TGV

Ned Mantei said:

Quoted message said:

Name a 'public' system that isn't user-antagonistic. There's no
motivation to treat customers as customers when you have the
legislature ready and willing to lay the scourge of taxation on the
non-using populace to pay for the thing. In a normal business the
customer provides the revenue. In transit, the legislators are the
'customers' and the riders are 'freight'. Staff 'gets it' and
behaves accordingly.

Quoted message said:

Be sure to try the public transport system if you are ever in
Zurich, Switzerland. Buses and streetcars run every 6--12 minutes,
trains run every 30--60 minutes. It's not in the least uncommon for
the driver to with you a pleasant day as you get off the bus. In
fact the *voters* are the customers, and the politicians react
accordingly. The center-left parties fight building any further
roads at all ("more roads just bring more traffic jams"😉, and even
the right wing can't afford to ignore public transport.

Quoted message said:

Many (most?) of my friends, at least those without children, don't
have cars even though they could afford one.

There's more to this than you mention. All of Switzerland is linked
like a huge crossword puzzle so that once on a public transit vehicle,
bus, tram, train, all other intersecting services are synchronized to
give convenient connections. Beyond that all these vehicles run on a
synchronous cycle either continuously or on a 15, 20, 30 or 60 minute
frequency so that you don't need to carry a schedule. You know that
your train, for instance, depart so many minutes after the quarter
hour on a regular cadence.

It is possible and Switzerland probably has the best example of how
well it can be done.

Jobst Brandt

A Muzi said:

Every transit system here loses a LOT of money on operations, the
capital and interest being lost at the inception. NYC is closest with
uniquely useful service and highest use rates but still a sinkhole for
tax dollars. Newer systems lose on the order of $10~$12 per rider on
operations. That's after writing off the capital.

Cool? Sure, just not a simple question.

You're right, it's not a simple question. That $10-12 per rider trip is
what it costs to get people to work so they can produce many times more
that in goods and services every day.

Just don't be too sure roads are any cheaper.

Many people think roads are completely paid for by fuel taxes, but they
only cover a small fraction. So roads are very heavily subsidized too,
outside of user fees (fuel taxes for motor vehicles, or fares for transit
riders).

Getting back to the TGV, the alternative is air travel, which is also
heavily subsidized. Airports, etc. are very expensive to build and
operate, and definitely not written into the cost of a ticket.

So, for example, before criticizing the $10B+ it would cost to build a
high speed rail line LA-SF, consider the costs of the air travel it would
replace. Don't forget environmental costs. Also consider the effect of
rising oil prices on air travel in the future, and the effect of that on
our economy. High speed rail is a good hedge.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

A Muzi said:

Every transit system here loses a LOT of money on operations, the
capital and interest being lost at the inception. NYC is closest with
uniquely useful service and highest use rates but still a sinkhole for
tax dollars. Newer systems lose on the order of $10~$12 per rider on
operations. That's after writing off the capital.

Quoted message said:

Cool? Sure, just not a simple question.

You're right, it's not a simple question. That $10-12 per rider trip is
what it costs to get people to work so they can produce many times more
that in goods and services every day.

Just don't be too sure roads are any cheaper.

Many people think roads are completely paid for by fuel taxes, but they
only cover a small fraction. So roads are very heavily subsidized too,
outside of user fees (fuel taxes for motor vehicles, or fares for transit
riders).

It's generally acknowledged by people who think about the
economy of the NYC metro area that without the subway and
regional rail system, it could never have grown as large
as it is today; a few decades ago, it would have started
to burst under the pressure of getting everyone where they
needing to go. So millions of people benefit from the
somewhat quixotic foresight of the people who started
building the subway. (Pioneers who didn't always succeed
in the short term - some of the early subway companies
had to be taken over by the city, hence the now notional
BMT/IRT/IND distinctions. Imagine if the city had let
the subways fail! That would have been a screwup of massive
proportions.)

A more recent example is the DC Metro, which some thought
a boondoggle when it was started, and which has been
fantastically expensive at times throughout its protracted
construction, and is still less ubiquitous than the NYC subway
(although a lot cleaner). On the other hand, it's now
horrifying to imagine rush hour in DC without the Metro.
Maybe you have to balance the cost of the Metro with the
massive rebound in DC neighborhoods and in real estate wealth,
especially along metro lines. (Of course, that sucks if you
can't afford a house in DC anymore, but at least you can get
to work.) None of this is directly relevant to TGVs, just
the question of infrastructure and economic return.

