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

Am 19.01.2025 um 17:00 schrieb AMuzi:

On 1/19/2025 9:29 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 1/18/2025 4:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:24:12 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:
>

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

>
There's not enough people like you.
>
-- C'est bon
Soloman

>
 From the Steam Age:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xa6Cr39LZU
>

Mallard has gone faster in 1938 hit 126 and held 126mph on a down hill
section, though certainly in uk pace has slowed somewhat with the Intercity
trains holding 100mph + with top speeds of 125mph limited by the
track/signalling systems and so on, with the intercity 125 from the 70’s ie
speeds haven’t changed in 50 something years, some of the trains units even
then could go faster if the line was upgraded.
>
This said even at 100mph or so average that’s decently quick.

>
As I understand it (I'm no expert) standard track gauges & train height, aerodynamics, normal track anomalies etc make stability, safety etc difficult in the 100+ area.

Obviously, track anomalies become significantly more critical with higher train speeds.
Signalling systems are one major limiting factor: lineside signals reach the end of their use around 100 mph, and in-cab signalling is extremely expensive.
You could say that enabling 125 mph running on optical lineside signals in UK killed the use case for speeds exceeding 125 mph because the benefit of 140 mph over 125 mph is too small to pay for in-cab signalling.
French and German railways were forced to deploy in-cab signalling already for the necessary speed gain from 100 mph to 125 mph, thus simplifying the (nice but less necessary) next steps to 155 mph, 180 mph (Germany) or 200 mph (France).
Rolf