h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"You'd think so wouldn't you" [Orcus]

Well......Politicians and businessmen being the way they are, I would expect some effort at market research. proposals to spend billions on high-speed rail systems would come under scrutiny by the bodies that would have to cough up the money. Whether the research that resulted was pulled from thin air or carefully done, you and I would probably never know, but surely there must be some savvy people to separate the fluff from the good stuff....mustn't there?

I particularly find it interesting that it's *businessmen* who are regarded as the most important people to consider. Do businessmen constitute a majority or even a plurality of the passengers on these rail routes?

But, yes, it is true that decisions sometimes seem, in retrospect, to have been made with little grounding in reality. In today's Boston Globe, there's a story about a commuter rail line that was set up to carry passengers from Hyde Park through Dorchester to South Station. The reasoning was that residnets of these areas had been deprived of commuter rails ervice, and would welocme it. Well, turns out that they were used to using buses to get where they wanted to go. Ridership on the rail line in question has been very low. Millions of bucks were spent on it in the last four or five years. Oh, well, some projections don't pan out.

"I particularly find it interesting that it's *businessmen* who are regarded as the most important people to consider. Do businessmen constitute a majority or even a plurality of the passengers on these rail routes? "

No.

But here's the thing:

If I want to go from Manchester to London, and I can plan a month in advance and don't mind arriving around lunchtime, I can get a standard class ticket for less than £40.

If I need to get into London for a meeting at 9:30 this Monday, and need the 1st class facilities (guaranteed table, laptop power, quiet, etc.)... my return ticket will cost (and I have just checked, and I'm glad I was sitting down...) over FOUR HUNDRED POUNDS. Even a standard class ticket is over £300.

So - do the people paying that money constitute a majority of the passengers? No. But since they're paying upwards of twelve times the price for the same journey, yes, for a business, they really are the most important people to consider. Plus, it doesn't really matter a monkey's to the country's economy whether I get into the Tate in time for elevenses. It very much DOES matter whether Tarquin Farfarfar is at his desk in the City in time to close that deal with the subsidiary in Singapore. So again - more important to the economic calculation.

Except as I said the likelihood nowadays is that Tarquin's got Skype on his laptop and could in theory do the deal from the dining car of the train. The business people are the most important passengers because they're the ones who don't have a choice about where and whether they travel, and furthermore they're the ones who don't care what it costs because they're not paying.

Except they could fly, conference-call, or use any of the multitude of other facilities that are available.

My medical specialist has a global video conference call once a month, and he specialises in neuro-muscular illlnesses. No jet travel, and rarely travels by car.

Only the car-bound will make an excuse for owning one.

I have a physical disability, as a number of researchers know. I don't care, and could have a 'free' mobility car. But I refuse. I use public transport and usually it is great.

Also, most who use it for business purposes either have it paid for by the business, offset it against tax, or are only using it for status reasons.

Personal opinion but, having lived in London for 30 years, and been to many meets I've only ever felt the need for personal transport when I've moved.

My Sister was the same, until she had access to a car, and suddenly her legs, and public transport, ceased to function.

But if I was expected for supper, it was obligatory! For me.

It is truism that the combustion is one of the least economical modes of energy transference available, at a maximum of 30% output, ever invented, so multi-use is more economical than single use. But human-kind is naturally lazy. As am I, using the bus network as much as possible, rather than walking, so I cannot really criticise...



MMF

Fuel consumption / distance versus speed. Factors to consider are engine efficiency versus speed, engine efficiency versus engine temperature, wind drag, friction etc. Making many short trips is particularly fuel inefficient and what most "lazy" people do ... then these "lazy" people will probably drive to a nearby sports centre to get their dose of fitness.
http://tinyurl.com/a28yrfx

Half filling your car will lead to doubling the number of visits to a petrol station compared to filling up completely. The optimum fill in terms of fuel efficiency will depend on a number of factors.

To be fair to us "car bound" though, MMF, we don't all live in a city that has (and no matter how much Londoners complain about it, the fact is that it is) a very very good public transport system.

You also have supermarkets that deliver your shopping.

As some people know, I tried a few years ago to get from my home to my place of work by public transport and while it was ok for that one month, a 4.5 hour commute daily due to the rubbish public transport links isn't at all on. Plus the fact that the start and end 5kms each day had to be by pushbike.

The simple fact with public transport, especially things like rail, is that unless the prices are going to be eyewateringly high for everyone, we need some kind of public investment in it. But governments (and voters) don't want to because it's one of those invisible investments for so many people that they don't see that they get any benefits from it.

I'd prefer to see a lot more park & ride types of thing where you use your car for private reaasons (shopping, holidays, going around flying etc) but for the majority of your journeys (if it is commuting) you use the excellent public transport links that your government has invested in.

And at the same time I want to see more investment in fuel efficiency from car manufacturers, and even if that involves faffing around with the spare-wheel arrangement I'm all for it.

If in ten years time everyone will be driving around in driverless cars, why isn't everyone currently driving around in automatics?


