Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball
@Jtownman why are you not counting wear and tear on your car in your calculations? Parking fees when you arrive? Tolls? etc
But yes, if you have four people traveling at the same time, it will almost always be more economical to drive than to fly or take the train. Not everybody is primarily concerned with a small price differential anyways and that is not their primary market. Nor does everyone own a vehicle, either.
|
I'll use my car: 2016 Jetta
250.00 payment
120 gas
zero tolls for me
50 a month to park at my apartment, zero for work
100 insurance
75 a month for maintenance(ive actually only changed the oil once in the last 9 months, so its a lot less, but averaging out because stuff happens)
595. The example I used was 700, so I think I accounted decently well for extra cost.
True, but that was kind of my point all along. This train isn't for your everyday Californian. Its for business people and tourist. This massive amount of money could have been spent a lot better locally to actually impact peoples lives. Not saying the project has zero use, but I think the taxpayers of California aren't getting as much as they could.
People who don't own a vehicle, will they be traveling much using this? I don't know. My guess is not. They either are really poor, and probably don't have the extra income to even travel( I know on this site full of folks who travel all around the world might not know a sizable portion of this country are people who really never leave their local area), or they choose not to have a car, which is probably like some urbanist on here that could fly just as well or take the train. So once again it looks like the taxpayers are subsidizing the rich and better-off.