Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-24 11:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-22 18:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-24 11:00 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "hqhy" <hqhy@nospam.com> - 2015-08-25 04:47 +1000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 15:01 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 14:45 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-24 13:22 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 13:26 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 11:48 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 16:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:20 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:28 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-24 21:42 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-24 15:14 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 08:07 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:52 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-08-25 20:06 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-08-24 23:33 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 01:39 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-25 10:23 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:30 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-25 22:48 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-26 10:44 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-26 18:03 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-26 12:04 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-08-25 14:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 15:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 15:49 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 21:00 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 16:37 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-08-25 23:52 +0200
fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 22:25 +0000
Re: fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-08-26 04:13 +0200
Re: fluorescents, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:24 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 19:11 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 20:36 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-26 02:29 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 09:35 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-10-11 17:24 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 07:30 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-10-15 19:32 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:52 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "Joseph D. Korman" <joekor@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-28 14:34 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-08-26 04:03 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 20:36 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-08-25 08:10 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-08-25 12:18 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-08-25 17:30 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-12 22:15 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-13 07:37 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 13:15 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 12:37 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-14 14:57 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-14 13:30 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-15 11:26 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-16 15:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-17 00:10 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-21 13:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-21 13:23 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 17:53 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-24 00:46 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:38 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 17:56 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-22 10:56 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-22 10:09 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-22 19:44 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-22 14:38 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-22 23:40 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 13:29 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 11:39 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-23 15:52 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-23 21:40 +0100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 16:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:18 +0200
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-25 21:04 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 07:17 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:48 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-26 15:54 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 07:07 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:36 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-24 16:01 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-23 08:19 +1100
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 05:57 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-22 14:12 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-23 14:27 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-23 16:16 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 20:05 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-25 00:53 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-25 17:49 +1100
car rentals, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-10-25 12:47 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-23 19:55 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 07:16 -0400
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-24 18:11 +0000
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-24 20:18 -0700
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-24 23:55 -0500
Re: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 18:01 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0e98o01e1u@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153261 |
