Hail of a ride for Cleese

[Marty Helgesen]

Under that headline there was a story in today's New York Post that
began:

"OSLO, Norway -- Monty Python comedian John Cleese was feeling
'Norwegian blue' about being stuck in Oslo after the ash plume from an
Icelandic volcano left travelers grounded -- so he opted for a daylong
cab ride halfway across Europe."

There also was a photograph of Cleese, captioned, "Pining to get out
of fjords."

The story was credited to Bloomberg News. I checked its web site and
found that the story there did not have the "Norwegian Blue" and
"pining for the fjords" references.

--
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm

All syllogisms have three parts. Therefore, this is not a syllogism.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Marty Helgesen
"OSLO, Norway -- Monty Python comedian John Cleese was feeling
'Norwegian blue' about being stuck in Oslo after the ash plume from
an Icelandic volcano left travelers grounded -- so he opted for a
daylong cab ride halfway across Europe."

The rich are not like you and I.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Marty Helgesen
"OSLO, Norway -- Monty Python comedian John Cleese was feeling
'Norwegian blue' about being stuck in Oslo after the ash plume from
an Icelandic volcano left travelers grounded -- so he opted for a
daylong cab ride halfway across Europe."

The rich are not like you and I.

Yes, they have more money.

pt

[netcat]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Marty Helgesen
"OSLO, Norway -- Monty Python comedian John Cleese was feeling
'Norwegian blue' about being stuck in Oslo after the ash plume from
an Icelandic volcano left travelers grounded -- so he opted for a
daylong cab ride halfway across Europe."

The rich are not like you and I.

You and I would have likely bought a cheap used car.

Well, not literally _you_ and _I_ since I don't have a driver's licence
and I gather you don't have one either. Cases like this are a good
argument for having one, though.

But that's what I hear the not-rich people who are currently stuck are
doing.

rgds,
netcat

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by netcat
You and I would have likely bought a cheap used car.

Actually, I have done the equivalent of hiring a cab in lieu
of a flight.

I once got stuck at LaGuardia when all shuttle flights to Boston
got canceled, allegedly due to thunderstorms. Myself and three
other businessmen ended up hiring a livery sedan to drive us to
Boston.

Since we split the ride 4 ways, it turned out to be less
expensive and faster than heading back into town to take a
train. My employer didn't even blink at the expense report.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Since we split the ride 4 ways, it turned out to be less expensive
and faster than heading back into town to take a train.

Why are train rides so expensive? They ought to be enormously cheaper
than four-person taxi rides, since a train needs no more drivers than
a taxi, but carries far more passengers, and consumes far less energy
per passenger.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Why are train rides so expensive? They ought to be enormously cheaper
than four-person taxi rides, since a train needs no more drivers than
a taxi, but carries far more passengers, and consumes far less energy
per passenger.

There are several answers to that question. First, the trip itself.
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston. My wife, bless her,
was willing to hang around town for the extra three hours. But we
would have ended up paying for those extra 7 legs both in time and
money.

We were also able to negotiate with the livery driver. We wouldn't
have been able to negotiate with Amtrak; instead we would have paid
the full walk-up fare each.

On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver. You're paying for
the entire crew of the train, the controllers, the reservation agents,
maintenance workers, plus all of the G&A staff. For the hourly
employees, you're paying them all union wages. About half of Amtrak's
annual expenses go towards salaries, wages, and benefits. In Amtrak's
Fiscal Year ending in September of 2009, this worked out to over
$62 per passenger trip taken in salaries alone. It would have been
less back then, but still more than our driver made.

The fuel figures are closer than you might think because of overhead
and Amtrak's low passenger load factors. At the time, it was well
under 50%. Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-
miles per gallon. The town car, which probably got around 18 miles
per gallon, got 72 passenger-miles to the gallon. But you have to
divide that in half since the driver had to deadhead back to NYC.
Result: Train: 41, Car: 36.

In addition to Salaries, Wages, Benefits and Energy, Amtrak's
Operating Results also include expense lines for Train Operations,
Materials, Facility & Communications, Advertising and Sales, Casualty
and Other Claims, Depreciation and "Other Expenses."

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241256467960

So for my particular trip, it was a matter of timing and location.
Had I known about the canceled flight _before_ taking a cab to
LGA, the train would have been a few dollars cheaper.

In general, train rides are expensive because of all those costs
you have to take into account besides the fuel and one driver.
In 2008, Amtrak ended up spending over $0.55 per passenger
mile.

[Cryptoengineer]

Why are train rides so expensive?  They ought to be enormously cheaper
than four-person taxi rides, since a train needs no more drivers than
a taxi, but carries far more passengers, and consumes far less energy
per passenger.

There are several answers to that question.  First, the trip itself.
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.  My wife, bless her,
was willing to hang around town for the extra three hours.  But we
would have ended up paying for those extra 7 legs both in time and
money.
We were also able to negotiate with the livery driver.  We wouldn't
have been able to negotiate with Amtrak; instead we would have paid
the full walk-up fare each.
On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver.  You're paying for
the entire crew of the train, the controllers, the reservation agents,
maintenance workers, plus all of the G&A staff.  For the hourly
employees, you're paying them all union wages.  About half of Amtrak's
annual expenses go towards salaries, wages, and benefits.  In Amtrak's
Fiscal Year ending in September of 2009, this worked out to over
$62 per passenger trip taken in salaries alone.  It would have been
less back then, but still more than our driver made.
The fuel figures are closer than you might think because of overhead
and Amtrak's low passenger load factors.  At the time, it was well
under 50%.  Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-
miles per gallon.  The town car, which probably got around 18 miles
per gallon, got 72 passenger-miles to the gallon.  But you have to
divide that in half since the driver had to deadhead back to NYC.
Result:  Train: 41, Car: 36.
In addition to Salaries, Wages, Benefits and Energy,  Amtrak's
Operating Results also include expense lines for Train Operations,
Materials, Facility & Communications, Advertising and Sales, Casualty
and Other Claims, Depreciation and "Other Expenses."
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/124125...
So for my particular trip, it was a matter of timing and location.
Had I known about the canceled flight _before_ taking a cab to
LGA, the train would have been a few dollars cheaper.
In general, train rides are expensive because of all those costs
you have to take into account besides the fuel and one driver.
In 2008, Amtrak ended up spending over $0.55 per passenger
mile.

At the moment, the GSA allowance for using POVs for business purposes
is $0.50/mile.

It would be cheaper to shut down Amtrak and lend passengers cars.
Considering the miniscule number of passengers Amtrak has compared to
the roads, the increase in road traffic would be lost in the noise.

pt

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Cryptoengineer
At the moment, the GSA allowance for using POVs for business purposes
is $0.50/mile.
It would be cheaper to shut down Amtrak and lend passengers cars.

I doubt very much that a government administered plan could manage
a motor pool/rental agency that efficiently, and for at least some
people like Keith you'd also have to lend drivers.

According to subsidyscope, Amtrak is actually profitable on the
Acela Express service, and is near breakeven on other Northeast
corridor service. But IIRC, the NYC-BOS Acela Express Fare is a
minimum of $95.00 for a 180-mile trip, which again is close to that
$0.55 per mile figure.

For at least one of the longer Amtrak routes, though, it would
literally be cheaper for the taxpayer to drive people to and from
the airport and buy them plane tickets.

[David Friedman]

Post by Michael Benveniste

Post by Cryptoengineer
At the moment, the GSA allowance for using POVs for business purposes
is $0.50/mile.
It would be cheaper to shut down Amtrak and lend passengers cars.

I doubt very much that a government administered plan could manage
a motor pool/rental agency that efficiently, and for at least some
people like Keith you'd also have to lend drivers.

Couldn't the government merely pay the cost of renting from private car
rental firms?

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by David Friedman
Couldn't the government merely pay the cost of renting from private car
rental firms?

Good point. Yes. But there are a few caveats to that "merely"
qualifier.

-- There's still going to be government oversight and hence overhead
for the program, even if the actual service is out of the private
sector.
-- The rental car companies can (and do) refuse to rent a car to people
based on age, previous driving record and/or lack of credit. So the
program would either have to exclude these higher risk drivers or
the government would incur the costs of insuring those risks.
-- I have doubts that the rental car companies can provide the service
at $0.55 per mile either. According to Enterprise/National/Alamo, a
rental car is driven an average of 71 miles a day. Profit margins in
the industry run about 5%. So unless the average "all-in" price of
rental cars is $41 or less per day, they aren't reaching that price
point today.

But I don't know what that average price is, nor the additional costs
incurred for one-way rentals, nor how to adjust for fuel costs, since
sometimes the customer pays the rental firm (at a very nice markup!)
and sometimes they buy it themselves. Compared to privately owned
vehicles, there are other differences in the cost structure as well.

[Jette Goldie]

Post by Michael Benveniste

Post by David Friedman
Couldn't the government merely pay the cost of renting from private car
rental firms?

Good point. Yes. But there are a few caveats to that "merely"
qualifier.
-- There's still going to be government oversight and hence overhead
for the program, even if the actual service is out of the private
sector.
-- The rental car companies can (and do) refuse to rent a car to people
based on age, previous driving record and/or lack of credit. So the
program would either have to exclude these higher risk drivers or
the government would incur the costs of insuring those risks.
-- I have doubts that the rental car companies can provide the service
at $0.55 per mile either. According to Enterprise/National/Alamo, a
rental car is driven an average of 71 miles a day. Profit margins in
the industry run about 5%. So unless the average "all-in" price of
rental cars is $41 or less per day, they aren't reaching that price
point today.
But I don't know what that average price is, nor the additional costs
incurred for one-way rentals, nor how to adjust for fuel costs, since
sometimes the customer pays the rental firm (at a very nice markup!)
and sometimes they buy it themselves. Compared to privately owned
vehicles, there are other differences in the cost structure as well.

Surely this misses the point of "letting the train take the strain"?
When I take a train journey it's because it's a longer journey than I
want to drive. I'm paying for the convenience sitting down in my
train seat, turning on my netbook and logging into the free wifi,
enjoying the scenery passing me by as I drink coffee and eat
sandwiches without worrying about watching out for other drivers,
changing lanes, not missing my turnings, keeping my speed within the
legal limits, etc - and not having to find a parking place in the
centre of a strange city at my destination.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Jette Goldie
Surely this misses the point of "letting the train take the strain"?
When I take a train journey it's because it's a longer journey than I
want to drive. I'm paying for the convenience sitting down in my
train seat, turning on my netbook and logging into the free wifi,
enjoying the scenery passing me by as I drink coffee and eat
sandwiches without worrying about watching out for other drivers,
changing lanes, not missing my turnings, keeping my speed within the
legal limits, etc - and not having to find a parking place in the
centre of a strange city at my destination.

The initial question was why is the train so expensive. If you're
willing to pay nearly the full price for that convenience, I'm cool
with that even if it's more expensive than driving a car.

But Amtrak was created because the railroads wanted to get out
of the passenger rail business. In fact, they wanted out so much
that they paid Amtrak either in cash or rolling stock to be allowed
to exit the business. Amtrak has never come close to break even;
it's probably both unrealistic and unfair to expect them to. But
for the service offered, Amtrak's losses seem high. In fact,
they spend over $3 for every $2 of revenue. So it's not terribly
surprising that there are calls to shut it down or find alternatives.

Trying to compute comparative direct and indirect subsidies for
different forms of transportation is more of a political exercise
than an actuarial one. The numbers _I_ like put the per-mile
losses at Amtrak at about 3 times that of the net indirect and
direct subsidies for automobile travel, and Amtrak benefits from
some of the same indirect subsidies as well.

Other people like other numbers. Hence the debate.

[Keith F. Lynch]

But Amtrak was created because the railroads wanted to get out of
the passenger rail business. In fact, they wanted out so much that
they paid Amtrak either in cash or rolling stock to be allowed to
exit the business.

Allowed to exit? Since when did any business need government
permission to drop a service?

Amtrak has never come close to break even; it's probably both
unrealistic and unfair to expect them to.

Especially if they have to compete against subsidized modes of
transportation. I think all subsidies should be ended: Rail,
air, bus, and, of course, car.

But for the service offered, Amtrak's losses seem high. In fact,
they spend over $3 for every $2 of revenue. So it's not terribly
surprising that there are calls to shut it down or find alternatives.

I suspect Amtrak is overstaffed and its employees overpaid, as is
typical whenever there are vast amounts of government money available.
Passenger rail used to turn a profit.

By aping airline security, Amtrak missed the opportunity to tap the
disgruntled airline passenger market. It's not too late for them
to correct their mistake. We've seen, on 9/11 and again with the
recent volcano, that airline travel is fragile and alternatives are
necessary, even if everyone was willing to fly and allowed to do so,
which of course is not the case.

Trying to compute comparative direct and indirect subsidies for
different forms of transportation is more of a political exercise
than an actuarial one. The numbers _I_ like put the per-mile losses
at Amtrak at about 3 times that of the net indirect and direct
subsidies for automobile travel, and Amtrak benefits from some of
the same indirect subsidies as well.
Other people like other numbers. Hence the debate.

But how much of those subsidies benefit the passengers, and how much
do they benefit Amtrak's employees and contractors?

Anyhow, automobile travel cannot substitute for mass transit, except
partially and imperfectly, as millions of people are unable to safely
drive cars. Also, there isn't enough road capacity and aren't enough
parking spaces, were everyone to drive.

[Doug Wickström]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:17:20 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Passenger rail used to turn a profit.

Not, on the whole, in North America it didn't. Most passenger
rail existed to move the mails. Seats for individual paying
customers were a side effect.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

But Amtrak was created because the railroads wanted to get out of
the passenger rail business. In fact, they wanted out so much that
they paid Amtrak either in cash or rolling stock to be allowed to
exit the business.

Allowed to exit? Since when did any business need government
permission to drop a service?

When they are a regulated business, as the railroads were and are.
The history of railroads and government interaction is a fascinating
one, but there are better sources than I for it.

The statutory language can be found in section 404 of the
Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. My Google-foo is weak
tonight, I can only find this ugly copy:

http://ftp.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Passenger rail used to turn a profit.

Overall in the U.S.? Not in my lifetime. The last year passenger
rail was profitable was probably in the 1947-1950 range.

[Doug Wickström]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:09:17 -0400, "Michael Benveniste"

Post by Michael Benveniste
The last year passenger
rail was profitable was probably in the 1947-1950 range.

1942-1945, more likely.

[Keith F. Lynch]

The last year passenger rail was profitable was probably in the
1947-1950 range.

Then maybe the railroads should go back to whatever they were
doing then.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The last year passenger rail was profitable was probably in the
1947-1950 range.

Then maybe the railroads should go back to whatever they were
doing then.

You mean, they should rip up the Interstate system and shut down the
airlines? That's the only way passenger trains could become
competitive.

They didn't fail because they changed. They failed because the world
changed around them. They couldn't change enough to compete.

pt

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Then maybe the railroads should go back to whatever they were
doing then.

You mean, they should rip up the Interstate system and shut down
the airlines? That's the only way passenger trains could become
competitive.

It's not an "all or nothing" situation. Where population densities
and distances between commercial centers are similar to those in
Europe and Japan, I honestly believe passenger trains could be
competitive. Just not under Amtrak and not if they have to bear
the financial burden of the past and current idiocies.

Post by Cryptoengineer
They didn't fail because they changed. They failed because the
world changed around them. They couldn't change enough to
compete.

The failure of U.S. passenger rail was a public-private partnership.
The seeds of it's doom had already sprouted before the first U.S.
passenger jet service ever flew or Eisenhower signed the
Federal-Aid Highway Act.

Post WW-II, the political process strongly favored cars, trucks, and
planes over trains and trams. There was even a special leftover
"luxury tax" on train tickets. There are a lot of reasons for this,
but one of them is that the railroads had already chosen to focus on
the more profitable freight business. During the 1950's and 1960's
railroads underinvested in infrastructure and tech as well; they were
hardly alone among U.S. heavy industries in this regard.

But even before that Congress had saddled the industry with its own
Railroad Retirement System with more generous benefits and a higher
financial burder than Social Security. Amtrak is almost certainly
still paying survivor benefits granted for workers it never employed
-- I know as recently as 2005 they were still paying pre-Amtrak
retirees directly.

[Ben Yalow]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The last year passenger rail was profitable was probably in the
1947-1950 range.

Then maybe the railroads should go back to whatever they were
doing then.

(a) Uninvent large/cheap passenger aircraft.
(b) Regulate rail prices to keep them very high, and for any airplanes you
haven't uninvented, regulate their prices to keep them high.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Ben

[Jette Goldie]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

The last year passenger rail was profitable was probably in the
1947-1950 range.

Then maybe the railroads should go back to whatever they were
doing then.

you mean like "not having to compete with air travel"?

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:17:20 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Anyhow, automobile travel cannot substitute for mass transit, except
partially and imperfectly, as millions of people are unable to safely
drive cars.

Millions of people are bed-ridden and cannot use mass transit.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Also, there isn't enough road capacity and aren't enough
parking spaces, were everyone to drive.

[Michael Stemper]

Post by David V. Loewe, Jr

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Anyhow, automobile travel cannot substitute for mass transit, except
partially and imperfectly, as millions of people are unable to safely
drive cars.

