No, scratch that, that’s the wrong way around. But in any case, those statistics can’t be talking about true high-speed railways, only about the fastest in the US. Where you still have roads crossing tracks, etc.
Here’s some stats from the EU, partly to show how it changes according to the measurment used: (from this large PDF)
Another point that should be made when comparing air and high-speed rail travel is passenger capacity. For example, the Eurostar seats 800, and there’s 14 weekday services between London and Paris. That’s the eqivalent of 61 flights by 737-800s. And IIRC, the original TGV line between Paris and Lyons reached a train every three minutes, before they had to introduce double-deckers seating nearly 600.
Sure I may get a tiny benifit from the few people that ride the bus. The bus that I pay for that runs on the roads that I pay for.
I don’t mind paying, but it bugs me when people, people that ride public transport (that in my case is FULLY subsidized, it’s free for crying out loud) complain that they are subsidizing cars.
But then, we where talking trains… I don’t live in an area that could be served by trains. Nor would I use one it where somehow magically made available. To inconvenient.
I do already pay a tax to provide a free bus service. I don’t mind to much. But I think the riders should at least cough up a token payment. It may not make any difference though. And just hurt readership.
enipla: But I think the riders should at least cough up a token payment. It may not make any difference though. And just hurt readership.
(You mean ridership, right?) Actually I agree with you on this; transit alternatives to cars ought to be funded partly by farebox revenue (i.e., direct payments from riders), just as car use is funded partly by direct payments from car owners. (And in fact, most transit systems do get about a quarter to a half of their operating costs from farebox revenues.) There could be a means-tested system of free (or off-peak hours free) passes if you want to make sure you’re not pricing the transit out of reach of really poor people.
The only situation I can see where a totally no-fare transit system is justifiable is in heavily congested downtown areas with highly variable traffic loading—that is, where you get lots of traffic with commuters during working hours but little activity otherwise. Then it makes sense to try to keep the streets clear for commercial activity by providing free, convenient loop shuttles so that most commuters will just never need to use their car between the time they come in and the time they go home. In other words, if your ridership is composed mostly of people who have the easy alternative of using their cars and you want to lure them away from it, you have to make the system more attractive than you do if you’re serving mostly riders who don’t have that easy alternative.
Yep. I live in a rural mountain comunity that lives off the recreation industry. Mostly skiing.
It bugs me a little that I support something that has very, very little benifit to me without the riders at least paying SOMETHING. But, what the heck.
I’m off to a convention for a week, so that’s probably it for me.
So you live in an area heavily indebted to tourism income, and object to a free travel service which is surely of great benefit to out-of-towners, who are there to spend money in the local economy?
In Basel, Switzerland, any resident at a hotel (or even the youth hostel) gets a free travel voucher for all city transport for the duration of their stay. Compared to what I’d have spent on travel in a week while there, that was an extra £20-30 I spent in bars, restaurants and shops. I’d say that I paid something back.
So, no matter how you measure safety, cars are still the most dangerous mode of transport and rail is still the safest.
Why not?
Yes, sorry, I was going off-topic about air safety.
BG replied to enipla: *“But then, we where talking trains… I don’t live in an area that could be served by trains.”
Why not? *
Man go conference, answer not. Just me speculating: Mountain funicular-type railways are AFAIK kind of a beeyatch to install and maintain, and pretty expensive, and probably there are serious right-of-way issues. Rural mountainous Colorado doesn’t have the Alpine tourist culture of small trains taking people up practically every peak.
There’s an 1895 map of Colorado here. Someone with a knowledge of the geography of the area can tell us which of the railroads shown are in mountainous areas.
…although immediately after typing that, I notice that the railroad reaches Aspen. Now if that wouldn’t serve the ski industry, what would?
(BTW Eurostar runs many popular ‘ski specials’ from London to the Alps)
Seattle has something like this… there’s a “free ride zone” for buses, and as long as you enter and leave the bus while it’s in that zone, your ride is free.
That might apply to regional rail. But I see no reason why a high-speed rail line couldn’t go through Colorado with a stop in Denver – since, after all, the Interstate Highway System already goes through the Rockies along several corridors, and that must have been just as much of a bitch to build. Nor is there any reason by the larger metro areas on CO – Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs – could not have their own light-rail transit systems. In fact, Denver’s already got one (map at http://www.lightrail.com/maps/denver/denver.htm).
Here’s some interesting info from the Wikipedia. (Note to mods: All contents of the Wikipedia are “copyleft” material, meaning unlimited duplication is expressly permitted provided no alterations are made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights).)