Prague Metro Plans Extension To Airport + New Line

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:15:22 -0700,
) wrote:

In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline
company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane
since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the
advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which
is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

You seem to be expecting logic and consistency from a person who has
demonstrated neither in the past.

Oh you mean the Nobel Prize winner that determined the resulting equation I
am using.
Wow you are a really mentally ****ed up loser.

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
om...
I have done no search on that topic. I do know that lines like BART
going
to the San Francisco airport have been essentially a failure.

How do you know this?

From reports in the newspapers, comments by officials, and discussion on
newsgroups. BART to SFO is roughly $2B for essentially no significant
benefit.

The benefit must be quantifiable. It doesn't help your
point that you don't know the actual usage and are
just speculating

I don't think
any other line has moved a lot of people to SFO.

What other lines are there?

I think there used to be Caltrain with bus connection to the airport.

I used this once. I was the only person to get of
the Caltrain and cross the road to catch the bus
(I can't recall how popular the bus was overall).
This was at a time when the cal train was less
frequent then it is now.
I would agree that it was a pretty useless way to the
airport.

I would never take transit to the airport and leave my car unprotected to
be vandalized in a transit parking lot.

I don't get this. Did you mean "but leave"?

The Airtrains to JFK and EWR seem to be considered successful, at
least they are carrying more people than expected. Continental
promotes the Newark Airtrain on their web site (they also code-share
with Amtrak).

Carrying more people than predicted is not a criterion of success.

of course it is.

The criterion is it doing better than other approaches especially if those
other are cheaper.

cheaper for who?

I would expect transit to the NYC airports would be more successful than
any other airports in the US.

so you accept that the rules that apply for one airport
are different for another

tim

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"

wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:


and will likely change considerably in a country where
the cost ratio between taxi/bus is an order of magnitude
higher to that in the USA, which IME is the case.

The goal is to predict how many people will use transit, a car, taxi,
walking, a bike. Obviously transit is used more heavily in low income
third world countries than in the US. A prediction equation is used,
not a fixed ratio for all places.

The equation says people use the transportation mode which is lowest
cost to them for the trip they will be taking.

The cost = out of pocket costs + half hourly pay rate while in a vehicle
+ full hourly pay rate for walking to /waiting for the vehicle.

Is it?

I'll bet that the average person does not think like
this when deciding which mode to use to go to
the airport for their family holiday.

The results are if they think like the equation as determined by
statistical analysis.

This would be a reasonable argument if your numbers
where 20% of hourly rate, but it is 100%.

As it seems certain to me that some people are valuing
their journey time at 0%, to get an average of 100%,
either these people were excluded from the survey or
many people value their journey time at 200% of
their wage.

I know which I think that it is.

I assume for almost everybody, it is not a conscious though process but
rather a gut feeling of which mode of travel is best for them to use.

As I have already pointed out, most people's gut feel
is that train is better than bus and they will use the
train provided that the fare is less than the cost
of driving plus parking (or taxi), even if it is more than
the cost of a bus alternative.

This isn't a theoretical result. It is an empirical result
mirrored at many locations where trains have been
built to an airport


will have a
monetary value. But the holidaymaker sitting at home
for an extra hour, before using a faster route to the
airport, has no monetary value at all. The holiday
maker is going to be much more interested in certainty
of arrival time and trains (usually) score well here.

The problem with most trains is the time lost getting to the train and the
time waiting for the train to get there. That is in the equation.

Time wasted getting to the train, waiting for the train, and the slow
speed of trains caused by all the stops is why people refuse to use
trains.

Actual experience on the ground shows that passangers
ARE generally prepared to use trains to the airport.

All the theoretrical mumbo jumbo in the world is not
going to make your assertion correct when the actual
evidence points in a different direction.


That is why trains are inherently a broken transportation system with no
real way to fix most train systems.

The only problem with trains, IMHO is that they cost too
much to build to test out the academic theory that no-one
will use them. On almost every occasion that the build
has gone ahead that theory has been shown to be broken.


tim

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline
company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane
since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the
advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which
is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.

On a very narrow market, which IMHO is not expandable to
other countries.

tim

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:23:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:15:22 -0700,
) wrote:

In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline
company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane
since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the
advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which
is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

You seem to be expecting logic and consistency from a person who has
demonstrated neither in the past.

Oh you mean the Nobel Prize winner that determined the resulting equation I
am using.
Wow you are a really mentally ****ed up loser.

No I mean you. If you ever win a Nobel prize, I will reconsider my
opinion of you.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:20:03 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline
company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane
since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the
advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which
is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.

Then you made a statement contradicting the work you had referred to.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"tim....." wrote in message
...
"Jack May" wrote in message
...
The equation says people use the transportation mode which is lowest
cost to them for the trip they will be taking.

The cost = out of pocket costs + half hourly pay rate while in a vehicle
+ full hourly pay rate for walking to /waiting for the vehicle.

Is it?

I'll bet that the average person does not think like
this when deciding which mode to use to go to
the airport for their family holiday.

