Juan Grande wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:11 PM:So much for the Naysayers, of course they will be complaining until the grave, when their stiff cold hands have to be pried off the steering wheel of their SUV

Highway robbery wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:37 PM:Keep Sacramento out of our transportation funding. Also why isn't there someone to collect the fares or send the non-payers
"packing"? What is this "warning" they are given. Kick the non payers off of the Sprinter. That is the only warning they need.

VonMises wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:57 PM:Ticket those freeloading passengers! Don't give them a warning. Go Sprinter, may you have 18,000 passengers a day by the end of the year!

Tony wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:59 PM:The naysayers were claiming that the Sprinter would not provide any significant congestion relief, and the statistics show they are right. Don't be too quick to dismiss those of us who want an end to daily traffic jams.

Randy wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:06 AM:The Sprinkler advocates are students and tree-huggers. They will praise the Splinter to high heaven, when their stiff cold hands will have to be pried off their severely-subsidized (by you and me!) monthly passes.

Oceanside Chris wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:54 AM:It is spring break; wait until next week to see the head count. I ride the Sprinter and noticed that Monday had a jump in ridership.

Alice wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:00 AM:The reason the Sprinter ridership is growing is because the other bus service has been cut. One used to be able to ride from Escondido to Oceanside or vice versa on just ONE bus and pay just $2.00. NCTD cut out the 320 express which went straight through and they also cut the 302 route into two different lines so you have to transfer and pay $4.00 just to get to the same places that used to be served by just the one route. The riding public has been forced onto the Sprinter because of the cutting of bus service. I also understand that NCTD is talking of cutting back on weekend service too. They spent/wasted so much of the tax payers money on the choo-choo and put the district into a financial hole that the bus service is going to be cut back to practically nothing. When NCTD changes so much so fast they lose a great number of the riding public. Once the public finds another way to get where they are going they do not come back to public transportation. Ridership goes down and so then NCTD again says they must cut service because ridership is down. It becomes a vivious circle. NCTD used to have good service but they are alienating their long time patrons.

Jason wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:05 AM:Oh yea, this is a total failure...NOT

I guess Easter Egg Hunt wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:43 AM:alomg the rails is out of the question huh?

John wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:43 AM:Of course the idiots at NCTD who came up with the ELMINATED, and "modified" bus routes DO NOT EVEN RIDE WHAT THE REST OF US ARE STUCK WITH! Those pathetic individuals should be FORCED to suffer the same trips from one side of town to the other, as all of us do, that have to go where this boon-doggle of a "Sprinter" DOES NOT GO!

This was just opened wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:45 AM:March 9th today is March 21st, the novelty is still there. In another month we will see the ridership decreasing.

local osider wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:49 AM:The sprinter has put palomar college and cal state san marcos in reach of the youth who cannot afford a car or gas prices of today. I see students packing the sprinter in the morning which is great for our future here in North County. The naysayers will always say "nay" even when proven otherwise..The sprinter is a success and will continue to be a success..Thank you NCTD for getting me out of my car and off the road! To Randy thank you for subsidizing my transportation, you have less traffic to deal with and you can drive you huge suv all over the 78 without worrying about mowing me down!

Drink the kool aid wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:18 AM:Let's see - $500,000,000 divided by $16,000/day divided by 365 days/year - this baby will be in the black in only 86 years! Let's build some more!!

Stop Front Page Reports wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:18 AM:This rail has been railroaded into place and now investigations by FEMA and Flood Insurance is at risk. This debacle does not earn a place on the front page news. More bad rain days and this rail will run under water and wash out into the storm drains. Instead of counting heads riding there will be heads rolling out NCTD's door with Karen King.

Billy wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:33 AM: There are some questions that are not being answered:
1)At a cost of 480 million, that we are in the hole at present, what is the projected break even point?
2) What does it cost to operate the Sprinter daily compared to the daily revenues from passengers?
3)What is the daily cost of SANDAG subsidizing the train and will it ever end?
4) What is the cost of maintenance and up keep, and how does that work?
5) will the train ever be shut down for repairs and repairs to the track?
6) Have there been arrangements made for transportation for the loyal, everyday passengers when there is a forced shut down?
I am sure those figures and information are available and that they could be put in the NCT as a chart, or matrix, on an up dated daily bases.
One big question: Why isn't bar coded tickets being used for boarding the train? It would seem easy enough to issue tickets, daily, weekly, or monthly with bar codes and readers that would allow passengers into a passenger only areas at the stations that could be monitored by camera. It has came to my attention that in today's system designs, that if we do not take advantage of today's technolodgies we go into activities that produce confusion and demoralization, while being grossly inefficient.

