Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: pH Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Lost your home? Car? Everything? Thank a bicyclist and the California road diet. Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:24:12 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <%KBgP.409299$EYNf.56321@fx11.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:24:12 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="86c2e039e80c5335c05bbf37de35099b"; logging-data="1065309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9NoA+IbxMs3ieALrfA6A63mQRSCgrlZo=" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lewHdR2AFq+/1HNDRlzbD13n2PY= On 2025-01-18, Catrike Ryder wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski > 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. > > -- > C'est bon > Soloman I do use rail for long distance travel. eg:CA to WA state on the Coast Starlight. If we could manage to attain the 60mph through town and at least 90 mph otherwise that was common when I visited GB in the 70's it would go a long way to getting more people on board. In the days of steam I understand 100mph was not uncommon on some lines. Sigh. Frustrated rail fan pH in Aptos