Measuring The Train
I had business in Madison today. As usual, I drove there and back. I thought I would tabulate my transportation choice as it would compare if we had a high speed train. Here’re the results:
DRIVING:
Miles driven = 143 miles
Miles per gallon = 22
Cost per gallon = $2.89
Total cost for gas = $18.79
Estimated wear and tear = $.35/mile = $50.05
TOTAL DOLLAR COST OF DRIVING = $68.84
Time spent round trip = 2.5 hours
RIDING TRAIN:
Freeway Flier from West Bend to downtown (assuming pre-purchase at ticket office) = $2.75 each way = $5.5
Estimated train fare roundtrip to Madison = $40 (on the low end)
Roundtrip taxi from projected airport dropoff to my meeting = $40
TOTAL DOLLAR COST OF TRAIN = $85.50
Time spent on round trip on flyer to downtown = 1.5 hours
Time spent roundtrip on train = about 2 hours
Time spent in taxi = 30 minutes
Miscellaneous time spent on transfers, etc. = 45 minutes
TOTAL TIME SPENT TAKING TRAIN = 4.75 hours
Gee… I wonder what I would do if we paid a billion dollars for a train.
Running against this train is an easy issue to get elected on this fall. Nice job showing what a waste this is.
I’d like your take on this Dick Leininkugel run for Senate. Belling is trashing the guy now, and I agree with Belling. We’ve got to get a candidate who can run against the wasteful Federal spending from the Stimulus bill. Not bring in a Madison RINO guy who helped cut the Talgo deal.
What can we do to get Mark Neumann or a better candidate to run against Feingold? I’d even be very much behind an unconventional candidate like Charlie Sykes.
Owen—you need to use your bully pulpit here to trash this Leininkugel thing before it gets started. He’s forever linked to the half-fast train boondoggle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1806 hrs
The decision economics are generally even worse. Most folks will only take public transportation if there is a clear time advantage and there is no serious cost disadvantage. Wear and tear on the car? Forget about it. Gasoline, parking and time are going to decide things for most people contemplating this. The airport? Why?
For most people, any trip that doesn’t get done in about the same amount of time has to cost about the same as the gasoline and parking. Sure, people will be happy to take the train if it is a comfortable, quick ride. Wifi will help. For those going to Chicago, the avoidance of traffic will add some customers.
A successful train needs to get from Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul in roughly three hours. If it doesn’t, people will drive if they’re going to the suburbs or fly for the downtowns or take the bus if they have to. The Milwaukee stop can be quick. Madison, no matter how you look at it, is a useful siding, but it is out of the way. The high speed track would better go through Columbus splitting at Watertown from the Madison route and reconnecting around Portage. That helps the main line, but costs more to develop.
I love trains and would take one that gets me near my destination in a reasonable amount of time, but the speed and price matter and I don’t see anyone looking at it sensibly, yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1830 hrs
Yeah, but you’d feel all warm and fuzzy because you were doing the more “responsible” thing ...
Posted by hsgbdmama on April 08, 2010 at 1901 hrs
You also don’t include the biggest intangible - FREEDOM. The freedom to go when you want, stay as long as you want, and travel any route you want. You can also change plans, run other errands, or stop for meals without having to check the train and bus schedules to make sure you won’t miss the last connection.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 1934 hrs
The IRS is currently allowing $0.50/mile as an average cost to drive per mile. They adjust this figure twice per year if needed.
You estimate your cost based on a car that gets 22 MPG and come up with $68.84 based on the current price of gas and your $0.35/mile calculation.
The IRS would allow $71.50.So do you see now why democrats under the fiscally sound leadership of Jim Doyle are spending that $800,000,000+ for the train to the Madison airport?
I’m sure Tom Barrett will continue this fiscally sound leadership should he be the next leader of the great state of Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2021 hrs
Perhaps you (citizens of West Bend) are not the primary market. But, alas, it all needs to be about you.
