As I said, travel isn't always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. You claimed a train wasn't the least costly or the most efficient, and both were proven as buttests of rail travel.
Built like a Mercedes 3651DTJ To an extent the same is true in Europe. The domestically built Japanese branded cars are excellent. Not all of them are exciting, innovative, nice to drive or...
What costs did you add that I did not? NONE. Your costs for car travel of 220 miles (miles in the UK? sounds odd to me.....) are roughly £30, which seem low, given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. However, with your cost for parking, you spend £60 vs. the train at £65. Car pooling dewfinitely helps your example. I'm sure if I added three others to defray my costs, I too could do the PhillyDC run at about $15 total per person. However, if you had 100 people to move, cars would NOT be the efficient way to do it.
Built like a Mercedes 3650You are right to question my "claim". Apparently it's only 61 cars per employee per year. This may be true, but not entirely...
Once again, you are putting personal cost above efficiency, which is fine, but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train.
Sadly, no, it does not. My example was pretty clear.
Again , you are arguing cost to the commuter, rather than efficiency of mode of travel. Trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than autos. If people were willing to spend a bit more, and get a bit more service in return, rail travel would become more popular. But again, popularity is not a measure of efficiency.
Built like a Mercedes 3652For a while cheap-labour countries have an advantage but this erodes with time. (Taiwan-to-mainland China shift is one example.) At first simple machinery is produced at low prices, then the...
-- Max
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