VonMises wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:36 AM:We need to start fighting for a rail from temeula to San Diego! We can do this people!!!!!!

IwantToGoEast wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:45 AM:The Escondido Avenue station, Vista is west bound only. When will the East Bound start taking on passengers?

Walt wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:58 AM:Big sounding numbers. Let’s put them in context. 7,836 riders going 10 miles = 78,360 passenger miles the true measure of mobility. On the same day SR-78 more or less alongside provided 2,684,000 passenger miles. Thus Sprinter’s share was 2.9% of SR-78 total, or about 9% of just one SR-78 lane each direction. Less than one tenth of more flow on SR-78 if two new conventional lanes had been added to SR-78 instead as many argued for. Amortizing Sprinter’s $480 million capital cost for 50 years at 5%, each boarding cost taxpayers $9.20. Add operating cost and indeed fares are a giant bargain at taxpayer expense. 120 boardings per hour compared to about 1,000 seats provided by Sprinter per hour means average occupancy just under 12%. And transit promoters complain about all those automobiles including the single occupant ones when auto’s occupancy averages 25%! Some additional questions for context: How many Sprinter riders from the survey were former bus riders? How many had completely shifted from autos to mass transit leaving their autos at home? How many drove to a transit station first? What was bus rider’s share of travel in the SR-78 corridor before Sprinter started? Taxpayers deserve all the facts about how much congestion Sprinter really relieves

Vista Granny wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:04 AM:About those subsidies. An awfully lot of property tax money goes into building and repairing the streets you drive your cars on, not to mention the traffic lights, street lights and police and ambulance service required for accidents, etc. There's also a very HIGH cost in human health from automobiles: smog, accidents, tiny pieces of tire rubber which we all inhale, etc. Just because you look down on people who use public transportation is no reason to believe your big 8 cylindar SUV isn't subsidized as well. (Yes, I own a car, but I use the Sprinter and the Coasater whenever I can.)

Lets see wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:14 AM:Traffic is now worse because of surface street backups and people having to take their cars because of bus cuts... traffic on the 78 certainly isnt any better. Exactly how did we benefit from this??

Interested wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:14 AM:Does anyone know how many daily riders it takes for this Sprinter to hit the break even point financially? (assuming each ride paid the full length fare).

yee of no faith wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:23 AM:These folks are from the gov't, they are here to help.

TerribleHanky wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:45 AM:The more people, the merrier. Let's get that ridership up. Let's also know that a certain segment of society will never pay up unless you make them. They are victims in their own mind, if everything and everyone but themselves. Constant enforcement is necessary for the lifetime of the system.

To Randy wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:46 AM:I am neither a student or a tree hugger... I am just a mom of small kids, and I for one love the Sprinter! And... I drive an SUV. I am looking forward to taking the Sprinter anywhere I can, so that I can leave my SUV in the garage to save some money on gas. I am just trying to be a practical mom and get my kids out and about with a little walking to and from the station.

local osider wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:47 AM:Wow! its amazing how short sighted and myopic some of the bloggers are...The benefits of the sprinter are huge! Big picture people...Look at the big picture, dont give me statistics and numbers, they can be arranged to say anything you want to say...look at the change in mentality as people take the train instead of drive...I remember what the nay sayers said about the coaster and it IS PACKED EVERY DAY!!

Raise Taxes! wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:50 AM:I want another train from Rainbow to Anza, or Bonsall to Ramona- one-way preferrably. I can feel the air getting cleaner already, no more motorized carriages!

98% of the time the wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:21 AM:Sprinter is on time? Having ridden Escondido buses for over 4 years, I would have to say that the buses are 99% on time. Pretty good considering 4 years vs. 12 days.

