Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[jebr]

Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive.. I'm trying to travel from Arizona to Iowa and an amtrak trip is 350 something for a 32 hour trip when i can fly the same price for a 3 hour trip hmmm let me think about that... also if i want to add a sleeping room my price just shot up another 1000.. Don't understand how they sell tickets; people must like the scenery

A. Not wanting to hassle with airport security/airlines.

B. Have a fair amount of baggage (which costs money on the airlines, but is free with Amtrak).

C. Want some room in their seats, and not be packed like sardines.

D. Have a discount of some sort (AAA, Student Advantage, etc.) that lowers the price.

Also, do you have to transfer trains? Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.

However, I consider a sleeping room to be very different comparison than traveling coach. There is really no other mode of transportation quite like it, and as such it should be considered for what it is (either as a replacement for a hotel room or part of the vacation, not as simply a means of transportation.)

 

[Ryan]

Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive..

Some day you'll grasp the difference between anecdotes and data.

 

[jis]

Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.

That is actually not true in all cases. For example.... on a CHI - WAS - NYP itinerary on the Cap and an NER one gets a huge discount on the NER leg for booking a single itinerary instead of two separate itineraries.

 

[jebr]

Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.

That is actually not true in all cases. For example.... on a CHI - WAS - NYP itinerary on the Cap and an NER one gets a huge discount on the NER leg for booking a single itinerary instead of two separate itineraries.

Ah, okay. I've only looked at transfers between LD trains/trains in the Midwest.

 

[Beth Newton]

My friend and I are taking Amtrak next month to go from Newbern Tn to LA to see my newest grandbaby Abby. My son said we should fly. We opted to take the train instead. Not because it was cheaper but because of what the train offers. If your just in a hurry to get somewhere then I guess planes would be the answer for some, but for us, our vacation starts the second we step onto that train. Its the journey that makes the memories and forms friendships, and that is what you loose by hurrying up and getting there.

 

[George Harris]

I think as more and more people have office type jobs that do not require their presence in the office, we could well see a significant increase in train ridership as people figure out a day on a train can be a productive day if need be.

For example: I am flying SFO to MEM this Friday, returning a week later. It will be a full day shot in each direction. If I had known that I would have a couple days work that could be done anywhere I can sit down with the laptop before setting up this trip, the picture could have well been different. OK, so it is three days and three nights if by train, but those days could be spent with the laptop plugged in and open while sitting in comfort doing work for which I could be paid. A plane with the changes, to/from airport, hassles in and hassles out, there is not enough time to make getting the laptop out and work setup worth doing. So, a day not only lost to work, but also lost to everything else and exhausting to boot.

 

[GAT]

I think as more and more people have office type jobs that do not require their presence in the office, we could well see a significant increase in train ridership as people figure out a day on a train can be a productive day if need be.

For example: I am flying SFO to MEM this Friday, returning a week later. It will be a full day shot in each direction. If I had known that I would have a couple days work that could be done anywhere I can sit down with the laptop before setting up this trip, the picture could have well been different. OK, so it is three days and three nights if by train, but those days could be spent with the laptop plugged in and open while sitting in comfort doing work for which I could be paid. A plane with the changes, to/from airport, hassles in and hassles out, there is not enough time to make getting the laptop out and work setup worth doing. So, a day not only lost to work, but also lost to everything else and exhausting to boot.

I agree. I have clients in SNS, SLO, and SBA. I love taking the CS from EMY because of the work I can get done en route as well as the complete relaxation compared with driving Rte. 101, especially on the trip home, when I can enjoy a nice meal and some wine. And that's not even mentioning the beautiful scenery. If I don't get a roomette, or get it in one direction only, cost to the client is less than the mileage charge for driving. A roomette both ways is only slightly more than mileage. A win-win all 'round.

 

[Rob3E]

This thread was started several years ago. Maybe things have changed. But for my upcoming trip, I originally thought I found airfare that was cheaper then the train, but when I went to book the flight, it was gone. Now the cheapest flight I can find is 30% more than Amtrak. I'm sure that many times flying is cheaper, but not always.

Also, this trip will be at the conclusion of a bicycle trip. To fly with a bicycle costs at least $50 and requires that I largely dissemble the bike and fit it into a smaller box. There are places that will do this for me for another $50. And that bike baggage fee is only with one, particular airline. It's usually $100 or more. Most airlines will charge an additional fee if I have to check another bag as well. And then there would be the issue of getting me and a boxed bike to the airport. My baggage fees alone when flying could be as much as my ticket, which is already more expensive then Amtrak. Transporting my bike with Amtrak, I can bike into the station, buy a $15 dollar bike box that my bike fits into with minimal dis-assembly, and check it for $5. When I get home, five minutes after retrieving my luggage, I can be pedaling home. Time is money, I suppose, but so is convenience. Nothing beats the convenience of not having to deal with airline baggage rules, and of not having to figure out how to lug bike boxes around without a car, and not having to spend all that pre and post travel time on bike assembly. And all for less then the cost of just flying myself with no baggage.