Millions of people are bed-ridden and cannot use mass transit.

If they can ride a bed, why would they want to ride mass transit? Thanks.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

Post by Michael Stemper

Post by Doug Wickström
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:17:20 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Anyhow, automobile travel cannot substitute for mass transit, except
partially and imperfectly, as millions of people are unable to safely
drive cars.

Millions of people are bed-ridden and cannot use mass transit.

If they can ride a bed, why would they want to ride mass transit? Thanks.

How is the veal?

[Doug Wickström]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:57:21 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Michael Stemper

Post by David V. Loewe, Jr

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Anyhow, automobile travel cannot substitute for mass transit, except
partially and imperfectly, as millions of people are unable to safely
drive cars.

Millions of people are bed-ridden and cannot use mass transit.

If they can ride a bed, why would they want to ride mass transit? Thanks.

No, no, the beds ride them, and being bed-ridden (it's like being
hag-ridden, except waking up doesn't stop the riding), the don't
fit through doors, in seats, or in the aisles.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer
It would be cheaper to shut down Amtrak and lend passengers cars.

Including children? Blind people? People short on sleep, who will
fall asleep within minutes of starting their trip whether they want
to or not? Acela passengers, who need to get to their destination
by a certain time that would require driving at 150 miles per hour?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

Post by Michael Benveniste
On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver. You're paying
for the entire crew of the train,

The entire crew? Aren't the dining car and the snack bar self-
supporting? They certainly charge enough.

Post by Michael Benveniste
the controllers, the reservation agents, maintenance workers, plus
all of the G&A staff.

But how many passengers per employee? You can take a bus for less
than $20, though the bus requires, not just a driver, but mechanics,
cleaners, ticket sellers, etc. Of course one mechanic can service
more than one bus, but the same is true of trains. Similarly with
ticket sellers.

Post by Michael Benveniste
For the hourly employees, you're paying them all union wages.

Similarly with Metro. And Metro employees, already very well paid,
are actually getting hefty raises at the peak of the recssion, even as
Metro is unable to break even despite increasing subsidies and high
fares. Obama should follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Truman, and
bust the unions. Everyone should get a living wage, but not be able
to hold America hostage to extortionate wage and benefit demands. For
every Metro and Amtrak employee, there are probably a dozen people out
of work who are willing and able to do the same work for less than
half the wages.

Post by Michael Benveniste
About half of Amtrak's annual expenses go towards salaries, wages,
and benefits. In Amtrak's Fiscal Year ending in September of 2009,
this worked out to over $62 per passenger trip taken in salaries
alone.

I certainly didn't receive $62 worth of benefit during any Amtrak ride
I've ever taken, not counting the benefit of the ride itself, which
directly required no employee except the driver.

Post by Michael Benveniste
Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-miles per gallon.

Isn't most of the northeast corridor electrified?

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

I've ridden (regular) Amtrak from NYC to Boston and back many times.
I've also driven the same route many times. I can state categorically,
from personal experience, that driving will be faster than regular
Amtrak outside of times of extraordinary congestion. Acela, when and
if it operates at full speed, is faster station to station, but only
by 30-60 minutes. It will lose door-to-door unless your start and
destination are both a few minutes walk from the station, and you
don't have to wait for the train Going intermodal loses a lot of
time.

Certainly, driving directly from LaGuardia to Logan will usually be
faster than [Airtrain to Penn Station, 30 minutes][wait for next
Amtrak to South Station 0-2 hours][3.5 - 5 hours on train][wait for
Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go one stop][wait for
Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan terminals][short bus
ride]. That's 6 legs, and 5 transfers. Hope you packed light.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver.  You're paying
for the entire crew of the train,
the controllers, the reservation agents, maintenance workers, plus
all of the G&A staff.

But how many passengers per employee?  You can take a bus for less
than $20, though the bus requires, not just a driver, but mechanics,
cleaners, ticket sellers, etc.  Of course one mechanic can service
more than one bus, but the same is true of trains.  Similarly with
ticket sellers.

Amtrak has around 19,000 employees. In 2008, it sold 28.7million
tickets.
That's 78,600 tickets a day. So, on any given day, there are about 4
tickets sold per employee.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
For the hourly employees, you're paying them all union wages.

[Keith's standard Metro rant deleted. Briefly, he thinks they're
overpaid]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
About half of Amtrak's annual expenses go towards salaries, wages,
and benefits.  In Amtrak's Fiscal Year ending in September of 2009,
this worked out to over $62 per passenger trip taken in salaries
alone.

I certainly didn't receive $62 worth of benefit during any Amtrak ride
I've ever taken, not counting the benefit of the ride itself, which
directly required no employee except the driver.

I guess Keith can do without anyone operating the signals to stop
collisions.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-miles per gallon.

Isn't most of the northeast corridor electrified?

Sorry, the electricity fairies don't give Amtrak free power. Replace
with 'fuel or fuel equivalent', OK?

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

... [wait for Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go
one stop][wait for Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan
terminals][short bus ride]. ...

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that in both DC and Boston the
main railroad station is on the Red Line and the main aiport is on
the Blue Line.

At least in the DC system, the airport is directly on the subway.
And every two subway lines intersect, so there's never any need for
double transfers except when they've shut a segment of a line down
for maintenance (or due to a sick passenger, a "suspicious package,"
or yet another suicide).

So, on any given day, there are about 4 tickets sold per employee.

Wouldn't you agree that that's overstaffed?

And, once again, I don't think people who work in the snack bar, the
dining car, or the kitchen for the dining car should be counted, as
those are, or ought to be, self supporting, costing passengers who
don't use them nothing.

I guess Keith can do without anyone operating the signals to stop
collisions.

What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored lanterns?
Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually operated any
more than traffic lights?

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

... [wait for Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go
one stop][wait for Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan
terminals][short bus ride]. ...

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that in both DC and Boston the
main railroad station is on the Red Line and the main aiport is on
the Blue Line.
At least in the DC system, the airport is directly on the subway.
And every two subway lines intersect, so there's never any need for
double transfers except when they've shut a segment of a line down
for maintenance (or due to a sick passenger, a "suspicious package,"
or yet another suicide).

So, on any given day, there are about 4 tickets sold per employee.

Wouldn't you agree that that's overstaffed?
And, once again, I don't think people who work in the snack bar, the
dining car, or the kitchen for the dining car should be counted, as
those are, or ought to be, self supporting, costing passengers who
don't use them nothing.

I guess Keith can do without anyone operating the signals to stop
collisions.

What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored lanterns?
Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually operated any
more than traffic lights?

I'll let the rail nerds answer that. Lets just say its a problem of
similar scale and complexity to Air Traffic Control.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

... [wait for Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go
one stop][wait for Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan
terminals][short bus ride]. ...

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that in both DC and Boston the
main railroad station is on the Red Line and the main aiport is on
the Blue Line.

So you concede that going from LaGuardia to Logan, with luggage but
without a plane, is Traveller Hell? You are certainly trying to evade
my main point.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

So, on any given day, there are about 4 tickets sold per employee.

Wouldn't you agree that that's overstaffed?

Yes. Amtrak should be shut down, at least outside the NE corridor.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

I guess Keith can do without anyone operating the signals to stop
collisions.

What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored lanterns?
Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually operated any
more than traffic lights?

I'll let the rail nerds answer that. Lets just say its a problem of
comparable scope to Air Traffic Control.

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer
So you concede that going from LaGuardia to Logan, with luggage but
without a plane, is Traveller Hell?

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised. Just like any other travel.
It's no coincidence that "travel" and "travail" look and sound
much alike.

But why would anyone ever want to go to either LaGuardia or Logan if
they weren't flying? Rail has the advantage of being downtown-to-
downtown rather than middle-of-nowhere-to-middle-of-nowhere.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

So, on any given day, there are about 4 tickets sold per employee.

Wouldn't you agree that that's overstaffed?

Yes. Amtrak should be shut down, at least outside the NE corridor.

Non sequitur. The solution to overstaffing isn't shutting the whole
business down, it's attrition or selective layoffs.

If 9/11 didn't prove we need non-airline forms of long distance mass
transit, the recent volcano certainly did.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored
lanterns? Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually
operated any more than traffic lights?

I'll let the rail nerds answer that. Lets just say its a problem of
comparable scope to Air Traffic Control.

I doubt that. One dimension, with a few switch tracks, is very
different from three dimensions.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer
So you concede that going from LaGuardia to Logan, with luggage but
without a plane, is Traveller Hell?

I don't know.  I wouldn't be surprised.  Just like any other travel.
It's no coincidence that "travel" and "travail" look and sound
much alike.
But why would anyone ever want to go to either LaGuardia or Logan if
they weren't flying?  Rail has the advantage of being downtown-to-
downtown rather than middle-of-nowhere-to-middle-of-nowhere.