>> If there's one thing that gets on my wick, it's aggressive ignorance. ... is the mark of the worst kind of idiot. <<

... kettle ...

Can I rewind this conversation back to #40 and respectfully suggest swapping numbers 3 and 5 in the list - ie loosen the wheel nuts *before* jacking the car up.

" The business people are the most important passengers because they're the ones who don't have a choice about where and whether they travel, and furthermore they're the ones who don't care what it costs because they're not paying." [Hoovooloo]

That's a good point.Thanks.

When you say they don't care though - I have direct experience of being told not to travel at a certain time by my lot precisely because of the cost.
OK, we're a university so maybe considered 'poor' as 'businesses' go (not so sure about that myself) but nevertheless that's one case of the fare putting people off.

Just out of interest I had a look at a discount train ticket website to see how much it would cost to go from my home to the office tomorrow by train (288 miles).

It was £253 for a return ticket and would take 6 1/2 hours each way with 3 changes.

By car I could easily do the trip on one tank costing around £90 and I'd be there in 4 1/2 hours.

I think my boss would go nuts if I used the train.

Most companies that I know of are very keen on reducing travel expenses costs. With ours they have to get an approval from our MD if they book anything last minute or change a ticket or something that adds to the cost.

But sometimes it just can't be avoided (and when we fly to the HQ we have to use the national airline even though Lufthansa and KLM are cheaper )

I travel to Dublin frequently with work. We used to go first class - that way you can book a seat, the carriages are quieter so you can work, and you can change the dates and times if needed. Cost was around £50. Last time I was meant to go I booked using a special webfare of £10. And then the meeting was cancelled, so I had to do loads of paperwork about writing off £10.

I think a key point is that transportation authorities and transit companies can make projections and spend money based on them, but the potential passengers will make decisions based on individual situations. Just like the bus riders in Boston who were offered a ride on a nice commuter train, but they opted for the buses that they were used to. Maybe the people running the trains didn't have a good plan for enticing people to try them.

I rode Amtrak's Acela train to an American Library Association convention once. [Acela is the only American train that comes close to comparing with the many fine trains in Europe, or so I have heard] It was a great ride. There were many riders who seemed to be getting a lot done on their laptops.

"If in ten years time everyone will be driving around in driverless cars, why isn't everyone currently driving around in automatics?"

I'd have thought the answers were obvious. First of all, one might observe that in the largest western market for cars, the US, everyone IS driving round in automatics. "Driving stick" is a relatively unusual skill in the US, it seems. But then people in the US don't love driving the way Europeans do.

Automatics are:
- more expensive
- more prone to mechanical failure (more bits to go wrong)
- less fuel efficient (or at least they used to be, not sure now...)
- at least in my experience have an indefinable air of not being a "proper" car.

None of these factors put off drivers in the US, but they're significant factors for drivers in Europe, where cars and mechanics and fuel are more expensive and being able to drive *properly* is more socially valued.

But, crucially, the advantages offered by an automatic are...

- er...
- ...
- it's a *bit* less effort?

Removing the need to balance the clutch removes, I would say, about 1% from the effort of driving. You still have to steer, and look out for other cars, and signposts, and pedestrians, and cyclists, and corners, and traffic lights, and animals in the road, and the warning lights in the car, and the road conditions, you still have to operate the indicators, and the windscreen wipers, and the headlights.

Against this, you're balancing the concept of a car that operates like a taxi - get in, tell it where you want to go, sit back and get on with whatever you want to do. Comparing that with a car that removes ONE task from you is... [insert a withering comment here, I can't be bothered].

An analogy for you:
It was perfectly possible, in the 1980s, to buy a "cordless" phone, which would allow you to walk round the house using your landline. Hardly anyone had one, because they were a bit rubbish.

The fact they weren't that popular is not really a sensible argument against the idea of, 25 years on, smart phones being ubiquitous.

In stop-start traffic, automatics become very handy.

Another downside of them is they tend to attract a higher level of road tax.

Even in stop-start traffic, though, the only thing an automatic does for you is save you a tiny bit of effort with your left foot. You still have to look out of the windscreen, process what's going on out there, and operate pedals with your right foot to achieve the required speed. You still have to steer. You still have to *concentrate*, which is the point.

Crawling up a hill trying to slip the clutch the whole way puts quite a strain on the leg. It's really not just a tiny effort; it's the single most tiring aspect of driving in slow-moving traffic imo.

If it's not an issue for you, then you're very fortunate, because you can enjoy all the other clear advantages of a manual box.

Are diesel engines still considered economical?

I think the relative price of diesel has increased, and the cars tend to cost more to purchase (if you can find them).

not here, the diesel version of the car I looked at the other day was nearly EUR 4,000 cheaper than the petrol version. Add that to today's pump prices (Diesel was 1,35 Super was 1,59) and the fact that the clean diesels get a green fine-particle sticker (and can, therefore drive in city centres) the Diesel is a fine choice for me.

>>Are diesel engines still considered economical? Discussed on this thread. http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=8300174 The answer is 'it depends'.