Times Letters

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

>>For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits
>
>>from a slightly less congested road.
>
>No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

I think your argument just went into another universe.

When I ride my bike along the road (rarely in a cycle lane), it takes the
space of a bicycle, plus the clearance required around it to avoid
collisions. When I drive my car it takes the space of a car, plus the
clearance space to avoid collisions (the old 2-second rule is a good
starter). At any speed, my car takes considerably more road space than my
bicycle. Therefore, I create far more congestion when I take my car on the
road than when I use my bicycle.

No. Even if there are _no_ cyclists on the road the space that the
dedicated 'facilities' consume is not available to motorised traffic,
the junctions and traffic lights still artificially slow and restrict
the flow, and so on.

The junctions and traffic lights are there becasue of motorised
traffic, not bicycles.

We are seeing more and more of them, and existing ones 'tweaked' to give
priority to, and allow time for cyclists and pedestrians, even if they
aren't actually present.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

Ah, so I understand now. You argue that those who choose to use a fuel
efficient means of transport should subsidise those who do not. Thus,
drivers of Micras (etc) should be paying to help those poor individuals who
have to put ten times as much fuel per mile into their Rolls or Hummer. Do
I also have to pay your Rolls-Hummer tax when I choose to walk, rather than
use the car to get to the shops (about a mile away in my case).

No. I'm arguing that tax for the general pot should not be raised from
fuel duty, it should be raised for income tax. I'm not saying fuel
should be free, or even VAT free, just duty free (tobacco and alcohol
too) so more use will still actually mean more cost.

It is regarded as a net benefit to society to discourage excessive
consumption of certain items. One of the instruments for doing that is
special taxation (or duty in this case.) I have no problem with tax
being used as a mechanism for social engineering when it is voluntary
consumption that is being taxed.

Fuel use isn't always voluntary - it is essential for many, for many
journies.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
I have no problem with tax

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being used as a mechanism for social engineering when it is voluntary
consumption that is being taxed.

Fuel use isn't always voluntary - it is essential for many, for many
journies.

An argument which presupposes that the journey itself is essential.

R.

Richard said:

Matt B wrote:
I have no problem with tax

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being used as a mechanism for social engineering when it is voluntary
consumption that is being taxed.

Fuel use isn't always voluntary - it is essential for many, for many
journies.

An argument which presupposes that the journey itself is essential.

Not at all, although many may be. Who are we to judge. If, however,
someone decides to make a journey in a motor vehicle, then the fuel _is_
essential.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

What's the source for the figures you quote?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

What's the source for the figures you quote?

Out of interest, what's the source for your 1/3 and 5/8 factors?

R.

Ian Smith said:

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

To help with the figures here are the figures for a local dual two-lane
bypass.

Distance - 3 miles.
Other considerations - 3 roundabouts, bridge for peds and cyclists
Cost - 28 million pounds.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Richard said:

Ian Smith said:

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

What's the source for the figures you quote?

Out of interest, what's the source for your 1/3 and 5/8 factors?

At a guess the 5/8 is a conversion from miles to km.

Tim

Ian Smith said:

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

What's the source for the figures you quote?

Cost of constructing single lane temporary forest access road, which is
more than adequate for cycles to use as a two lane route from US forest
service. Could add an order of magnitude for a better base and a tarmac
surface.
For MV compatible roads, estimating per mile from examining a list of
road building projects and attmepting to remove factors such as
junction costs (which are much more expensive than straight road).

I don't think 1/3 cost is appropriate conversion for motorway to A
road. The costs for drainage and roadbed do not scale linearly. Keeping
three lanes smooth and level is more than three times more expensive
than half the cost of keeping two lanes smooth and level.

...d

David Martin said:

Ian Smith said:

David Martin said:

Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

What's the source for the figures you quote?

I don't think 1/3 cost is appropriate conversion for motorway to A
road. The costs for drainage and roadbed do not scale linearly. Keeping
three lanes smooth and level is more than three times more expensive
than half the cost of keeping two lanes smooth and level.

I allowed for that. Profiling it is much the same cost - a laser
automated dozer and grader just has to make proportionately more
passes. Price per unit area road surface should be less for motorway
(better productivity the larger the workings area). Junction cost per
unit length should be less for motorway (much fewer rather more
complex junctions). Dual three motorway has 8 lanes, so strictly
proportionate the motorway would be four times the price, mainly due to
the productivity gain, and opportunity to deploy bigger plant, I went
for factor of 3. It might be 4, I doubt it would be 7.5 (which is
what is necessary for the 2 million and the 17.1 million to be
compatible).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Richard said:

Ian Smith said:

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

Out of interest, what's the source for your 1/3 and 5/8 factors?

