 |
|
|
|
 |
Capitalizt
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: USA
|
|
|
Trains suck. Cars rule. Seriously..Why would anyone want mass transit when they can drive? You need to wait for your transportation to arrive..rely on schedules to get around town and ride next to a bunch of smelly passengers..bleh. I do think the reason they are more popular in europe is because they tax the sh!t out of gasoline.. It costs 3-4X more per gallon there than it does in the USA. There is just no incentive for mass transit in America when cars and gas are very affordable for most people.
|
|
Jun-11-2009 05:57
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Let's see:
I don't have to pay for a car.
I don't have to pay for gas.
I don't have to pay for parking.
I don't have to pay for insurance.
I can work while in transit, thereby making money during my commute.
All told, for me it's probably a difference of about $10,000 per year or more. If I just stashed all those savings away, then with modest interest I'd have half a million dollars in 20 years--and that's ignoring the fact that those costs will almost surely inflate significantly within those 20 years.
Seems like the economic incentives are pretty clear to me. |
aside from the economic incentives, commuting by train is more reliable (i.e., if i leave at the same time every day i am likely arriving at work the same time every day). By car, there is a greater chance for different levels of congestion based on construction, traffic volumn, police activity, accidents, etc... Also, your stress level on a train is quite low compared to the stress level while sitting in traffic.
Every day it takes me 50 minutes by train to commute to the city, and by car it could vary from 25 minutes to 1.5 hours. To add to that, the parking costs alone dwarf the public transportation costs (30 a day for parking compared to 8 a day for the trains).
|
|
Jun-11-2009 16:04
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
yeah it really fucking sucks.
you take the bus in europe (relatively same price- cheap) but the buses are really clean & well air conditioned & the seats are comfortable & prlly not with the cloth material bc that just gets gross with dust.. its just FRESH and clean & everyone takes the bus..
trains.. even better.. |
really? all the public transportation i took in europe was kind of grimmy. the tube has hard clothe sheets, no air conditioning, and it's really stuffy. the buses i've been on were equally unimpressive. Still, the reach of the public transportion is impressive.
the commuter trains were much nicer (e.g., the eurostar, etc...).
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
HERE.. no fucking train, no metro (unless like kryp said u live in DC or something) & buses are for bums
i don't get it. the US should do a 'makeover' with their public transportation. |
it's pure economics. you need density in order to make public transportation efficient. it doesn't make much sense to have an expansive public transportation system when most people don't live in densely populated areas. places like NJ, NY, DC, and Chicago can support such systems because of the population densities. We don't have great supraregional rail systems either because the population centers are widely dispersed, such that air travel is not only faster, but also more economical. if people changed their living habits so that most people lived close together in cities our public transportation system would be better.
europe has such a good public transportation system because most people live in the same places their ancestors lived prior to automobiles. Thus, in almost all parts of europe, even in rural areas, people live closely together. Consequently, people live in walking distance of public transportation stops.
I've always laughed a little at how US systems are designed so that people can drive their cars to the train stops to catch a train. To me, that seems a little counter productive. I get why they do it (i.e., in most areas of the country the residential density doesn't support particular areas for a train stop, those areas need to be created artificially with a parking lot), but it's still a little ironic to me.
|
|
Jun-11-2009 18:39
|
|
|
 |
 |
DOOMBOT
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location:
|
|
|
Once there is enough demand to put it into place, one can only hope that it is left to the private companies to get it done. Otherwise it won't get done right or even get done at all.
|
|
Jun-11-2009 18:42
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:15.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|