Prague Metro Plans Extension To Airport + New Line

wrote in message
...
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.

No, the difference is that the hotel van is advertised to
arriving pax and the local bus is not. I would bet that
no-one on the hotel van knew that the local bus was
even an option, let along what the fare would be.

tim

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.
No, the difference is that the hotel van is advertised to
arriving pax and the local bus is not. I would bet that
no-one on the hotel van knew that the local bus was
even an option, let along what the fare would be.

The same is true at Edinburgh - there is a local bus that takes
quite a lot longer than the "airport bus". But it's much cheaper
and goes a different route that might well get some arriving
passengers to their destination faster, and being less used it
has more space, which more than compensates for the lack of
special-purpose luggage racks. It isn't well advertised. (It's
the number 35, it you want to look it up).

The direct bus to Holesovice rail station isn't very well
advertised at Prague, either. I can't see why not, there's
no real difference in price - it just takes much longer to
detour through the metro.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

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.
Duh???

Take the UK, NOT by any means the most efficient railway system in the
world.

Medium-to-long distance example - Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
Time about 90 minutes, considerably quicker than either National Express
coach or private car via either M6/M1 or M42/M40. Stops at B'ham
International (Airport), Coventry, maybe Rugby or Milton Keynes, Watford
(setting down only for northern suburbs of London).

Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway. Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

People in Britain certainly moan about trains, but more people are using
them.

Alan Harrison

ALAN HARRISON wrote:

[]
People in Britain certainly moan about trains, but more people are using
them.

Indeed. I took the 1115 down to London from Manchester today, and it was
packed. A train at that time of day in 2000 would usually be quite
empty, and this isn't unusual. Further, although the new Pendolino
trains hold a _little_ less standard class passengers than the previous
trains, there are now two trains an hour during the day, compared to 1
an hour in 2000 (pre Hatfield- after that, things slumped for a while.)

The frequency is soon going up to three trains an hour- i.e. one every
20 minutes. And it won't suprise me if they are just as full as when
there were two trains an hour. And the journey time today was just over
2 hours, compared to the average 2h 50 minutes in 2000... (It was 2h 30
in 1976 though!!!)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:10 +0100, "ALAN HARRISON"
wrote:


"Jack May" wrote in message
m...

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.
Duh???

Take the UK, NOT by any means the most efficient railway system in the
world.

Medium-to-long distance example - Birmingham New Street to London Euston.
Time about 90 minutes, considerably quicker than either National Express
coach or private car via either M6/M1 or M42/M40. Stops at B'ham
International (Airport), Coventry, maybe Rugby or Milton Keynes, Watford
(setting down only for northern suburbs of London).

Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at
all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway.
Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in
rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

People in Britain certainly moan about trains, but more people are using
them.

Alan Harrison

Care to do Whitby to Newcastle in the evening or Leven to Whitby?

I didn't think it was even possible to do Whitby to Grosmont in
the evening.

It has to be said that Whitby gets the crappiest service of any
town of its size, that still has a railway station. (and whilst
that is deplorable, this doesn't make it the best example to use)

tim

ALAN HARRISON wrote:

[]
Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway. Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

Now that I'm travelling at around 40 miles more than a car can legally
drive here, sat backwards while reading usenet, listening to some new
pieces someone sent me today, checking my teaching schedule for
tomorrow, etc., I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Manchester
conductor recently. He lives outside the city, and says that the driving
into the city is becoming a nightmare. It was an easy drive 10 years
ago, he says, and is now so unpredictable he has to leave at least an
hour longer when he has an important engagement.

I think that the government are sleepwalking on this, but what's new. I
actually agree that congestion charging isn't the answer, because the
commuter trains etc. are already crowded to capacity. The idea is that
there will be more public transport investment, but that can't fix
things quickly. A city like Manchester is growing quickly, and hundreds
of thousands of jobs are going to be created over the next few years,
according to current predictions. That said, there's a lot of building
in the brownfield sites in the centre of the city. Maybe more people
will have to live in the city instead of commuting to it...

Though I obviously travel a lot over the UK in my work, not having to
commute into the centre of Manchester since moving is wonderful. It's
one of the best things we did, and I just regret not doing it sooner.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:38:27 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
[]

It has to be said that Whitby gets the crappiest service of any
town of its size, that still has a railway station. (and whilst
that is deplorable, this doesn't make it the best example to use)

Public services in Whitby are deplorable.

At a meeting in London a few days ago, we were celebrating not having to
go to Whitby (a possible venue for something) as it seemed as hard to
get to from Manchester as London....

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Martin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:10 +0100, "ALAN HARRISON"
wrote:
[]
People in Britain certainly moan about trains, but more people are using
them.

Alan Harrison

Care to do Whitby to Newcastle in the evening or Leven to Whitby?

That's all true, but you find weird anomalies in other countries too.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

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

"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:


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

Its 100% for walking or waiting. Everybody has the experience where it
seems like forever when you are waiting for some body or some vehicle to
pick you up. Walking also seems to make the time go more slowly, at least
in my experience.


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.

Well the research measured people acting as though they valued travel at
half there pay rate because a lot of uncertainty goes away once you are in
the vehicle.

You see that in airplanes where people try to get on the plane as soon as
possible even though they are going to leave at exactly the same time if
they are first or last on. Being first on removes a lot of uncertainty for
example if you are going to have room to store your stuff in the overhead
compartment.


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

I have seen no such research. Most people drive to the airport. I hardly
see any busses or trains at airports.

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.

It is also true for busses. You must remember the research is not
theoretical. It is the result of doing statistical analysis of real data,
not theoretical data.

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.

The reality is well known that only a small percent (1%) of people outside
NYC use transit. So the data clearly says people do not like to use trains
and busses. If you talk to people and ask them why they don't use transit
to commute, you get the same answer almost every time. Transit take far
too long to get to and from work.

Now you concocted a straw man lie that "academic theory that no-one will use
them"

Nobody except you is saying that. People are trying to figure out what
percentage of people will use different modes of transportation.

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
.. .
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"tim....." wrote in message
...
"Jack May" wrote in message
...
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.

Certainly in NYC, rail can be faster than using a car for many people.
Outside of NYC, in the US, the car is typically much faster as shown by the
Census data.

I really don't care about NYC since I doubt I will ever live there and I
have no desire to live there.