Socio-Poli-Economic Discussion

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Honestly, as intrusive to one's privacy as it would be, the idea of GPS in cars to pay for roadways a la carte may not be so far fetched.quote>

 

Would this apply only to privately owned vehicles?  What about the trucks that are bringing food to the local grocery store?  Would the cost of the road tax (for lack of a better phrase) be passed along in the food prices?

What about a doctor commuting to his private practice office?   I imagine they would pass along the cost too.

Public school teachers who gets transferred from one school to another . . .  are they just out of luck and have to pay the tax or do they have to move every time they get transferred?

Yes, all of these costs are being incurred one way or another, using by buying gasoline.   and by making it a direct mileage tax, it will cause some people to think about, and probably alter, their behavior.   But other people are just going to be stuck.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

I guess the flip side is that we may not see streets and roadways as public space anymore, especially if they were privatized. The right to freely ride a bicycle or even walk might be taken away in some areas. A question about the importance of having a inclusive public realm in the city is one that needs to be asked before we turned an entire metropolis into a balkanized patchwork of gated communities.quote>

Now why would we go and start privatizing roads? Nobody is seriously proposing that and for good reason: because there is no benefit to it but plenty of problems.

True, little side streets that are private roads already exist all over the place and aren't really a big deal, but that's different. Only the people who live on them ever really use them and they pay for the upkeep, it's really more like having a huge party driveway.

When you start talking about major through streets which are commonly used by people just passing through, then privatization raises concerns over restricting mobility and interfering with the ability for services to be provided. What if the owner of that private road doesn't want it dug up to build up a new sewer?

As for the right to freely ride a bicycle or walk not being present, that already exists: we call them freeways. Or bridges without walkways. It isn't going to be spreading elsewhere, though, as any street which has something fronting on it will inevitably require walking some distance from the door for access. I suppose you could in theory set up a (relatively low density) residential neighborhood where you're not supposed to leave your property on foot, but why would you?

In the present day at least, mass transit would explode in popularity and be profitable on its own again, as people found market-priced congestion tolls and parking cities to be more costly to their own pockets.

quote>

The problem, of course, is that then you just move the congestion. Now, granted, crowded trains are a lot more efficient than crowded highways, but they are of no more convenience to the user and thus you haven't satisfied what people are actually looking for.

Still, mass transit construction is in many places more politically feasible than freeway construction, so you might have an easier time adding capacity.

So, yes, an increase in mass transit popularity I could see.... profitability, however, I do not. Both roads and rails are heavily subsidized and people have just gotten used to that. Mass transit will never be profitable so long as the fares are kept below actual costs, and raising them to compensate isn't going to happen. Raising prices on roads so that costs are actually covered directly by motorists may happen in some more liberal locales, but mass transit is going to remain subsidized - because in blue areas, it's considered a public good worthy of subsidy, and in red areas, subsidies for roads aren't going away and unless they do unsubsidized mass transit will not be viable.

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Honestly, as intrusive to one's privacy as it would be, the idea of GPS in cars to pay for roadways a la carte may not be so far fetched.quote>

 

Would this apply only to privately owned vehicles?  What about the trucks that are bringing food to the local grocery store?  Would the cost of the road tax (for lack of a better phrase) be passed along in the food prices?

What about a doctor commuting to his private practice office?   I imagine they would pass along the cost too.

Public school teachers who gets transferred from one school to another . . .  are they just out of luck and have to pay the tax or do they have to move every time they get transferred?

Yes, all of these costs are being incurred one way or another, using by buying gasoline.   and by making it a direct mileage tax, it will cause some people to think about, and probably alter, their behavior.   But other people are just going to be stuck.quote>

All of which doesn't really change anything compared to the current situation with a fuel-based tax. Drive further = burn more fuel = pay more tax. You just remove the extra step and make it drive further = pay more tax.

Though, granted, that could very well have a psychological effect as now people will be more inclined to relate the two. Gas taxes, being included in the price at the pump, exist pretty much out of mind. When you get a bill you have to pay for your mileage, all of a sudden you start noticing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A simple solution to this would be to add a dial to the gas pump and a line to the receipt printout detailing the tax (one line please) and the price of gas separately.  Since even now the lion's share of a gas purchase is tax, it might raise an eye brow or two.