(and there’s more than time and money as motivations)
(oh, and most civilized nations actually encourage public transportation usage—which is better for everyone in the long run—by taxing gasoline. But we all know what you freedom fighters think about that)
“don’t tread on me bro!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2041 hrs
Perhaps you (citizens of West Bend) are not the primary market
George - who is the primary market? Where are the swarming masses of people that need $800,000,000 spent on them so they can ride a train from Milwaukee to Madison?
which is better for everyone in the long run
Based on what? Why is it better for me to ride a train from point A to B, at time T, if I want to go from A to B, at time T+1, then stop at C on the way back?
And where, in the history of governments, has any large project been done on budget? This will cost well over $1,000,000,000.00, with all the track upgrades, right-of-way purchases, and station construction. Then there is the ongoing subsidy to run the dang thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2055 hrs
Okay, there are a lot of things not to like about the train, but since we have picked on the most inane, I have to play devil’s advocate, Owen.
The big question is, Does your employer value 2.5 hours of your time at more than $16.76? There will be the argument about connectivity, which is valid. Let’s assume that either WiFi is available, or your employer gives you tethering or an aircard. The question remains, does your employer value 2.5 hours of your time at more or less than $16.76 (the cost difference between train and driving). Hell, even if we wanted to factor in an air card (about $60 per month), I would guess your employer could easily disburse that cost among a number of functions.
Then the follow questions arise…how many trips to Madison do you make a month? How many hours does your employer lose to your drive to Madison?
Now, whether the dropoff locations are convenient, or if this is a good idea from an infrastructure perspective is a different animal. But, if you are going to ask the average working professional which option makes more sense personally, I think you will see a lot of votes for the train.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2100 hrs
keld,
That assumes that I can be 100% productive on the bus/train/taxi and 0% productive while driving. Truth is, I often take the time to attend conference calls and whatnot while driving. Certainly not 100% productivity, but not completely unproductive. I would be marginally more productive on mass transit because I could use my computer. So… 40% productivity in the car for 2.5 hours vs. 75% productivity in a train/bus/taxi for 4.5 hours?
Posted by Owen on April 08, 2010 at 2127 hrs
West Bend has Freeway Flyer service, place yourself in another municipality that does not have this service, the trip becomes longer and more expensive, such as a ten mile ride to reach West Bend.
So your in madison doing your thing and you get a call a child is sick or school closing early because of weather then what?
It will be a great amusement for the Milwaukee and Madison folks and as usual the rest of the state will suffer in tax burden so the two liberal centers of advanced logic in wisconsin can have there new toy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2136 hrs
Owen, fair enough. In your particular instance it may not make sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2138 hrs
Perhaps you (citizens of West Bend) are not the primary market.
I disagree. Although I live in WB, my office is on Waukesha County and I go to Madison quite often for business. I would seem to be the ideal market to use such a service. I also ran the numbers to drive to my office and then catch the train in a proposed Oconomowoc station, but the numbers looked even worse. I was trying to be charitable.
Posted by Owen on April 08, 2010 at 2141 hrs
wow, cuz one person doesn’t think the train is economical for his particular situation, then it must just be a totally bad idea for everyone.
me, me, me, me!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2010 at 2324 hrs
wow, cuz one person doesn’t think the train is economical for his particular situation, then it must just be a totally bad idea for everyone.
which is better for everyone in the long run
George - Owen just gave his example of why the rain is not better for him.
You are also avoiding the quesitons:George - who is the primary market? Where are the swarming masses of people that need $800,000,000 spent on them so they can ride a train from Milwaukee to Madison?....Based on what?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0337 hrs
Train. Not rain. Can’t type.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0338 hrs
George:
Damn right “me me me me me”. I’ll be paying for it, while the welfare queens won’t be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0731 hrs
George:
Make sure you don’t those facts and figures in the way for your cause! Just spend money and the facts be damned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0749 hrs
Sounds like George thinks it should really be all about him. He (and the other 12 people who will ride the choo-choo) want everyone else to pay the billion dollars to suit him. And why not? Just having George grace the earth with his presence is easily worth several billion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0839 hrs
So who exactly would the train be econimical for? Some one who lives within walking distance of the station? How many trains are they going to have on the track? If it is one then I would think taht it will only leave about every 3 hrs at best. So if I want to come head back home at 3:00 I may need to wait till 6:00 for the next train. Not to productive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 0925 hrs
It’s the numbers that are bad.
