Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vmlf1g$30e3c$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Lost your home? Car? Everything? Thank a bicyclist and the California road diet. Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:20:01 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 100 Message-ID: <vmlf1g$30e3c$3@dont-email.me> References: <vls3vt$78rv$3@dont-email.me> <vlsbsi$9dsn$3@dont-email.me> <vlsj43$aesq$1@dont-email.me> <vlub0o$n5cv$3@dont-email.me> <jbi5ojpadq9dbidkni9r42p3f5p948s3j0@4ax.com> <%KBgP.409299$EYNf.56321@fx11.iad> <vm0q90$179a4$1@dont-email.me> <ncxiP.657319$2xE6.179305@fx18.iad> <vmeabm$5lfv$5@dont-email.me> <vmekm0$87s5$3@dont-email.me> <vmemfh$8er3$9@dont-email.me> <vmf3i4$cut4$1@dont-email.me> <aesmojdj74a0ir1trsipnappt1i10rnlia@4ax.com> <vmla40$30e3c$1@dont-email.me> <ogdsojtdedn3euldhm265utv64df2e03m0@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:20:00 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="531123a1122d064ea5f68defe22a62cb"; logging-data="3160172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FWdyCvT7jUTWcq7lYW4yg" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+peuUKFZ7OO0FDTonRQGgKEutTE= In-Reply-To: <ogdsojtdedn3euldhm265utv64df2e03m0@4ax.com> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6119 Am 20.01.2025 um 12:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel > <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote: > >> Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder: >>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>> On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>> On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This line? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley- extension- >>>>>>> funding/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of operating >>>>>>> expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than most passenger >>>>>>> rail systems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680 operating >>>>>> expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most government >>>>> accounting (which practices would land me in prison post haste). >>>>> >>>>> Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its original >>>>> Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were supposed to go >>>>> away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for politicians and the >>>>> civil service. >>>> >>>> Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years ago. People >>>> blamed the Republican-controlled legislature. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere you go and >>>>> depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax doesn't go to roads: >>>>> >>>>> https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert- >>>>> away-from-roads/ >>>>> >>>>> And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road maintenance expense, >>>>> as far as we know: >>>>> >>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees- >>>>> pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/ >>>>> >>>>> So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending. >>>>> >>>>> Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the insider >>>>> beneficiaries just fine. >>>> >>>> My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road >>>> transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not subsidize >>>> rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses skips over that >>>> point. >>> >>> We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that >>> people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance passenger rail >>> even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be interest in >>> intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day, but two or >>> three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge is easy to >>> choose even if the train ride has more legroom. >> >> Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are "affordable", 4 >> hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic is capable of >> gaining a significant market share of journeys between "cities with an >> airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city centers pretty much >> kills the airline market (except feeder services) between those cities: >> >> The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich completely killed >> the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline market Munich - >> Berlin when it opened in 2017. >> >> Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4 hours journey time >> between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and Ruhr - Munich) by >> investing in 180 mph lines. > > I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is about how long > I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for longer, but > only because auto travel wasn't an option. > > So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720 miles if it > was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to any of our out > of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops along the way that > would make it take longer, too. Correct. Hamburg - Munich is 500 miles and not technically but financially out of reach of those magic 4 hours (currently it's 5:30 with two major investments planned to bring it to 4:30 by 2070). In Germany (like the east-coast corridor), we aim for one major stop per hour to serve intermediate locations - which is why speeds above 160 mph are rarely value-for-money; in France (larger and less dense) they go 3 or 4 hours non-stop at 200 mph to compete point-to-point with the plane.