Hidden taxes are the bane of the consumer.  If people knew how much tax was hidden in some prices there would surely be yowls of complaint, followed I hope by some introspection on their spending.  Looking at a book I just purchased, it has two prices: $7,99 ($9.99 in CAN).  Theoretically this is supposed to cover the currency spread, but our dollar is now at par, and has been for some time.  My bookseller (Chapters) charged me the former price.  This has been in effect ever since the currencies became close.  An attempted rip-off by the publishers was foiled by public protest over different cover prices.  Nobody complained much when the Canadian dollar was floating around $0.80 U.S. but those days are long past.  There is no tariff on books (NAFTA) so only currency difference can account for this bizarre scheme.

At one point, there was a luxury tax on art books costing more than $75. Cdn.  I think it has been removed.  Probably placed there by a gLiberal government.  The tax-and-spend gLiberals have been out of power for five years now, and I hope they stay on the opposition benches forever.

Many years ago, in the dear distant past, I worked in retail banking.  The currencies were floating, and the Canadian dollar was at a five cent premium on the U.S. dollar.  One day, there was a cease trading order on U.S. currency, and the next day the Progressive Conservative government of George Diefenbaker passed an order in council freezing the Canadian dollar at $0.95 U.S.  At least one of our customers who was purchasing futures in U.S. currency to cover letters of credit made a killing.  He just covered his futures with spot contracts and made ten cents on the dollar.  This was in aid of cooling our over-exuberant economy in the early 1960s.  We have barely recovered, since, and have now weathered the last storm rather well.  Dief was also the PM who killed the Canadian aerospace industry with a stoke of the pen by canceling the Avro Arrow program, much to the benefit of U.S. aerospace companies and NASA.  All our good people went south.  That was the last time an industrial giant tried to tell any PM his project couldn't be canceled.  A. V. Roe went broke, as I recall.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Tolls can be made easy. Right now, all highways with carpool lanes sell carpool passes that you put in your car that charges you a toll for using the carpool lane without passengers.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Tolls can be made easy. Right now, all highways with carpool lanes sell carpool passes that you put in your car that charges you a toll for using the carpool lane without passengers.quote>

One concludes that this is done with booth cameras and the penalty is charged after the fact based on the radio signature of the pass since I don't know of any technology that can deternine, on the spot, the number of persons in a vehicle.  I hope the toll charged pays for the operation of the service and makes a little more for the maintenance of the highways.  It seems to me that this is just another excuse to kill trees and employ more bureaucrabs.

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast

We should get rid of gas taxes, because it only raises prices and affects the poor the most.quote>

don't bother because all it means is oil companies will raise the price of crude to compensate the tax fall since they can. and everyone else will hate you even more since oil is priced in US dollar$ .

considering that motorways are subsidized by the state the cost of transpotation is artificially low. privatise motorways as they're not vital because there's always a public road but it's smaller. this will level the playing field for other forms of transportation buses rarely use motorways in my experience (yes i have experience and i've never seen a public bus on a motorway that is in service. i depend on buses)and railways have to pay for the maintainance of the track.

Railways are uneconomic because of the lack of flexibility they have for freight. but if lorries either have to pay more to use a motorway or take longer using a smaller public road then freight transportation will be more balanced.

buses in the USA won't work outside the pre-1945 areas of the city since densities are too low in modern suburban developments. many US cities have had the heart torn out of downtown through the building of a motorway or the demolition of prominant buildings. the minimum density for public transport is really the density of streetcar suburbs - the terraced townhouse in other words narrow and somewhat tall instead of the American preference for wide housing and a big space either side of the house.

one other thing about public transport, people wonder why buses have fallen from private companies making money to always requiring public subsidy. it is because wages have increased disproportionally due to the increasing cost of living in the city. ridership patterns have also changed. industry and office buildings used to be dispersed in smaller clusters throughout the city. one factory got built on the edge of town and then built housing for it's workers around it and so the city grew. due to the mania for everyone seperating things out in large zones this doeosn't happen and destination concentrations have been increased and this increases the overall distance travelled -which decreases productivity dramatically. 3,000 office workers in a big tall building require roughly 1000 single decker buses to get everyone in by bus. which is why congestion in Midtown Manhattan and other skyscraper clusters is impossible to get rid of. 1 train for example can carry 1,800 passengers but assuming you have lots of office blocks together a train every minute can't satisfy demand. to calculate the required number of trains/buses in high density areas leaves you with ridiculous frequencies (i.e. 1 every 15 seconds for the whole network) of trains/buses.

this is the reason i never advocate skyscrapers in a real city, they are a novelty (they are cool) but create unsolvable congestion which irritates so many people since there is no economical solution to it. Unless you implement 1960s dreams of roads and rails in the sky.

