Outdoor Lifestyle
#26
jim anchower
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I-70 corridor between Vail and Denver is good example. It's EXTREMELY congested on weekends, so there's talk of widening (horrible environmental impact), banning semi trucks from Friday to Sunday, or a high speed train from Denver to Vail, covering all ski resorts in between.
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
#27
cycle-powered
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
Posts: 1,848
Bikes: '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Satyr
I am sure this depends on the area you live in. In Switzerland, busses that delievered packages and also carry passangers (Postbus) ruitinely go to, well, just about everywhere. Of the 12 or so summits I walked over this past summer, a postbus went to every single trailhead. Was a bit hard on the morale to be walking for hours on a gentle, winding, paved roads, watching the rain clouds and mist descend on the summits, while a postbus would barrel past me. But such is the price of purity.
Of course, Switzerland utilizes just about every ounce of land.
Of course, Switzerland utilizes just about every ounce of land.
i agree to a point, but there are still some similar problems in Europe.
first i have to preface that the train/bus system in Switzerland tends to be much better than that in the Bavarian Alps (Germany) and particularly Austria...
for skiing at the nearby resorts in Germany you can take a train or bus - although sometimes you face a little more restriction on timing (i.e. for people who like to party after skiing - called "Apre ski" which is basically drinking and singing which i usually don't - it is often a problem as the last bus usually leaves like an hour after the lifts close) - it is generally ok and sometimes there is even a "combo" ticket for train/bus + lift ticket that makes it REALLY cheap (e.g. instead of lift ticket alone for €40, €44 for lift + round trip train/bus).
but for skiing in Austria it is virtually impossible to use general mass transit (from the north - i.e. Germany - which constitutes over 50% of the skiiers) as the first train/bus combo will get you to the slopes some time between 11:00 and 12:30 or so - much too late! so you would have to arrive the night before! there are although many tourist buses (i.e. private) that take skiers to the resorts, so Austria does not see the "need" to provide solid public mass transit to the ski areas... (although the traffic on the autobahn on a sunday evening in the winter is HORRENDOUS)
on the other hand, in Germany if you go to the ski resorts it is simply wise to take the train as it allows you to get there and back mudch faster as you skip all the traffic (no-traffic by car is about 1hr, train about 1:15 plus time form home to train station and car in traffic 2-4 hours)
unfortunately in the Austrian/German Alps, every year more and more people choose to drive, part of which is attributable to the fact that the quality of the German train system has been decreasing steadily the last 10 years or so since privatization/cost savings, and partly simply the "comfort" factor of taking one's own vehicle...
the primary difference between the Alps and say the Rockies is that at least in the Alps you have a CHOICE: limit your choice to a ski area with good mass transit, find a private tour bus to get to the others, or drive and deal with the traffic; in Denver you only have the 3rd option: to deal with the traffic.
#28
cycle-powered
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
Posts: 1,848
Bikes: '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jamesdenver
I-70 corridor between Vail and Denver is good example. It's EXTREMELY congested on weekends, so there's talk of widening (horrible environmental impact), banning semi trucks from Friday to Sunday, or a high speed train from Denver to Vail, covering all ski resorts in between.
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
Problem is, and it's understandable, that people just want to dump their gear into car, drive to the resort, unload and ski.
A train would require driving (or however you get there) to a station in Denver, arrive at a certain time, take the train to a stop, then if you're skiing in Summit County where the resorts aren't right off the highway (like Copper Mtn and Vail), you'd have to take another form of local transportation to the lifts.
Also elevations of 10,000 ft plus would be a factor for weather.
So in this case it's hard to make a train convenient for people lugging skis, boots, jackets, lunch, etc, etc. Although Winter Park has a train from Denver to Winter Park, which is very successful. It's a 2 - 2.5 hour trip, but that's an excellent time seeing as how driving back to Denver on I-70 can take 3-4 hours to go 70 miles on a Sunday afternoon.
www.skitrain.com
people compare driving in the ideal case (i.e. no traffic and good weather) to the train.
but when traffic is factored in the train could easily be faster and "more convenient".
what is missing is the committment of the HUGE amount of money that would go to widening I-70 to the train system.
with a rail system you have following advantages:
1) reduced auto traffic = less air pollution
2) lessened need to widen I70 (i.e. long term)
3) more OPTIONS as people could still drive or take the train
4) better bad weather options as trains are usually much less bad-weather susceptable than roads/cars
5) less pavement for parking in the mountains
-- no to mention other "side" benefits like not creating as much noise or the unsightliness of huge parking lots in the mountains...
but in order to happen there must be a major investment in the train (Americans often complain that Trains are so expensive but this primarily b/c with a train the costs are relatively clear-cut whereas with roads/cars so many of the costs are "hidden" like police and emergency response, sanding and snowplowing not to mention road maintenance and air pollution etc.) and obviously then the ticket price must be comparible to what it would cost to drive. (preferably cheaper)
anyhow, basically the problem will probably just get worse and worse until the traffic is so bad that people are willing to invest in a "solution". then is the critical point if this large amount of money will be dumped into simply widening the road and "hiding" many costs and pushing the problem 10-15 years into the future or if the investment will be made in a rail system...