The problem is that infrastructure is incredibly important
but hard to do right and very hard to do in a climate
of short term planning.

Ben

In article <[email hidden]>, A Muzi

Quoted message said:

Name a 'public' system that isn't user-antagonistic. There's no
motivation to treat customers as customers when you have the
legislature ready and willing to lay the scourge of taxation on the
non-using populace to pay for the thing. In a normal business the
customer provides the revenue. In transit, the legislators are the
'customers' and the riders are 'freight'. Staff 'gets it' and behaves
accordingly.

Well, in an urban environment I'd argue that more and more the most
antagonistic 'public' transportation is that which encourages private
ownership and operation of automobiles, that is, a taxpayer financed
auto-centric infrastructure.

While there is some merit to your argument, in my experience the
antagonisms (I would characterize them as irritations) confronting
users of public transit are increasingly eclipsed by those facing
present day motorists on public streets. What initially epitomized
freedom and convenience is degenerating into a smoggy dystopia of
gridlock, usurious parking rates and fraying nerves.

LOL! You want to see antagonism? Next time you're in your car, at a red
light, after the green signal wait for an eternity -- you know, maybe
five seconds -- before proceeding. 😉

Apply your business model of quality of service to how the patrons of
our cities' highways and byways fare. Can you honestly state that the
taxpayer and the motorist are getting their money's worth?

Luke

Matt O'Toole said:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:35:22 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Name a 'public' system that isn't user-antagonistic.

London, Paris, Sydney, Vancouver... etc. I hear Germany and Scandanavia
are even better.

I spent my teenage years in Sydney, and made good use of public transit
there. It was awesome, being able to get almost anywhere I needed to go
without being chauffered, like American kids have to be. I rode my bike a
lot but almost no one else did, probably because they didn't have to.

Having lived in the Sydney area a couple years, I have to back up Matt
here - the Sydney train system is wonderful. Easy to use, clean,
convenient, and cheap (well, cheaper than driving by a long shot). If
you plan to use it to commute to work (as I did), you will need to
either ride to the station (which I did most days) or live within
walking distance (which I did as well, though it was a ~10 minute
walk). The train system in Seoul, Korea is also outstanding - really
the only down side is how crowded it gets at rush hour...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Matt O'Toole said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

mark said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once to
see how rail travel can (and should) be done.

I agree. Neat-o.

A high speed rail link LA-SF keeps getting talked about in CA, but never
quite makes it. The last serious attempt was a (failed) $9B bond issue.
It seemed like a pretty good deal to me. Flights between the 5 airports
in southern CA and the 3 in the Bay Area are jammed to overflowing. We
all know what traffic on Interstate 5 is like too. The cost of all this is
staggering.

If they can spend $15B to bury a freeway to ease traffic and improve
aesthetics of a medium-sized city like Boston (pop. 600k, then it's
certainly worth it to spend $9B+ to greatly improve the main
transportation corridor for 36 million people in CA.

The latest plan would connect all CA metro areas from San Diego to
Sacramento. 2.5hr LA-SF. Let's do it.

Quoted message said:

Geez, don't the airlines have enough problems?

I say let 'em all die, and let the good, healthy ones like Jetblue and
Southwest pick up the slack.

All of Jetblues A/C are a 'net never' lease but 'never' has arrived
and they are having diffuculty paying for the A/C. Southwest,
Frontier, NOT JetBlue.

Quoted message said:

Getting back to bikes, there are lots of people taking bikes on the Amtrak
Metrolink in southern CA. Yes, there are trains in southern CA, and yes,
people do use them. In fact they're quite full.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The latest plan would connect all CA metro areas from San Diego to
Sacramento. 2.5hr LA-SF. Let's do it.

Quoted message said:

Geez, don't the airlines have enough problems?

I say let 'em all die, and let the good, healthy ones like Jetblue and
Southwest pick up the slack.

All of Jetblues A/C are a 'net never' lease but 'never' has arrived
and they are having diffuculty paying for the A/C. Southwest,
Frontier, NOT JetBlue.