On 2015-10-23, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > Australia is the only country where I've had significant delays with > immigration/customs, but that's not really their fault; dumping a 747 > full of people into the queue at once is inherently problematic. I once arrived on a flight where ours was one of _three_ 747s full of people dumped into the queue. That was not pleasant - either for us or for the people waiting for us outside that crowded, windowless room. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d90hm6Fog8lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153281 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n0e98o01e1u@news6.newsguy.com... > On 2015-10-23, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> Australia is the only country where I've had significant delays with >> immigration/customs, but that's not really their fault; dumping a 747 >> full of people into the queue at once is inherently problematic. > > I once arrived on a flight where ours was one of _three_ 747s full of > people dumped into the queue. That was not pleasant - either for us > or for the people waiting for us outside that crowded, windowless room. And that happens every day in Sydney, essentially because there is an overnight curfew and so plenty of carriers schedule their first arrival of the day to land just as the curfew stops. A780s too, even more pax than a 747.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d8t279Fspp7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153219 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:dtjnfc-bl7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <ac349caf-877a-43e5-842d-5db024a03ee9@googlegroups.com>, > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:56:34 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> My typical trip: >>> >>> 30 mins to drive to airport >>> 15 mins to park >>> 45 mins check-in/security/boarding >>> -- actual flight time Doesn’t take me anything like that. 5 mins drive to the airport, couple of minutes to park in the free carpark, 5 minutes checkin/ security/boarding. >>> 15 mins to get rental car >>> 15 mins to drive to hotel I normally get a taxi or use uber etc now. >>> So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less experienced >>> travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like 3 hours. >>> For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour less, which >>> means the actual travel time could be up to an hour longer. >> >>Often, the time factor is dependent on the distance from one's home to the >>transport >>terminal, the congestion of the terminal, and the situation at the arrival >>point. >> >>Usually, trains win out with a much shorter check-in time since there is >>(at >>present) no security. People can and often do show up only a few minutes >>before >>train department time if they're already ticketed. Also, usually train >>passengers >>can bring their luggage with them, eliminating a baggage delay at pick up. >>At some >>points, wise passengers will allow at least a full hour before departure >>time as a >>cushion against TSA or ticketing delays, which seem to make the news >>often. > > We do have better service at both the airports and the train stations > over here, evidently. With ours there is very little difference at all between the airport and train station, just the bag scan at the airport which only adds seconds. Both are only minutes away from home, free parking outside both of them. So the all day trip to the state capital by train compares with only 90 mins by plane, so the only people who use the train are those who don’t want to pay about double for the air fare. No real difference at the state capital end if you use a taxi there. No car rental as convenient at the train station. Much more convenient by plane if you want to go further than the state capital, to one of the other state capitals or out of the country. Train involves changing to another to get to the airport and almost now one moves between the state capitals anymore by train now. Buses similar. > Still, I prefer to be at the airport 50 minutes before departure, at the > very least. I plan for an hour if I go by train, so I can accommodate some > minor delays. > > Getting to the closest, main train station is a drive of around 25 > minutes, > and I depart 40 minutes before the trains leave, so I have time to have > some > road congestion, find parking, collect ticket if appropriate, and find the > right platform. > > In the other direction it takes around 30-35 minutes to get off, go find > the > car and drive home. (The parking lot is huge, it can take 10 minutes to > walk > to the car if it is in the other end). > > Getting to the airport is an hours train ride, and then another 50-60 > minutes; > that is 2 hours on top of the train access time. The other way is around > 30-40 > minutes walk and luggage pickup, and then the 35+60 minutes by train. This > gives access times to the airport of 2:30 to and 2:05 at the very best. > > I concede that this is a little above average, but not by very much. > The cities I visit most have 1:40/1:25, 2:10/1:50, 1:35/1:20 for the > other end (departing/arriving, from takeoff/touchdown to city centre). > > Ticketing is automatic, either web-based or smartphone-based for both > air travel, trains, buses, trams and ferries. That took off at least 20 > minutes on the departure side. > >>Also, a train might have multiple stations serving a large metropolitan >>area, making >>the train station closer to home or destination. For example, Boston has >>Rt 128; >>and Philadelphia has Paoli, Wilmington, and Trenton. >> >>On the other hand, some tiny airports have expanded to provide good >>scheduled jet >>service yet remain small and easy to get to and use. I've been told using >>Bob Hope >>airport in Burbank is much faster than using LAX. > > For departure you still need to allow for around 40 minutes, and at least > 15 when arriving with luggage. > > Changi in Singapore has impressive statistics, and is quite large. > >>Usually, rental car availability is better and airports than train >>stations. At >>smaller train stations, one may have to call and get picked up or take a >>taxi