Walt wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:26 AM:For Vista Granny. Numerous evaluations show auto users more than pay for the supporting infrastructure from the various fees, sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact considerable gas tax is still diverted to help the subsidy for mass transit. That diversion from road construction is the principal reason for our energy wasting congestion. Do you think bus mass transit pays its share for use of roads? I don't drive an 8 cyl SUV, and we have slimmed down to a one car family. I'd love to see a wholesale shift to the fuel efficient cars already available. Just an easily obtained one mpg ave improvement in auto fuel use would save more fuel than San Diego's entire transit system uses in the first place. Why build more? I'd love to see a true fuel efficient, land use efficient, low emisions PUBLIC transportation system that would reduce car use, and most important preserve the flexible, personal time saving features autos provide and mass transit never can. There are such becoming available through use of automation and lightwight electric vehicles. Unfortunately transportation leadership local and nation keeps right on buying more of the dressed up century-old designs like Sprinter, and trolleys.

John E wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:27 AM:Travel via private automobile is the most highly subsidized transportation system in the history of civilization. The price of gasoline would have to double to pay for the construction and maintenance of our road system and all of the other externalities of motoring.

Commuter rail, such as the Sprinter, the Coaster, and the San Diego Trolley, is about transportation choice and mobility for anyone who cares to use it.

Food for thought wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:29 AM:Why are they using counters and only 2 days of counting was done? Why are they not using the electronic data from ticket purchases used to tally actual ridership. Ticket checks are done every other day and they only check a few of the people on the train. There is noone actually checking tickets when riders board. I for one would like to see how many ticket purchases and not a sporatic head count.

Questions wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:34 AM:All of the stories about the Sprinter to date have used "estimates" based upon people standing at stations with clickers counting people who board. VERY TELLING is that none of these stories tell you exactly how many tickets were sold each day, and the total amount per day/week. Always be suspicious when an easily provided fact is ommitted. These are the only numbers that matter if people are claiming the $500M project is a "success."

NC Times should obtain this info. I guarantee NCTD has it from their little computerized ticket booths on an hourly basis.

I don't see the gang wrote on Mar 21, 2008 9:46 AM:bangers buying tickets, and nobody stops them, why do we have to?

Reardon wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:00 AM:"Sprinter ridership nudges toward 8,000 passengers" -- please call me when the taxpayer subsidy decreases from 75% to 0! I will celebrate when the line starts to pay back the $477 million cost...oh! are you saying it must be subsidized forever? Hmmmm. Sort of a rolling California Center for the Arts in Escondido.

Al wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:07 AM:I drive A bus for nctd and have done so for over 30 yrs and have seen the district go down hill since the coster started now the sprinter. You need busses to get people to the train so you cut service smart. The district has spent over A million dollars in fines with out A blink of an eye that could be uses for better service. Maybe the board should get ride of of some of there over payed managers like Karen King and put more time in trying to do what we do move people.

To Walt wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:33 AM:You make some good points, but the next question is what will it take to "force" the general public into more fuel efficient cars? The small changes we have seen recently have only come about because of the significant increased in the price of gas. Is it going to take $5/gal...maybe $10/gal....who knows. I'd say that if this sort of pressure does come to pass, options like the Sprinter and the bus system will be the ONLY option left to most of the average folks. And when the costs are figured at that point in the future, the price paid for this rail line will pale in comparison to the costs of everyone buying new fuel efficient, lightweight, automation ready cars, let alone the cost of installing the infrastructure on each and every mile of freeway to allow that automation work. I also think that getting the average driver to turn their driving over to any sort of automated system will be a lot harder than getting them to ride public transportation or drive a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. Impossibly difficult in fact.

Richard wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:37 AM:As I recall, the NCTD rail bureaucrats admitted that about 75% of the projected Sprinter ridership would come from canceled buses. They projected 12,000 riders (since somewhat scaled back). We have 8,000. Based on their own figures, almost ALL the Sprinter riders are former bus riders -- there is no net reduction in auto use.

Ralphs wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:53 AM:Maybe I have been at the station at El Camino at the wrong time, I wanted to see for myself how many were riding. I sure didn't see the amounts that NCTD have come up with. I would like to see an unbiased survey done in about 6 months. How many ride from end to end, how many take it just one station, etc. How many ride and do not pay. I also have seen no reduction in the traffic on 78. I have seen an increase of compaints concerning the changing of bus services and now that there is a shortage of funds, there will even be more busses cut which will mean less people riding the Sprinter. You can't ride what you cannot get to. If the subsidized portion of the ticket was taken away and you had to pay full price, there would be no one on the Sprinter.

Facts wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:01 AM:Ticket sales account for less than 10% of the riders, so using ticket sales won't help figure out anything, except for revenue.

