOND LARGEST CITY (pop. wise) IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY!
>
>"A legislative session is round after round of hastily formed alliances."
> - Robert Caro in _The Power Broker_
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>e-mail : apo...@visionnet.net or umb...@csus.edu
>web : http://www.mother.com/~apostle
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Here are some costs from California, where you can get an
85% subsidy for taking a bus:
From joh...@aimnet.com Sun Feb 9 17:06:15 1997
>From today's paper:
"The biggest increase continues on light
rail, where ridership rose nearly 12
percent last year. Almost 6.5 million
people rode the 20-mile trolley line from
South San Jose to Santa Clara, up from 5.8
million the year before. That translates
into more than 21,000 riders a day, up
nearly 3,000 a day from just three years
ago."
"The biggest share of riders remains on
county buses; more than 44 million rode the
county fleet in 1996. That's up nearly 8
percent."
"The fare box return remains low: around 14
percent (but up from 11.5 percent three
years ago). That means 85 percent of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cost of a passenger's ticket is paid
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
through outside subsidies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Officials admit
that until the fare box figures improve
significantly, transit cannot be considered
an unqualified success."
Of course no mention what the initial cost of the light rail system was to
carry the meager "21,000 riders a day" and who paid for it.
And no mention that their buses now create more air polution than would
recent model autos carrying the same number of commuters.
And no mention who is paying the "outside subsidies".
-Johann
--
Johann Opitz (Big O) <joh...@aimnet.com>
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men
to make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat
"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will."
Alexander Hamilton
"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Frederic Bastiat
"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income
pie, decent government is impossible."
Friedrich A. Hayek
Colin R. Leech
>> How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
>
> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
> on passenger travel than anyone else.
>
> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
> money drain.
Once again Gonklin is so full of LOOT_Shit that it's hard to avoid
responding to his preposterous claims.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Alan P Howes
On 7 Feb 1997 17:00:33 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
> So what. The typical bus rider is a poor person. Trains
>subsidize the rich.
OK George, as a generalisation, I agree with you <Shock Horror>. Now
in return, could you please admit your total ignorance of the
European transport scene - and as a result, your total lack of
understanding of any lessons that might be learnt by the US? (After
allowing for the admittedly massive differences of culture and
geography.)
--
Alan P Howes, Public Transport Consultant
Alan Howes Associates, Perthshire, Scotland
alan...@dial.pipex.com
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/alanhowes/
(under construction)
Alan P Howes
On 8 Feb 1997 08:46:05 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
> You prove my point. Rail transit is inherently too
>expensive to be competitive with any mode of transport other
>than horse. It was a big improvement over horses. Cost
>overruns? All projects have those. The Chunnel was too
>expensive to start with.
Well, yes it was, but what alternative are you suggesting? A road
tunnel would probably have lost even more money - it would certainly
have been a _lot_ more expensive to build, as it would have needed a
much larger bore and more elaborate ventilation systems. Remember, a
large part of Chunnel traffic is road vehicle shuttles - and there's
freight too.
> And who says people want to go downtown London? They
>probably want to go to Gatwick and catch a plane someone
>else.
Why the hell should someone take a train from Paris, Brussels or
Amsterdam to the UK in order to take a plane somewhere? It's like
someone taking Amtrak from NYC to DC to catch a plane somplace else.
OK, some people do take a plane from the UK to (mainly) Amsterdam
Schiphol to catch a long-haul flight, same as people get a bus from
Scotland to Gatwick to fly long-haul - but that's mainly to do with
airline pricing, and the flows are relatively small. There's plenty
of centre - centre and suburb of A to centre of B traffic - and
that's the market Eurostar (the passenger train through the Chunnel)
is in.
Alan P Howes
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:26:43 -0500, Geenius at Wrok
<gee...@magik.albany.net> posted to alt.planning.urban:
>On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Alan P Howes wrote:
>> Arguable. Where are you drawing the boundary of this system? I don't
>> think Amtrak functions as a system, for a start - neither does it
>> interact with US commuter rail to any extent.
>What's your definition of "interact"? I took Amtrak from Albany, N.Y., to
>Chicago, then walked about 100 yards and got on the Metra to Evanston,
>ending up about a mile a half from my parents' house. I didn't do it all
>on one ticket, but the intermodality was there at least.
Yes, but that type of trip is in a minority. The point I was making
is that Amtrak does not rely significantly on business fed in by
suburban rail.
