Global warming?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

What about the "efficiency" of the train when its almost empty?

First, when making the decision between taking the train or driving, riding a train will improve its efficiency (and if it's almost empty, it will improve the efficiency by an even greater percentage), and if you drive, the total efficiency goes down as there is now an almost empty train AND a car making the trip.

Second, if the occurrence of empty trains isn't more than balanced by the times they are full, they should (and usually do) decrease the frequency and length of trains at the times it is almost empty.

Third, the completely full cars were compared with quarter-full trains already. I would expect trains are over a quarter full far more often than cars are completely full. Heck, I would think that trains are over 100% full (considering standing room) more often than cars are full.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

First, when making the decision between taking the train or driving, ...

I ask questions like... which one is cheaper? Well, as it turns out, taking the train costs about the same. Considering the roughly equivalent cost, the tiebreakers are the substantial inconvenience and the problem of turning a 45 minute commute into a 90 to 120 minute commute.

You live less than one mile from a train station. It makes sense for you.

Mass transit was supposed to be an alternative - another choice available to anyone interested.

But now, the global warming bandwagon has turned mass transit into an obligation. I have plenty of obligations. Getting on someone else's train isn't going to be one of them.

[glatt]

My train is full. I really don't want anyone else getting on it. That's why I oppose the extension of metro out to Dulles. Unless they are going to add more cars to all the trains and run them more frequently.