Walt, what do you want? More freeway lanes huh? We should just keep building more lanes until there is no more land available, then start building on top of those, with 7 story freeways eventually...

The Sprinter will work, it is taking cars off the freeway (it can never take as many off as Walt thinks it should), and yes it is subsidized, but so aren't our roads....

AlexF wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:03 AM:To require that the non-recurring expense of the construction for the sprinter pay itself off is like telling a pothole "we'll only fill you if you pay for it yourself." $480 million is certainly a large chunk of funding, but so is the billions we spend on road widening projects. It would have taken much more to widen the 78 because it would have meant destruction of businesses and huge land redevelopment projects allong the entire corridor. Just look at the I15 mess. Public infrastructure projects, by their very nature, don't cover their NRE. What any reasonable person can demand (and what I am hoping to see) is that the sprinter will cover it's operating expenses. The 11,000 daily ridership figure is what is required to cover operating expenses. If ridership continues to grow, it will not be long before we see that the initial investment was worth it.

So true wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:07 AM:they have cancelled my bus so now I must go back to driving. See you on the feeways!

Made Up Fact wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:15 AM:"Facts", you need to change your moniker. You assert that over 90% of the Sprinter riders are not paying the fare. On what do you base that pronouncement? Freeloading is indeed too frequent, but based on the warnings given out, not nearly as frequent as you claim. Your 90+% free-riding claim is a made up fact.

Ralphs wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:20 AM:To Facts: If 10% of the riders are from ticket sales, who makes up the other 90%? Monthly sales etc, can easily be counted. The problem is that we have been lied to by NCTD so many times, it is hard to believe anything coming out of their office. Plus, numbers can be manipulated to read what ever you want.
To AlexF: Check with CalTrans, the right of way for a lane in both directions on 78 is already owned. No property would have been bought.
As I stated in a previous blog, lets re look at this in 6 months and find our how many really ride the Sprinter. When you buy gasoline, you are paying a tax that is suppossed to be used to upgrade and improve the highways and roads, I would like for someone to find out from NCTD what a ticket would cost from Escondido to Oceanside without the taxpayer having to pay a susidy?

Richard wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:24 AM:AlexF thinks that all transportation infrastructure doesn't pay its way. Wrong. There's plenty of money from gas taxes and sales taxes on gas to pay for the freeways -- IF these funds were used for roads instead of silly projects such as the Sprinter.

Also, AlexF wants the Sprinter to cover its operating costs. Good luck! No rail system in America comes close to covering it's operating cost. NONE! NCTD hopes that maybe 30% of the Sprinter operating cost will be covered by fares, and that goal is highly optimistic.

In addition, left out of the operating cost of government projects is depreciation -- the need to periodically replace equipment. The BART system in SF has encountered that "surprise" cost and is now facing billions of spending never planned for.

Hmmm... wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:36 AM:I wonder...How are the beach people going to feel when getting robbed by Escondido gang members that ride the "scumbag express" AKA Sprinter to the beach this summer when the heat rises to 99 degrees inland? OPD can't handle the crime they have now? So much for those property values and MILLION dollar apts. when you have opposing gangs vying for a spot on the sand. All i can say is thank god I live in Rancho Sante Fe we know exactly how to not let people of that type into our areas.

Jake wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:43 AM:Made Up Fact,

"Facts" I think was distinguishing between ticket sales and PASSES, not ticket sales and freeloaders.

Yokozu;na wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:47 AM:Merely issuing a warning to none payers is much too soft of a punishment if even that. Put them off at the next stop!!

Vistian wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:18 PM:Been riding the MTS trolleys for years and there is zero tolerance for deadbeat riders. They throw them off and write the citation(s). It is very easy. Most of the crime associated with the trolley is at the stations, people waiting and gangbangers crusing by.

Non-User wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:28 PM:I might consider using it if it went anywhere I wanted or needed to go. Unfortunately it doesn't so I've got no choice but to stick with my car. Good luck to the rest of you though.

George wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:31 PM:Now might be a good time to review the article "Sprinter: A Solution Seeking A Problem" at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/13/opinion/commentary/18_31_176_12_07.txt It only requires a minor adjustment to the presentation, since it assumed one DMU per train instead of two DMUs per train.

Adding the second DMU to the trainset means fuel usage is doubled to 64 gallons per one-way trip, reducing fuel economy to 0.35 miles per gallon. This also means you'd have to double the number of buses that provide equivalent seating capacity from 14 to 28. Service would then occur every 2 minutes along the route instead of every 4 minutes. The amount of fuel used by 28 buses would still be less than the fuel needed by the four Sprinter trainsets.