My goodness, your memory must be going. The circumstance was 4
businessmen returning home from NY to Boston. They were at LGA and
found the plane cancelled. Their cars were parked at Logan.

Taking the train would have been slower than driving, as we've
exhaustively established, and cars go city center to city center,
almost always to within a few yards of your destination. No need to
get a taxi, or public transit, with the delays an inconvenience that
always entails.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

So, on any given day, there are about 4 tickets sold per employee.

Wouldn't you agree that that's overstaffed?

Yes.  Amtrak should be shut down, at least outside the NE corridor.

Non sequitur.  The solution to overstaffing isn't shutting the whole
business down, it's attrition or selective layoffs.

Please prove that they are overstaffed. Can you, for example, give
figures for countries that have rail systems you think work?

If 9/11 didn't prove we need non-airline forms of long distance mass
transit, the recent volcano certainly did.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored
lanterns?  Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually
operated any more than traffic lights?

I'll let the rail nerds answer that. Lets just say its a problem of
comparable scope to Air Traffic Control.

I doubt that.  One dimension, with a few switch tracks, is very
different from three dimensions.

Try thinking:. It's a two dimensional network, with many trains
travelling at different speeds, directions, and schedules. What's
more, they can't steer out of the way of trouble, as can most other
vehicles.

pt

[Doug Wickström]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
Try thinking:. It's a two dimensional network, with many trains
travelling at different speeds, directions, and schedules. What's
more, they can't steer out of the way of trouble, as can most other
vehicles.

And for the most part, Amtrak doesn't own the ROW, and has to
give way to trains belonging to the owners. IOW, the fast
passenger train has to pull onto a siding and wait for the slow
freight to go by.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Doug Wickström
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
Try thinking:. It's a two dimensional network, with many trains
travelling at different speeds, directions, and schedules. What's
more, they can't steer out of the way of trouble, as can most other
vehicles.

And for the most part, Amtrak doesn't own the ROW, and has to
give way to trains belonging to the owners.  IOW, the fast
passenger train has to pull onto a siding and wait for the slow
freight to go by.

According to Wikipedia, federal law requires dispatchers to give
priority to Amtrak trains over (more profitable) freight, but this was
widely ignored until a couple of years ago, when there was an
investigation and crackdown.

pt

[Nate Edel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If 9/11 didn't prove we need non-airline forms of long distance mass
transit, the recent volcano certainly did.

A transatlantic rail tunnel would be wicked cool, even if I couldn't get
into the Harry Harrison novel about one when I last tried it.

[netcat]

In article <***@claudius.sfchat.org>, ***@sfchat.org
says...

Post by Nate Edel

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If 9/11 didn't prove we need non-airline forms of long distance mass
transit, the recent volcano certainly did.

A transatlantic rail tunnel would be wicked cool, even if I couldn't get
into the Harry Harrison novel about one when I last tried it.

I don't usually consider myself claustrophobic, but that's one ride I
would not take.

rgds,
netcat

[Doug Wickström]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:55:04 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored lanterns?
Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually operated any
more than traffic lights?

Snrch! I see you know as much about railroading as you do about
driving.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Doug Wickström

Post by Keith F. Lynch
What, Amtrak uses men standing by the track waving colored
lanterns? Why should modern railroad signals need to be manually
operated any more than traffic lights?

Snrch! I see you know as much about railroading as you do about
driving.

If you're so smart, how about acting fannish for once, and explaining
it to us, instead of lording it over us ignorant masses.

I see that you've at least managed to fix your name so it appears
correctly.

[Ben Yalow]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

No -- the rail link is to JFK. There is no rail link to LaGuardia.

I can drive from my house in the Bronx to LGA in under 20 minutes, not
counting traffic delays. The best I can do with mass transit is probably
about 2 hours -- subway into Manhattan, subway out to Queens, bus from the
stop a few miles away.

Post by Cryptoengineer
I've ridden (regular) Amtrak from NYC to Boston and back many times.
I've also driven the same route many times. I can state categorically,
from personal experience, that driving will be faster than regular
Amtrak outside of times of extraordinary congestion. Acela, when and
if it operates at full speed, is faster station to station, but only
by 30-60 minutes. It will lose door-to-door unless your start and
destination are both a few minutes walk from the station, and you
don't have to wait for the train Going intermodal loses a lot of
time.

Getting from LGA to Penn Station will take about an hour by mass transit.
You can save time by taking an airport bus to midtown, but they don't run
anywhere near as often -- so it'll take a 30-40 minutes plus bus wait
time.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Certainly, driving directly from LaGuardia to Logan will usually be
faster than [Airtrain to Penn Station, 30 minutes][wait for next
Amtrak to South Station 0-2 hours][3.5 - 5 hours on train][wait for
Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go one stop][wait for
Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan terminals][short bus
ride]. That's 6 legs, and 5 transfers. Hope you packed light.

Scheduled time for a non-Acela on New York-Boston is 4 hours on the
regular train, and 3-1/2 hours on the Acela. I can (and have) driven from
my house to Back Bay in under 3-1/2 hours. LGA would only add less than a
half hour, so total drive time would be less than the scheduled time of
the train trip. And that doesn't count time to get to Penn Station, or
waiting time since trains only leave every hour or so.

So it takes longer than driving. And, if you've got more than one person
in the car, then it's cheaper to drive, as well as faster.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver. =A0You're paying
for the entire crew of the train,
the controllers, the reservation agents, maintenance workers, plus
all of the G&A staff.

But how many passengers per employee? =A0You can take a bus for less
than $20, though the bus requires, not just a driver, but mechanics,
cleaners, ticket sellers, etc. =A0Of course one mechanic can service
more than one bus, but the same is true of trains. =A0Similarly with
ticket sellers.

Amtrak has around 19,000 employees. In 2008, it sold 28.7million
tickets.
That's 78,600 tickets a day. So, on any given day, there are about 4
tickets sold per employee.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
For the hourly employees, you're paying them all union wages.

[Keith's standard Metro rant deleted. Briefly, he thinks they're
overpaid]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
About half of Amtrak's annual expenses go towards salaries, wages,
and benefits. =A0In Amtrak's Fiscal Year ending in September of 2009,
this worked out to over $62 per passenger trip taken in salaries
alone.

I certainly didn't receive $62 worth of benefit during any Amtrak ride
I've ever taken, not counting the benefit of the ride itself, which
directly required no employee except the driver.

I guess Keith can do without anyone operating the signals to stop
collisions.

None of them (or the people selling tickets, or collecting them, or
repairing the trains, etc.) are presumably directly required.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-miles per gallon.

Isn't most of the northeast corridor electrified?

Sorry, the electricity fairies don't give Amtrak free power. Replace
with 'fuel or fuel equivalent', OK?
pt

Ben

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

No -- the rail link is to JFK.  There is no rail link to LaGuardia.

You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over 20
years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both the Penn
- JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal monorail at
LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't know how good
the link is from there to Penn.

So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.

pt

[Ben Yalow]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know tha=

t

Post by Cryptoengineer

South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

No -- the rail link is to JFK. =A0There is no rail link to LaGuardia.

You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over 20
years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both the Penn
- JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal monorail at
LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't know how good
the link is from there to Penn.

The interterminal monorail/NJT link is for EWR (Newark), not LGA.

LGA is the closest in, and most convenient to drive to, airport of the
three. It has the worst mass transit connections. You end up taking
either the subway or the LIRR to a stop well over a mile away, and then a
local bus to the airport.

Post by Cryptoengineer
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.
pt

Ben

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Ben Yalow

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know tha=

t

Post by Cryptoengineer

South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

No -- the rail link is to JFK. =A0There is no rail link to LaGuardia.

You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over 20
years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both the Penn
- JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal monorail at
LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't know how good
the link is from there to Penn.

The interterminal monorail/NJT link is for EWR (Newark), not LGA.
LGA is the closest in, and most convenient to drive to, airport of the
three.  It has the worst mass transit connections.  You end up taking
either the subway or the LIRR to a stop well over a mile away, and then a
local bus to the airport.

Post by Cryptoengineer
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.
pt

Error upon error - I shouldn't post so early in the AM.

1. JFK (south coast of Long Island, in Queens) has a good rail link to
Penn.
2. LaGuardia (on north coast of Long Island, in Queens) is lousy, as
Ben lists above.
3. Newark (in NJ) has the intra-airport monorail connecting to the
train system. Better than LGA, worse than JFK.