Alan P Howes
On 8 Feb 1997 08:35:16 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
>In article <5dgpng$3c4$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
> American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
>freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
>you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
>go to work, and how you can travel.
Same logic that makes them like guns, I suppose?
>Car travel is also
>inherently much less expensive than train travel.
Ever heard of non-user costs? Or horses for courses?
Alan P Howes
On 8 Feb 1997 15:26:35 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
> Roads give you freedom from the fixed schedules of
>government-owned railroads.
Not here in the UK they don't. First, the roads are son congested
there's no freedom -and never will be unless we cover the whole
country in blacktop, thus leaving nothing for people to travel to.
Second, the government doesn't own, or run, the railroads.
Alan P Howes
On 8 Feb 1997 08:39:51 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
posted to alt.planning.urban:
> Public transportation consultants, like you, are just
>trying to make money by pushing the groups that support you.
>You are simply one more special interest person sucking on
>the public titty.
Don't judge others by your own self-centred standards.
> Loss of market share is abandonment by the people, who
>are smarter than you are by quite a bit.
Over-simplification. See my separate post which includes some hard
facts.
I note you have ignored the rest of my post - you just seem to pick
the points you can flame against.
Jason Makofsky
ygrenyS wrote:
>
> The problem you LOOTers face is that most people don't want
> or need passenger trains. They wisely choose to drive cars because
> cars are far more efficient and practical and convenient.
>
> cars and trucks and roads, even if they never drive, because they
> receive lots of goods and services that are delivered via road.
> public should not be forced to pay for mass-transit.
The folks who drive to work sure do benefit from faster
commute times and less congestion due to there being less
people driving.
Funny, that. The people who benefit most directly are those
who *don't* use transit.
Jason Makofsky
Eric Rosenberg
Someone claiming to be George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) typed:
: Here are some costs from California, where you can get an
: 85% subsidy for taking a bus:
: "The fare box return remains low: around 14
: percent (but up from 11.5 percent three
: years ago). That means 85 percent of the
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: cost of a passenger's ticket is paid
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: through outside subsidies.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, and most of those subsidies are in the form of a 1/2 percent sales
tax _voted_on_by_the_public_in_Santa_Clara_County_. Current plans are to
try to get the farebox recovery up to around 30%. VTA is also one of the
lowest systems in Farebox Recovery. Others come in at around 30-50%.
Some are higher.
: Of course no mention what the initial cost of the light rail system was to
: carry the meager "21,000 riders a day" and who paid for it.
Just like there is almost never a mention of the cost of building roads
in the cost of automobiles. Most of the cost of construction of the
Light Rail, just like most of the costs of the construction of
101/280/680 etc, came from the Federsl Governemnt.
: And no mention that their buses now create more air polution than would
: recent model autos carrying the same number of commuters.
Actually this isn't exactly true. There was a study done in 93/94
because of a reduction is service, there was a lawsuit regarding the
failure to produce an EIR for the cuts. This study showed that the
system had to carry around 17 passengers per hour to break even on
polution with provate cars. The weekday system average is around 32
passengers/hour.
Have recent models of polution taken into acount the new polution
standards for buses? Around 1/3 of VTA's fleet is 1992 or newer.
: And no mention who is paying the "outside subsidies".
See above, it is mainly the public in Santa Clara County for operating costs.
[ too long .sig snipped ]
--
Eric Rosenberg http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/3217/
Language is a city to the building of which every human being brought a stone.
Mark Twain
John Kolassa
In article <330314aa...@news.dial.pipex.com> alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan P Howes) writes:
>On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:26:43 -0500, Geenius at Wrok
><gee...@magik.albany.net> posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>>On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Alan P Howes wrote:
>
>>> Arguable. Where are you drawing the boundary of this system? I don't
>>> think Amtrak functions as a system, for a start - neither does it
>>> interact with US commuter rail to any extent.
>
>>What's your definition of "interact"? I took Amtrak from Albany, N.Y., to
>>Chicago, then walked about 100 yards and got on the Metra to Evanston,
>>ending up about a mile a half from my parents' house. I didn't do it all
>>on one ticket, but the intermodality was there at least.
>
>Yes, but that type of trip is in a minority. The point I was making
>is that Amtrak does not rely significantly on business fed in by
>suburban rail.
Trips like Geenius' are probably more common than you think. They are
available in most of Amtrak's largest markets, and connections are advertised
in Amtrak's timetables. In a few cases through ticketing is offered (for
a hefty price in NY, and for free in Phila., at least as far as Center City.
Amtrak probably has some survey results on how many of their customers
make use of this service.
