The Rail freight companies say they can transport a ton of freight a hundred miles for one dollar. I imagine its not that cheap to transport people but still probably a lot cheaper than it does cost.
If I drive to NYC, 150 miles in a car that gets 30 mpg when gas is $2.00 a gallon it costs me around ten dollars for gas. I think the rail fare for that same distance should be around ten dollars as well.
Comments (9)
I didn't vote either way.
You didn't add in tolls, parking, aggravation, wear and tear on the car, insurance/risk of accident, rush hour adjustment (more gas, time, etc.)... I think it's more than $10.
None of that matters. As I said, I believe that the cost of riding the train should be comparable to the cost of the GAS on a car that gets 30 mpg. People already own a car. The car has the added advantage that you can carry 4 or 5 people together for the same price. So the actual cost of the trip is going to be all the things you said divided by the number of passengers. On the other hand if I'm traveling alone and the cost of riding the train is the same as paying for the gas for the trip, I may decide to leave the car at home. If riding the train is easily a strong cost savings for a person without a lot of money who also owns a car there's a chance they will leave the car at home and thats all that matters. If the people who make less than $30,000 a year leave their cars at home there will be an appreciable savings in gas consumption. As far as how little the railroad has to make and still make a profit its really small.
Why do your other savings not matter? Not having to get an oil change is a savings, even if you have a car. Avoiding tolls is a savings, even if you have a car. I'd support this if you said $15 (gas plus other immediate costs). After all, we do already subsidize a bunch of other car related things, so it makes sense to subsidize some train-related things. But not ALL car costs except for gas.
The other savings don't matter because I'm already paying them. I will continue to own a car, will continue to pay insurance, will continue to pay everything except if I ride the train I will save gas. Thats why its important to only take gas into account. My mistake was mentioning NYC. What I should have said is someplace a hundred fifty miles from here on Route 20 because there would be no tolls to that location. If the ticket cost me less than the gas would I'd leave my car at home.
What's the deadline on this whole "phase one" thing? Do I have to vote within three hours?
I hate the way this item is phrased, but I haven't seen another that touches this issue.
It's something that really should be discussed. The subsidized rugged individual has always annoyed me. Your tax dollars support vast highways, some of them as smooth as glass...
Yes, it's badly phrased (and the poster seemed doggedly unaware about the massive savings in car insurance that you can get if you only use your car to commute a few days a week, or not at all...and the savings from less frequent oil changes and maintenance...and assumes that everyone makes decisions based on "what will it cost me in the next day or two" rather than "what will it cost me over the next six months." But you're right, there are not a lot of other rail-subsidy-focused posts, so this is about as good as it'll get in the next hour.)
a more intelligent version of this might have incorporated the "cost of taking several people" issue, and suggested that, as in much of europe, we sell family passes and group passes at a reduced rate, to mimic the benefits of putting the whole family in the car. (Where, BTW, the train is also not guaranteed cheaper than the price of gas, and people make the choice based on other savings.)
Whatever. I voted. It's the only game in town.
All true. But if you don't state the case simply there's nothing left for the discussion phase. And if it gets to long it no longer communicates what your trying to express.