MISC | Yield Management in Railways

[mozatellac]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Guys, I've written this a dozen times.
UNFAIR COMPETITION

Air - charging airlines for CO2 emissions, obligating them to serve, without compensation, remote routes as a precondition to operate "crown jewels" ones.

Road - using toll, congestion charges or gas taxes to any other purpose but build, maintain and expand roads.

Rail - communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains, imposing schedules etc.

Why would charging airlines for CO2 emissions be unfair? As soon as the government realizes that externalities such as CO2 emissions or noise have a real cost, it should evaluate this cost and charge it to all the emitters. Airlines having obligation to serve remote routes without compensation are not very common in Western Europe. Do you have any examples?

Why is it unfair to use the gas taxes to pay for the impacts cars have on health (accidents, pollution...), on land use (roads are not productive areas), and on all the environment?

As for "communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains", I do not know of any major developed country that hasn't had trains run by a government-owned company in the last 20 years. Are the US a communist inspired government (remember, Amtrak belongs to the US government)? I doubt it.

[aab7772003]

Wow, PURE nonsense

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Road - using toll, congestion charges or gas taxes to any other purpose but build, maintain and expand roads.

Rail - communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains, imposing schedules etc.

How about imposing "airline-style capacity, revenue, and yield management" on highway and road usage?

Go tell Korail that it is a communist company.

Without "communism-inspired" central road planning mechanism, there would have been no highway networks in the USA and Germany for your beloved freedom and human rights.

Go tell the purely profit-driven toll-road builders and operators how inalienable your precious human rights to drive your car everywhere on Planet Earth are

[NCT]

Public transport is a viable alternative to cars that people actually want to use (and in a few American cities where they are successful). Suburbanist feels so threatened by the lack of 'clout' his pro-car brigade enjoys, that he wants to undermine public transport as much as possible. All of his 'economic analyses' are pure bullcr@p and only show how little he understands about railway operation and the workings of the wider society.

[goschio]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

As for minors, one of the reasons it is so difficult to advance lower driving age in Europe is because comprehensive transit networks provide an excuse (I'm part of a small but European-wide articulated groups trying to, someday, lower the driving age for cars with less than 1400cc to 15 years over EU as a human derived right to mobility and against youth prejudice that they "can't operate a car").

Which is a good thing. I don't want to see 16 year olds driving around over here. There are enough fatal car accidents involving 18 year olds already.

There is nothing wrong with youngsters using public transportation. And public transportation in most european countries provides 100% mobility. In Germany there is probably no place further than 15 walking minutes away from a bus stop or train station. Even in the countryside.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by goschio

. And public transportation in most european countries provides 100% mobility. In Germany there is probably no place further than 15 walking minutes away from a bus stop or train station. Even in the countryside.

They can provide urban mobility, not rural mobility. I doubt you can go to any farm, remote outspot, mountain pass, "in the middle of nothing" field by public transportation.

And, no, a twice-daily service is not an alternative. We ought to exercise our rights to be individualistic enough not to stick ourselves to "oh, want to go to that remote beach, you can go at 8 AM or at 3 PM.".

But that is another discussion. As for "lack of clout", automobile industry employs, pays taxes, innovates and exerts political pressure on governments on my behalf.

[goschio]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

They can provide urban mobility, not rural mobility. I doubt you can go to any farm, remote outspot, mountain pass, "in the middle of nothing" field by public transportation.

An

That might be the case in the US or some european countries with low population density but in Germany there is almost no place which would be considered 'in the middle of nowhere'. 99% of germans live no more than 50-100km from a 100,000 population city. So most rural places are in the commuter range of a larger city and well served with pt. Seems you are not aware at all about the conditions in a high population density country.

And you are always free to ride your bike to that hypothetical remote beach or lake. That is what most kids do. Or they find a parent or older brother who drives them. Don't see here a problem at all.

Here is the train shedule (on a sunday) from Holzdorf to Berlin. Holzdorf is a small rundown community in rural east Germany. Probably the closest thing to 'middle of nowhere'.

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/que...rture&OK#focus

[aab7772003]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

They can provide urban mobility, not rural mobility. I doubt you can go to any farm, remote outspot, mountain pass, "in the middle of nothing" field by public transportation.

And, no, a twice-daily service is not an alternative. We ought to exercise our rights to be individualistic enough not to stick ourselves to "oh, want to go to that remote beach, you can go at 8 AM or at 3 PM.".

Actually the Swiss and German public transport systems reach everywhere within Switzerland and Germany often with hourly frequencies. Public buses in Spain and Greece do get you to remote beaches in Spain and Greece during the hours when most normal people would like to enjoy the sun and the sea. Try driving your all terrain car up in the mountains

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

But that is another discussion. As for "lack of clout", automobile industry employs, pays taxes, innovates and exerts political pressure on governments on my behalf.