Southwest has their own problems; they've been relatively insulated from
operating costs pressures due to their huge, beautifully-timed fuel hedge
(locking in fuel prices for a 5-year time period at low prices). But that
fuel hedge is just about gone, and they'll be facing the same high prices as
everyone else in the industry. I believe that last year, they saved more on
their fuel hedge than their profit, which means without it, they're losing
money, just like everyone else did. Can't speak to Frontier; don't know
anything about their operation.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:27:24 -0400, Luke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What initially epitomized
freedom and convenience is degenerating into a smoggy dystopia of
gridlock, usurious parking rates and fraying nerves.

I'll settle for freedom from up-scale language like this :-)

Quoted message said:

LOL! You want to see antagonism? Next time you're in your car, at a red
light, after the green signal wait for an eternity -- you know, maybe
five seconds -- before proceeding. 😉

You must live somewhere laid back. Around here one-second is all it
takes for the horns to start. After five you would clearly have been
pushed out of the way by the SUV drivers behind you.

Quoted message said:

Apply your business model of quality of service to how the patrons of
our cities' highways and byways fare. Can you honestly state that the
taxpayer and the motorist are getting their money's worth?

We're (apparently) willing to pay for independence driven initiatives.
If you included individual, self propelled, end-user driven rail cars
and spurs to every home and business, there'd be universal support for
rail initiatives.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote

Quoted message said:

Southwest, Frontier, NOT JetBlue.

Southwest has their own problems; they've been relatively insulated from
operating costs pressures due to their huge, beautifully-timed fuel hedge
(locking in fuel prices for a 5-year time period at low prices). But that
fuel hedge is just about gone, and they'll be facing the same high prices as
everyone else in the industry. I believe that last year, they saved more on
their fuel hedge than their profit, which means without it, they're losing
money, just like everyone else did.

Airplane transport is just stupid. It's a barely-tolerable,
unsustainable spin-off of the Cold War that (surprise, surprise) costs
too much, doesn't perform as claimed, depends on prodigious
consumption of finite resources, and endures only through the
suppression of more effective alternatives.

Keeping Amtrak (an utterly broken and dysfunctional system) on life
support all these years has prevented the development of more
functional passenger rail, and I believe that is no coincidence.
Fast, comfortable, inexpensive passenger rail poses a more serious
threat to airlines-- and the weapons industry corporations that build
airliners-- than high fuel prices do.

I for one have essentially stopped flying, from a former rate of a few
trips a year to a current rate of one trip every few years. I hope
and trust that I am part of a larger trend that will drive the corrupt
airline industry into bankruptcy while stimulating the market for more
humane, efficient long distance travel.

Chalo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote

Quoted message said:

Southwest, Frontier, NOT JetBlue.

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Southwest has their own problems; they've been relatively insulated from
operating costs pressures due to their huge, beautifully-timed fuel hedge
(locking in fuel prices for a 5-year time period at low prices). But that
fuel hedge is just about gone, and they'll be facing the same high prices as
everyone else in the industry. I believe that last year, they saved more on
their fuel hedge than their profit, which means without it, they're losing
money, just like everyone else did.

Chalo said:

Airplane transport is just stupid. It's a barely-tolerable,
unsustainable spin-off of the Cold War that (surprise, surprise) costs
too much, doesn't perform as claimed, depends on prodigious
consumption of finite resources, and endures only through the
suppression of more effective alternatives.

Keeping Amtrak (an utterly broken and dysfunctional system) on life
support all these years has prevented the development of more
functional passenger rail, and I believe that is no coincidence.
Fast, comfortable, inexpensive passenger rail poses a more serious
threat to airlines-- and the weapons industry corporations that build
airliners-- than high fuel prices do.

I for one have essentially stopped flying, from a former rate of a few
trips a year to a current rate of one trip every few years. I hope
and trust that I am part of a larger trend that will drive the corrupt
airline industry into bankruptcy while stimulating the market for more
humane, efficient long distance travel.

Nicely phrased! I can _drive_ to most points in USA for not much more
time and WAY less frustration - with no searches, inquiries, detention,
insults. . .
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I for one have essentially stopped flying, from a former rate of a few
trips a year to a current rate of one trip every few years. I hope
and trust that I am part of a larger trend that will drive the corrupt
airline industry into bankruptcy while stimulating the market for more
humane, efficient long distance travel.

Nicely phrased! I can _drive_ to most points in USA for not much more time
and WAY less frustration - with no searches, inquiries, detention,
insults. . .

My several trips/year to Madison from Northern California would eat up an
awful lot more time if I had to drive. I've often thought it would be nice
to take the train, but unfortunately, I just don't have the time to spare.