If you plan for the current Sprinter ridership of 8,000 daily one-way passengers, you would only need 13 buses running at 9-minute intervals to meet the demand. The all-bus solution would use less fuel, significantly reduce emissions, and enhance the level of service. If ridership grows, adding buses is easy and economical.

Michael wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:51 PM:To Hmmm...

Well, good thing you don't let crooks into your po box land. Where did Duke live again? Or perhaps you missed the comet? Either way, Sprinter is only a start, it won't solve traffic problems, nor will it serve everyone. When you are stuck in traffic on 78, just remember, there are plenty of people laughing at you from the train!

Walt wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:08 PM:For "To Walt" Yes that is the $64 million question. As a red blooded pay my own way supporter of personal freedom and private enterprise dyed in the wool New England Yankee, forcing the needed change is the last thing to do. But it is unfair to tell taxpayers the current use of 1/3 total funds for 2% of trips using mass transit is the wave of the future. But I have faith in the nations ability to cope, with supportable decisions, although frequently late in the process. The trend is starting toward efficient cars. Notice those acres of unsold SUV's and Monster Trucks in dealer lots. The key ingrediant in a meaningful substitute for current type cars is preserving flexible on demand time saving transport direct to real destinations. That's why cars dominate, and why the vast majority rejected mass transit decades ago. 30% in San Diego don't drive, but only 5% OF THOSE show up using mass transit.The means for really big improvement is beginning to occur. Unfortunately not in USA. Heathrow airport near London for example is installing a rudementary version of an automated personal transport for ground access to terminals, parking etc. A new Middle East city is bing planned w/o cars. But automated personal transitory, not mass transit is the means. Yes it will take money, but so will both mass transit, and more roads, even though roads are far more cost-effective. And we can install new systems on and above the existing rights of way. Urban mass transit performance is little changed in over 100 years. Look at progress in telephones, airlines, military weapons, etc in that period. We need innovative leadership to make technology-driven improvement, not more of the same ideological and hunch based decisions. Unfortunatly the public never hears about all the options, even using current travel modes. How many realize in real world use, freeways use less land per trip than trolleys? Hopefully your question will get more to think twice about the knee jerk reaction for more mass transit.

Karl wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:17 PM:The Sprinter works for us. Period end of conversation.

Michael wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:31 PM:I'll also add that another line, the Los Angeles Metro Red Line, was called a failure. "Oh no one will ride a train in LA!" Well, tell that to the 120,000+ that take the train DAILY. That is the equivalent of a freeway. Not a lane, a FREEWAY. Is traffic better? Who cares when you're speeding along at 55mph and 70mph under the city to your station. Don't be so quick to judge this a failure. It isn't. It will grow in ridership. That "Walt" guy can keep spouting how good it is to drive, while stuck in the inevitable traffic jam he will be in with that logic.

Ralphs wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:38 PM:To Karl: Just for everyone's information, "who is us"?

Ralphs wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:51 PM:To Michael: Oh yes, the infamous Metro Red Line. It only runs for 17.4 miles from North Hollywood to Union Station and was built in three segments at a cost of 5.6 billion, yes billion, dollars. It is in downtown LA basically so therefore it took no one off the freeway. They were all riders of the bus system.

Fox wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:02 PM:Isn't this a bit like the Fox guarding the hen house? How about some independent volunteer counters from the taxpayers who paid for this boondoggle??

TerribleHanky wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:09 PM:Rode this Sprinter early this afternoon. Nice ride. Glad it is here, if somewhat scratching my head at the cost effectiveness. Guess they can extend the thing down I-15 at some point, putting on more equipment. Nice to see all the security. Nice to feel relatively safe on public transport. Without them, it would be a free for all.

FRED wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:21 PM:I guess there will always be people complaining. Its their nature. Ia all you have to do is read articles about how people tried to stop electricity frombeing generated at Niagra Falls back in the 1800 period. We did not listen to them then and won't now about the Sprinter

Jen wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:27 PM:I take the 302, (305 now) to work everyday to WOODLAND & MISSION in San Marcos. Was great, bus left every 15 minutes, I was NEVER late for work. Now the Sprinter has changed the bus schedule to every half hour, the closest I can get to work on the Sprinter is either NORDAHL or CAL STATE SAN MARCOS neither of which is anywhere close to where I work. Basically, all the Sprinter has done for me is mess up my schedule. . .maybe a few more stops on the way. . .