Sure they do when they fail and bankrupt and of course badly need government bailouts all over the world

[thun]

You say that a twice-a-day public transport service is not a alternative to cars but actually want to accept exactly this as a side effect of completely privatising rail transport for lots of rural lines?!?

[Suburbanist]

There is nothing wrong with privatization, transport is a right, PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED equal-access is not. Privatization makes cost clear in terms of rail operators.

I guess it is a matter of personal freedom and individual rights. Technically, it would be far more "efficient" for everyone to give up their intermitent-used appliances (like vacum cleaners, painting machines, barbecue grills etc.) and having a government agency deliver them under schedule only when you use them, yet that would be totally appaling, for instance. I want all my hardware to be MINE and to be able to use them whenever I want.

Likewise, people should be able do drive freely everywhere from the age they are mentally able to operate a complex machine like a car (14, 15 years?). Trains are important, as an alternative network that must operate under economic sound ground.

[thun]

Which it basically does in lots of countries (e.g. Germany, probably Switzerland, too) even though it might be to some point monopolized. So why change that?

[aab7772003]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

There is nothing wrong with privatization, transport is a right, PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED equal-access is not. Privatization makes cost clear in terms of rail operators.

I guess it is a matter of personal freedom and individual rights. Technically, it would be far more "efficient" for everyone to give up their intermitent-used appliances (like vacum cleaners, painting machines, barbecue grills etc.) and having a government agency deliver them under schedule only when you use them, yet that would be totally appaling, for instance. I want all my hardware to be MINE and to be able to use them whenever I want.

Likewise, people should be able do drive freely everywhere from the age they are mentally able to operate a complex machine like a car (14, 15 years?). Trains are important, as an alternative network that must operate under economic sound ground.

What kind of ridiculous analogy with household appliance is that?

Automobile transport is "heavily" PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED.

If you want personal freedom, just pay for it.

Next topic: highway privatization

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by aab7772003

What kind of ridiculous analogy with household appliance is that?


Next topic: highway privatization

Is it that hard to separate tracks and pavement surface from the vehicles that run over it?

I never said government should not own tracks, just that it shall not operate vehicles and have state-hired engineers driving them and state-paid bureacrats deciding where trains (the vehicles, not the tracks) should run to and at which times.

I favor construction of tracks, especially high-speed ones, as public investments, provided government limit itself to build the "ways" and let the "vehicle operation" to be done by privates.

Governments build highways without knowing, in advance, which cars will be driven over there. Rail expansion should obey the same logic: build the damm good state-of-the-art tracks, then open them for private business. Charge everyone reasonable track fees and let private companies buy/lease, operate and maintain engines, cars, ticket machines etc.!

[aab7772003]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

...

I never said government should not own tracks, just that it shall not operate vehicles and have state-hired engineers driving them and state-paid bureacrats deciding where trains (the vehicles, not the tracks) should run to and at which times.

I favor construction of tracks, especially high-speed ones, as public investments, provided government limit itself to build the "ways" and let the "vehicle operation" to be done by privates.

Governments build highways without knowing, in advance, which cars will be driven over there. Rail expansion should obey the same logic: build the damm good state-of-the-art tracks, then open them for private business. Charge everyone reasonable track fees and let private companies buy/lease, operate and maintain engines, cars, ticket machines etc.!

Government do not build empty highways and highways to nowhere thanks to prior analysis.

Without government funding, there would be no highspeed train engines and carriages.

Without government funding, there would be no aerospace industry and consequently no air transport industry as we know today.

Governments subsidize automobile industries like mad and quite a few of them even subsidizes the cost of gas.

By the way, Deutsche Bahn is a private company now and many local services throughout Germany are actually run by local private companies.

Other possible topics: How should we stop automobile companies from getting massive government bailouts? Is there a way to punish automobile companies in North America because they destroyed so many urban public transport systems decades ago?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by aab7772003

Government do not build empty highways and highways to nowhere thanks to prior analysis.

Without government funding, there would be no highspeed train engines and carriages.

Without government funding, there would be no Airbus.

Governments subsidize automobile industries like mad and quite a few of them even subsidizes the cost of gas.

By the way, Deutsche Bahn is a private company now and many local services throughout Germany are actually run by local private companies.

Other possible topics: How should we stop automobile companies from getting massive government bailouts? Is there a way to punish automobile companies in North America because they destroyed so many urban public transport systems decades ago?

I did not support GM bailout as much as I didn't support Alitalia bailout and Trenitalia "revamp" with taxpayer money.

