The New York Times Washington Post asked a reporter to ride the bus between New York and Washington for a month to see why intercity buses are suddenly so popular. Andrea Sachs found that most bus riders were motivated by “price, location and times.”
The buses are far less expensive than Amtrak (typically $15 to $20 vs. $49 to $99) and take people to more locations (for example, not just Penn Station in New York). With at least a dozen different companies offering 150 to 180 departures per day (depending on the day of the week), buses also beat out Amtrak’s 24 departures per day (half of which are Acela trains that cost a minimum of $99).
Some of the riders Sachs interviewed had settled on one carrier, such as Bolt or Megabus. Sachs herself had such an awful experience with one bus company that she isn’t going back, but is still willing to try any of the others that are convenient.
Telogen effluvium lowest prices viagra learningworksca.org can occur after stressful events, including severe illness, childbirth, or high fever, and can be seen with certain medications or deficiency of iron, particularly in females. In this procedure, biochemical assessment is used along with other herbs to treat bronchitis, chronic cough and asthma. viagra uk Night like it buying tadalafil online Fire capsule and Mast Mood capsule and Night Fire capsule intake offers the best herbal treatment for weak erection problem. Negative vitality is discharged as a result cheap viagra pfizer of various things.
She noted one benefit of the free Wi-Fi offered by many of the companies: when she had a service complaint about the bus, she emailed the company and they solved the problem before the trip was over.
Sachs says she rode the buses more than 2,000 miles and 55 hours, which would be about a dozen trips. She promises that, the next time she has to travel between New York and DC, “I won’t be taking the train or my car.”
One correction: Sachs quotes someone from the American Bus Association saying that buses more “more people in two weeks than Amtrak does all year.” Technically, that’s true, but the association’s data shows that most of that movement is charter buses and tours. Counting only scheduled intercity bus service, buses move about two-and-one-half times as many passenger miles as Amtrak.
She promises that, the next time she has to travel between New York and DC, “I won’t be taking the train or my car.â€Â
Won’t be taking her car?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What is she, a freedom hater? Command and control lover? A New Urbanist?!?
What is this world coming to, when people are willing to travel somewhere other than by automobile?
DS
Dan, you are the most comically irrational poster I’ve come across. I think the AP is clear that he is against government forcing people to pick transit over autos, which IS the goal of many planners and elected officials. It’s not that hard to follow. The writer is freely choosing one mode over the other. Yippee!
But she wasn’t COERCED out of her car like you and Sec. LaHood would like to do. That must be disappointing to you.
you are the most comically irrational poster I’ve come across…but she wasn’t COERCED out of her car like you…would like to do
CO:
Your rhetorical tactic of mischaracterizing as ‘irrational’ (or, similarly, ‘confused’) is old, tired, and doesn’t work. It is the refuge of no ideas.
Nonetheless, your talking point of ‘coercion’ is dim-bulbery. As I’ve said here countless times (but many can’t process because it would cause cognitive dissonance), I seek to provide more choice for rational utility-maximizing agents (and others too). Not less. More. Not fewer choices. More choices. Not fewer. More. Not fewer. Not less. Not only one. More.
More choices. Do try to wrap your head around that. I won’t count on you gaining understanding about more choices, but one can always hope.
HTH (but I doubt it).
DS
Dan, this is why I say you’re comical (and irrational). You get sooooo self-righteously indignant whenver you’re challenged for doing exactly what you claim the AP does. To paraphrase:
As [the AP] said here countless times (but [Dan] can’t process because it would cause cognitive dissonance), [AP doesn’t demand people drive autos, doesn’t demand people drive autos, doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos,doesn’t demand people drive autos.
Yet you always imply that he does. Guess that makes you a dim bulb.
Hmmm. Private industry finds a solution where it is left free to do so and not coerced by government. Who would have thunk it?
Dan: I seek to provide more choice for rational utility-maximizing agents (and others too).
If Dan owned a bus company, sold bicycles, or flew charter airplanes, then he would be providing “more choice for rational utility-maximizing agents.” But I don’t think Dan personally provides any of these transportation services.