1/3 is a guess explained in the preceding paragraph. 5/8 is teh
number of miles in a kilometer (my figures were per mile, David's per
kilometer).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Andy Leighton said:

Ian Smith said:

In 1998 the avearge cost of one mile of dual three-lane motorway was
17.1 million pounds (parliamentary written answer by Glenda Jackson).
2 million per km looks a bit cheap to me - an A-road is going to have
the same vehicle type loading, 2 lanes rather than 8, less onerous
gradients and sight lines but more junctions and interfaces with
surroundings. I'd guess it would be a third the cost of a motorway.
Allow 5% pa inflation.

17.1 x 1/3 x 5/8 x 1.05^7 = 5 million.

To help with the figures here are the figures for a local dual two-lane
bypass.

Distance - 3 miles.
Other considerations - 3 roundabouts, bridge for peds and cyclists
Cost - 28 million pounds.

So, 4.67 million per mile of two-lane carriageway. About as close to
5 million as I could hope to get, given the paucity of data and
whoppingness of assumptions...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

I doubt it would be 7.5 (which is
what is necessary for the 2 million and the 17.1 million to be
compatible).

Given that to be able to even see the cost of a bike facility the
figures would have to be on a log scale, I'm not too bothered. I think
they are close enough for a back of the mousepad calculation.

...d

Matt B said:

It appears to me that it is _you_ and your ilk who are the trolls.

Your tireless attempts to, apparently, discredit my legitimate
arguments, and smear my name are an insult to the other, more open
minded, participants in this group.

--
Matt B

Which more open minded people are those? I don't see anyone supporting
your POV. IIRC you migrated here from uk.tosspot and have been picking
fights with cyclists ever since then. I'm not even sure you're a
cyclist.

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

For goodness sake of course he is a troll --- and you keep feeding him. and
not even snipping his unending drivel. Kill file him and he will eventually
disappear!

Pinky said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

For goodness sake of course he is a troll --- and you keep feeding him. and
not even snipping his unending drivel. Kill file him and he will eventually
disappear!

No one is asking you to read the topic. Just ignore it.

LSMike said:

Pinky said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

For goodness sake of course he is a troll --- and you keep feeding him. and
not even snipping his unending drivel. Kill file him and he will eventually
disappear!

No one is asking you to read the topic. Just ignore it.

I think the problem is these trolled threads come up on people's
newsreaders with a valid poster ie yourself as the author (I think)

LSMike said:

Matt B said:

It appears to me that it is _you_ and your ilk who are the trolls.

Your tireless attempts to, apparently, discredit my legitimate
arguments, and smear my name are an insult to the other, more open
minded, participants in this group.

Which more open minded people are those?

The ones who read and reply with counter arguments. That is what usenet
is for.

Then there are the, nevertheless, honourable members who read and ignore
or who don't read at all.

Then, of course, there are the rest, those with a paucity of ideas and
who resent being challenged, who read and reply with snide remarks.

Quoted message said:

I don't see anyone supporting
your POV.

Open minds listen but don't necessarily agree. When the orthodoxy is
challenged it is inevitable that few will agree at first hearing.

Quoted message said:

IIRC you migrated here from uk.tosspot and have been picking
fights with cyclists ever since then.

I have posted there and elsewhere.

Quoted message said:

I'm not even sure you're a
cyclist.

If your definition of a cyclist is someone who sometimes rides a bike
then I /am/ a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

There is, I agree, a fine line, but I hope that my record will show that
I only take issue with ideas which I find offensive, prejudiced or are
based on what I believe to be misconceptions, or are rooted in
preconceptions. Sometimes I use the "Devil's advocate" approach by
suggesting an opposing view to the one I might actually support - as in
this bicycle tax case.

--
Matt B

LSMike said:

Pinky said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

For goodness sake of course he is a troll --- and you keep feeding him. and
not even snipping his unending drivel. Kill file him and he will eventually
disappear!

No one is asking you to read the topic. Just ignore it.

Seconded.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

But these are fixed 'facilities', which are there "whether the cyclists
want
them or not." A cyclist (either on the road or a 'facility'😉 is not
taking up
space that could be used by a larger vehicle.

TL