I do not believe in conspirations, like the one that GM "destroyed" public transport systems in US. If they legally bought such companies, then private, and decided for greater shareholder profit to shut them down, and did it according to the laws of that time, there is nothing to punish those companies about. Remember: back then, oil cost US$ 3 per barrel, and electricity far more than today.

This is other discussion better left to the City Issues subforum: how dismantling crap transit systems opened the way for the realization of the American dream of a suburban house with a car in its garage.

[aab7772003]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I do not believe in conspirations, like the one that GM "destroyed" public transport systems in US. If they legally bought such companies, then private, and decided for greater shareholder profit to shut them down, and did it according to the laws of that time, there is nothing to punish those companies about. Remember: back then, oil cost US$ 3 per barrel, and electricity far more than today.

This is other discussion better left to the City Issues subforum: how dismantling crap transit systems opened the way for the realization of the American dream of a suburban house with a car in its garage.

It is your choice to not believe the facts.

Companies can make as much profits as they wish, as long as they do not do so at the expense of the public interest.

Many Americans would disagree with your claim on the transit systems being a piece of "crap" at the time of their "destruction."

It is your choice to believe that driving is an inalienable human rights; you just have to pay for the FULL COST of your choice.

No, inexperienced and/or reckless young drivers and old drivers with health issues do not have the "rights" to drive.

[Suburbanist]

This is purely age prejudice. You don't have to be military fit to be able to operate an hidraulic-assisted passenger car.

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Rail - communist inspired governments taking over direct operation of trains, imposing schedules etc.

Good that I'd allready finished my coffee, or I'd have to get a new keyboard.

Someone calling the Swiss government "communist" always makes my day. :-)

You know, a few years ago the Swiss Canton of Zug decided that it needed to improve it's infrastructure. It contracted with the SBB to increase capacity and services on it's railways. Trains now run in half hour or 15 minute intervals (yes, a schedule imposed by the government...). New stations were build so that now about a third of the canton's population lives at walking distance from a train station. About half of all jobs are also at walking distance of a station. Busses coordinated with the trains suplement the train service.
The system is a huge success. And that all thanks to the involvement of a governement that one cannot, by any stretch of imagination, call communist. I mean, Zug is a canton where bankers with huge bonusses are welcomed with open arms :-)

The railway in Switzerland enjoys a huge amount of popular support, and it has earned this by serving the whole country. The SBB has a monopoly on the long distance network, does not receive subsidies, but in exchange for the monopoly provides a nationwide network. It could indeed concentrate on a profitable core network, but would probably lose the popular support in this case, which in the long run would not be good for the company.
Some companies do look beyond this and next year, you know. Especially succesful railway companies...

[K_]

Originally Posted by MarcVD

God forbids that this ever happens. We have already enough people dying
on the roads without that. I'd rather see it elevated to 21.

Strangely enought something like that is actually happening in many places. When I was young I could't wait till i was 18 and could get my driving license. What I seen now is that increasingly young people are postponing getting a driving license, or not bothering at all. If you live in an urban area (and young single people love living in an urban area) a car is more hassle than it is worth. I know quite a few people in their thirties who still haven't gotten around to doing their driving test.

[Suburbanist]

If someone doesn't want to have a driver's license, it is their option, but when I was 16 there was no way I could drive, yet I still paid all the taxes, directly (VAT on college prep books and games) or indirectly.

Saying that a 15 y.o. doesn't have the "skills" needed to drive a car would be like saying that people of [African/Asian/Icelandic/Eskimo/Polinesian/Indian/Arab/Caucasian/Mediterranean/whatever] descent don't have the "cultural traditions" to enable them to take higher positions in companies or in the military, for instance. Teenagers might be more restless because they are beings under development, to say so, but at age 15 most of them already have the biological skills needed to operate a car.

Likewise, as experience has shown, more comfortable and "electronic aided" cars make possible for elders well into their 90's do drive their cars too. Sure, someone who has severe vision impairment, or moderate-to-advance dementia, or degenerativa muscle diseases cannot, but just because one need a wheelchair doesn't mean one cannot operate a car with joystick-like controls, let alone next-generation drive-by-wire cars.

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Likewise, as experience has shown, more comfortable and "electronic aided" cars make possible for elders well into their 90's do drive their cars too. Sure, someone who has severe vision impairment, or moderate-to-advance dementia, or degenerativa muscle diseases cannot, but just because one need a wheelchair doesn't mean one cannot operate a car with joystick-like controls, let alone next-generation drive-by-wire cars.

These next-generation drive-by-wire cars have been on the horizon for how many decades now?

The problem with seniors driving cars have nothing to do with them being frail, but everything with them being slow. When you grow old your reflexes deteriorate and there is nothing science can do against it at the moment.