[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮

Subject: Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮
From: Chris Brownbill <cbrnbill@enternet.com.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:16:36 +1000
Newsgroups: aus.rail
Organization: .
References: <3718F9C5.1B0F@aol.com> <371B07D2.92932721@enternet.com.au> <7ff7a9$oj2$1@news.mel.aone.net.au>

David Proctor wrote:

snip

> I do not think that anyone seriously suggests that train travel is a serious
> option for those who *need* to travel - it is more an option for those who
> *have* to or *want* to travel, and this is mainly die to timetabling, etc.
> 
> DaveP

It depends on distance - air travel is only a serious contender for journeys
over say 150km.  (Look at Sydney-Newcastle for an example of this bottom end -
rail beats air in patronage).  Rail travel is a leader for peak hour trips in
metropolitan areas up to say 40km - even more so for shorter distances.  It is
also as you say an option for those who want to "travel" longer distances - or
perhaps more correctly those who want to enjoy a "journey".

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY
  - From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)

References:
- ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮
  - From: Mihalis <mihalis@aol.com>
- Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮
  - From: Chris Brownbill <cbrnbill@enternet.com.au>
- Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮
  - From: "David Proctor" <daproc@sd4.mailbank.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Vic Signals Maintenance
Next by Date: Re: Safeworking!
Prev by thread: Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY INSTEAD?f≮
Next by thread: Re: ≮WHY NOT FLY
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread