Train vs. plane fares

zipitidoodah · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2003 12:02 pm

Car users already have their cars right at their disposal too, because all they have to do is walk out the front door and there it is. They know they could drive all the way to work or wherever it is they're going, and they also know there's a number of other ways they could do the same thing. But the railway station is not at their front door (well, not usually) and I think the fact that the car is a single simple mode of transport makes it more attractive to the commuter than to get in the car, drive to the station, catch the train, get off at the other end and get a bus to the destination, or whatever. I think it comes down to how much effort someone will make to get to their destination.

If somebody saves $0.70 going by car > rail than by going car (for a relatively short distance) then they will most likely choose the more expensive car option because the extra change of mode of transport, the effort to have to change to something else is not worth worrying about, so they foot the extra money and go car. Plus if you keep changing modes of transport then you're relying on all services to be on time, and as you add in different steps the probablity of you successfully getting to the destination without a hitch decreases.

On top of all that, the rail service has to appear more attractive to the customer. When they think about how they're going to get to their destination they'll subconciously be weighing up any possible advantage they'll get going by rail. Even if rail offers a 20 minute time saving (whether that's worth it or not all depends on how far you're going) and a few dollars off the cost of the trip, they may choose car anyway because of the sheer convenience of having the car at their disposal already, rather than going to a station. The bottom line out of all of that would have to be that people are lazy and will try for the easiest option.

Now if rail is more expensive than a plane or a car, then what sort of hope do they have of getting people to use it? Against a car maybe some hope, because you're not driving and you don't need to take breaks, but against a plane no, because a plane and a train essentially sit people down in seats, and depending on what sort of trip it is you'll get the same level of service, more or less. If the plane is quicker and cheaper, it's not hard to see why it's the more popular option. Obviously rail can't usually offer the quicker option, so it has to offer something else that the plane doesn't or cannot provide to make it more attractive to customers.

pennoes · Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:14 pm

I agree with most of the discussion, and I certainly think that for most people the convenience of running a car outways even perhaps a slightly quicker or cheaper service by rail.

However, if we look at Europe & Japan, where the World's quickest and most efficient trains run, we could certainly argue that there would be enough patronage for planes, and that they are probably quicker than trains, but for some reason, trains are very competitive and many people use them, despite being relatively expensive.

Personally I don't think the answer lies in penalising motorists - that's like shooting yourself in the foot if you own a car, but rather I think we need to change the CULTURE of public transport use in Aust.
In Europe and Japan, there is a CULTURE of using the railways for distance travel, whereas in Aust & it could be applied to USA, rail travel for distances is not really worth it - slow, inconvenient & inefficient (& esp in the USA, expensive).

I believe that it would only be a medium-long term positive outlook for improving railways in Australia. What I mean is that if we put really good infrastructure down now, it would take a while before the CULTURE in Aust changes to be more rail-user focussed.
Of course what is required is for superior infrastructure to be invested NOW, which doesn't look like happening. Governments always have trouble with long-term benefit strategies cause it doesn't get them voted back into office...

zipitidoodah · Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 5:46 pm

I think in Japan there would be less bother with travelling longer distances by train. To go to the airport you have to check in, etc., but the train is more of a walk-in service. Plus they're a lot more comfortable and are probably better overall.

Thomas the tank engine · Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:17 pm

Gazza · Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:52 pm