4 ms·

You can still try that, but that's not the intention. The target audience are basically commuters. I had a colleague a couple years ago that went around 100km t

You can still try that, but that's not the intention. The target audience are basically commuters. I had a colleague a couple years ago that went around 100km total both ways to work. He briefly considered switching to train but balked at the price of about 200 per month. This despite the fact that gas cost him more, his car commute was longer and he was paying for a parking spot. I guess the logic was he already paid for the car, so he better use it. But at 50 per month, he'd ditch the sunken cost that is the car in a heartbeat.

OJFord 4y ago
Interesting logic! Even with the sunk cost of car, insurance, etc. it'd still have to be significantly cheaper or quicker for me to use it over a train, on which I can do other things. (I suppose its privacy is something, but not worth as much to me as the freedom to read or close my eyes.)
- ghaff 4y ago
  In the US, I'm about 45 miles from the nearest large city where I worked (many days) fairly briefly. I'd be about $400-500/month for commuter rail, commuter rail parking, and in-city transit passes. But the reality is that I'd be something close to $40/day driving (plus any parking) even given that I owned the car anyway. I always took the train unless I was doing something in the evening--in which case the train was a poor option in general. (Once you got out of commuting hours there were only a few trains for the rest of the night.)
sokoloff 4y ago
I’m skeptical given that reducing your colleague’s cost from around 1000€/mo all-in (inc. parking) to 200€/mo wasn’t enough that a further reduction to 50€/mo will tip the scales.
- locallost 4y ago
  Fair, but I think people are not good in looking at the big picture. The old price was in the ballpark of the costs people notice (gas). But the proof is in the pudding, so we will see.
- shjake 4y ago
  How do you know it was 1000€? Maybe if it was closer to let’s say 500 and an extra 300 was seemed like a reasonable price to them for the additional convenience.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It’s 400€ or more for fuel alone, plus maintenance, distance-based-depreciation, and parking.

OJFord 4y ago

Interesting logic! Even with the sunk cost of car, insurance, etc. it'd still have to be significantly cheaper or quicker for me to use it over a train, on which I can do other things. (I suppose its privacy is something, but not worth as much to me as the freedom to read or close my eyes.)

ghaff 4y ago
In the US, I'm about 45 miles from the nearest large city where I worked (many days) fairly briefly. I'd be about $400-500/month for commuter rail, commuter rail parking, and in-city transit passes. But the reality is that I'd be something close to $40/day driving (plus any parking) even given that I owned the car anyway. I always took the train unless I was doing something in the evening--in which case the train was a poor option in general. (Once you got out of commuting hours there were only a few trains for the rest of the night.)

sokoloff 4y ago

I’m skeptical given that reducing your colleague’s cost from around 1000€/mo all-in (inc. parking) to 200€/mo wasn’t enough that a further reduction to 50€/mo will tip the scales.

locallost 4y ago
Fair, but I think people are not good in looking at the big picture. The old price was in the ballpark of the costs people notice (gas). But the proof is in the pudding, so we will see.
shjake 4y ago
How do you know it was 1000€? Maybe if it was closer to let’s say 500 and an extra 300 was seemed like a reasonable price to them for the additional convenience.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  It’s 400€ or more for fuel alone, plus maintenance, distance-based-depreciation, and parking.