P.S. Swizterland is a good model as their ski trains are often MUCH cheaper and more convenient than driving. (driving is much more expensive in Europe so being cheaper is not so hard)
#29
Senior Member
Just my 2 cents...
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
#30
cycle-powered
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
Posts: 1,848
Bikes: '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlanK
Just my 2 cents...
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
I'm fairly outdoorsey, and car-free. When I want to go hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I just rent a car for a day. If you shop around, rental prices are usually around $25-30/day (including insurance), sometimes even less during the winter. Unless you do something every weekend, renting is more cost efficient: Even if you rent a car every weekend (say 8 days), the cost is still only going to be about $250-300/month. In most major cities insurance and parking cost at least $125-150/month, and this doesn't include registration and maintenance.
So do the math... If need a car less then 5 days/month, renting is cheaper. The main advantage of owning a car is convenience - you can leave and return when ever you want, where as with renting you need to pick and return the car at a certain time. Even considering this, owning doesn't seem cost efficient to me.
i agree but i think the issue in this thread was more the environmental aspect of it...
and regardless of whether you rent a car or drive your own one can burn a lot of fuel for outdoor activities -- so in many ways the "outdoor" lifestyle is can be viewed as not environmentally friendly.
i personally have accepted this and attempt to minimize as much as possible by:
1) carpooling
2) using train if possible
3) driving a relativley fuel-efficient auto although most of the "super-efficient" cars as not ideal for outdoor activities b/c they tend to have less cargo capacitiy (in my case a wagon which can still carry a lot but gets ok mileage)
4) when possible biking to the trailhead (i.e. works for something 5-20 miles away but not for a trip to somewhere 50+ miles away)
of course a real advantage to the renting strategy is that one is not tempted to use the car for other activities. i am car-lite which for me means that i do not drive in the city (bike commute to work and for shopping) and in my case the temptation is personally easy to follow but my girlfriend quite often wants to drive in the city out of convenience - e.g. is it is raining or she is tired or whatever)
#31
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Originally Posted by nathank
4) when possible biking to the trailhead (i.e. works for something 5-20 miles away but not for a trip to somewhere 50+ miles away)
Nathank, all your points are well founded. I find hypocritical all the 'environmentalists' when they drive to the trailhead in a SUV that gets 16 MPG. It is a sad example of american selfcentered behavior.
#32
Senior Member
Something else to consider...
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
#33
cycle-powered
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Munich Germany (formerly Portland OR, Texas)
Posts: 1,848
Bikes: '02 Specialized FSR, '03 RM Slayer, '99 Raleigh R700, '97 Norco hartail, '89 Stumpjumper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlanK
Something else to consider...
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
The way most U.S. cities are designed forces people to travel long-distance to access wilderness. If U.S. cities were designed with fewer car spaces and fewer roads, there would be more space available to be left undeveloped, and thus be used for outdoor recreation.
Portland has done this to some extent - Forest Park is a large Urban forest with hiking and biking trails that is well with biking distance of the city. There are also other nice trails scattered throughout the city. I know it's not the same as getting out to the boonies and camping, but it's still nice and convenient.
you are exactly right!
(did you notice i used to live in Portland?) but yes, Portland is one of the very few US cities that tries to maintain an "urban" area surrounded by a non-developed area. unfortunately even Portland continues to sprawl a little more out every year (they frequently expand the Urban Growth Boundary) but it is MUCH better than it otherwise would be! and yeah, i used to live and work right next to Forest Park (my office was on the border so i used to go trail running at lunch there and i rode 1-2 times/week in the park)
on this point Europe really has North America beat as in Munich (between the size of Portand and Seattle) the radius of development from the center is about 10km, so from where i live (2km from the center) i only have to ride 3-10km to be "out of the city" which means on country roads with farmland and small villiages as opposed to developed surburban sprawl as outside the US metro areas. AND i also live right on the river which goes through the city which has a greenway... so i go out my front door, cross the street and am on the bike path along the river. then 3km along the bikeway the mountainbike single trails start! (i lead a weekly MTB ride there every Wednesday)
P.S. @Alan: from your post it shows that you live in the Northwest where people are much more conscious of sprawl, urban desing and environmental issues
and yes, unfortunately in most cases, "the way things are" requires that one either reduce/alter "outdoor activities" or use an auto to travel to places that are not developed - often long distances
in Portland i was also car-lite and did about half of my "outdoor activities" in the city parks -- i had a vehicle only for out-of town trips to the mountains and always made sure my friends and i carpooled as much as possible.
#34
Senior Member
Originally Posted by nathank
P.S. @Alan: from your post it shows that you live in the Northwest where people are much more conscious of sprawl, urban desing and environmental issues.
My father lives in the Phoenix, AZ area and it's such a contrast. You have to drive everywhere in that city