Merritt Mullen
Jason Makofsky wrote:
>
> The folks who drive to work sure do benefit from faster
> commute times and less congestion due to there being less
> people driving.
>
> Funny, that. The people who benefit most directly are those
> who *don't* use transit.
>
> Jason Makofsky
Not to mention the taxpayer dollars saved by building transit vs.
building more freeways.
Merritt
George Conklin
In article <5dmigr$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>>> How are high-speed trains expensive when they are profitable?
>>
>> The passenger service in Europe runs much larger deficits than
>> Amtrak. Who are you kidding? Amtrak claims to be the most
>> efficient passenger carrier in the world because they lose less
>> on passenger travel than anyone else.
>>
>> Planes are the future in Europe. Even the chunnel is a solid
>> money drain.
>
>Once again Gonklin is so full of LOOT_Shit that it's hard to avoid
>responding to his preposterous claims.
>
>
>--
I guess you forgot to read about the bonds they could not
pay, the bad passenger projections, the delays and other
problems. They had to 'refinance' the whole thing. It will
become just another money loser. I wonder how long
Europe can avoid the obvious: the money is just not there
to sqander like it used to be.
George Conklin
In article <33071957...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
The people would not pay any attention to you if you did
not have the power to force them onto time-wasting transit.
But they are going to win, and you are going to lose,
something I think you already know.
George Conklin
In article <gimlackE...@netcom.com>,
Eric Rosenberg <gim...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Someone claiming to be George Conklin (hen...@nina.pagesz.net) typed:
>: Here are some costs from California, where you can get an
>: 85% subsidy for taking a bus:
>
>
>: "The fare box return remains low: around 14
>: percent (but up from 11.5 percent three
>: years ago). That means 85 percent of the
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: cost of a passenger's ticket is paid
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: through outside subsidies.
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yep, and most of those subsidies are in the form of a 1/2 percent sales
>tax _voted_on_by_the_public_in_Santa_Clara_County_. Current plans are to
>try to get the farebox recovery up to around 30%. VTA is also one of the
>lowest systems in Farebox Recovery. Others come in at around 30-50%.
>Some are higher.
One of the local planners told me I was missing the boat
on this group. Simply put, the train system, which is
high-cost, inefficient and subsidizes the well-to-do
destroyed the bus system, which was lower cost, helped
low-income people, and worked better.
He cited a study too, but I don't have it.
If the half-cent tax went to relieving poverty, we would
have some victories. But more subsidy for the well-to-do?
George Conklin
In article <330516b4...@news.dial.pipex.com>,>On 8 Feb 1997 15:26:35 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>> Roads give you freedom from the fixed schedules of
>>government-owned railroads.
>Not here in the UK they don't. First, the roads are son congested
>there's no freedom -and never will be unless we cover the whole
>country in blacktop, thus leaving nothing for people to travel to.
>Second, the government doesn't own, or run, the railroads.
>
>Alan P Howes, Public Transport Consultant
>Alan Howes Associates, Perthshire, Scotland
> alan...@dial.pipex.com
>http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/alanhowes/
> (under construction)
Conflict of interest here. You just make sure there are
no roads so people have to come to 'consult' with you.
George Conklin
In article <330415c1...@news.dial.pipex.com>,>On 8 Feb 1997 08:35:16 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>>In article <5dgpng$3c4$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
>> American like cars for one reason you don't mention:
>>freedom from fascist government dictates which try to tell
>>you where you can live, how you can go to work, when you can
>>go to work, and how you can travel.
>
>Same logic that makes them like guns, I suppose?
>
>>Car travel is also
>>inherently much less expensive than train travel.
>
>Ever heard of non-user costs? Or horses for courses?
>
>Alan P Howes, Public Transport Consultant
>Alan Howes Associates, Perthshire, Scotland
> alan...@dial.pipex.com
>http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/alanhowes/
> (under construction)
Non-user costs are those you add to auto travel to make
your schemes seem beneficial. But car use is gaining in
Europe as a whole, and will continue to do so despite your
best efforts at the iron age.
Jonathan White
In a previous message to Flyfish, George Conklin wrote:
> few years anyway. People could not afford the fares and the
> companies could not afford the costs of keeping them going.
Mr. Conklin's next response to Flyfish read:
> 5 Cents was the fare for everyone at the time the
> jitneys were banned.
So, people could not afford the fares, BUT the fare was only five cents.
Well, I didn't live back then, but I just gotta say that five cents
sounds pretty affordable to me, even considering inflation...