Have I got it right this time?

pt

[Ben Yalow]

Cr=3D

Post by Ben Yalow

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know =

tha=3D

Post by Ben Yalow

Post by Cryptoengineer
t

Post by Cryptoengineer

South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

No -- the rail link is to JFK. =3DA0There is no rail link to LaGuardia=

.

Post by Ben Yalow

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over 20
years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both the Penn
- JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal monorail at
LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't know how good
the link is from there to Penn.

The interterminal monorail/NJT link is for EWR (Newark), not LGA.
LGA is the closest in, and most convenient to drive to, airport of the
three. =A0It has the worst mass transit connections. =A0You end up taking
either the subway or the LIRR to a stop well over a mile away, and then a
local bus to the airport.

Post by Cryptoengineer
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.
pt

Error upon error - I shouldn't post so early in the AM.
1. JFK (south coast of Long Island, in Queens) has a good rail link to
Penn.
2. LaGuardia (on north coast of Long Island, in Queens) is lousy, as
Ben lists above.
3. Newark (in NJ) has the intra-airport monorail connecting to the
train system. Better than LGA, worse than JFK.
Have I got it right this time?

Yes.

pt

Ben

[Nate Edel]

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over 20
years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both the Penn
- JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal monorail at
LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't know how good
the link is from there to Penn.

The latter (hence NJT) is EWR (Newark) - no New Jersey Transit in Queens.
That was a typo, right?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over
20 years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both
the Penn - JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal
monorail at LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't
know how good the link is from there to Penn.
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.

Not so fast. I saw you palm that card. Maybe the transit station
isn't right at the airline terminal, unlike at DCA, but neither is
your parking space. Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over
20 years ago, so I did a quick check.  'Airtrain' refers to both
the Penn - JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal
monorail at LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station.  I don't
know how good the link is from there to Penn.
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through.  A car looks better and better.

Not so fast.  I saw you palm that card.  Maybe the transit station
isn't right at the airline terminal, unlike at DCA, but neither is
your parking space.  Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

Your are right. So you have to wait for transit, and transfer you're
luggage 7 times on public transit, vs 2 moves and 1 wait with the car,
to get from LGA to BOS without a plaine. And it will take, according
to Ben, at least an hour less time, and be cheaper if more than one
person is involved.

Car still wins.

pt

[Nate Edel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
your parking space. Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

Depends on the size of the airport; one I use semi-regularly (Santa Barbara,
CA) is too small to need one, and you can walk from the airport terminal to
either the short term (very often walkable) and long term (usually not
walkable) parking lots.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Nate Edel
Depends on the size of the airport; one I use semi-regularly (Santa Barbara,
CA) is too small to need one, and you can walk from the airport terminal to
either the short term (very often walkable) and long term (usually not
walkable) parking lots.

The same is true of Logan. You walk to your car unless you are using long-
term parking, overflow parking, or a private competitor.

In fact, at the time of this specific "adventure," the parking for the Agony
Air BOS-LGA shuttle was directly above the gates and ticket area in Logan
Terminal A.

[Ben Yalow]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over
20 years ago, so I did a quick check. 'Airtrain' refers to both
the Penn - JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal
monorail at LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station. I don't
know how good the link is from there to Penn.
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through. A car looks better and better.

Not so fast. I saw you palm that card. Maybe the transit station
isn't right at the airline terminal, unlike at DCA, but neither is
your parking space. Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

Some do, some don't. My next flight will be out of LGA. If I drive to
the airport, I may have to walk as little as a few hundred feet (depending
on how good a parking space I get) to get to the terminal from my car.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Ben

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer
You're right - the last time I took public transit to LGA was over
20 years ago, so I did a quick check.  'Airtrain' refers to both
the Penn - JFK link (which is excellent), and the inter-terminal
monorail at LGA which has a stop at a NJT/Amtrak station.  I don't
know how good the link is from there to Penn.
So, add in another intermodal wait, and another location to hump
luggage through.  A car looks better and better.

Not so fast.  I saw you palm that card.  Maybe the transit station
isn't right at the airline terminal, unlike at DCA, but neither is
your parking space.  Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

Some do, some don't.  My next flight will be out of LGA.  If I drive to
the airport, I may have to walk as little as a few hundred feet (depending
on how good a parking space I get) to get to the terminal from my car.

This is true. Every airport I'm aware of has short-term parking within
walking distance of the terminals ('walking' may include slidewalks).
At Logan, I use this unless I'm away more than a few days. But the
scenario I was discussing with Keith involved renting a car. Over the
past 20 years, more and more airports have moved car rental out of the
short term parking facility to some place on the periphery, requiring
a ride to get to.

pt

[Tim McDaniel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Airports have shuttle buses going from the
parking lots to the terminal -- another intermodal wait.

Bergstrom (the Austin, Texas, main airport) is large enough to need
shuttle buses. However, I use Airport Fast Park, a chain that's in 12
cities, which provides off-site parking. When I enter the lot to
park, a shuttle bus has always followed me as I drive to a parking
space [1], so there's little delay. When I return, there's always
been a bus waiting at the pickup zone, it has left within 5 minutes,
and because I hand back a piece of paper that has my space ID on it,
the 3-9 people on the bus get delivered to their cars in an efficient
manner.

So it *is* intermodal, and there *is* a delay, but at least it's
reasonably fast and efficient.


[1] Well, that implies that there's just me on the bus, so what's the
point of a *bus*? To be more precise, when a customer is entering and
picking up the ticket, they instruct them to "Park in row B" or some
other specific row, and several cars in sequence are told the same
row. [2] So the bus actually follows the first car. The next few
cars pull past the stopped bus and the first person to park and who is
now gathering all their travel stuff from their car; these following
cars park in spaces further up the row, and being a few spaces away,
they are served quickly.

[2] This works because the rows are long and, in my experience, there
have always been enough free spaces per row so that several cars can
be sent to the same row quickly. Also, at times that I fly, traffic
flow is high enough that several cars do arrive close together.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Tim McDaniel
Bergstrom (the Austin, Texas, main airport) is large enough to need
shuttle buses. However, I use Airport Fast Park, a chain that's in 12
cities, which provides off-site parking.

Katie and I happen to live right on a bus line that goes directly to
Houston Hobby Airport. Unfortunately, when we visit the SF Bay Area,
the time that's most convenient to return gets us back after that line
stops running. We therefore usually do something similar.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Cryptoengineer
Certainly, driving directly from LaGuardia to Logan will usually be
faster than [Airtrain to Penn Station, 30 minutes][wait for next
Amtrak to South Station 0-2 hours][3.5 - 5 hours on train][wait for
Red Line][go one stop][wait for Yellow line][go one stop][wait for
Blue line][go 3 stops][wait for bus to Logan terminals][short bus
ride]. That's 6 legs, and 5 transfers. Hope you packed light.

As of Jun 1, 2005 you didn't have to do the Red/Orange/Blue line
dance any more. Instead, you climb on a Silver line bus at
South Station and it takes you right to the terminal:

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/lines/?route=SILVER

[Nate Edel]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
We would have had to get from LaGuardia to Manhattan to catch the
train, then the three other guys would have had to get from South
Station to their cars at Logan airport in Boston.

I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

There's actually a pretty good rail link from Penn Station to
LaGuardia.

Since when? The last mile or two to LaGuardia required a connection to a
bus the last time I looked - and I think it's slightly longer from the LIRR
(61st St, IIRC), which is the straight shot from Penn, than it is from the
#7 which comes off of times square. Maybe you can go straight from Penn to
one of the lines that goes under Northern? (**)


Granted, the last I looked specifically was probably 7-8 years ago, but
except for the extension of the 63rd street tunnel line to meet up at Queens
Plaza, NW Queens has not been a hotbed of new transit development.

(** OK ... http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm ... yeah, E straight
from Penn to 74th would be the direct most route, and Google maps seems to
agree.)

Post by Cryptoengineer
Certainly, driving directly from LaGuardia to Logan will usually be
faster than [Airtrain to Penn Station, 30 minutes]

Airtrain? I think that the extension from JFK to the subway or LIRR, not to
LGA.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
I don't know about getting from LaGuardia to Manhattan, but I know that
South Station and Logan Airport are both on Boston's subway system.

Quite true. At the time, you had to take the Red Line, transfer to either
the Orange Line or the Green Line, then transfer again to the Blue Line,
and then take an airport shuttle bus from there. When I was younger,
I'd do that on my own dime, but not on expense report with luggage
at around 11 pm.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
On Amtrak, you aren't just paying for one driver. You're paying
for the entire crew of the train,

The entire crew? Aren't the dining car and the snack bar self-
supporting? They certainly charge enough.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it all gets wrapped up in the
overall salary and revenue figures. If they are self-supporting,
then we're paying even more for everyone else.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
But how many passengers per employee?