Land values don't decrease at all by building skyscrapers(they are allowed to increase to astronomical heights) and that applies in "economic science" - rasing the price ceiling will of course allow prices to rise further. even after you adjust the land value versus floor space it's still very expensive.

all things considered, mid rise and low rise are the most economic densities from a public transport point of view. since i depend on public transport that is the number 2 issue (the first is the cost of living which involves public transport but includes many more things).

The Lisbon Treaty must go to a referendum (that's a reference to Cato the Elder)

[mightygoose 92]

while it can be agreed that clustering of large corporations in the middle of cities is no longer necessary with the advances of communication and e commerce, a city will always have need of a centre, and large corporations will always like the status of having buildings in that centre. people still like to have face to face meetings, so those buildings have to be large, a small footprint to occupancy ratio is advantageous so to prevent exorbetant land costs. what it leaves you with is a skyscraper cluster. midrise doesn't do much for congestion, however i do think that american cities could benefit from the london congestion charge model.

[Athanasius 0]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

while it can be agreed that clustering of large corporations in the middle of cities is no longer necessary with the advances of communication and e commerce, a city will always have need of a centre, and large corporations will always like the status of having buildings in that centre. people still like to have face to face meetings, so those buildings have to be large, a small footprint to occupancy ratio is advantageous so to prevent exorbetant land costs. what it leaves you with is a skyscraper cluster. midrise doesn't do much for congestion, however i do think that american cities could benefit from the london congestion charge model.quote>

congestion charging in london has merely forced poorer people to stop driving into the centre by charging them £10 entry this is very expensive and makes SW1 even more exclusive. Don't allow a hybrid clause in it since it means people drive Chelsea tractors with a token electric motor to avoid the fee.

price per square foot of office space is still extortionate in skyscrapers, sometimes more than mid rise office buildings.

[EyeofMobius 27]

I do not feel that the cost of land should go down; It should in fact become prohibitively expensive that private consumers can't by a parcel for any personal construction.

Force the world to live in super-clusters, make the outside land agriculture and protected wilderness parks. Every office job in the super clusters would be done at home apart from a possible face to face meeting within the cluster which a commercial meeting space could be rented just for the event. This will remove corporate office from the peak commute loads. The super-cluster would then be comprised of R, CS and I. However social and recreational space would have to be in abundance unless we change the very natures of our species.

The greatest threats to all that we are is not econmics or any form of organizational structure; Our greatest threats are boredom, the "I'm right your wrong mentality," and the sun going nova. Last I checked the sun is relatively stable so we shall continue to exploit and demolish ourselves for entertainment and status until we die out and are replaced by something better.

May the tide of man wash themselves away and their fetid carcasses be borne on the backs of ants.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

Tolls can be made easy. Right now, all highways with carpool lanes sell carpool passes that you put in your car that charges you a toll for using the carpool lane without passengers.quote>

The problem I have with HOT lane schemes as they exist is that you either have an HOV tag or a non-HOV tag. There is no switching between the two as appropriate. Which is ridiculous, because nobody has passengers absolutely all or absolutely none of the time. So, your two options are to go with the non-HOV tag and pay the toll even if you have passengers, or go with the HOV tag and not be allowed to use the HOT lanes if you don't have passengers.

The point of HOV lanes, naturally, is to encourage carpooling. In theory, anyway. In reality, carpooling is so impractical for most people that encouraging it is a futile effort. Nobody is encouraged to carpool by the existence of an HOV lane, the people who use it have passengers anyway and they're all just free riders on the scheme.

Another common criticism of HOV lanes (which is a valid one) is that you could fit more traffic through in the same space if you just added normal lanes. Especially true if the HOV lanes are physically separated.

So, yeah, it's a feelgood measure, but adding HOV lanes is in many cases much more politically feasible than just adding lanes, so...

And hey, if it's a HOT setup, it makes $$$. No budget-maximizing bureaucracy is going to say no to that.