to a >>different location. >> >> >>In the old, old days businessmen found the train convenient as it >>desposited them at >>downtown terminals where they had their clients. But then, suburban >>office parks >>sprung up, eliminating the downtown advantage, and some of them are fairly >>close to >>the airport. Most require a car to conveniently get around. >> >>For example, suburban Philadelphia has an industrial park in Fort >>Washington. >>There's a commuter train station serving it. But the park is spread out, >>and it's a >>full mile walk, maybe more from the station, to the various businesses. >>Not very >>practical. >> >>Also, in the old, old days, there were commuter and branch line trains to >>many >>locations. One could conveniently check baggae through to a suburban >>point and make >>a connection at the main train station. While there is still commuter >>service at >>many stations, the branchline service is mostly gone, and commuter trains >>no longer >>check baggage. > > We used to have two sets of train service. Local, commuter and remote, > long > distance. The first set usually travelled ~100 km out from the large > cities, stopped at every stop, and had onboard ticket sales. The second > one ran for 300-700 km between the large cities, and had diner, and > reserved > seats ordered in advance. Stopped at around 1/5th as many places as the > local one. The local trains always had to yield for the remote ones. > > No more. Now everything is run commuter-style, and only 3 lines still have > the diner. And ticketing is all electronic. > >>As an aside, the Pennsylvania Railroad had a secondary major station in >>Philadelphia, North Philadelphia (main station for key east-west trains). >>At one >>time the surrounding area was a teeming industrial and residential area. >>Today, >>unfortunately, the area is in very bad shape. It's still an Amtrak >>station, but >>only one or two trains a day stop here now. Sadly, that is a challenge >>for many >>train stations, they're in the dumpy part of town. > > We are 20 years beyond that development. 30 years ago the train ride > into the large cities showed decrepit dwellings. They have all been > refurbished and are brightly lit and painted. The main railway stations > have > become hubs with large shopping facilities either in them or right > next door, and large parking spaces next to them. Ours haven't, essentially because the large shopping facilities are well away from the main CBD and have been for decades now. Not so true of the airports. > We are actively encouraged to have commuter passes and use the > rail system even if we have to drive to the stations. A commuter > parking pass is NOK 50/month, around $8.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 05:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1598481051.467285910.667093.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153218 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> > > On the other hand, some tiny airports have expanded to provide good > scheduled jet service yet remain small and easy to get to and use. I've > been told using Bob Hope airport in Burbank is much faster than using LAX. I think Burbank is great. We usually try to go thru there. Out last trip to LA we went thru LAX, and it reminded me again of why. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0bcc1$h90$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153216 |
On 10/22/2015 10:56 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 21-Oct-15 16:56, Peter Flass wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 16-Oct-15 17:10, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> Those three hours are a magical threshold for rail travel, it is >>>> when the train overtakes the planes in popularity. >>> >>> The general rule of thumb is 4 hours, and some recent data >>> indicates that it may actually be 5 hours. >> >> Given how far out most airports are it may take you and hour or so to >> get there depending on where you live, plus either cab or limo fare >> or parking and/or car rental at destination. Everyone suggests you >> get to the airport two hours prior to flight time, although IME less >> is OK. It usually takes 1/2 hour to get checked luggage, if you have >> any. > > Right; what the customer cares about is end-to-end trip time, not just > the travel time. And for the former, the rule of thumb is that rail > wins for trips under 4-5 hours. > >> You're already close to five hours (trip to origin and from >> destination), and you haven't even taken off yet. > > How did you get 5 hours? > > My typical trip: > > 30 mins to drive to airport > 15 mins to park > 45 mins check-in/security/boarding > -- actual flight time > 15 mins to get rental car > 15 mins to drive to hotel > > So, that's 2 hours on top of the flight time. For less experienced > travelers or those with kids, it's probably more like 3 hours. > > For a decent rail system, I'd expect _at least_ an hour less, which > means the actual travel time could be up to an hour longer. > >> Yes, for trips of 300 mi or so driving is both faster and a lot >> cheaper than air travel. > > In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of having > your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and especially if > there are multiple people traveling. Trains share the former, but the > much lower marginal cost per passenger means they can more easily offer > discounted family/group fares to mitigate the latter. > > OTOH, driving is stressful, and other factors may make putting so many > miles on your own car undesirable--and it assumes you own a car in the > first place. If you use a rental, most benefits of driving evaporate. > Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. I set up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, maintenance, etc., figured that with my 10-year-old car the expense would be around $400 if nothing broke. Rentals have prices that keep changing, seems like typically the price will keep dropping until a week or two before D-day, and then go back up. But there's no penalty for cancelling. So if you book, say, a month early, and then keep checking rental prices and cancelling/rebooking as the price comes down (comparing prices at the various second-tier rental companies like Dollar, Alamo, Thrifty, etc.), you can get a good deal. It ended up costing me about $250 for a week and a half, the rental car got 10mpg better than my own car, and if it died en route there's free roadside service (and replacement, if necessary).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0e1io$tt5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153230 |
