Re: Lost your home? Car? Everything? Thank a bicyclist and the California road diet.

On 2025-01-18, Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

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.
>
--
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