Originally posted by: Athanasius

considering that motorways are subsidized by the state the cost of transpotation is artificially low. privatise motorways as they're not vital because there's always a public road but it's smaller. this will level the playing field for other forms of transportation buses rarely use motorways in my experience (yes i have experience and i've never seen a public bus on a motorway that is in service. i depend on buses)and railways have to pay for the maintainance of the track.quote>

It is absolutely true that transportation is artificially cheap due to subsidization. But I don't see where you're coming from with your argument on privatization. How is the playing field not currently level and how would privitization change that?

As for buses not using freeways... true, they usually don't, but not always. The express buses in New York City use them to get between Manhattan and their outer borough destinations. The local buses even use them in a few caes. Then again, New York is both unusual in geography and exceptional in size. How many other cities have expres buses? Not too many, I'd think.

The express buses in New York were actually quite sucessfully privately run up intil the late 1990's. Then the operation went bankrupt and the MTA (public) took them over. One vestige of their private past remains in that the express bus fare ($5.50) is twice the local bus/subway fare ($2.25).

 

Railways are uneconomic because of the lack of flexibility they have for freight. but if lorries either have to pay more to use a motorway or take longer using a smaller public road then freight transportation will be more balanced.quote>

Freight rail is actually very economic when you have to move a large quantity of goods a long distance. The problem is that most freight traffic in Europe doesn't fit that description and so everything is shipped or trucked. Not so elsewhere, in the US 42% of domestic freight travels by rail. In China it's 58%!

buses in the USA won't work outside the pre-1945 areas of the city since densities are too low in modern suburban developments. many US cities have had the heart torn out of downtown through the building of a motorway or the demolition of prominant buildings. the minimum density for public transport is really the density of streetcar suburbs - the terraced townhouse in other words narrow and somewhat tall instead of the American preference for wide housing and a big space either side of the house.quote>

Part of this is simply that the US overall is much less densely populated than Europe. We have room to spread out, so we do. Land is cheap, so why not? In Europe space comes at much more of a premium and so people are forced to live in closer quarters.

Although, you also have a difference in how people spend their disposable income playing a role. Americans buy stuff, and they need places to put all that stuff. Hence, larger homes, and the ridiculous proliferation of self-storage facilities.

Europeans are less materialistic and spend their money on doing things like going out to eat at nice places (in contrast to the restaurant market in the US being dominated by take-out: pizza, chinese, fast food, etc. - all cheap stuff), or taking vacations.

That's another start contrast: I get two weeks paid vacation a year plus 10 holidays off. That's it. 24 days a year. And that's typical for workers in the US. In Europe that would be considered a rather small small amount of time off. The numbers there range from 28 days a year (Netherlands, Romania, UK) to 44 days a year (Finland), and that's just the legal minimum. By contrast, there is no legal requiremint in the US that workers get any paid vacation time at all. And indeed, there are many people in the US who are paid hourly wages rather than a salary who are free to take time off, but will not get paid for the days they do.

Moral of the story: you folks are far more laid back over there!

one other thing about public transport, people wonder why buses have fallen from private companies making money to always requiring public subsidy. it is because wages have increased disproportionally due to the increasing cost of living in the city. ridership patterns have also changed.quote>

This is partially true. The role of the automobile in knocking public transit out of profitability cannot be ignored, either.

As I pointed out before: since car travel is heavily subsidized, transit needs to also be heavily subsidized to remain competitive.

3,000 office workers in a big tall building require roughly 1000 single decker buses to get everyone in by bus. which is why congestion in Midtown Manhattan and other skyscraper clusters is impossible to get rid of. 1 train for example can carry 1,800 passengers but assuming you have lots of office blocks together a train every minute can't satisfy demand. to calculate the required number of trains/buses in high density areas leaves you with ridiculous frequencies (i.e. 1 every 15 seconds for the whole network) of trains/buses.quote>

One train every 15 seconds would be ridiculous on only one line, but not when you have multiple lines. And getting around Midtown Manhattan actually isn't that difficult, it's easy to just walk. Not to say the sidewalks aren't crowded but it's manageable. Unlike some cities in China where the crowds are so dense that it's go with the flow or get trampled.

this is the reason i never advocate skyscrapers in a real city, they are a novelty (they are cool) but create unsolvable congestion which irritates so many people since there is no economical solution to it. Unless you implement 1960s dreams of roads and rails in the sky.quote>

Or underground. Subway tunnels. They work!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Nobody is encouraged to carpool by the existence of an HOV lane, quote>

People in northern Virginia are.   There is a quite active slugging system.  It has evolved over time but, basically, random drivers pick up and drop off random passengers at well known locations in order to use the HOV lanes.  I know people who have used the system for years.