On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: > On 10/22/2015 10:56 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of >> having your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and >> especially if there are multiple people traveling. ... >> >> OTOH, driving is stressful, and other factors may make putting so >> many miles on your own car undesirable--and it assumes you own a >> car in the first place. If you use a rental, most benefits of >> driving evaporate. > > Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. I set > up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, maintenance, etc., > figured that with my 10-year-old car the expense would be around $400 > if nothing broke. The IRS estimates ~50¢/mi for variable costs (gas, tolls, oil, tires, maintenance, etc.) plus allocated fixed costs (payments, insurance, etc.) for an average driver in an average car. Your 7.5¢/mi may be correct in your particular case, but it's certainly atypical. > Rentals have prices that keep changing, ... It ended up costing me > about $250 for a week and a half, the rental car got 10mpg better > than my own car, and if it died en route there's free roadside > service (and replacement, if necessary). It varies quite a bit, but as a rule of thumb, figure $100/day or $300/wk (i.e. days 4-7 are free), including all the various taxes and fees but not gas or tolls. If you don't own a car or your personal insurance doesn't provide sufficient coverage--and many people don't check until it's too late, figure an additional $100/day or $700/wk (i.e. no free days). That can still beat flying for week-long trips with multiple people, e.g. family vacations, especially since you'd probably need to rent a car at the destination anyway, but rarely beats using your own car. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 16:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0e817$r2r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153265 |
On 10/23/2015 2:27 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 10:56 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of >>> having your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and >>> especially if there are multiple people traveling. ... >>> >>> OTOH, driving is stressful, and other factors may make putting so >>> many miles on your own car undesirable--and it assumes you own a >>> car in the first place. If you use a rental, most benefits of >>> driving evaporate. >> >> Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. I set >> up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, maintenance, etc., >> figured that with my 10-year-old car the expense would be around $400 >> if nothing broke. > > The IRS estimates ~50¢/mi for variable costs (gas, tolls, oil, tires, > maintenance, etc.) plus allocated fixed costs (payments, insurance, > etc.) for an average driver in an average car. Your 7.5¢/mi may be > correct in your particular case, but it's certainly atypical. I didn't count gas in the rental price, so it did cost maybe $180 more. But even with the gas, $430 is way less than the $1500 you'd get from the IRS figures. I obviously don't understand the economics of the rental car business, other than that most renters probably don't put 3000 miles on the car before returning it, and that the rental company figures it's better to have a car rented out rather than have it sit in the lot. >> Rentals have prices that keep changing, ... It ended up costing me >> about $250 for a week and a half, the rental car got 10mpg better >> than my own car, and if it died en route there's free roadside >> service (and replacement, if necessary). > > It varies quite a bit, but as a rule of thumb, figure $100/day or > $300/wk (i.e. days 4-7 are free), including all the various taxes and > fees but not gas or tolls. Maybe it's more expensive where you are, or you're more picky. Around here I can rent a car today (economy or compact) for $150/week incl. all tax & fees (booking up to a week ahead, $30 less if I pay in advance; booking further in advance increases the price) from the first vendor I checked (Payless, which has a booth at the airport but the cars are a shuttle bus ride away). > If you don't own a car or your personal insurance doesn't provide > sufficient coverage--and many people don't check until it's too late, > figure an additional $100/day or $700/wk (i.e. no free days). I don't know how it works in other states, but my car insurance covers me when driving a rental. (I'm not sure that it would cover theft, though.) For this hypothetical rental, CDW would cost $20/day, again way less than what you're seeing. > > That can still beat flying for week-long trips with multiple people, > e.g. family vacations, especially since you'd probably need to rent a > car at the destination anyway, but rarely beats using your own car. > > S >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 20:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77f907a8-fccb-4472-bc8e-a9c1c77bf875@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153280 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote: > I don't know how it works in other states, but my car insurance covers > me when driving a rental. (I'm not sure that it would cover theft, > though.) For this hypothetical rental, CDW would cost $20/day, again > way less than what you're seeing. Years ago they told me that I'd be responsible for _any_ little ding or dent and any damage below my car insurance's deductible. Since back then their full coverage was moderately priced, I took it. I wonder if Consumers Reports has a piece on modern car rental practices and their recommendations. Next time I travel I'll have to check for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0hqko$u49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153280 |