Usage estimates are 300000 - 400000 riders per year. Subsidy per year of $8M+ to start. That’s $20 per rider initially assuming the best in both cases. And it will be rising. But how many of the riders are unique? Go both ways? 200000 unique users. Commute to Madison? That’s supposedly the big user. 250 commuting days per year? Now we’re down to 800 unique users.
$800M+ to build. The subsidy doesn’t cover paying off this cost. When does that get done.
How about we just buy each commuter that would be helped a car. $800M / 800 = $1M each. That would be a Bugatti Veyron each, would have to get Bugatti to put it back into production and quadruple output though. And the subsidy would net about $10K per year to pay for fuel. Could just buy 40 Priuses each. Oh wait. It would have to be some GM POS. Can’t buy Toyota, that’s a competitor. Probably get 60 Chevy Aveos for the same money.
It just doesn’t make any sense unless you are going to put a wall up between MKE and MAD and only allow train traffic to cross. Or just outlaw all vehicles.
And the claim that tax dollars subsidize all roads is bogus too. Some JournalSentinel writer says $1.5B is used as a road subsidy. Ok. That’s spread out over every resident of the state. Anyone that eat’s, uses electricity, water, medical, anything. Spending $1.5B to support 5M people vs $800M to benefit 800.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 1049 hrs
RichK: Your going to confuse the libs with facts and figures. Tell them how it makes you FEEL to spend/waste money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 1117 hrs
wow, cuz one person doesn’t think the train is economical for his particular situation, then it must just be a totally bad idea for everyone.
me, me, me, me!
This is the type of argument that I absolutely despise, and its becoming SOP for the left on every issue at every level of public discourse. When confronted with an argument, vilify the messenger, ignore their argument, and hope in all the confusion people forgot what they said in the first place.
George, quit acting like a child! Do you have an argument other than ‘Other Countries do it’? ... ‘Or you’re mean for not letting us do it’ I get these arguments from my kids all the time ‘But Dad, Timmy’s dad lets him use the internet without adult supervision ... You’re sooooo Mean’ ...and they are no more convincing than yours. Do you have a GROWN UP argument, that is based on something tangible? Or are we just going to continue to get diversionary bullshit about everything other than addressing the actual concerns of those who oppose the train.
Posted by TD on April 09, 2010 at 1144 hrs
wow, cuz one person doesn’t think the train is economical for his particular situation, then it must just be a totally bad idea for everyone.
...and yet you want the rest of the people in the state to buy you a train, build you a station or two, and then pay for the majority of every trip you take on that train.
Who is being selfish here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2010 at 1231 hrs
I like trains. I think there are lots of places where they make sense. Distance travel in the Midwest is not among them. Generally speaking, they don’t win on convenience, they don’t win on time, and they don’t win on cost.
The only way rail like this makes sense is if we make the relative cost of driving considerably greater - whether that’s parking surtaxes in urban areas, increasing the gas tax or registration fees, whatever. Or you can make the train ridiculously cheap by subsidizing it. I don’t suspect any of those are particularly popular ideas.
America is a car nation. It’s a car nation in part because we’re very big and much of America is sparsely populated, but also because we didn’t have development policies that would encourage higher density growth to compensate for the fact that land is so cheap. But it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle now. You’re never going to undo or reverse suburban development patterns by putting in a train. Building out to those people is prohibitively expensive, and those people won’t use it by choice if, as Owen noted, it’s inconvenient.
Not that it’s entirely fungible, but it’d be better to spend that money on road improvements or technologies to make cars more fuel efficient, if you’re going to spend it at all.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 09, 2010 at 1734 hrs
Wifi will help. For those going to Chicago, the avoidance of traffic will add some customers. online meeting is used to conduct live meetings online meetings
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2010 at 1411 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 82
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:04 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).