please help with my expectations...

[airslo]

ok, I own and play CIM1, I really enjoy it, however I do wish it was more challenging...which brings me to my questions..since we have no game play footage and no reviews of the game review just explanations of the systems within the game....
1. I want a challenge financially, so is this game about the challenge of building a profitable transportation company, or is the game about relaxing, using your imagination and simply build a transportation network of your liking... This whole city builds based on what I build has me worried about my role in the game...if I can build roads with bus lanes everywhere, well there goes that challenge and if I can build train stations anywhere (because the city is not built yet) well..where is the challenge in that...ect ect...seems to me like we put the chicken before the egg, I should have to build the transportation network around the needs of the city, not the city building around my transportation network...though i understand that the network would eventually influence the growth of the city.

so I guess what I am asking you guys is this...is this game about the challenge of building and running a transportation company...or is the game about designing the transportation network of your dreams???

thanks so much
slo

 

[giladteller]

Well.. The answer is: Both.
You can play with unlimited money and build the network of your dreams, or you can play with full economical simulation.
Building roads will be expensive, therefore you will not be able to fill the city with bus-only roads. The economical challange is there - if you want it.

 

[Enzojz]

In my opinion, public transport is always non-profitable...

 

[Butelka64]

In my opinion, public transport is always non-profitable...

It depends on how well is it managed. A nicely managed system can generate a pretty profit, although in many (or most) cities over the world public transport generates loss indeed.

 

[Arbus]

In my opinion, public transport is not even supposed to generate profit. Public transport provides a positive extrenality to the city's traffic. By improving traffic, people driving private cars are benefiting without paying. The air becomes less poluted, as more people choose public transport. It's also more fuel efficient, so it reduces imports (or leaves more for exports) and that's better for the economy as well. So public transportation should be subsidized, as that's efficient from an economic prespective. The only point is to know how much to subsidize. In game terms, imagine part of the ticket price is paid by the city and the other part is paid by the commuter.

 

[unmerged(501529)]

In my opinion, public transport is not even supposed to generate profit. Public transport provides a positive extrenality to the city's traffic. By improving traffic, people driving private cars are benefiting without paying. The air becomes less poluted, as more people choose public transport. It's also more fuel efficient, so it reduces imports (or leaves more for exports) and that's better for the economy as well. So public transportation should be subsidized, as that's efficient from an economic prespective. The only point is to know how much to subsidize. In game terms, imagine part of the ticket price is paid by the city and the other part is paid by the commuter.

And where do these subsidies come from? Your and my pocket. This means higher taxes. And higher taxes undo any positive economic effect subsidies may or may not have.

 

[unmerged(609936)]

And where do these subsidies come from? Your and my pocket. This means higher taxes. And higher taxes undo any positive economic effect subsidies may or may not have.

Considering that "we" subside roads (maintenance, widening, new roads, not even mentioning external costs), airports and pretty much anmy kind of transport infrastructure to a greater or lesser level, that might not be true.

"We" is in quotes because details vary from country to country and even from city to city, but I don't think any large city comes even close to fundinf its own road infrastructure from user fees. Singapore maybe.

 

[artml]

And where do these subsidies come from? Your and my pocket. This means higher taxes. And higher taxes undo any positive economic effect subsidies may or may not have.

Not really, no.

Good transportation is a backbone of dynamic economic system, and without it you can never build one. Bad transport leads to astonishing amount of time waste and fatigue that in turn leads to even bigger loss in productivity. It is true for transport in general, be it public transportations or private cars -- they are not enemies but instead parts of the single transportation system whose goal is to minimize average time of getting people from point A to point B.

The effects of having a good transportation are overwhelming. See Bogotá Change, it's very educating -- and it's a real example from the real life. Read Vukan Vuchic's Transportation for Livable Cities, it will also help to understand how transport economics works.

 

[Metropolitan]

In my opinion, public transport is not even supposed to generate profit. Public transport provides a positive extrenality to the city's traffic. By improving traffic, people driving private cars are benefiting without paying. The air becomes less poluted, as more people choose public transport. It's also more fuel efficient, so it reduces imports (or leaves more for exports) and that's better for the economy as well. So public transportation should be subsidized, as that's efficient from an economic prespective. The only point is to know how much to subsidize. In game terms, imagine part of the ticket price is paid by the city and the other part is paid by the commuter.

You forget the most obvious: without mass transit, there would simply be no cities as big as NYC, London, Paris or Tokyo. Without the advent of rail, these cities wouldn't have been able to grow the way they did between 1850-1950.

Granted more recent cities such as Houston or LA are able to work efficiently without mass transit, but that's only thanks to a huge and expensive network of freeways. "Freeways" which are not really "free" since they are paid by the taxpayer.

And where do these subsidies come from? Your and my pocket. This means higher taxes. And higher taxes undo any positive economic effect subsidies may or may not have.

Transportations are common good serving the economy. Without them, there would simply be no possibility of economic growth for anyone. That's true as much for roads and airports as it is for rail or mass transit. Same thing.

Let's try to close permanently the subway in NYC and let's check consequences. I'm not talking about closing it only one day, people are able to organize themselves for one day off, I'm talking about terminating the service. That could be fun.

 

[evilcherry]

Actually a better alternative to subsidy is to build a more compact city. If you have to cram a few tens of thousands/km^2, the only viable mobility is public transport. Imagine, say, the whole population of the bay area stuffed onto the SF peninsula.

 

[Metropolitan]

Actually a better alternative to subsidy is to build a more compact city. If you have to cram a few tens of thousands/km^2, the only viable mobility is public transport. Imagine, say, the whole population of the bay area stuffed onto the SF peninsula.

It's actually the other way around. Cities grow compact or extensive depending on the available transport infrastructures. It's only thanks to the advent of highways that detached house suburbia could grow profitable since those made it possible for people to reach distant areas in their daily commute.

And indeed, if there is an efficient mass transit system which is able to manage a large stream of passengers in a small area, then it becomes profitable to build denser.

Transportation doesn't adapt to the shape of cities, it's actually cities which are shaped by transportation.

 

[jimmy_lam]

It depends on how well is it managed. A nicely managed system can generate a pretty profit, although in many (or most) cities over the world public transport generates loss indeed.

A "Pure" public transportation system is really hard to generate profit, however, if the transportation company/organization participate in some sub-service such as property development, or retail service. The transportation company will become profitable. The Japanese game A-train accept player to make investment on private property any becoming a main income of player instead of regular railway service.
In real world, there are lots of example that transportation company involve investment beside transportation. In Japan, lots of private railway will develop shopping mall by using the railway company brand. In Hong Kong, MTR, participate in lots of residential development and get a great revenue.

 

[unmerged(501529)]

My argument wasn't to eliminate public transit because it sucks money out for no return. My argument is that private business could manage it better. In the US, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, etc are doing just fine. Yet, Amtrak is constantly in the red and on the brink of collapse.

 

[unmerged(609936)]

My argument wasn't to eliminate public transit because it sucks money out for no return. My argument is that private business could manage it better.

Maybe, maybe not. One should avoid such sweeping generalisations, because situation in various countries is wildly different. Also, businesses doing "government" (municipal, regional etc.) contracts are often private.

In the US, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, etc are doing just fine. Yet, Amtrak is constantly in the red and on the brink of collapse.

And how many passengers does Union Pacific, Norfolks Southern etc. carry every day? Apples and oranges. And Amtrak was not set up to be viable company.

 

[jimmy_lam]

My argument wasn't to eliminate public transit because it sucks money out for no return. My argument is that private business could manage it better. In the US, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, etc are doing just fine. Yet, Amtrak is constantly in the red and on the brink of collapse.

Was the Past Better than the Present? Those were the days , US is having such great commuter railway system...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric

 

[unmerged(501529)]

And how many passengers does Union Pacific, Norfolks Southern etc. carry every day? Apples and oranges. And Amtrak was not set up to be viable company.[/QUOTE]

Really? So how come a ticket purchased 1 month in advance is a lot cheaper than a ticket purchased 2 days in advance? Are they just trying to punish people for being procrastinators? Or maybe they are trying to make money but have no clue how to manage the finances.

It's not apples and oranges. I don't see any reason why transporting people should be less profitable than moving freight.

 

[evilcherry]

And how many passengers does Union Pacific, Norfolks Southern etc. carry every day? Apples and oranges. And Amtrak was not set up to be viable company.

Really? So how come a ticket purchased 1 month in advance is a lot cheaper than a ticket purchased 2 days in advance? Are they just trying to punish people for being procrastinators? Or maybe they are trying to make money but have no clue how to manage the finances.

It's not apples and oranges. I don't see any reason why transporting people should be less profitable than moving freight.[/QUOTE]
Intercity transport, whether private or public, is already heavily subsidized. Imagine if flight operators have to build their own airport. Or, if Amtrak is running trains at a 10-minute headway and using European equipment (instead of the heavy, third-world-standard FRA-standard equipment) it can only be profitable.

But, of course, is to eliminate (or tax into oblivion) daily commute which goes into intercity range.

 

[unmerged(609936)]

Really? So how come a ticket purchased 1 month in advance is a lot cheaper than a ticket purchased 2 days in advance? Are they just trying to punish people for being procrastinators? Or maybe they are trying to make money but have no clue how to manage the finances.

When I was talking about about setting Amtrak as non-viable company, I was thinking about 1970s. And it is non-viable now, too, only pretty much no one expected it to last that long.
And yes, they do not have much of a clue.

It's not apples and oranges. I don't see any reason why transporting people should be less profitable than moving freight.

Where do I even start? The businesses are very different, because customer needs are very different. Long-distance freight shipping is still going strong, while passenger service is virtually nonexistent.

 

[Wolfcoyote]

It depends on how well is it managed. A nicely managed system can generate a pretty profit, although in many (or most) cities over the world public transport generates loss indeed.

This. I worked as a temporary payroll clerk for a state-run transit agency which made $11.12 USD total profit in 2011. This is NOT an April Fool's joke.