On 23-Oct-15 16:16, Dave Garland wrote: > On 10/23/2015 2:27 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: >>> Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. >>> I set up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, >>> maintenance, etc., figured that with my 10-year-old car the >>> expense would be around $400 if nothing broke. >> >> The IRS estimates ~50¢/mi for variable costs (gas, tolls, oil, >> tires, maintenance, etc.) plus allocated fixed costs (payments, >> insurance, etc.) for an average driver in an average car. Your >> 7.5¢/mi may be correct in your particular case, but it's certainly >> atypical. > > I didn't count gas in the rental price, so it did cost maybe $180 > more. > > But even with the gas, $430 is way less than the $1500 you'd get > from the IRS figures. I doubt you're including a portion of the fixed costs, which is the only way to create a level playing field. Also, most "fixed" costs are not actually fixed; for instance, while driving more wouldn't change my payments on this car, higher mileage would reduce the trade-in value of the car and thus increase the payments on my next car, so that cost should be factored in. > I obviously don't understand the economics of the rental car > business, other than that most renters probably don't put 3000 miles > on the car before returning it, and that the rental company figures > it's better to have a car rented out rather than have it sit in the > lot. Rental companies used to charge by the mile, but customers complained about being nickel-and-dimed, so they started including enough miles in the base rate that virtually nobody went over, and eventually they got rid of the cap entirely. The same evolution was seen in mobile phone plans, Internet plans, etc. Consumers overwhelmingly prefer unlimited plans, even when a usage-based plan would result in a lower bill. >> It varies quite a bit, but as a rule of thumb, figure $100/day or >> $300/wk (i.e. days 4-7 are free), including all the various taxes >> and fees but not gas or tolls. > > Maybe it's more expensive where you are, or you're more picky. > Around here I can rent a car today (economy or compact) for $150/week > incl. all tax & fees (booking up to a week ahead, $30 less if I pay > in advance; booking further in advance increases the price) from the > first vendor I checked (Payless, which has a booth at the airport > but the cars are a shuttle bus ride away). That's what I typically pay, but I'll grant that most of my rentals are from a top-tier company under a corporate contract; I'm not allowed to use coupons or shop around. OTOH, be sure that includes all taxes and fees; stadium taxes in particular can significantly inflate the cost of rental cars (and hotels). >> If you don't own a car or your personal insurance doesn't provide >> sufficient coverage--and many people don't check until it's too >> late, figure an additional $100/day or $700/wk (i.e. no free >> days). > > I don't know how it works in other states, but my car insurance > covers me when driving a rental. (I'm not sure that it would cover > theft, though.) I suggest checking your coverage before relying on that. My state only requires covering policyholders (but not "additional drivers") in rental cars at the same level(s) as their own cars. That means if you have collision/theft coverage on a $5k car, it will only pay out $5k when you wreck/lose a $25k rental, and you're still on the hook for the remaining $20k. Many people drop collision/theft coverage entirely after their car is paid off and would be on the hook for the entire $25k. > For this hypothetical rental, CDW would cost $20/day, again way > less than what you're seeing. The cost will vary depending on exactly what you need; for instance, someone who doesn't own a car probably also needs LDW, which is much more expensive, and there are a half-dozen other options that can further increase the cost. $100/day is a reasonable estimate if one doesn't have all the specifics. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 17:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d93cc5FfgskU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153318 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n0hqko$u49$1@dont-email.me... > On 23-Oct-15 16:16, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 10/23/2015 2:27 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. >>>> I set up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, >>>> maintenance, etc., figured that with my 10-year-old car the >>>> expense would be around $400 if nothing broke. >>> >>> The IRS estimates ~50¢/mi for variable costs (gas, tolls, oil, >>> tires, maintenance, etc.) plus allocated fixed costs (payments, >>> insurance, etc.) for an average driver in an average car. Your >>> 7.5¢/mi may be correct in your particular case, but it's certainly >>> atypical. >> >> I didn't count gas in the rental price, so it did cost maybe $180 >> more. >> >> But even with the gas, $430 is way less than the $1500 you'd get >> from the IRS figures. > I doubt you're including a portion of the fixed costs, > which is the only way to create a level playing field. There is no level playing field that matters in this situation when deciding whether to use your own car or rent one. What matters is the marginal cost of using your own car. > Also, most "fixed" costs are not actually fixed; for instance, while > driving more wouldn't change my payments on this car, higher > mileage would reduce the trade-in value of the car Not by much unless you drive a hell of a lot. > and thus increase the payments on my next car, Only if you are silly enough to borrow the cost of your next car. > so that cost should be factored in. In practice it doesn’t change the cost of using your own car much. >> I obviously don't understand the economics of the rental car >> business, other than that most renters probably don't put 3000 miles >> on the car before returning it, and that the rental company figures >> it's better to have a car rented out rather than have it sit in the lot. > Rental companies used to charge by the mile, but customers complained > about being nickel-and-dimed, so