Taxes, maintainance, and capital expenses wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:35 PM:So Walt, do you think the gas taxes you mention, which are admittedly being siphoned off for mass transit, would cover the cost of building new freeway lanes, and the cost of upkeep? Maybe you can give us some links to where these numbers are so we can check them out (also the automated systems you mention). The problem to me is out of control costs for construction which apply to ANY big project. The sprinter is just one example of something that started out at costing one amount, but took so long to build, the actual costs grew out of control. Now maybe not all the cost overun was due to that, but a lot of it was. Same thing happened when with school bonds. By the time the projects are actually built, the costs have doubled (more or less). Right now, they're building lanes on I-15 (I know, not general purpose, but that's not my point). How much is this going to cost per mile when it is done, compared to how much they thought it was going cost when they started planning it. Once you start it, your stuck with it, and if someone decides to charge your twice what they originally said, you have no choice but to pay it. Seems to me the taxes collected are pretty much steady state, while the cost to build/maintain is growing. And if we start using less gas, then this will eat into the income you mention.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:42 PM:I support public transportation and personally enjoy riding train, trolly, etc. when I can. Now, as for a rail line up the I-15 to Temecula, it is feasibly impossible. The hills and valleys are too steep for rail. That's why the original rail from Oceanside to Temecula went up the Santa Margarita. Of course, you could tunnel through the mountains, or create a series of switch backs over, but both would be way too expensive. I've heard they plan an express bus line with dedicated lanes up the middle of the 15. That would work. Also Metrolink is coming to Perris in 2010. Cheers to all who are enjoying the Sprinter. C-1.

Derek wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:48 PM:George, adding a second DMU won't double fuel usage. Truckers draft behind each other to save fuel. Train cars draft each other much closer than truckers can and thereby achieve even better fuel savings.

If you'll take a look at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter02.pdf and note that a gallon of diesel contains 138,700 BTU of energy, you'll see that in the U.S., transit buses in 2004 averaged 32.12 passenger miles per gallon, transit rail 50.44 and commuter rail 53.99. With their built-in drafting capability, low rolling resistance steel wheels and ability to fit more people per vehicle than most other forms of transit, it's really hard to beat trains for energy efficiency.

Walt, let's wish Heathrow good luck with their personal transit technology. I'd like to see it succeed, but I fear it will be little more than an expensive tourist attraction. If it turns out to be more cost effective and energy efficient than trains, I will be its next fan.

Michael wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:55 PM:Sorry, the Metro Red Line took more than just bus riders, it took thousands of NEW riders. I've taken that subway many times, all times of day, all days of the week, very busy. Far more than any bus could deal with. As to cost, you try and build a subway line through a major metropolitan area, riddled with oil fields, faults, and young rock, any cheaper. The Metro Rail in Los Angeles is a success, don't knock it. But hey, how much exactly did the freeway system cost? Oh, thats right, you think its free! Have fun with the traffic, the smart ones will be relaxing on the trains!

George wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:29 PM:Hi, Derek! You raise an interesting point about "drafting" as a consideration in fuel economy. There are no noticeable savings at speeds of 45 mph and below, and since the Sprinter averages 22 mph from end-to-end, the benefits of drafting will seldom occur. When drafting **does** occur, it only saves 5% to 10% of the fuel needed by the second vehicle in the chain. Thus, as a rule of thumb, adding a second DMU to the trainset doubles the fuel requirements. As for energy efficiency, take another look at "Sprinter: A Solution Seeking A Problem" at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/13/opinion/commentary/18_31_176_12_07.txt where you'll see how the Breeze is more energy efficient that the Sprinter.

AWE...SOME wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:56 PM:My girlfriend and I have already joined the "sprinter" club...itsa great way to pass the time.

Reardon wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:49 PM:las, both collectivist philosophy and the love of choo-choo trains is a congenital proclivity. The problem is that they are not sufficient in number to be able to afford their hobby, so they get some organized group of professional collectivists, like SANDAG and NC Transit to gouge the taxpayers to pay for their hobby. Democracy is a political system where everyone thinks they can live on someone else’s dime. Some moochers, like the riders on Sprinter, are successful. It is a constant fight for most taxpayers just trying to keep as much in their pockets as they can -- but the Mass Transit Moochers are always looking for a way to scam the money out. They are insatiable, and would run a train line to the Moon if they could…Richard is right, there is not a financially successful rail line in America, which is why governments build and operate them. If there was a successful model anywhere, private enterprise would own an unsubsidized system. They don't. QED.