More likely, Dan chooses how to spend tax dollars on transportation. That is, he makes the choices for others. Yes, I’m sure he tries hard and sincerely to choose wisely. He is well-informed and well-educated. No doubt he is convinced his choices are, in fact, better than the choices people would make if left to their own devices. [I can’t believe that planners think they make lousy choices.]
I’ve known many planners during my career. Generally their competence is directly related to their humility. The best planners don’t presume to make choices for others, which does beg the question — what do the best planners do?
There are numerous arguments here that are premised on the greater freedom offered by a car. Many commenters justify their ideologies by using this argumentation.
Note how that argumentation looks in light of the italicized in #1, and the text following that explores what gets fetishized or mischaracterized here. Can you note it? See? I separated elements by ‘new line’ to make it easier to follow.
It would help your evidenceless argument if you could find instances where I ‘always imply’ that Randal ‘demands’ folk drive autos. Hint: pointing out flawed arguments isn’t ‘implying’ or ‘demanding’.
DS
what do the best planners do?
In most places, where planners are allowed to do their jobs, people are given a range of choices to adopt (please, folks, no hasty generalization fallacies here).
That is: simply eliminating Euclidean zoning is a choice of action, which allows people to make a greater range of choices when left to their own devices. The transportation choices I allow others to make have to do with allowing more choices. See, when people are allowed to see the range of, say, roadsides available besides standard throughput attached sidewalks, they usually choose the attractive, functional alternatives.
DS
Dan: “In most places, where planners are allowed to do their jobs, people are given a range of choices to adopt (please, folks, no hasty generalization fallacies here).”
You do realize, of course, that by definition people would have a wider range of choices if the government had not interfered in the first place, right? Because it’s physically impossible for one person or even one committee to act and react to the billions of price signals emitted every day by every vestige of the free market.
You want there to be choice, but only the choices you want to offer. I choose to reject your choices and find something better that you never thought of.
Close Observer:“Dan, this is why I say you’re comical (and irrational). You get sooooo self-righteously indignant whenver you’re challenged for doing exactly what you claim the AP does.”
ws: Dan’s quote from the article was not irrational. If AP is supposedly “neutral” to transportation, it’s definitely not discernible to anyone but you and few other people.
Just look at the title of this post: Buses beat Rail. What would you say if someone said Buses beat Car? And I am not 100% sure of the numbers the Bus-guy is using. I’d like to see them myself before I count them as absolute fact.
Mike wrote : Because it’s physically impossible for one person or even one committee to act and react to the billions of price signals emitted every day by every vestige of the free market.
Mike, in a previous post you acknowledged the need for government (or some institution of policing and justice) to protect citizens from the recklessness and/or neglect of others.
Noise is limited to protect not merely my peace of mind, but my hearing. The toxic waste one dumps near my property poisons my well. The fire from your meth lab jumps your roof and claims my home. You have already agreed to the necessity to protect against some generalized threat from one’s neighbor. And how many on this board would deny that? The question then is what constitutes that threat.
I like these off-topic emotional rants on here. It undermines Randal’s blog. Go over to Robin Hanson (or any of the credentialed economists – unlike O’Toole) and one will find respectable, intelligent, and on topic discussions of the daily posts.
by definition people would have a wider range of choices if the government had not interfered in the first place, right?
By definition, no that is not true.
Maybe in the Rand-toter’s world where fairies wave their wands to prevent monopolies, buildings from falling due to shoddy construction, usury, and so forth, but not here on Earth. Oh, I suppose those in Somalia have lots more choices these days, but I guess that’s just me being biased?
I choose to reject your choices and find something better that you never thought of.
Oh goody. While you’re at it, choose a place where all the Go Galters can go. Preferably out of country, far away. I hear Somalia doesn’t have much gummint interference…
DS
“I hear Somalia doesn’t have much gummint interference….
Nor does it have a system of well-defined property rights, which is why their citizens are moving over here.