According to the Amtrak fact sheet, Amtrak employs 19,000 people and
an average of 74,000 people ride per day.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
I certainly didn't receive $62 worth of benefit during any Amtrak ride
I've ever taken, not counting the benefit of the ride itself, which
directly required no employee except the driver.

The ride itself requires far more than one driver, but that $62 figure
is the reality of Amtrak.

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Michael Benveniste
Amtrak's fuel usage worked out to about 41 passenger-miles per gallon.

Isn't most of the northeast corridor electrified?

It is now, but at the time it was only electrified up to New Haven, leaving
156 miles on diesel. There was a 20-minute delay on every trip for the
changeover.

[Kip Williams]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Similarly with Metro. And Metro employees, already very well paid,
are actually getting hefty raises at the peak of the recssion, even as
Metro is unable to break even despite increasing subsidies and high
fares. Obama should follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Truman, and
bust the unions. Everyone should get a living wage, but not be able
to hold America hostage to extortionate wage and benefit demands. For
every Metro and Amtrak employee, there are probably a dozen people out
of work who are willing and able to do the same work for less than
half the wages.

Oh, yes, the unions were guilty of some excesses. Still, I think if they
went away tomorrow, by next week we'd be back, in many ways, to the
glory days of the 1880s. Laws or no laws.


Kip W

[Nate Edel]

Post by Kip Williams
Oh, yes, the unions were guilty of some excesses. Still, I think if they
went away tomorrow, by next week we'd be back, in many ways, to the
glory days of the 1880s. Laws or no laws.

While I agree in principle, I think you're either exaggerating for effect
with "next week" bit or a bit too pessimistic timeline-wise if you're not.

OTOH, if you said it would take a decade, I'd call you an optimist.

[Kip Williams]

Post by Nate Edel

Post by Kip Williams
Oh, yes, the unions were guilty of some excesses. Still, I think if they
went away tomorrow, by next week we'd be back, in many ways, to the
glory days of the 1880s. Laws or no laws.

While I agree in principle, I think you're either exaggerating for effect
with "next week" bit or a bit too pessimistic timeline-wise if you're not.

Yes. I have no idea how long it would really take, so I took the
exaggerated way out.

Post by Nate Edel
OTOH, if you said it would take a decade, I'd call you an optimist.

Okay, now we have figures for too fast and too slow. It's a start.


Kip W

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Nate Edel

Oh, yes, the unions were guilty of some excesses. Still, I think
if they went away tomorrow, by next week we'd be back, in many
ways, to the glory days of the 1880s. Laws or no laws.

While I agree in principle, I think you're either exaggerating for
effect with "next week" bit or a bit too pessimistic timeline-wise
if you're not.

Yes. I have no idea how long it would really take, so I took the
exaggerated way out.

To clarify, I don't suggest that *all* unions be busted. But when,
a generation ago, the Air Traffic Controllers' union attempted to do
what a certain volcano is doing now unless all their demands were met,
Reagan said air travel was important and he wouldn't put up with the
union holding America hostage. A generation earlier, Truman did the
same with the steel union.

Mass transit, both local and long distance, are essential, and no
union should be able to use its monopoly position to hold us hostage
or extort a large proportion of our meager wages. They should all
be fired and replaced with qualified people willing to work for a
reasonable living wage. There's certainly to shortage of such people.

Why is a monopoly of capital considered bad, but a monopoly of labor
considered good?

As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for 1880s
wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't get every
Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

[David Friedman]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for 1880s
wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't get every
Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

My guess is that you are exaggerating how high those wages were. The
figure I remember is that, in 1900, the median income was half the
current poverty level.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Keith F. Lynch
As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for
1880s wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't
get every Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

My guess is that you are exaggerating how high those wages were.
The figure I remember is that, in 1900, the median income was half
the current poverty level.

As I've mentioned, I'm convinced that the government is cooking the
numbers. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
the current official US poverty level is $10,830 for a household of
one, lower per person for larger households, and 39 million Amerians
were below this level just before the current recession started.

If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case. Either that or the cost
of living was much less at that time when expressed in today's money,
which is a contradiction in terms.

If inflation rates have been systematically understated for decades,
as I am convinced they have been, that would explain why 19th century
salaries appear absurdly low.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by David Friedman

Post by Keith F. Lynch
As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for
1880s wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't
get every Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

My guess is that you are exaggerating how high those wages were.
The figure I remember is that, in 1900, the median income was half
the current poverty level.

As I've mentioned, I'm convinced that the government is cooking the
numbers.  

Implausible, for many reasons.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
According tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
the current official US poverty level is $10,830 for a household of
one, lower per person for larger households, and 39 million Amerians
were below this level just before the current recession started.
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case.  Either that or the cost
of living was much less at that time when expressed in today's money,
which is a contradiction in terms.

No, it simply means you've placed an erroneous interpretation on what
David said. You need to reduce that figure to account for inflation
1900-2010. This is a factor of somewhere between 22 (1913 and 26
(1894). That brings $10380 income down to around $420.

This matches reasonably well with the decade-by-decade table of
incomes and staple prices at http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/his/e_prices1.htm

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If inflation rates have been systematically understated for decades,
as I am convinced they have been, that would explain why 19th century
salaries appear absurdly low.

Demonstrate it. There are plenty of contemporaneous records around, of
salaries, wages, and prices. We don't have a miniTruth that is
systematically destroying old records, and replacing them with
tampered duplicates.

If you can prove it, you have social dynamite on your hands - the kind
that brings down governments. Until then, keep such nonsense under
your tinfoil hat.

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless
at the time, which I am sure was not the case.  Either that or the
cost of living was much less at that time when expressed in today's
money, which is a contradiction in terms.

No, it simply means you've placed an erroneous interpretation on
what David said. You need to reduce that figure to account for
inflation 1900-2010. This is a factor of somewhere between 22
(1913 and 26 (1894). That brings $10380 income down to around $420.

Huh? I did say "in today's money."

My point is that if, after adjusting for inflation, you discover that
prices and wages were *both* much lower in the past, then you did not
properly adjust for inflation. Keep in mind what inflation *means*.

Monthly rents and mortgages today are well into four digits. Half the
poverty level today is about $5000 per person, or less with a multi-
person household. Conclusion: People earning half the poverty level
today cannot afford housing, even with a two-income household.

Divide both these numbers by some constant -- *it doesn't matter what
constant* -- to adjust for inflation, and you'll reach the conclusion
that people whose income "was half the current poverty level" would
probably be homeless, no matter when.

Unless, of course, housing was much cheaper then *even after adjusting
for inflation*.

And, as I said, if incomes and expenses were both much lower even
after adjusting for inflation, then you did not adjust for inflation
correctly. This follows from the definition of inflation.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If inflation rates have been systematically understated for
decades, as I am convinced they have been, that would explain why
19th century salaries appear absurdly low.

Demonstrate it.

I've already given numerous examples of how it's been understated over
the past 30 years or so. Do you think it was overstated by the same
proportion over the 80 years before that, two opposite errors that
cancel out and make 19th century numbers come out right? Even though
I've just shown that 19th century numbers do *not* come out right?

Post by Cryptoengineer
If you can prove it, you have social dynamite on your hands - the
kind that brings down governments.

Rubbish. The government lies! Hold the presses! Yawn. This may
have shocked a few exceptionally gullible people -- which admittedly
included me at the time -- when news of Watergate broke. But today,
the government getting caught in yet another lie doesn't even make
page B-7, much less the front page.

Note the complete non-reaction when it was proven by DNA that at least
hundreds of people had been falsely convicted of serious crimes in
the US in recent decades. And it's certainly actually far more than
hundreds unless by some miracle the justice system became much more
accurate in cases where there was never any DNA evidence or where it
was not preserved.

Everyone knows the government constantly lies about everything. Few
people seem to care. Why should they? It's not as if there were
anything they could do about it. March on Washington armed with deer
rifles to overthrow the government? I don't think so.

The only one wearing a tinfoil hat in this thread is you.

[Doug Wickström]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:19:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Monthly rents and mortgages today are well into four digits.

Jesus, Keith. How many times do we have to tell you: the DC
area is atypically high cost relative to the average of North
America.

[David Friedman]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Unless, of course, housing was much cheaper then *even after adjusting
for inflation*.
And, as I said, if incomes and expenses were both much lower even
after adjusting for inflation, then you did not adjust for inflation
correctly. This follows from the definition of inflation.

Except that relative prices change over time. I don't know what the case
is with housing, but it's entirely possible that it's cost has risen
more than the average, while other things rose less.

Also, of course, poor people in late 19th century America, if urban,
lived in much more crowded conditions than you and I are used to seeing.

[Nate Edel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Monthly rents and mortgages today are well into four digits.