The results are if they think like the equation as determined by
statistical analysis. I assume for almost everybody, it is not a
conscious though process but rather a gut feeling of which mode of travel
is best for them to use.

That, I'll agree with, mostly. Few people make that decision consciously,
nor do they have objective numbers available; they base their "gut" decision
on how long they _think_ each mode takes.

The reason why, is because most people have to
book *whole* days off from work and simply cannot
convert the odd hour or two back into money. The
exec sitting at work until the last possible moment
before jumping in a taxi to the airport will have a
monetary value. But the holidaymaker sitting at home
for an extra hour, before using a faster route to the
airport, has no monetary value at all. The holiday
maker is going to be much more interested in certainty
of arrival time and trains (usually) score well here.

The problem with most trains is the time lost getting to the train and the
time waiting for the train to get there. That is in the equation.

Time wasted getting to the train, waiting for the train, and the slow
speed of trains caused by all the stops is why people refuse to use
trains. That is why trains are inherently a broken transportation system
with no real way to fix most train systems.

That's compared to time wasted stuck in traffic, time wasted parking your
car, and time wasted walking from the parking lot to your actual
destination. There are places where the actual end-to-end travel time for
rail is _less_ than for a POV, and that's why rail is successful in those
places.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:
I have done no search on that topic. I do know that lines like BART
going to the San Francisco airport have been essentially a failure.

How do you know this?

From reports in the newspapers, comments by officials, and discussion on
newsgroups. BART to SFO is roughly $2B for essentially no significant
benefit.

A horrific waste of money, to be sure. They should have been able to do it
for a tenth that cost -- and without the fare penalty for using the SFO
station, which discourages use.

I note that you haven't specified how many people actually use the service,
though, nor the projections for expected use.

I don't think any other line has moved a lot of people to SFO.

What other lines are there?

I think there used to be Caltrain with bus connection to the airport. I
would never take transit to the airport and leave my car unprotected to be
vandalized in a transit parking lot.

As opposed to leaving it unprotected to be vandalized at home or in an
airport parking lot?

Given you have an obsessive hatred of transit, your position isn't
surprising. It's not common, though, as evidenced by the need to ban
overnight parking at P&R lots here on the line that connects to the airport
in order to keep the lots free for commuters.

I would expect transit to the NYC airports would be more successful than
any other airports in the US.

I suspect that rail transit to DCA, ATL, ORD, and MDW does even better.
Buses are virtually unused by passengers, in my experience, though some are
used by airport employees.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article , "Stephen Sprunk"
wrote:

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
I suspect that rail transit to DCA, ATL, ORD, and MDW does even better.
Buses are virtually unused by passengers, in my experience, though some are
used by airport employees.


The MAX line to the airport at PDX seems to be doing reasonably well
during at least some of the hours. The last time I went out there on the
train there were probably about 100 people on it until the stop at the
airport.

I can't speak for Gatwick, but London Heathrow airport trains seem to be
reasonably crowded. They have a first class car on that train (which gets
to the airport at the same time as the rest of the train, at considerably
greater expense and better comfort).

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.


And I am only showing examples where I know that this thesis doesn't hold
true, and wondering why.

Bus service between GRU and downtown is considerably more expensive on the
Airport Bus Service and sometimes slower (due to traffic congestion on the
roads) than the São Paulo metro, yet this bus service is popular enough to
run every half hour. The only difference is the amount of luggage space
and the comfort to the passengers.

At the London Heathrow airport, there is a free transit zone so that you
don't have to pay for a public bus. However, you have to pay a
significant amount for the airport van that also stops at all the hotels
the public bus does. The result is that the public bus is cheaper and
about the same speed as the hotel van. The public bus that I rode between
the hotel and Heathrow had no passengers other than our group, yet the
hotel van was quite crowded. The only real difference was the amount of
luggage space and the comfort to the passengers.

Brazil has both Leito class intercity buses and Executivo class intercity
buses. The "Commun" seems to be very rare these days, but at one time it
did exist. The only real difference between the three classes is the
comfort level to the passengers - speed is about the same if they serve
the same route, and Leito is far more expensive than "common" while
executivo is only quite a bit more expensive than "common". "Common" was
mostly eliminated due to few passengers wanting to ride in uncomfortable
buses (sometimes no air conditioning, seats recline about as far as
airline coach seats). Lots of "executivo" (seats recline to about 45
degree angle, free bottled water in the refrigerator, 100% chance of air
conditioning) and "leito" (yet more space, bigger selection of drinks,
sometimes an attendant plus the driver to serve the drinks and snacks at
the seat) class buses are in intercity service all over Brasil.

Even auto sales speaks volumes on comfort: if speed and cost were the only
considerations we would all be driving cheap cars with wooden bench seats
and no air conditioning.

So, while he may have won a Noble Prize for his research, there seem to be
factors that were neglected. On the other hand such items as comfort,
luggage space, security, and various other environmental factors are not
easily translated into mathematical numbers. Probably such items should
be the subject of future research.

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.