JNW
George Conklin
In article <33020fb2...@news.dial.pipex.com>,>On 8 Feb 1997 08:46:05 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>> You prove my point. Rail transit is inherently too
>>expensive to be competitive with any mode of transport other
>>than horse. It was a big improvement over horses. Cost
>>overruns? All projects have those. The Chunnel was too
>>expensive to start with.
>
>Well, yes it was, but what alternative are you suggesting?
>
It is a project whose time has passed. No alternative
would have worked fine. Are people not taking the ferries
in far greater numbers than predicted?
>> And who says people want to go downtown London? They
>>probably want to go to Gatwick and catch a plane somewhere
>>else.
>
>Why the hell should someone take a train from Paris, Brussels or
>Amsterdam to the UK in order to take a plane somewhere? It's like
>someone taking Amtrak from NYC to DC to catch a plane somplace else.
>OK, some people do take a plane from the UK to (mainly) Amsterdam
>Schiphol to catch a long-haul flight, same as people get a bus from
>Scotland to Gatwick to fly long-haul - but that's mainly to do with
>airline pricing, and the flows are relatively small. There's plenty
>of centre - centre and suburb of A to centre of B traffic - and
>that's the market Eurostar (the passenger train through the Chunnel)
>is in.
>
Alan, I can think of many, many reasons why someone
would take Amtrak to DC and then fly. Fare differences just
to start with. If you lived anywhere between Philadelphia
and NY you would take Amtrak to NYC then catch a plane. The
same is true. If you were going to New Orleans, you would
take a train to DC then fly south. After all, the train
would take another 24 hours.
Gatwick is a nice airport. It does in fact serve
mostly, people catching planes for relative short distances.
Been there?
Exile on Market Street
In article <5dhvao$l...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) wrote:
> Cost calculations can be made if you want assuming very
> low labor costs. Passenger train travel is still not
> cost-competitive. It does not save more than trivial
> amounts of fuel due to the ratio of passenger weights to the
> weight of the cars and the cost of off-hours service. In
> addition, what really did the rail networks in in the USA
> was the lack of any investment in roadbeds, leaving us with
> a frozen rail system great for 45 mph trips but not much
> more.
Perhaps because spending the money needed to bring the roadbeds up to true
high-speed capacity would have been partially wasted anyway, thanks largely
to a Federal safety regulation that remains to this day.
On track and equipment that are not outfitted for automatic cab-signalling
*and* automatic train stop, trains are restricted to a top speed of 79 mph.
The Western railroads that pioneered streamlined diesel trains in the
1930's -- which were capable of 100-mph-plus *sustained* speeds -- objected
to this provision, saying that existing signalling and safety devices could
handle the new higher-speed equipment on their (relatively) lightly-used
track, but were overruled.
And then there's straightening out the curves on the older roads. Pity the
Pennsy didn't have the power of eminent domain.
__________________________________________________________________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Univ of Pennsylvania, News & Public Affairs 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"I constantly run into people who complain that America is becoming too
Mexican. I would like to suggest, with all due respect, that it is
becoming too Canadian."
--------Richard Rodriguez, speaking at U. of Texas-Permian Basin, 2/6/97--
Wolfgang Schwanke
alan...@dial.pipex.com (Alan P Howes) writes:
>Why the hell should someone take a train from Paris, Brussels or
>Amsterdam to the UK in order to take a plane somewhere?
Because the air fares might be cheaper. Actually that's how a lot
of people do their travelling. I find bargains for transcontinental
tickets from Brussels or even London here in Germany.
Greetings
wolfgang
--
Elektropost: wo...@cs.tu-berlin.de | wo...@berlin.snafu.de | wo...@techno.de
WeltweitesSpinnweb: http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/
IRC: wolfi | htrae no ecalp a nevaeh ekam ll'eW
RealLife: Wolfgang Schwanke | tsrif semoc evol nevaeh ni yas yehT
Eric Rosenberg
: Eric Rosenberg <gim...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Yep, and most of those subsidies are in the form of a 1/2 percent sales
: >try to get the farebox recovery up to around 30%. VTA is also one of the
: >lowest systems in Farebox Recovery. Others come in at around 30-50%.
: >Some are higher.
: One of the local planners told me I was missing the boat
: on this group. Simply put, the train system, which is
: high-cost, inefficient and subsidizes the well-to-do
: destroyed the bus system, which was lower cost, helped
: low-income people, and worked better.
:
: He cited a study too, but I don't have it.