Monica wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:29 AM:I drive, but I'm looking forward to riding with my daughters. My little one has been asking when can we go. My oldest is a P.C student. So that is perfect for her. Being from NYC, where it's customary to ride the subway to get most everywhere, it was a little difficult for me to adjust to life here. After yrs of struggling with and frustration with the bus systems here in San Diego County, especially North County buses, I said no more hassles with buses, learned to drive and bought a car in '96. With the cost of gas being so high now, it is nice to see some better public transportation -- at least out to O'side. Perhaps it will be expanded. It will be nice to be able to relax and look around instead of constant defensive driving to avoid those on the phones, in over-sized SUVs, sudden traffic jams, or drivers who are just not paying attention.

Vista Granny wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:08 AM:Same old comments from the same old writers who don't like public transportation, period!!! I thought Ralph's comment all the people who use the red line were bus riders to begin with. Oh dear! He leaves out comments about the highly successful Metrolink -- I wonder why?

cochon wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:45 AM:whatever reardon. have fun in your non-collektivist traffic jams in the name of democracy and freedom! just think though, if you rode the choo-choo train, you could spend the time reading up on all the latest(1960s?) john birch society literature, instead of having to watch out for your other freedom loving americans' automobiles from japan and germany on
the 78. oh well, your loss. hail america!

to Walt wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:16 AM:It's not all about the numbers though Walt. Are you a bean counter or something. First off, to all you "subsidized" freaks - a very large portion of the money that funded the Sprinter came from Federal and State dollars earmarked for public rail spending. If the Sprinter didn't get the money, the money would have never been spent in SD. It would have been spent somewhere else. So, all these creative numbers you guys come up with that make it sound like you've been footing some ridiculous bill is indeed in itself RIDICULOUS. The money couldn't have ever been spent on 'widening the freeways" people, educate yourselves. You Sprinter naysayers haven't been charged a dime, trust me. The Sprinter probably isn't relieving much traffic on 78. However, that's not where the true benefit lies. The Sprinter increases our quality of life, it's added another mode of transportation THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE THAT COULDN'T AFFORD MOBILITY BEFORE. In the long run, more students become educated, get better jobs, etc. etc. etc. We all benefit. If you can't see the true benefit then you are just a negative person that will never be happy about a thing. You can break down the numbers all day if you want, it won't get you anywhere. The naysayers said nobody would be riding it and people are riding it. Bottom line. You were wrong. And, you didn't "subsidize" anything. LOL!

Ralphs wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:26 AM:To Vista Granny: The answer I gave came right from the documents from the City of Los Angeles. It was concerning the Metro Red line, the question had nothing to do with the Metro Link. Lets not talk about apples then substitute oranges.

JSten wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:28 AM:In the 1970's I marveled at my ability to get from home across San Antonio on a bus (I only had to walk 4 miles to the nearest bus stop once when I stayed too late). I then was equally impressed when I was able to travel virtually anywhere I wanted to go in Europe *except Norway) by bus and rail. Of course their infrastructure had been around a while. Costs were reasonable and ridership was high. I think my BMI was lower at that time as well.

Now later I occasionally become involved in the odd tranportation project (not really my forte, but "any port in the storm as they say") I think my prospects for participation in mass transit projects will be much less once it gets around that I used to think that mass transit in America could ever EVER pay for itself in ridership. Did you know that there is no need to ever run the numbers on this one? I got a lot of laughs that day,

Not that its a bad thing, but according to the transit experts who will never invite me back, its the real thing.

JSten wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:34 AM:A lot of the ersatz bean counters here will sleep better if they consider the capital cost of the Sprinter as a "Sunk Cost".

Saves a lot of figuring on negative returns and depreciation.

Tony wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:37 PM:Ah, yes, the old "don't confuse me with the facts" argument. What we need is congestion relief and that's what we're not receiving for our transportation dollars.

Idiot wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:53 PM:All you naysayer bean counters are pathetic. We train proponents know that if we can get just ONE person off Hwy 78 and into the Sprinter, it's all worth it. Cost be damned.