As we have mentioned many times, there is a difference between libertarianism and anarchy.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Sachs says she rode the buses more than 2,000 miles and 55 hours, which would be about a dozen trips. She promises that, the next time she has to travel between New York and DC, ‘I won’t be taking the train or my car.’ ”
After a few episodes about why road pricing and congestion charging is good at ‘sending messages’, at last, something more positive. The planners provide an innovative choice and – bingo! – car drivers switch. Which underlines what I’ve been saying – car drivers buy cars, not because they are cheap, but because hitherto the choice has been limited.
“Sachs herself had such an awful experience with one bus company that she isn’t going back, but is still willing to try any of the others that are convenient.”
Which underlines just how important customer service for a new service which people may just try once, before dismissing it. I was talking to one lady who tried a bus instead of her usual car. I got a list of problems, and a declaration that she wouldn’t use buses again. Another customer lost.
t g: Mike, in a previous post you acknowledged the need for government (or some institution of policing and justice) to protect citizens from the
recklessness and/or neglect of others.
Me: Correct. This is a legitimate function of government and not the private sector, because the government holds the exclusive authority, derived from the consent of the governed, to exert initiatory force.
t g: Noise is limited to protect not merely my peace of mind, but my hearing. The toxic waste one dumps near my property poisons my well. The fire from your meth lab jumps your roof and claims my home. You have already agreed to the necessity to protect against some generalized threat from one’s neighbor. And how many on this board would deny that? The question then is what constitutes that threat.
Me: I would concur with the argument that each of those things constitute a threat. The question with each such thing that is done here is “has the action of one person infringed the rights of another?” In each case, the action (or act by omission, to encompass negligence) of another person is what has destroyed or damaged your property (or in the case of noise, deprived you of your quiet enjoyment of same, to the detriment of its value), and hence infringed your property rights. The civil court system, which is among the legitimate functions of government, would be your venue of redress.
This extends to the more generalized harm caused by air pollution from vehicle emissions. The statists are pushing hard for carbon-footprint taxes, cap-and-trade, etc. These are not necessary, as the legitimate government function of emergency management would be sufficient to encompass emissions enforcement, and congruent with the nature of that problem. (This government function, which I have not expanded upon here on this blog until now, would not in its proper form be as extensive as it currently exists. It would no longer include physician licensing, for example, as such franchises are inherently coercive. It WOULD include the state and federal laboratories that allocate resources to natural disaster recovery and epidemiology. As such, it could even be considered a branch of the military at either the federal or state level, because it is most congruent with those from an individual rights perspective and because it’s legitimately funded by taxation of some kind, whether excise, levy, or tariff.)
MJ said: “I hear Somalia doesn’t have much gummint interference….
As we have mentioned many times, there is a difference between libertarianism and anarchy.
THWM: Like the differences between various shades of grey.
Libertarianism in the USA is just anarchism for the rich.
And High Speed Rail in the USA is just socialism for the rich. Buses, private and public, serve the poor and middle class. Intercity rail travelers are richer than people who drive or take the bus. Yet we subsidize the wealthy rail passengers much more per passenger mile.
It would be interesting to know if planners foresaw the bus transportation when they wrote the EISs for the Amtrak expansion between NYC and DC.
Like the differences between various shades of grey
If you really think this is the case, I encourage you to visit Somalia. No country in the world is truly libertarian, but Somalia comes about as close to anarchy as you can find.
MJ,
Libertarians pay lip service to anarchy, possibly as part of the same philosophical blunders that have them holding the non-initiation principle as axiomatic. Part of why the Libertarians do not attract other freethinkers (such as Objectivists) is that mainstream freethinkers do NOT advocate anarchy as a legitimate form of society. You’re invalidly generalizing the fringe, much like calling mainstream Mormons child-rapers because of the activities of the FLDS groups in remote villages.
Of COURSE Somalia is a disaster. Anarchy doesn’t work. NOT all who hold the anti-government-planning position advocate it.
John Thacker said: Intercity rail travelers are richer than people who drive or take the bus. Yet we subsidize the wealthy rail passengers much more per passenger mile.
THWM: Trains get 1/3 the subsidy per mile that buses get.