3 ms·
> While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first. As much as I would like that to be true, I don't think it is. The safety-cri
by lbriner 5y ago
> While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first.
As much as I would like that to be true, I don't think it is. The safety-critical nature of railways, more so even than a coach/bus which might travel almost as fast as a slower train, means there are massive costs for maintaining railways, based partly on use but not always.
I asked my MP (representative) the other day about why it was so expensive to travel on trains when there should be a massive economy of scale but she didn't understand the question. A return ticket for an approx 150km journey might be around £100 in the UK, whereas the gasoline cost would be maybe £40 + some small percentage of my yearly insurance and maintenance costs.
- petschge 5y agoTrue cost of driving a car is typically more than twice the fuel price. So the train ticket is not that bad value. The car is just hiding a lot of the cost away in the form of registration, insurance, depreciation, repairs and so on that you don't associate with a single trip. That makes the car trip seem cheaper than it is.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe train to commute from an outlying city into Boston is ~$400/mo. On a pure cost basis that's just about equivalent to a compact car assuming you have to pay for unsubsidized parking in Boston or thereabouts and with the car option you also get a car that you can use wherever and whenever you want.
- ghaff 5y agoAnd if you're in an outlying city you probably need to own a car anyway. That said, if I'm going in for a day, I usually take the train because rush hour driving is so painful.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoThe trouble is most people will feel they need a car so even those taking public transport or cycling and walking will still bear all those costs.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]