Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vmlkms$30e3c$6@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 14:56:45 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 119 Message-ID: <vmlkms$30e3c$6@dont-email.me> References: <vlsj43$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> <vmlf1g$30e3c$3@dont-email.me> <gdhsojlu2tb0qfk67mcmajqfojgrvn73qe@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 14:56:44 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="531123a1122d064ea5f68defe22a62cb"; logging-data="3160172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19d2zuw8/wBV/xkEzzdzcng" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:i7ahRYfb1XGqwJD3obfjeV6ClYY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <gdhsojlu2tb0qfk67mcmajqfojgrvn73qe@4ax.com> Bytes: 7082 Am 20.01.2025 um 13:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:20:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel > <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote: > >> 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. > > Seem to me that they should have a little drone car running out in > front of the train looking for a cow on the track or a hickup in the > steel. Generally, high-speed tracks are fenced in to prevent damage with cattle and have measuring equipment check the track quality regularly. The collision in Germany with a sheep at 210 km/h (130 mph) inside a tunnel <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenbahnunfall_im_Landr%C3%BCckentunnel> was a lot less severe than the collision with a cow at 140 km/h (85 mph) in Scotland in a cutting <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polmont_rail_accident>