Mass vs automobile transport dilemma

[Piwoslaw]

We're planning another trip to the mountains next week and some friends are coming. Here are the two options for the trip (one way distance about 400km):
(1) 8 hour overnight long distance bus ride, 1 hour wait, 45 minut local train. Return by local and express trains. Total cost: 160 PLN, about US$40-45, per person.
(2) 6 hour car ride. Total cost of fuel: 160 PLN, about US$40-45, divided between 4 or 5 people.

The bus is overnight, so in theory everyone would get some sleep, but I know from many similar trips that 2-3 hours of dozing is the best you can wish for. The car option is MUCH cheaper, but requires me driving the whole way (one of the passengers might be willing to do an hour on the highway). I'm all for mass transport (for environmental reasons), but in this case I wonder:
- The bus will most likely be a 20-30 year old diesel clunker, compared to my 3yo turbodiesel, which has the best FE in its class, plus my hyperkilometering techniques. The bus doesn't Pulse & Glide.
- The bus takes 40-60 passengers, but every 50km does a 15km detour off the highway to a stop in the center of some small town, even if nobody gets in/out. My car will go straight to where we're heading with few stops, but with only 4-5 people.
- There's lots of waiting involved when switching buses and trains.
- It's hard to find a safe place to park while we're hiking for 3 days.
- If we take the car, then 4-5 more people will fit in the bus, people who might take their own inefficient cars if they can't get on the bus.
- The train is twice as expensive as the bus, but it's faster and more comfortable, unless you're riding with a bunch of hools coming back from a game.

So a car ride is faster, cheaper and more comfortable. Buses are supposed to get better FE per passenger-kilometer, but the bus we're talking about makes lots of detours and stops. Plus it's got an old smoking engine. The express train goes two times faster than I drive (160 vs 80-90 km/h) and uses electricity which comes in 90%-95% from coal and only 2% from RE (mostly hydro).

So this is an example of a problem I often face: I'm hardwired into thinking that mass transport is more FE and just plain better for the environment, but real life seems to verify that. New cars, with a full load of passengers and with ecodriving techniques and biofuels, might be more fuel efficient and cleaner than buses, maybe even trains.

Comments, advice, anything?

[Ryland]

How much is your cost per mile to drive your car? mine is around 26 cents per mile even tho my cost for gas per mile is around 5 cents, with the bus and train they are not selling you a ticket based off the cost of fuel, they are selling you a ticket based off the cost of buying the train, paying the people to work on the train and at the station and everything else.

[SVOboy]

I would go for the car and use your saved hassle to plant a tree or something else.

I'm not kidding, either,

[TestDrive]

Assuming things work the same in Poland as in the USA (yeah, right.)

If more people buy tickets than the buss will hold, they add another bus to the run. (Worse for the environment than you taking the car.)

If more people buy tickets than the train will hold, they add another car. (Better for the environment than you taking the car.)

But lets not forget your point - "If we take the car, then 4-5 more people will fit in the bus, people who might take their own inefficient cars if they can't get on the bus."

Anyway, I agree with SVOboy. Take the car and plant a tree.

[MazdaMatt]

that's funny... drive + tree was going to be my smart-arse remark, too.

[Piwoslaw]

We'll all plant trees Thanx SVOboy

Originally Posted by TestDrive

Assuming things work the same in Poland as in the USA (yeah, right.)

If more people buy tickets than the buss will hold, they add another bus to the run. (Worse for the environment than you taking the car.)

If more people buy tickets than the train will hold, they add another car. (Better for the environment than you taking the car.)

Only as many tickets can be sold as there are seats in the bus. When I take the long distance bus I see 5-10 people at every stop begging the driver to let them in. They say they'll pay the full price of a ticket even though they'll have to stand for hours. But the driver isn't allowed to let more people on than there are seats, for safety reasons (as opposed to a city bus). The funny thing is that if the company sent out a second bus to collect all of those who couldn't get on the first, they'd double their profit. But there is no second bus. Only once was there a second bus, 5 minutes after the first, but this was before a superlong holiday weekend and another two buses would not have been too many. The second bus is needed every Friday, but it just doesn't happen.

The train is a different situation: if more tickets are sold, then there are more people in each car, not more cars. The national operator's policy: "Why give them more cars, when they'll fit in less?"

[i_am_socket]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

The train is a different situation: if more tickets are sold, then there are more people in each car, not more cars. The national operator's policy: "Why give them more cars, when they'll fit in less?"

That sounds like the commuter trains going in and out of Manhattan Some times it's so crowded, the conductors can't get through to collect tickets. (not that I've timed it to the point where I can get free rides or anything )

[blueflame]

Ideally you would say no to traveling altogether, and meditate on emptiness instead.