Walt wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:21 PM:For those seriously interested in comparing subsidies for the several modes of transportation on a national not just local create jobs basis "to Walt" uses, try the following from US Dept of transportation: (www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/). There will always be arguments about accuracy and inputs to stats like this. This report does not for example include the social costs for any of the modes, transit or roads. But Vista Granny seems to have a handle on that subject so perhaps she will honor us with some numbers instead of assertions? Federal funds are indeed a large source locally and the "use it or lose it" rationalization for cost ineffective projects is used extensively. Last big one was the $508 million 6 mile Mission Valley East trolley, about 90% federal funds. If our leadership negotiates for effective projects in the first place the "UIOLI" concern goes away. In case someone wants to make a local subsidy calculation, remember in the Sprinter context that started this discussion, for roads to be receiving more than transit, each entry of an auto onto a highway with 1.25 average occupants would have to cost taxpayers about 11 dollars. (1.25 times the Sprinter 9 dollar capital cost per boarding which doesn't even cover operating cost)

Tony wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:24 PM:Am I the only one noticing that the people agitating for higher gas prices and taxes are the ones claiming a train ticket is "affordable" transportation? To achieve affordable transportation, we need LOWER gas prices and taxes, not higher!

LAofAnaheim wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:54 AM:Again, everybody...mass transit DOES NOT take cars off of roads. It allows for greater density and economic development along its corridors. You will see little to no impact on SR-78 with Sprinter. What the Red Line did to LA was allow significant public/private economic investments into the Hollywood, North Hollywood, Koreatown, and downtown areas. Is the trips any shorter on the 101 between North Hollywood & Downtown? Nope. Same as saying is if there is no traffic in New York b/c they got a great subway system? Nope. Never happens. Taking "cars off the road" is a false hope. I fully support mass transit and hope to see more in the future, but if your aim is to "reduce traffic" or "take cars off the road", you will surely be disappointed.

Walt wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:01 PM:For Derek.
The US average passenger-miles per gallon for buses and trains is heavily weighted by use at very dense NYCity, and to some extent Chicago Philly, and San Fran. Roughly 1/3 of all US transit occurs in NYC. Thus with a couple exceptions, P-M/gal numbers for San Diego are not much different than current cars, and lower than already available cars like Prius. Indeed in principle, rail especially is very efficient carrying full loads. Trolleys and such are derived from railroads designed to carry bulk coal, grain, sacks of potatoes etc etc. But to provide service in cities like SD vehicle occupancy averages only about 25% and there is a lot of fuel wasting stop and go. Exceptions in SD are the Coaster at about 50 P-M/gal. because it makes few stops and emphasises peak hour demand. Also the original trolley downtown to the Mexican Border probably meets the US average.Heathrow automated personal transport is a "starter kit". but will give experience. Electric power w/o batteries, and very light vehicles are the key to energy efficiency. Hardly 60,000 pound buses with 10 on board. pray for Heathrow!

Richard wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:55 AM:The importance of such discussions is to understand the lunacy of fixed rail for people transit. Without this knowledge, we will continue to waste billions on hugely expensive white diesel elephants that carry only a fraction of the projected ridership -- and few who didn't ride buses before.

For instance, SANDAG and County Supervisor Ron Roberts want a new light rail line from Old Town to UTC and UCSD. It's a textbook case of a political public works project that makes zero economic sense.

There's still time for sanity to reign -- but only if we learn from the past mistakes. Such as the Sprinter.

Happyrider wrote on May 19, 2008 4:46 PM:Wow... what a discussion. Meanwhile, the earth continues to get warmer. For those who don't like the solution of reducing our emissions by increasing public transit options, just don't use it. But get out of our way while the rest of us do. Go Sprinter.

LARCH wrote on Jun 1, 2008 8:44 AM:The point of creating passenger rail is not to replace freeways, but to encourage development along the mass transit corridors so people will be able to live and work near these transit options. The reason adding freeway lanes doesn't relieve congestion overall is because there are that many more cars overall on the new lanes adding more congestion at offramps and surrounding surface streets. The real problem is the county has defined pockets of shopping areas, working areas, residential areas when they should ideally be interspersed. I can't wait for an Escondido<->San Diego passenger rail line. The more peices to the network, the more successful it will be overall. FYI public transit will never be profitable in terms of bringing in dollars. I believe property values of homes within walking distance will be higher overall because of the Sprinter