Depends on where you live;

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Half the poverty level today is about $5000 per person, or less with a
multi- person household. Conclusion: People earning half the poverty
level today cannot afford housing, even with a two-income household.

There are parts of the country where you can afford a small apartment for
that.

For that matter, it's not like two-or-more-income households are anything
new; in 1880, it would more likely have been with multiple generations
working than today, and a non-working wife was very much a thing of the
middle class back then (at a time when the term still represented a
relatively narrow band of folks, rather than the present when it's come to
be the lifestyle expectation of the middle 85% or so of the population.)

And of course, even today, lots of single people assume the need to have
roommates.

That said, I'm with you on the minimization of inflation; CPI figures don't
pass the sniff test for costs in my lifetime, nor for what I've seen of
costs in my parents'.

[David Friedman]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case.

Not homeless-just living in homes much less spacious and comfortable
than we take for granted.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:39:35 -0700, David Friedman

Post by David Friedman

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case.

Not homeless-just living in homes much less spacious and comfortable
than we take for granted.

Or living in multigenerational homesteads...

[Jette Goldie]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case.

Not homeless-just living in homes much less spacious and comfortable
than we take for granted.

Ayup - in 1902 the flat (apartment) where I and my husband live now -
a comfortable fit for two adults, but we would consider crowded for a
family with even one child - housed a family of Mother, Father, two
sons and three daughters. They were a reasonably well off "upper
working class/ lower middle class" family - he was a builder.

[David Friedman]

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by David Friedman

Post by Keith F. Lynch
If the median US income in 1900 was equivalent to $5000 in today's
money, then the vast majority of Americans would have been homeless at
the time, which I am sure was not the case.

Not homeless-just living in homes much less spacious and comfortable
than we take for granted.

Ayup - in 1902 the flat (apartment) where I and my husband live now -
a comfortable fit for two adults, but we would consider crowded for a
family with even one child - housed a family of Mother, Father, two
sons and three daughters. They were a reasonably well off "upper
working class/ lower middle class" family - he was a builder.

Do you know how many square feet it is? My impression is that,
currently, houses and apartments in the U.K. tend to be smaller than in
the U.S.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by David Friedman
My guess is that you are exaggerating how high those wages were. The
figure I remember is that, in 1900, the median income was half the
current poverty level.

I believe is that cost and wage comparisons over this amount
of time are highly suspect, but just for fun, here is some
actual contemporaneously reported data:

1880 Census Report on Wages
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v20-01.pdf

1880 Census Report on Average Retail Prices
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v20-08.pdf

When doing such comparisons, remember to take into account the
difference in tax burden of the times.

In 1880, the U.S. economy was in a bit of an uptick, but still
in the midst of the "Long Depression" which began with (or around)
the Panic of 1873. Unemployment is equally hard to compare,
but was likely higher than it is today.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for 1880s
wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't get every
Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

Keith:

You really come off as an ignorant blowhard sometimes.

Learn a little real history (and no, Three Stooges shorts don't
count). Try a contemporary source:

'How the Other Half Lives': by Jacob A. Riis, 1890
http://www.tenant.net/Community/riis/title.html (hypertext)
http://www.authentichistory.com/1865-1897/progressive/riis/index.html
(hypertext)

If you did, you wouldn't spout damnfool nonsense like that.

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
As for "the glory days of the 1880s," I think plenty of people who
have been out of work for months or years would love to work for
1880s wages, adjusted for inflation, even if it means they don't
get every Saturday off, or free medical insurance.

You really come off as an ignorant blowhard sometimes.

The feeling is mutual. You sound like someone who hasn't learned
anything since their indoctination in an 8th grade Social Studies
classroom.

Post by Cryptoengineer
Learn a little real history ...

I have. And not just from books. My grandparents described to me
their firsthand experience of life in the 19th century.

Post by Cryptoengineer
'How the Other Half Lives': by Jacob A. Riis, 1890

I've read that, dozens of other books on the topic with the same bias,
and, apparently unlike you, dozens of other books on the topic without
that bias.

And some that are just weird, such as an argument that slavery is a
positive good, not just for black slaves, but also for (proposed)
white slaves, since masters are motivated to take good care of their
property, and since free laborers were allegedly starving to death in
large numbers.

Yes, most people were poorer in the 19th century. The world was less
wealthy. That's not going to happen again, at least in the US, thanks
to capital accumulation and improvements in technology and efficiency.
Not unless most of the wealth is destroyed, perhaps in war or natural
disaster. Or unless most of it is seized by an unstoppable gang of
looters, such as an expanded government.

Most workers in the US aren't members of unions *now*. So why aren't
such people on the verge of starvation? *Think* before spouting.

Yes, tenements and flophouses weren't as nice as apartments, hotels,
and houses. But they were a lot better than the modern equivalent:
Living on the street, eating out of Dumpsters, which vast numbers of
Americans are doing today, as anyone who has been downtown in any
major US city can't help but notice.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:11:22 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Yes, tenements and flophouses weren't as nice as apartments, hotels,
Living on the street, eating out of Dumpsters, which vast numbers of
Americans are doing today, as anyone who has been downtown in any
major US city can't help but notice.

Like many such citations by Keith, his facts are technically correct,
but lacking in context.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.html

"In early 2007, the National Alliance to End Homelessness reported a
point-in-time estimate of 744,313 people experiencing homelessness in
January 2005."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Population

"The United States has a total resident population of 309,127,000."

Given the increase in population since 2005 and the increase in
foreclosures, we can probably safely up the estimates of those
experiencing homelessness in a given month quite a bit and still come in
at 0.33% or less of the population. While well over three-quarter
million people is indeed a "vast" number of people, in the overall
scheme of things it is actually pretty damned good as large percentages
of the homeless have intractable issues like mental illness and
substance abuse that preclude them from gaining shelter via traditional
pathways.

[Kip Williams]

Post by Cryptoengineer
Learn a little real history (and no, Three Stooges shorts don't
'How the Other Half Lives': by Jacob A. Riis, 1890
http://www.tenant.net/Community/riis/title.html (hypertext)
http://www.authentichistory.com/1865-1897/progressive/riis/index.html
(hypertext)

And for a quick look, "The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible" by Otto
Bettmann (of the Bettmann Archive), which quick looks at how awful many
or most facets of life in those wonderful bygone times really were.


Kip W

[David Friedman]

Post by Kip Williams

Post by Cryptoengineer
Learn a little real history (and no, Three Stooges shorts don't
'How the Other Half Lives': by Jacob A. Riis, 1890
http://www.tenant.net/Community/riis/title.html (hypertext)
http://www.authentichistory.com/1865-1897/progressive/riis/index.html
(hypertext)

And for a quick look, "The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible" by Otto
Bettmann (of the Bettmann Archive), which quick looks at how awful many
or most facets of life in those wonderful bygone times really were.

I don't know either source, but I'm curious as to why you assume they
are reliable. "Contemporary" doesn't imply "accurate"--consider how wide
a range of pictures of modern America you could get from a variety of
sources with different viewpoints and biases. I don't know about the
American sources, but Hayek's _Capitalism and the Historians_ goes into
some detail on the ways in which 20th century British left wingers took
for gospel bogus accounts of the horrors of the industrial revolution by
19th century Tory sources.

I had never heard of Bettman, but a quick Google doesn't suggest that he
would have any special expertise in 19th century American history.
Further Googling on the book suggests more entertainment than
scholarship--but of course I haven't actually read it, so could easily
be wrong.

[Nate Edel]

Post by netcat

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The rich are not like you and I.

You and I would have likely bought a cheap used car.

Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

There are extra charges for returning the car in a different location/state
but they're not huge, and the rental fees are primarily time-based - it's
probably the cheapest way to get 3 or more people across the country, and
not slower than the train or bus if you have 3 (or more) people and drive in
shifts.

Sometimes, even the rich do that - several executives of my then-employer,
being stranded by the Sept. 2001 groundings, rented a car and drove from
upstate NY back to California.

[netcat]

In article <***@claudius.sfchat.org>, ***@sfchat.org
says...

Post by Nate Edel

Post by netcat

Post by Keith F. Lynch
The rich are not like you and I.

You and I would have likely bought a cheap used car.

Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you paid
for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely. Not everyone stranded
has sufficient credit to rent a car, yet a bunch of people can pool
their cash and buy a really cheap one.

rgds,
netcat

[Nate Edel]

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel
Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you paid
for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely. Not everyone stranded
has sufficient credit to rent a car, yet a bunch of people can pool
their cash and buy a really cheap one.

There's probably some important fact about the European used car market that
I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at your destination than at
your origin?

[netcat]

In article <***@claudius.sfchat.org>, ***@sfchat.org
says...