Actually a fair number of the Light Rail riders in Santa Clara County are
students and working people. There are 4 major schools that provide
ridership for it, Gunderson H.S., Middle Income, Willow Glen Educational
Park, Low-Middle Income, San Jose State University (College students
usually are too rich, especially at the CSU system), and Peter Burnette
Middle School, middle-lower income.
Very few of the school districts in Santa Clara County provide busing of
any form for the average student. As a result, these kids wind up either
walking, riding a bike, gettign a ride from mom/dad/sibling/friend or the
minute they turn 16 they get a drivers license and start driving, of
course mom/dad frequently have to pay for the car and the 2-3K insurance
bill.
: If the half-cent tax went to relieving poverty, we would
: have some victories. But more subsidy for the well-to-do?
Of course we won't talk about the 1500-2000 jobs directly provided by
transit, or the number of people who wouldn't be able to get to work or
school without it. The last survey showed apporx 50% of all the riders
were transit dependant. How will these people get to and from work or
school without it. You also have to consider there are a fair number of
people who cannot drive, mainly for physical reasons, but also for other
reasons as well (DUI etc.).
Actually, the last survey of passengers on the system showed that the
average income on the buses was about the same as on the Light Rail, only
a slightly higher average on Light Rail.
The current expansion plans fro Light Rail will put it into the poorer
areas of San Jose, the East Side and Milpitas Areas. This extension is
currently being held up in the courts over a 1/2% sales tax
How come no one ever complains about Express Service on the buses, these
are usually aimed towards the upper income brackets, most of the riders
could afford to drive cars.
Of course we could take that money and use it to provide welfare checks,
or even jobs, but they couldn't get to the jobs because they can't afford
to drive cars.
--
Eric Rosenberg http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/3217/
She stared at her vast mistake and thought: The eighth deadly sin
is really stupidity. And ignorance.
Lois McMaster Bujold - "Spirit Ring"
Arwel Parry
In article <330516b4...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Alan P Howes
<alan...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>On 8 Feb 1997 15:26:35 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>posted to alt.planning.urban:
>
>> Roads give you freedom from the fixed schedules of
>>government-owned railroads.
>Not here in the UK they don't. First, the roads are son congested
>there's no freedom -and never will be unless we cover the whole
>country in blacktop, thus leaving nothing for people to travel to.
>Second, the government doesn't own, or run, the railroads.
With regard to roads v railways, did you see the article in the Guardian
today (10/2/97)? -
"Plans for Europe's longest rail tunnel, a 31-mile stretch under the
Alps between France and Italy, are to be discussed by an inter-
governmental commission in Lyon this week in readiness for approval at a
French-Italian summit in the autumn.
The underground rail link, nearly a mile and a half longer than the
Channel Tunnel, already has the provisional backing of the European
Union after lobbying by the Rhone, Alps, and Piedmont regions. Engineers
and financiers are using the Channel Tunnel as a case study for the
project, the estimated cost of which is about UKP 5 billion.
The French transport minister, Bernard Pons, who has approved
development funds, is understood to be ready to submit a favourable
recommendation in July after consultations at local and national levels.
The Italian authorities are reportedly even more strongly in favour of
the new tunnel, which could take 15 years to complete.
The plan was first discussed by the EU six years ago as part of a
programme to develop economically dependent frontier zones. Since then,
a solution to the heavy goods flow between France and Italy has become
urgent.
Of the 34 million tons of freight carried between southern France and
northern Italy, only about a fifth goes by rail. The total is expected
to reach 70 million tons by 2010. Jams on key Alpine road crossings will
worsen when Switzerland bans transiting lorry traffic from 2004.
Thirty years ago, the main France-Italy road link, the Mont Blanc
tunnel, was used by only 53,000 lorries a year. Today 800,000 pass
through despite protests from environmentalists that exhaust fumes have
turned much of the Alps into semi-desert.
Work on another Alpine road tunnel through natural parks on both sides
of the border north of Nice has begun amid controversy because of the
threat to Frances' only pack of wolves.
All Alpine authorities now appear ready to ban future underground roads
in favour of rail lines ferrying both freight and passengers.
Preliminary studies foresee TGV-style superspeed trains carrying
passengers and lorries at the same time. Up to 40 million tons of goods
and 18 million passengers could be carried annually.
Engineers estimate that the line would cut about two hours off the
present three-and-a-half hour journey between Lyon and Turin."
Arwel
--
============================================================
Arwel Parry apa...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk 10033...@compuserve.com
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/