I wouldn't use it since I don't like letting strangers into my car or getting into the car of a stranger but the "safety in numbers" rule seems to apply.

As for buses not using freeways... true, they usually don't, but not always. The express buses in New York City use them to get between Manhattan and their outer borough destinations. The local buses even use them in a few caes. Then again, New York is both unusual in geography and exceptional in size. How many other cities have expres buses? Not too many, I'd think. quote>

Around DC they are called commuter buses.  Most are run by private companies.

 

Part of this is simply that the US overall is much less densely populated than Europe. We have room to spread out, so we do. Land is cheap, so why not? In Europe space comes at much more of a premium and so people are forced to live in closer quarters. quote>

Population density seems to be a major factor in determining culture, law, and political views.  People from low density areas and those from high density areas seem to lack a full understanding of the realities that the other group has to deal with.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

People in northern Virginia are. There is a quite active slugging system.  It has evolved over time but, basically, random drivers pick up and drop off random passengers at well known locations in order to use the HOV lanes.  I know people who have used the system for years.quote>

Interesting. I suppose as with a lot of things, sucess can depend on the application. DC is known for having particularly nasty traffic and a lack of alternatives to driving, so it makes sense that in that case giving carpoolers a speed boost would encourage the behavior. Contrast this to New Jersey where after making the left lanes on a portion of I-287 HOV only, they found (unsurprisingly) that traffic got worse, not better, and so NJDOT changed them back.

I must admit, though, it is amusing to hear the term "slugging" used to describe something supposedly positive. So much for fake subway tokens.

I wouldn't use it since I don't like letting strangers into my car or getting into the car of a stranger but the "safety in numbers" rule seems to apply.quote>

Indeed. What you're describing here is not carpooling in the traditional sense but more a system of organized hitchhiking.

Around DC they are called commuter buses.  Most are run by private companies.quote>

...which means they don't qualify, since the original comment was specifically talking about public buses.

Otherwise we could start talking about things like Greyhound and MegaBus, too!

[Ocram's Razr 964]

There are public buses in the suburbs in King County. The cities where cutting of bus services are proposed (so they would not have any bus lines) threatened to get out the tax jurisdiction of the King County Metro bus service. This means that several suburbs have exactly 1 infrequent and low ridership line.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In my rather large but rural area there is no public transit at all.  We all have to have cars or make appropriate arrangements.  Being blind on the right side and with trouble in the remaining eye, I do not drive any more.  Taxis are prohibitively expensive. 

Being a senior, I am eligible to use a service provided by a zero-based budget, funded organization that uses volunteer drivers, most using their own vehicles.  These drivers get only a low rate of mileage, and I get a monthly bill for services that is about 1/3 of what a taxi would charge.  To my knowledge, the service has three owned vehicles: a bus for 13+ passengers which requires a bus  driver endorsement for the volunteer driver, who they often do not have;  a van that can carry up to six passengers; and a mobility van with a wheel-chair lift.  In this area they also provide a weekly shared shopping trip to the next town where most things can be got for a single fare of $5. per person, cash.  This is why my shopping day is Tuesday of each week.

The activities of this service also includes personal service workers should a need arise for assistance in the home.  Last time I used this service the rate was $18/hour minimum four hours.  If you need an occasional help around the house and are alone, as I am, you need this service occasionally.

I have lived out of the urban sprawl (Toronto) for twenty years now, having lived there for thirty.  I no longer miss it at all.  When my wife was alive, we had a nice Honda van that took care of our needs including the two large dogs we always had.  Now that she has passed, I have moved to a seniors apartment in a small town, and I am living quite comfortably on my basic pension plus the mandatory supplements.  I get to the nearest big city, London, Ontario, for medical appointments using the service.  They charge me about $100 for such a trip.  A taxi is $130 each way.

A service like this is funded by the social safety net, as is the in home medical care I occasionally receive.  I wonder if such services would be provided by anyone (insurer or public) if I lived across the lake, say in rural Michigan.  What happens to impoverished seniors in the United States?