Post by Nate Edel

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel
Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you paid
for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely. Not everyone stranded
has sufficient credit to rent a car, yet a bunch of people can pool
their cash and buy a really cheap one.

There's probably some important fact about the European used car market that
I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at your destination than at
your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

rgds,
netcat

[David Friedman]

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel
Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you paid
for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely. Not everyone stranded
has sufficient credit to rent a car, yet a bunch of people can pool
their cash and buy a really cheap one.

There's probably some important fact about the European used car market that
I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at your destination than at
your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

There is something making it very costly to transport cars from one part
of the European free trade zone to another?

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by David Friedman

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel

Post by netcat
says...

Post by Nate Edel
Here in the states, under similar circumstances, more likely rented one.

The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you paid
for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely. Not everyone stranded
has sufficient credit to rent a car, yet a bunch of people can pool
their cash and buy a really cheap one.

There's probably some important fact about the European used car market that
I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at your destination than at
your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

There is something making it very costly to transport cars from one part
of the European free trade zone to another?

I find this a little mysterious myself. However, there are
precedents.

My brother is a vintage Mercedes fan. Multiple times, he's done the
following.

1. Go to California. Find a 20-40 year old Mercedes in good condition
(no snow -> no salt on roads -> no body rust). Buy it.

2. Drive it back east.

3. Fix it up: detailing, replace any missing or damaged parts.

4. Sell it at significant profit.

pt

[Nate Edel]

Post by Cryptoengineer
I find this a little mysterious myself. However, there are
precedents.
My brother is a vintage Mercedes fan. Multiple times, he's done the
following.
1. Go to California. Find a 20-40 year old Mercedes in good condition
(no snow -> no salt on roads -> no body rust). Buy it.
2. Drive it back east.
3. Fix it up: detailing, replace any missing or damaged parts.
4. Sell it at significant profit.

By reputation, used cars are pricier out here, for exactly the reason that
things keep up better.

OTOH, restoring a potentially collectible car from roadworthy-but-
not-collectible condition to collectible condition may be a special case.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by netcat

Post by Nate Edel
There's probably some important fact about the European used car
market that I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at
your destination than at your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

No matter which direction you were going?

[netcat]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by netcat

Post by Nate Edel
There's probably some important fact about the European used car
market that I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at
your destination than at your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

No matter which direction you were going?

Um, no. What I was getting at is that it would likely be worth more in
Estonia than in larger European countries. Specially ones with better
climate.

rgds,
netcat

[Kip Williams]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by netcat

Post by Nate Edel
There's probably some important fact about the European used car
market that I'm missing, but why would the car be worth more at
your destination than at your origin?

Laws of supply and demand?

No matter which direction you were going?

Uphill. Both ways.


Kip W

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by netcat
The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you
paid for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely.

Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to pay
ruinous customs duties at each border?

[Nate Edel]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by netcat
The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you
paid for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely.

Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to pay
ruinous customs duties at each border?

In the Schengen countries you certainly won't pay them at the border; I'd
imagine that it might be like how some US states will charge sales tax on
cars at registration time because private parties don't collect it at sale
time.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by netcat
The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you
paid for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely.

Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to pay
ruinous customs duties at each border?

Inside the Schengen zone, I'd expect so.

pt

[Jette Goldie]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by netcat
The idea is, you sell the car once you get home for more than you
paid for it, get back the cost of the trip entirely.

Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to pay
ruinous customs duties at each border?

Inside the Schengen zone, I'd expect so.

In most of Europe there are no customs or borders posts.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to
pay ruinous customs duties at each border?

Inside the Schengen zone, I'd expect so.

In most of Europe there are no customs or borders posts.

How remarkably civilized. There certainly are customs and border
posts between the US and Canada, and between the US and Mexico,
depsite the existence of NAFTA. What was once boasted of as the
longest ungaurded border in the world has nearly become another
iron curtain.

ObSF: Peter Watts's border experiences.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to
pay ruinous customs duties at each border?

Inside the Schengen zone, I'd expect so.

In most of Europe there are no customs or borders posts.

How remarkably civilized.  There certainly are customs and border
posts between the US and Canada, and between the US and Mexico,
depsite the existence of NAFTA.  What was once boasted of as the
longest ungaurded border in the world has nearly become another
iron curtain.

Keith:

I crossed the Iron Curtain, when it was still there.
I've crossed back and forth to Canada, recently.

There is *no* comparison.

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Cryptoengineer
I crossed the Iron Curtain, when it was still there.
I've crossed back and forth to Canada, recently.
There is *no* comparison.

Tell that to Peter Watts. Or to anyone who had ever been convicted of
a crime in the US who attempted to travel to last year's Worldcon.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:16:18 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Cryptoengineer
I crossed the Iron Curtain, when it was still there.
I've crossed back and forth to Canada, recently.
There is *no* comparison.

Tell that to Peter Watts. Or to anyone who had ever been convicted of
a crime in the US who attempted to travel to last year's Worldcon.

http://www.chronik-der-mauer.de/index.php/de/Start/Index/id/593792

I don't read German, but the Wikipedia article that references this page
states that the page claims 136 confirmed deaths trying to cross the
Berlin Wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall

"If an escapee was wounded in a crossing attempt and lay on the death
strip, no matter how close they were to the Western wall, Westerners
could not intervene for fear of triggering engaging fire from the
'Grepos', the East Berlin border guards. The guards often let fugitives
bleed to death in the middle of this ground, as in the most notorious
failed attempt, that of Peter Fechter (aged 18). He was shot and bled to
death, in full view of the Western media, on August 17, 1962. Fechter's
death created negative publicity worldwide that led the leaders of East
Berlin to place more restrictions on shooting in public places, and
provide medical care for possible “would-be escapers”. The last person
to be shot while trying to cross the border was Chris Gueffroy on
February 6, 1989."

<understatement>

Something tells me that the death toll trying to enter the US from
Canada or vice versa is nowhere near that.

</understatement>

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer
I crossed the Iron Curtain, when it was still there.
I've crossed back and forth to Canada, recently.
There is *no* comparison.

Tell that to Peter Watts.  Or to anyone who had ever been convicted of
a crime in the US who attempted to travel to last year's Worldcon.

Peter Watts unfortunately got what anyone, anywhere, who has an
encounter with law enforcement risks encountering. It's not unique to
border guards, nor to America. It's one of the problems of the modern
world.

As for Canada not admitting felons; their country, their rules.
Complain to Ottowa. It's not a border problem.

pt

[Jette Goldie]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Can you drive one-way across national borders without having to
pay ruinous customs duties at each border?

Inside the Schengen zone, I'd expect so.

In most of Europe there are no customs or borders posts.

How remarkably civilized. There certainly are customs and border
posts between the US and Canada, and between the US and Mexico,
depsite the existence of NAFTA.

once you've landed in one EU country (airport, seaport) and gone
through Customs and Immigration there you can cross "borders" to the
next without immigration - except coming from mainland Europe into the
UK and vice versa - or customs. Although if you get a train from
Italy into France coming from some of the Italian market towns you
*may* meet a roving band of French customs officers, on the look out
for "knock off" designer goods which are openly sold in Italian
markets. Italy is known not to police the sales of these shady goods
very well, and France is very strict about them (protecting their
valuable designer goods) - so if you bought a "Chanel" handbag for
mere pennies in San Remo expect to have it confiscated as a fake on
the train as it goes through Menton a few miles into France.

[Paul Dormer]

Post by Jette Goldie
once you've landed in one EU country (airport, seaport) and gone
through Customs and Immigration there you can cross "borders" to
the next without immigration - except coming from mainland Europe
into the UK and vice versa - or customs.

About four years ago, I travelled to Prague by train, before the Czech
republic had entered the Schengen agreement. On the train crossing from
Germany to the Czech republic, a joint German-Czech team of border guards
got on. Couldn't be more of a contrast between the two uniforms. The
Germans were in standard German police uniform, green tunics, tan
trousers, apparently the design is chosen to appear non-threatening. The
Czechs looked like a US SWAT team - black all-in-one coveralls, black
baseball caps.

On the way back, I took the sleeper. This crosses the border at about
one in the morning. Still had the border check, but at least they were
civilised and rang the doorbell to wake me, rather than beating on the
door.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <9a77ca78-767b-4b8c-9a48-
***@y21g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, ***@cunyvm.cuny.edu
says...

Post by Marty Helgesen
Under that headline there was a story in today's New York Post that
"OSLO, Norway -- Monty Python comedian John Cleese was feeling
'Norwegian blue' about being stuck in Oslo after the ash plume from an
Icelandic volcano left travelers grounded -- so he opted for a daylong
cab ride halfway across Europe."

Road trip! With John Cleese yet. Now there's a cabbie who is going to
have quite a story to tell... :)