Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
To those suggesting that driving takes only marginally more time than a train would, and thus people wouldn't pay to save only a little time, I think that misses much of the point and I disagree.
When driving, it is wasted, unproductive time. Not to mention stressful - especially with weather. In other words it is negative time.
When flying, you can access your laptop, or read or do a few, somewhat more productive things. But you are still cut off.
On the train, not only can you have a coffee or a snack like flying (much more conveniently than in a car), but you can get up and walk around - it is a better way to travel - especially if you are going straight to meetings at arrival. It is much less stressful.
More importantly though, is the fast that you have internet access and are essentially in full productive mode. Two hours on a train (or however long it takes) is the opposite of driving because it is useful, productive, and stress-free time.
|
I would counter this by asking- why do more people drive than take Red Arrow then? If the productivity is that much more?
And how much more productivity would we get as a province with $2B in each of Calgary and Edmonton dedicated to LRT improvements? I forget the exact numbers, but something like 100,000 people take the LRT every day. If we could bump that to 150,000, and make the existing 100,000 people's trip quicker- wouldn't that trump the numbers that would take a high speed train to Edmonton?