But flying is so much faster, so I tried to make it work. One flight routed me through a nearby city, so I thought, "How much would I shave off the cost of my ticket if I only use the plane to get that far, and then found another way to get the rest of the way home?"

Ha. When I tried that, my fare more than doubled, because now I'm flying direct. The airline doesn't charge by the leg. Instead they charge for how little they inconvenience you. At least with the train, fares are have a base value and are adjusted based on scarcity, which seems far more decent to me than the airline's model.

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

Still, I was pleasantly surprised by Amtrak's prices. This will be my first long trip on a train. I already don't like dealing with airports/airlines, and adding my bike into the equation was stressing me out even more, so I was thrilled when I found that I could not only skip the plane in favor of the train, but do it cheaper.

 

[jebr]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

Labor costs, mainly. Sure, it may be cheaper to have two people on a 55-passenger bus in terms of fuel cost, but they still have to spread out the cost of labor among those 55 passengers. Typically, you don't calculate the cost of your time driving a car when making the comparison, as you're in a mode of transportation either way.

The other thing is that they fairly equally spread out the cost between those 55 passengers. Thus, if they tend to run full, the space taken by the second person is space that another person could use. In a car driving alone, you have a lot of excess capacity. Add a second person, and that starts to change, as there's little to no additional cost to have that second person with you in the car.

 

[TimePeace]

A little story:

I'm in a store. I want an apple. I see they have oranges for sale, but not at the same price as the apples. I buy my apple.

End of story.

 

[Guest]

A little story:

I'm in a store. I want an apple. I see they have oranges for sale, but not at the same price as the apples. I buy my apple.

End of story.

AGREED!

I mean, you could probably walk cheaper than flying/Amtrak to most places, so why don't you just do that?!?

 

[pldenc44]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

 

[Guest]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.

 

[AlanB]

Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

Amtrak revenues in 2011 were $2.714 Billion. Labor costs were $1.963 Billion.

 

[AlanB]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.

Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.

And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.

There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.

 

[jebr]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.

Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.

And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.

There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.

Owning and operating a car costs 55.5 cents per mile. Most people own a car already, and including the cost to license and insure the vehicle is silly, as there's little to no change with those when driving more. Even the actual owning of a car is a bit disingenuous, as the car may expire as much with time as with miles driven, and it's not a linear relationship.

A truer comparison would be the cost to maintain the vehicle (such as new tires, oil changes, and other repairs that happen as you drive more miles) plus the cost of gas. I think the IRS calculates that at just under 25 cents a mile.

 

[PRR 60]

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.

I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.

Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.

And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.

There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The 55.5 cent IRS allowance is NOT the per-mile operating cost of a car. It is the ownership and operating cost of a car. The 55.5 cent rate includes IRS-determined values for average annual depreciation (per IRS tables), insurance, interest, and license and registration fees. Those are all fixed costs that are independent of the number of miles driven. The IRS takes estimates of those fixed costs and divides them by an average annual mileage to come up with the ownership portion of the standard mileage rate for business travel deductions (which allows pro-rated values for ownership). Unless you can somehow rid yourself of the ownership costs of a car for the duration of a specific trip (neat trick), those costs apply whether you are driving the car or it is sitting in your garage. If you ride Amtrak for 100 miles, your annual cost for auto depreciation, insurance, interest, and registration do not change one cent. Saying a trip on Amtrak avoids a 55.5 cent per mile auto trip is not valid.

The IRS also publishes a mileage rate that is just for the operation of a car that is used for determine the deductions for medical-related travel and moving expenses (where ownership costs are not deductible). That rate is 23 cents per mile. The operating cost rate excludes the fixed costs of ownership that are not dependent on mileage. If you own a car, and plan to continue to own a car, then, according to the IRS, the cost of taking a 100 mile trip is not $55.50, it is $23.00.

If you want to assess the cost of a specific car trip, the correct mileage rate to use is 23 cents per mile, not 55.5 cents per mile.

From the IRS:

The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs as determined by the same study.

IRS

 

[Rob3E]

Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.

And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.

There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.

The problem with 55 (or 58) cents per mile is that 1) that is an average, so a budget-conscious person can likely bring their expenses well below that, and 2) these numbers often seem to figure costs that are irrelevant to driving a car, and are more factors of simply owning a car. So you don't save 55 cents per mile by not driving your car unless you don't actually own a car. Once you stop owning a car, then obviously mass transit becomes the more affordable option because paying for mass transit for any given trip is likely cheaper than purchasing a car.

I think it's great to consider subsidies and how the way are taxes are spent affects out transportation infrastructure. But when you're comparison shopping between transportation options for specific trips, it's irrelevant. I don't get to say, "I took the train, so please return the tax money of mine that you would have spent on roads."

I have no doubt that our transportation system would look vastly different if we didn't pour a disproportionate amount of money into personal transportation-oriented projects, but we do, and that only adds to the idea that on a per-trip basis, driving will often be cheaper. Your tax money ends up in those roads regardless. You don't save it by not driving on them.