It would also be tough to avoid flying to France. Oh sure, I know all about
the "Google Option." (Go to www.googlemaps.com, chose directions, input New
York, New York as the starting point, select Paris France for the end, and
note line #23). But that, too, would take a long time. A VERY long time.

Nor have I been detained yet. For that matter, the only airport where I've
ever been severely inconvenienced due to security/check-in is Las Vegas.
What a mess!

But I agree that it is a frustrating experience for relatively (under 500
miles) short trips.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Oh sure, I know all about
the "Google Option." (Go to www.googlemaps.com, chose directions, input New
York, New York as the starting point, select Paris France for the end, and
note line #23). But that, too, would take a long time. A VERY long time.

Very humorous!

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:50:45 GMT, - Bob - <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh sure, I know all about
the "Google Option." (Go to www.googlemaps.com, chose directions, input New
York, New York as the starting point, select Paris France for the end, and
note line #23). But that, too, would take a long time. A VERY long time.

Very humorous!

Just worked this out... here's a direct link for those who don't want
to type.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=new+york,ny&daddr=paris+france

Chalo said:

Airplane transport is just stupid. It's a barely-tolerable,
unsustainable spin-off of the Cold War that (surprise, surprise) costs
too much, doesn't perform as claimed, depends on prodigious
consumption of finite resources, and endures only through the
suppression of more effective alternatives.

and you're going to take which boat on your next trip to europe?
for how many thousand?

and all those hajj pilgrims will walk all the way to mecca, too?

Dennis P. Harris said:

Quoted message said:

Airplane transport is just stupid. It's a barely-tolerable,
unsustainable spin-off of the Cold War that (surprise, surprise)
costs too much, doesn't perform as claimed, depends on prodigious
consumption of finite resources, and endures only through the
suppression of more effective alternatives.

Quoted message said:

and you're going to take which boat on your next trip to europe?
for how many thousand?

Quoted message said:

and all those hajj pilgrims will walk all the way to mecca, too?

Hey! I don't do it so it must be stupid!

# End of the wonderful one-hoss shay.
# Logic is logic. That's all I say.

OWH

Jobst Brandt

I think a Japenese Shinkansen is a pretty darn good lesson, as well!

Ken

"mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jobst Brandt

I've always said that every American should ride a TGV at least once
to see how rail travel can (and should) be done.

mark

On 13 Apr 2007 12:10:23 -0700, "Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Keeping Amtrak (an utterly broken and dysfunctional system) on life
support all these years has prevented the development of more
functional passenger rail, and I believe that is no coincidence.
Fast, comfortable, inexpensive passenger rail poses a more serious
threat to airlines-- and the weapons industry corporations that build
airliners-- than high fuel prices do.

[snip]

Dear Chalo,

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

As far as I know, trains are very good at hauling very heavy bulk
freight, not people.

I'm willing to learn otherwise.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carlfogel said:

On 13 Apr 2007 12:10:23 -0700, "Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Keeping Amtrak (an utterly broken and dysfunctional system) on life
support all these years has prevented the development of more
functional passenger rail, and I believe that is no coincidence.
Fast, comfortable, inexpensive passenger rail poses a more serious
threat to airlines-- and the weapons industry corporations that build
airliners-- than high fuel prices do.

[snip]

Dear Chalo,

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

Are there any highway systems that do not require huge government
subsidies?

Quoted message said:

As far as I know, trains are very good at hauling very heavy bulk
freight, not people.

I'm willing to learn otherwise.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

New York to Washington for sure, and a few other East and West Coast
routes too, I'm guessing. But no rail system anywhere sucks up the
kind of stupendous subsidies commanded by the US highway and airline
systems.

Chalo

[email hidden said:

"]On 13 Apr 2007 12:10:23 -0700, "Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Keeping Amtrak (an utterly broken and dysfunctional system) on life
support all these years has prevented the development of more
functional passenger rail, and I believe that is no coincidence.
Fast, comfortable, inexpensive passenger rail poses a more serious
threat to airlines-- and the weapons industry corporations that build
airliners-- than high fuel prices do.

[snip]

Dear Chalo,

Are there large passenger lines between cities that do not require
huge government subsidies?

As far as I know, trains are very good at hauling very heavy bulk
freight, not people.

I'm willing to learn otherwise.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Only then when delivery is not time sensitive.