Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP - We spend billions on 200 year old technology (railroads) because it works better than the 100 year old technology (automobiles) transporting people from home to work. Railroads also carry freight more efficiently than trucks even with our extensive interstate highway system.
I live in southern New Hampshire and worked in downtown Boston for the last couple of decades. For most of that time I commuted via a private bus line. I also wished for all that time that there was a commuter rail system that went from Boston through Lawrence, MA to Manchester, NH...
Here in the Seattle area you would have had your wish In the last few years we have had Sounder Commuter rail. Cost per passenger mile is more than bus and on the order of 5 times more than by automobile. And the train is frequently out of service due to mudslides during the rainy season, which here is roughly October to April. If you work only during the summer months, you would be fine.
If you can find me a bus that will drop me off at my house/destination, instead of, you know, station to station, likely located in downtown "A", and downtown "B", it would be greatly appreciated.
That will never happen with any form of mass transit. However, with the advent of driverless vehicles, very small busses would become much more financially viable. The most convenient form of transportation is also the most expensive - Taxi (one driver, one vehicle, one passenger). The cheapest form of transportation is rail, but it's also the least convenient. Buses are in between and will become much more convenient and cheaper with driverless technology.
Quote:
On second thought, that's going to take forever since it's going to be doing the same for 60 other people. Think I'll just take the train, and then a cab.
It's nice to have that choice and the money for a cab.
Busses are not an efficient way to move people. Trains can haul more over longer distances more efficiently.
Busses are an extremely efficient way to move people and much more convenient than trains. Busses can go to hundreds of thousands of places that trains cannot go to.
Trains can haul people more efficiently only if those people want to go where the train goes. Otherwise, trains are totally inefficient and a waste of money. If I want to go to a golf course, the train from Boston to NY is totally useless.
Yep. Buses cannot, and will never, be able to do what even this single commuter train is capable of doing. That's like, 24 buses right there.
Yep, Rail CANNOT, and never will be able to do what a single bus can do such as take me where I want to go. Even 1000 trains can't take me where I want to go.
Rail gives them what they're really after: control. Control over where and how people live and working, and the ability to social-engineer the masses.
I never forget a few years ago I heard a discussion w/ the guy who is now King County (Seattle) executive. Somebody had drawn up a list of numbers comparing bus, rail, light rail, etc. Light rail came out looking miserable almost every time. Busses were better, and van pools blew everything away. The guy angrily blurted (paraphrase, this was over 10 years ago): "NO rubber-tire solution is going to ever be able to do for us what rail can."
This is true. Rail is the Big Government solution. Government control over where you live and work. Cars are the ultimate expression of freedom.
I'd rather ride a train than ride a bus - faster and more comfortable - especially on longer trips.
Buses would be comfortable if they had the legroom that trains offer. Take out a row of seats and provide more buses closer together so they are not packed with standing room only folks.
Ow wait - that would cost more money, wouldn't it.
This is true. Rail is the Big Government solution.
Margaret Thatcher did something about that for passenger service. There's no reason why that can't happen here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Busses are an extremely efficient way to move people and much more convenient than trains. Busses can go to hundreds of thousands of places that trains cannot go to.
Trains can haul people more efficiently only if those people want to go where the train goes. Otherwise, trains are totally inefficient and a waste of money. If I want to go to a golf course, the train from Boston to NY is totally useless.
You really do need more than one mode of intercity, regional, and local transportation for differing and alternate and 'fail safe' traffic patterns and schedules. What does being stuck in a programmable car in a high density area do for someone trying to get to work on time, when a high capacity train on a separate easement can whisk them to within reasonable walking distance that much quicker.
Walking is an efficient form of transportation when cars aren't always much more optimal. I can get to a golf course on Boston's D Line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Government control over where you live and work.
No more so than any other utility or highway that cooperatively serves a population.
Buses would be comfortable if they had the legroom that trains offer. Take out a row of seats and provide more buses closer together so they are not packed with standing room only folks.
Ow wait - that would cost more money, wouldn't it.
Trains would be more convenient if they went where I want to go.
O, wait - that's impossible even after spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.