Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: People Without Meaningful Lives Seek Power Over Others
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:20:18 -0600
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vn07j2$28idn$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vmlsuk$38pj2$1@dont-email.me> <lv9dihFtb61U1@mid.individual.net>
 <vmocrb$5grk$4@dont-email.me> <vmoj1l$7kk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vmokki$8agt$1@dont-email.me> <vmol95$8ei6$1@dont-email.me>
 <zwgkP.176573$vfee.122746@fx45.iad> <vmsbhb$1aqp1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vmt8re$1jmo3$2@dont-email.me> <vmu0lv$1o8bt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vmu5rj$1p7vp$2@dont-email.me> <3ln5pjd4ig2g7lm79p3o4ep02nchcjs4cj@4ax.com>
 <vmur5j$1t7qv$2@dont-email.me> <vmursr$1t8ma$2@dont-email.me>
 <lhi6pj1suinb5i342fvksrgoklbr8jbu2v@4ax.com>
 <lvhl7rF8op8U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1c4114a827a541b03d334fd68a91a45";
	logging-data="2378167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HGzNtrjRlR2A8PArAQrRD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WBifTpic/AzAD/dUfUl9Be6A/lU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <lvhl7rF8op8U1@mid.individual.net>
Bytes: 5998

On 1/24/2025 8:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
>>>>> water works,
>>>>> or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
>>>>> to aid you
>>>>> the caller?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
>>>> But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
>>>> taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
>>>> transport costs into that price.
>>>>
>>>> I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
>>>> make more use of the roads.
>>>>
>>>> I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
>>>> says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
>>>> use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
>>>> But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
>>>> delivered by rail.
>>>>
>>>> Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
>>>> expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
>>>> practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
>>>> driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
>>>> fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
>>>> And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
>>>> crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
>>>> with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
>>>> pollution, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some important differences there.
>>> Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
>>> urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
>>>
>>> The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
>>> entertainment/display system, not a functional
>>> transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
>>> travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
>>> or maintain railbed AFAIK.
>>
>> There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
>> freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
>> going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays?  I
>> suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
>> passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
>> just fine on highways.
> 
> Not quite HGV cause much more frequent maintenance, and will require
> shallower grades and curves, and in general require the road to be tailed
> to them, the Heads of the Valley road in Wales they have spent over a
> billion and this is for Trucks benefit so they don’t need to slow, and some
> shaping of the road profile still has to climb the 1000ft or so up but
> trying to keep the grade sub 10%
> 
> Cars etc this wasn’t a issue, it was trucks that cooked their brakes on way
> down, seeing them on fire in the sand pit escape lane be that just the
> brakes or the entire truck wasn’t that uncommon at school.
> 
> Likewise some of the other roads in the area before sat nav’s and truck
> ones, have over the years had coaches or lorries that have come a cropper
> due to being unsuitable for the roads being unable to cope with either/or
> both the grade or the turns.
> 
> HGV very much needs a particular type of road. Now UK/EU trucks tend to be
> bit shorter and with bit more powerful engines and so on, the max weight is
> the same around 40t as they will need to cope with tighter spaces and
> generally hillier terrain.
> 
> US train networks seems to be almost entirely a slow speed freight lines
> that the passengers trains fit to their schedules and cope with lines
> maintained to their standards hence the slow speeds lot of the trains could
> be traveling quite a lot faster, ie it’s not given anything like the
> government subsidies that road is.
>>
>> --
>> C'est bon
>> Soloman
>>
> Roger Merriman
> 
> 

In fairness, basic layout and design protocols of UK 
M-roads, US Interstate system, Germany's Autobahns all 
derive from the original Autostrada. The engineering/design 
standards are for efficiency and safety of all vehicles, 
particularly for autos. Any benefit to large cargo trucks is 
incidental; merely a subset of the basic design.

-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971