Any spare cash I may have comes from three sources:  General tax rebates annually when I file my income tax return;  Harmonized sales tax rebate quarterly, and lately some kind of Ontario tax rebate that appears quarterly.  I don't have a handle on the Ontario one, since it has only shown up once, and I received no notice of what it was for.

One more item of economic note:  All of my medical services are provided free of charge where covered.  However, prescription drugs have a co-payment of $6.11 per prescription filled or refilled and an annual deductible of $100,  My current physiotherapist is not covered at all, so I pay cash for that.

I suspect I am the only retiree on this board, but if there are any others, I would like to compare notes.  PM me if you wish.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I must admit, though, it is amusing to hear the term "slugging" used to describe something supposedly positive. So much for fake subway tokens. quote>

Yes, it is amusing.   People tend to be proud of being a "slug" since they are getting free, and usually faster, transportation than the rest of us.

Indeed. What you're describing here is not carpooling in the traditional sense but more a system of organized hitchhiking. quote>

That is an excellent way to describe it.  Thousands of hitchhikers wearing suits.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

When we were young, hitch-hiking was an accepted means for people to get around in Canada.  In those days, wealth was low, distances long, and rides available.  The culture has changed, and in the last few years I had a vehicle, I never picked up anyone from the roadside.  It got to be a fifty-fifty proposition whether you would be picking up someone you would even want to talk to, let alone spend time with, so I just avoided the issue.  Not only has everyone seen the serial killer stories, but most hitch-hikers these days seem to lack hygiene.

The cheapest means of inter city travel these days appears to be by motor coach.  Passenger rail has become almost as expensive as air travel, even with the Via rail government subsidies.  In my area, rail points are few and far between.  I can pick up a province subsidized GO transit train in Stratford, or a Via train in London.  Both considerable distances from me, and there is no public means of getting there from here.  There isn't even a once a week service to either.

I have no feel for the cost of AMTRAK passenger service in the U.S.  I hope it would be cheaper than Via in Canada.  At one time it was entirely feasible to take an overnight train from Montreal to Toronto and get a roomette for less than the air shuttle.  It had the advantage of arriving, downtown to downtown, slept, and refreshed.  The train left Central station in Montreal around midnight and got into Toronto's Union station around 7 a.m.  Both train stations have connections to subway and interurban train or motor coach.  This particular train stops once in Kingston for passengers connecting to Ottawa.  Sleeping Toronto-bound passengers usually don't notice the stop.

The great advantage of rail travel is convenience.  You don't have to drive to the airport on a congested highway, find a parking spot then struggle through all the airport security to get to your departure lounge only to find the flight is delayed.  After passing security in the train station, it is easy sailing onto your train, and to bed.

Because of our wide-open spaces in America, travel distances can be quite long, and on the prairies, very lonely.  Once you cross the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border, there is nothing but miles and miles of miles and miles of big farms with a few towns scattered along the way like wide spots in the road.  This pretty much continues until you make either Calgary or Edmonton.  After that, you have the Rockies which will entertain and frighten you until you cross into B.C.'s coastal plain.

[mightygoose 92]

i have successfully hitch hiked a number of times in the UK, but i do agree that the majority of hitch hikers these days are somewhat undesireable company, and that puts people off.

[Duke87 1,070]

Amtrak is reasonably priced for business travel, from one urban center to another. A ticket from New York to DC in coach will run you $76 one way. Gas and tolls to drive that would be about $55 (less if you know how to shunpike), but add in the cost of parking and it's more expensive, at least if you're making the trip alone.

On the other hand, for personal travel originating in the suburbs, now the cost of parking factors out and it makes no sense.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

For travellers going between major points who are not in a terrible rush, generally in North America, rail wins because of all the stress of flying.  The only real extra cost at the outward destination may be taxis to get to offices or meetings.  You would buy restaurant meals anyway, and a hotel as well.

If your company is any good at this, they will book you a car rental to pick up at the station, and your hotel, etc.  Usually this involves a package discount.  Individual travellers can work deals as well, just like air travellers.

When I was travelling in the good old days, long past, I actually got to stay at a company apartment which they kept for people who must travel on business.  Interestingly enough, the general manager of my division got bumped into another accommodation for me and my coworker, because we were both working on the same problem and it was cheaper for us to fend for ourselves in the apartment.  It was a good move,because we solved the problem rather quickly, considering computer work was on 24-hour turn around.  I remember we needed only about five days including picking up the strange application.

