Quote:
Originally Posted by riverc0il  I am over three years removed from being a Mass resident, but wasn't the MBTA losing money or at least struggling financially? Every rush hour train may be full but I used to be a weekend rider and many trains would run with only one or two cars being used and people having entire rows to themselves. |
I believe that the MBTA operates at a substantial loss. That being said, the purpose of urban and commuter public transit is not to be a cash cow for the government (otherwise, we'd see a very different pricing structure). Suffice it to say that it is necessary to run off peak trains (at a loss) to keep the overall utility level reasonable enough to make the train a viable alternative to driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverc0il Don't forget that "cost" is not just financial. I estimate a day tripper who wants to ski in the Lincoln or North Conway areas from Boston Metro would need to leave home at least two hours earlier and get home two hours later to account for driving to/from the train station, waiting for the train, the train making stops, the training going slower than an automobile on the highway, and getting to/from the mountain (small bus, I would assume) which includes waiting for the bus, loading the bus with other skiers, and travel time. Two hours additional my be a low estimate. Suffice to say that day trippers would not be able to ski open to close using ski trains so the other "cost" would also be less time on the hill in addition to travel logistics. I am a logistics person and I like efficiency and timeliness so everything about ski trains just screams "will not work en mass". The logistics involved are just so amazingly cumbersome and the costs are more than just financial, but would certainly at least double travel costs even with the high price per gallon (depending on number of people versus car pool options). Car pool and buses win, IMO. They eliminate all the "costs" of trains while increasing efficiency and decreasing, instead of increasing, travel costs. Trains have the environmental benefits. But c'mon, this is skiing and boarding we are talking about. Not exactly an eco-friendly sport by any means. |
Ok. So Loon is, say, about 2:30 from Boston. You are saying that it would take 4:30 door to door on a train, but less on a bus?
It seems like your setting up straw men. All the "costs" of a train are present on a bus: driving to a station (even if the station is a box store's parking lot), waiting for other passengers (slower on a bus in my experience: there is only one exit in the front and the isle is narrower), waiting for the bus, etc.
I don't see why a ski train to Lincoln would make stops along the way--I'd envision a nroth station departure and one stop in a northern burb to pick up passengers--or the need for a shuttle bus; why would you put the Lincoln station anywhere OTHER than at Loon base (maybe a second stop in North Woodstock).
Even if you did add a stop in Manchester or such, the time needed is really minimal.
As for North Conway, just avoiding that evil traffic would make a transfer entirely worthwhile. I also reject the notion that trains would be slower. Amtrak (regular service, not Acela) is faster from Boston to Providence than a bus, and faster from Providence to Penn station than a bus from Kennedy Plaza to Port Authority. This holds for virtually all hours of the day and night.
All this being said, I agree that buses are much more feasible (because of a lower level of demand) even if they are a much less pleasant experience.