they started including enough miles in > the base rate that virtually nobody went over, and eventually they got > rid of the cap entirely. The same evolution was seen in mobile phone > plans, Internet plans, etc. There are still mobile phone plans where you pay for what you use. > Consumers overwhelmingly prefer unlimited plans, even > when a usage-based plan would result in a lower bill. Irrelevant to what a minority choose to have instead. >>> It varies quite a bit, but as a rule of thumb, figure $100/day or >>> $300/wk (i.e. days 4-7 are free), including all the various taxes >>> and fees but not gas or tolls. >> >> Maybe it's more expensive where you are, or you're more picky. >> Around here I can rent a car today (economy or compact) for $150/week >> incl. all tax & fees (booking up to a week ahead, $30 less if I pay >> in advance; booking further in advance increases the price) from the >> first vendor I checked (Payless, which has a booth at the airport >> but the cars are a shuttle bus ride away). > > That's what I typically pay, but I'll grant that most of my rentals are > from a top-tier company under a corporate contract; I'm not allowed to > use coupons or shop around. OTOH, be sure that includes all taxes and > fees; stadium taxes in particular can significantly inflate the cost of > rental cars (and hotels). > >>> If you don't own a car or your personal insurance doesn't provide >>> sufficient coverage--and many people don't check until it's too >>> late, figure an additional $100/day or $700/wk (i.e. no free >>> days). >> >> I don't know how it works in other states, but my car insurance >> covers me when driving a rental. (I'm not sure that it would cover >> theft, though.) > > I suggest checking your coverage before relying on that. My state only > requires covering policyholders (but not "additional drivers") in rental > cars at the same level(s) as their own cars. That means if you have > collision/theft coverage on a $5k car, it will only pay out $5k when you > wreck/lose a $25k rental, and you're still on the hook for the remaining > $20k. Many people drop collision/theft coverage entirely after their > car is paid off and would be on the hook for the entire $25k. Many don’t borrow when buying a car. >> For this hypothetical rental, CDW would cost $20/day, again way >> less than what you're seeing. > > The cost will vary depending on exactly what you need; for instance, > someone who doesn't own a car probably also needs LDW, which is much > more expensive, and there are a half-dozen other options that can > further increase the cost. $100/day is a reasonable estimate if one > doesn't have all the specifics. But you do have the specifics when deciding whether to use your own car or rent one.,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 12:47 +0000 |
| Subject | car rentals, was: optimum power supply for subway/light rail lines |
| Message-ID | <n0ij0f$243$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153318 |
In <n0hqko$u49$1@dont-email.me> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> If you don't own a car or your personal insurance doesn't provide >>> sufficient coverage--and many people don't check until it's too >>> late, figure an additional $100/day or $700/wk (i.e. no free >>> days). >I suggest checking your coverage before relying on that. My state only >requires covering policyholders (but not "additional drivers") in rental >cars at the same level(s) as their own cars. That means if you have >collision/theft coverage on a $5k car, it will only pay out $5k when you >wreck/lose a $25k rental, and you're still on the hook for the remaining >$20k. Many people drop collision/theft coverage entirely after their >car is paid off and would be on the hook for the entire $25k. >> For this hypothetical rental, CDW would cost $20/day, again way >> less than what you're seeing. >The cost will vary depending on exactly what you need; for instance, >someone who doesn't own a car probably also needs LDW, which is much >more expensive, and there are a half-dozen other options that can >further increase the cost. $100/day is a reasonable estimate if one >doesn't have all the specifics. A decade or so ago, a lot of credit cards included covering the collission damage waiver as part of their perks. While many have dropped that bit of niceness, I'd guess it's still floating around for some. So it's worth giving a call to your credit card company -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d450cd2-d91e-41a6-9ff1-b3527a1ed4e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153265 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 3:27:22 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Car rentals > It varies quite a bit, but as a rule of thumb, figure $100/day or > $300/wk (i.e. days 4-7 are free), including all the various taxes and > fees but not gas or tolls. Years ago they were reasonably priced with nice specials. Full coverage insurance was cheap. I'd get a Friday-to-Monday deal with unlimited mileage from Avis. They'd pay for the taxi from the train station, let me sit down and relax, an attendant escort me to the car, and even recommend nearby nice places to get dinner. The only high expense was for gasoline if the tank wasn't returned full, and even there they repeatedly reminded me to fill up before returning. In more recent years the prices are sky high, the clerks rude, and they won't even let me use their bathroom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 07:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <982888226.467377160.250909.