So I agree that just figuring gas is simplistic and ignores other factors, but I also think that many of the attempts to figure the "true" cost of driving are also unrealistic. I'm planning a trip this summer, and I hope to return on Amtrak, by myself. Even then, if I had a car at my disposal, it would possibly be cheaper to drive. On the way up, I am sharing a car with two other people, and on that trip it will definitely be cheaper to drive. Cheaper then flying, cheaper then a train, cheaper then a bus. It may be that this is a matter how tax money is spent to fund one form of transportation over another, but it doesn't change the fact that it seems strange to find that I can get 3 people across 600 miles for less money then mass transit can move 2. Maybe it's simple economics, maybe it's wrapped up in complexities of transportation spending, but whatever the reason, it runs contrary to how I feel like mass transit should work.

 

[Ispolkom]

it doesn't change the fact that it seems strange to find that I can get 3 people across 600 miles for less money then mass transit can move 2.

What is strange about the fact that, after ignoring the sunk costs of car ownership, the marginal costs of travel by car are less than the costs of taking mass transit? If you didn't already own a car and had to rent one the costs might be different.

Mrs. Ispolkom and I carpool in the winter, because the extra costs of commuting together are less than the cost of two bus passes. That's only true because we already have a car.

In the summer we bicycle to work, of course, like sensible people.

 

[Rob3E]

What is strange about the fact that, after ignoring the sunk costs of car ownership, the marginal costs of travel by car are less than the costs of taking mass transit? If you didn't already own a car and had to rent one the costs might be different.

If I had to rent a car, they would be different. When you factor in the cost of a rental car, two people traveling together spend very close to the amount spent taking mass transit, so a 3rd person would be required to make the trip a clear win economically. Apart from the occasional local bus in the off hours, I've never taken any type of mass transit where fewer than 3 people were traveling, which means that even without car ownership, driving can be done cheaper than mass transit. And that's for a one-way trip with the lion share of the fees going to charges related to returning the car to a different location. If we look at this as a round trip, then that fee goes away, and it becomes a matter of how many days you are traveling. For a long weekend, two people renting a car would be cheaper then most mass transit and faster than many options. Longer than a week, and it starts to get iffy.

I like the idea of mass transit, and I use local transit frequently, and travel by rail within the state a few times a year. But it seems like the idea should be that we're pooling our resources so that a group of people can travel more cheaply then they could as individuals. In my experience, looking at trips I have taken, this is not always the case, and is seldom the case when two people are traveling together. You are correct to say that mass transit sometimes loses because we have already accepted the costs of owning a vehicle, but I think there are plenty of situations where mass transit loses even if you factor in full costs of vehicle ownership.

I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.

 

[Ispolkom]

I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.

You're absolutely right. Plus, in most places, public transportation isn't a viable replacement for a car. I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, and can say from experience that if you don't live in Minneapolis or St. Paul (basically, within the area that once had streetcars), there really isn't a public transit network. It's hard to impossible to get to most cities outside of the metropolitan area without a car. That's just the way it is.

 

[jebr]

I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.

You're absolutely right. Plus, in most places, public transportation isn't a viable replacement for a car. I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, and can say from experience that if you don't live in Minneapolis or St. Paul (basically, within the area that once had streetcars), there really isn't a public transit network. It's hard to impossible to get to most cities outside of the metropolitan area without a car. That's just the way it is.

Well, it's not terribly difficult to get to the bigger towns in the area, since most have intercity bus service. But to actually get around once you get to town? A car is required, definitely. Especially on evenings or weekends (you may be able to survive on Dial a Ride during the week.)

 

[George Harris]

There are a lot of families that have a second car because of lack or perceived lack of viable public transit. For these, the true all included cost is their cost of the car because with good public transit they would not have it. It also varies by location. If you live in a place like San Francisco, you can easily be out a few hundred dollars a month plus car paymentsif you have a car that does not turn a wheel. this gets to another point: The per mile all-in costs are based on an average amount of driving. If you drive less milage, the fixed cost portion is still there, it is just spread over fewer miles, which would result in a higher cost on a per mile basis. I approximate that I can rent a car two weekend a month in San Francisco and still be under the fixed cost portion of ownership.

 

[douglas]

I don't have a family and I travel alone. Using Amtrak increases the price I pay for travel. I would love to take the train but it costs $968 round trip compared to $285 on an airplane. I save a day also and then have to get a hotel for that day but I have $683 savings to pay for the room. I figure it costs more to operate trains because of the real estate tax and people they need to operate each train. I would prefer to use the train because I imagine there is a lot less pollution generated by rail. But disel fuel pollutes, if trains run on it. I know the Chicago suburb trains use that fuel. Those contrails have been falling on us for over 100 years now and that cannot be good. Trains provide a relaxing way to pass the time (I imagine) if you have a bed. 20 hours on a train is much better than an airplane. Once I went to South America for `13 hours on a plane and it was horrible. Too bad I could not take a train.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Diesel Locomotives are the first form of a hybrid vehicle. They use a diesel engine to turn a generator that provides power to electric motors that turn the wheels. SMART a intercity bus company has got a few diesel electric buses. its cleaner then a truck that runs on diesel. A jumbo jet pollutes more then a train does.