Mass transit plan

[hardline]

Originally Posted by tjf67

You can take a bus from just about anywhere to LP. From there we( local taxpayers) provide two shuttles. One from the town to the mountain and one that takes people around town. I never notice people getting off the bus with skiis. I do notice people using the shuttles around town and to the hill but never at more than half full.

Put some stippers on the bus and they will fill up. Heck a little hooking to save the environment is well worth the trade off IMO anyways. It a sausage fest at mountains anyways so give the guys what they like. Beer, skantly clad women, skiing. What esle could you ask for.

sort of like what vernon valley used to do. all the lifties where girls and you had the playboy club just down the street. but i don't think its going to happen again anythime to soon.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Originally Posted by tjf67

You can take a bus from just about anywhere to LP. From there we( local taxpayers) provide two shuttles. One from the town to the mountain and one that takes people around town. I never notice people getting off the bus with skiis. I do notice people using the shuttles around town and to the hill but never at more than half full.

Put some stippers on the bus and they will fill up. Heck a little hooking to save the environment is well worth the trade off IMO anyways. It a sausage fest at mountains anyways so give the guys what they like. Beer, skantly clad women, skiing. What esle could you ask for.

MMMM..I love a good sausage fest..the local German restaurants puts on a great sausage fest every October fest..mmm lots of thick and meaty sausage..yummy,.,

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by MadPadraic

I don't think its a function of gas as much as a function of parking and schedules. The MBTA's worcester/framingham line does NOT suffer from a lack of ridership. In fact, every seat is full on just about every rush hour train (and typically by people who would be able to shrug off $6 gas).

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. Unless they could pack a ski train full every run, I just don't see it happening. Considering the sacrifice of convenience and longer time getting to and from the mountains (and the price of a train making day tripping not a viable option), gas prices would have to nearly double before the average day tripper would consider it a worth while option.

[ckofer]

I guess that depends what constitutes the average day tripper. If you only ski 5 times a year, then it doesn't really matter financially. The concept of all-inclusive bus trips to specific mountains may have appeal (bus/lift pass/lunch). Carpooling will make more sense. Increased fuel prices have more than one way of eating away at discretionary funds.

[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.

[tjf67]

Originally Posted by GrilledSteezeSandwich

MMMM..I love a good sausage fest.. lots of thick and meaty sausage..yummy,.,

Yeah somehow that does not surprise me.

[ckofer]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

<snip> But c'mon, this is skiing and boarding we are talking about. Not exactly an eco-friendly sport by any means.

That doesn't mean that we can't think of energy-efficient ways of enjoying the sport.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by ckofer

That doesn't mean that we can't think of energy-efficient ways of enjoying the sport.

I agree and did not mean we should not look but I still believe higher MPG vehicles, car pooling in said vehicles, and buses are better options for most skiers.

[MadPadraic]

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.

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.

[Moe Ghoul]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

I agree and did not mean we should not look but I still believe higher MPG vehicles, car pooling in said vehicles, and buses are better options for most skiers.

I think that's the answer as well. This country gets a failing grade for Mass transit. Our whole societal movement into the suburbs evolved around cheap gas. Were starting to pay the price for that. Folks will take more bus trips, carpool and ski clubs should see new membership rise as more folks opt for trip discounts and bustrips.