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153265 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 10:56 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of >>> having your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and >>> especially if there are multiple people traveling. ... >>> >>> OTOH, driving is stressful, and other factors may make putting so >>> many miles on your own car undesirable--and it assumes you own a >>> car in the first place. If you use a rental, most benefits of >>> driving evaporate. >> >> Maybe, maybe not. Last year I took a 3000 mile (RT) trip by car. I set >> up a spreadsheet and roughly calculated gas, tires, maintenance, etc., >> figured that with my 10-year-old car the expense would be around $400 >> if nothing broke. > > The IRS estimates ~50¢/mi for variable costs (gas, tolls, oil, tires, > maintenance, etc.) plus allocated fixed costs (payments, insurance, > etc.) for an average driver in an average car. Your 7.5¢/mi may be > correct in your particular case, but it's certainly atypical. As it should, the 50¢ accounts for a percentage of the fixed costs of owning a car: purchase price/depreciation, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. If you already own a car you're paying these regardless, so the marginal cost of a single trip is negligible, and you only consider gas, oil, tolls, etc. If you're trying to decide on buying a car vs. using alternative transportation you'd probably look at the fixed costs. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2nll8.3c7.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #153300 |
On 2015-10-24, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 22-Oct-15 14:12, Dave Garland wrote: >>> On 10/22/2015 10:56 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> In many cases, yes, especially once you factor in the benefit of >>>> having your own car at the destination rather than a rental, and >>>> especially if there are multiple people traveling. ... >>>> > > As it should, the 50¢ accounts for a percentage of the fixed costs of > owning a car: purchase price/depreciation, taxes, insurance, maintenance, > etc. If you already own a car you're paying these regardless, so the > marginal cost of a single trip is negligible, and you only consider gas, > oil, tolls, etc. > > If you're trying to decide on buying a car vs. using alternative > transportation you'd probably look at the fixed costs. > My accountant pointed out to me years ago, that I would probably get audited by the Tax people, about 30 miles from their local office, enough to allow a nice drive dow, two-three hours to harass me then time for a leisurly meal in a local hotel. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 20:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <348e3377-8037-4cbf-bb19-8f2e8eea0459@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153300 |
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > As it should, the 50¢ accounts for a percentage of the fixed costs of > owning a car: purchase price/depreciation, taxes, insurance, maintenance, > etc. If you already own a car you're paying these regardless, so the > marginal cost of a single trip is negligible, and you only consider gas, > oil, tolls, etc. Certain 'fixed' costs do vary somewhat if mileage is high, but it can be tricky to figure. A car driven 20,000 miles per year will be worth less at resale than a car driven 2,000 miles per year, and the owner will probably pay more for insurance. But these costs aren't exactly proportional to mileage. Also, someone who uses a car sparingly could probably be satisfied in a plain cheaper car, while someone who is on the road a lot will probably want the comforts and features of a more expensive car. This is a cost factor as well, but hard to figure out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 23:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0hn86$md1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153314 |
On 24-Oct-15 22:18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: >> As it should, the 50¢ accounts for a percentage of the fixed costs >> of owning a car: purchase price/depreciation, taxes, insurance, >> maintenance, etc. If you already own a car you're paying these >> regardless, so the marginal cost of a single trip is negligible, >> and you only consider gas, oil, tolls, etc. > > Certain 'fixed' costs do vary somewhat if mileage is high, but it can > be tricky to figure. A car driven 20,000 miles per year will be > worth less at resale than a car driven 2,000 miles per year, and the > owner will probably pay more for insurance. But these costs aren't > exactly proportional to mileage. Not for a particular driver in a particular car, but over an entire population, the _average_ cost per mile is obviously total spending divided by total miles. As with any average, some will be higher or lower in practice. This isn't exactly the same thing as _avoidable_ cost per mile, but calculating the latter is virtually impossible, so the former is used in its place as a reasonable approximation. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Iv9Wx.163194$%c.40324@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #153194 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 16-Oct-15 17:10, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> If I can get to a city within 3 hours on a train, I prefer that mode >>> of transportation; unless I have a lot to carry, in which case I use >>> a car. Flights are for longer distance travel. >>> >>> Those three hours are a magical threshold for rail travel, it is >>> when the train overtakes the planes in popularity. >> >> The general rule of thumb is 4 hours, and some recent data indicates >> that it may actually be 5 hours. >> > >Given how far out most airports are it may take you and hour or so to get >there depending on where you live, plus either cab or limo fare or parking >and/or car rental at destination. Everyone suggests you get to the airport >two hours prior to flight time, although IME less is OK. It usually takes >1/2 hour to get checked luggage, if you have any. You're already close to >five hours (trip to origin and from destination), and you haven't even >taken off yet. > >Yes, for trips of 300 mi or so driving is both faster and a lot cheaper >than air travel. I can fly one-way to the LA basin from SJC for under $100, while I'd spend most of that, plus 5+ hours on the road, to drive the 350 miles ($75 bux gas). Takes me 15 minutes to get to SJC, 45 min before flight. That's an hour forty-five from home to Bob Home (BUR), closer to two hours to John Wayne (SNA) if I fly. It would take at least five (BUR) to seven (SNA) hours to drive. Grab a rental car at BUR (15 minutes at the on-airport kiosk) and I'm on my way.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web