[Duke87 1,070]

Amtrak is also cheaper than flying.

A rental car would probably not be necessary for most business trips by rail due to the center city location of the stations. Unless your destination is a suburban office park, you're going to be able to get to where you have to go via additional public transit if not just by walking.

Although, if your destination is a suburban office park, simply driving the whole way is going to be the more practical option since parking will not be an issue nor will city congestion. And if it's too long a trip to make by car, it's also too long a trip to make by train.

[Frdm920 50]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

It's funny that in the US hitch-hiking is given a negative connotation. It doesn't work that way in the rest of the world. Only Americans view it this way (I daresay because of our culture). quote>

Wrong Australians will hardly ever pick up hitchhikers either. Then again a couple of bloody murders (real not TV drama ones) will probably do that...

In terms of commuting options here in Perth WA. I'd say it's evenly split 50/50 between car and train. Our major (and pretty much only) freeway is heavily backed up during peak hour (which are getting progressively longer in lenght) but the trains are also quite full. Public transport here is rather efficent most train lines during peak have 1 train every 5 - 10 minutes and 15 - 20 minutes during off-peak. It's all owned by the government so a valid competition with cars. The biggest let down in our system though is the lack of buses that connect with the rail services, so train station carparks are still overcrowded despite attempts to encourage bus usage.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Barbarossa:  When were you last in Europe?  I have a feeling that most hitch-hiking is out these days.  Eurail passes are pretty cheap.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think you have to make eurail pass arrangements in advance.  My travel agent was more than willing, and advised it as a good deal, but who knows what their commission rates were?  I reserved a car at Marignac and drove myself around instead.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I read somewhere that Metro got rid of its reduced fair this year. Good thing I bought a year's worth in November.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Really?  If Toronto did that, they would change the weight of the tokens and the old ones wouldn't work any more.  All you could do would be to get a refund.  I think that would be unfair of them to monkey with the fare, but that's the way municipalities work.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

You use tokens? How quaint. We used to use magnetic cards and transfer passes. Now, all of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Island Counties use the PayPass (tap to charge) ORCA cards. King County Metro still accepts cash and gives transfer passes.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, any transit fare has to go up occasionally to account for inflation. It isn't "monkeying".

New York stopped using tokens in 2003, but a contactless payment system is still a few years away (there's currently a pilot program testing it). Currently we're using magnetic strip cards which must be swiped through (on the subway) or dipped into (on the bus) a reader. And they can be finnicky. "Please Swipe Again".

With our recent fare hike, people were permitted to load as much money onto their MetroCards as they wanted before the hike at the old rate. Although, the sky isn't quite the limit... there is a limit to how much money you can put on a MetroCard at once (I think it's $100). You can use multiple cards, but they expire 13 months after purchase (6 months if coupled with a rail pass).

On the other hand, the unlimited ride cards had almost no slack on the sunset. The fare went up December 30th, and if you didn't start using a card purchased before that by January 8th, you wouldn't get the full time period out of it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

You use tokens? How quaint. We used to use magnetic cards and transfer passes. Now, all of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Island Counties use the PayPass (tap to charge) ORCA cards. King County Metro still accepts cash and gives transfer passes.quote>

I'm not in Toronto any more, but to change to an electronic fare system would cost them more than it is worth for the first five years.  They are on exact fare, and tokens can be purchased at most news stands or convenience stores.  The choice is token or exact change, which makes most people buy tokens.  All subway and bus stations have machinery geared to tokens, and only a few manned points accept cash.  Buses and streetcars will take cash as well.

When Toronto goes electronic, it will probably be a button on your coat or jacket that is simiply read by the gate.  You will be able to reload your button at a fare gate.  Getting rid of the turnstiles will be a great benefit.  I suppose the button could be read even if it was in a pocket or your purse.  The technology for radio activation of these things is pretty common now.

As a matter of interest, Toronto was one of the first cities to have a traffic control system that could change stoplights and change the stoplight programming remotely from a central system.  Worked very well in the late 1960s and is even fancier now.  They can change overhead signage as needed, as can the provincial government's highway system.  The whole thing started out on an old Univac II.  (Can you say word machine?)