Bus racks

On 8/29/2018 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:39:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-29 16:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 07:45:19 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-28 21:42, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:15:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/28/2018 9:01 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:49:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/28/2018 7:27 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 07:43:58 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-27 18:13, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:43:40 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-27 16:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 5:49:57 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-27 13:53, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Reading the thread about bus racks being to short for some bicycles
got me to thinking about how the bicycle is supported in the rack.
When I worked in bicycle shops we called those bicycle parking racks
with the two low hoops to hold the wheels "wheel benders" as we often
had wheel repairs that were caused by the sideways force on the
wheels. I wonder if bus racks have the same problem at times if that
front wheel hook is not supporting the bicycle from swaying a bit
side to side.


The wheel hook is what is supposed to prevent it from swaying. A wheel
itself can't. Just imagine: While the racks on our buses are barely wide
enough to squeeze in my 2.25" wide rear tire a 25mm road bike tire would
make the bike almost fall over, considering that the slot is just around
4" deep. Some people who still run 23mm tires or even less would also
risk marring their rims badly when the sides of the rims would bang
against the steel tube of the rack rail all the time. You'd likely feel
the damage immediately the first time you use the rim brakes.

Another detail I noticed: The handlebar end of my MTB was very close to
the windshield of the bus. Scary. I watched it on the freeway and while
the bike "came closer" it didn't quite touch glass. Despite the
panniers. That only worked because I had shortened the handlebar
significantly a few months after I bought the MTB.

What would happen if the handlebar touched the glass?


Possibly a crack. Since it is curved glass that would cause an expensive
repair and loss of service costs while the bus is in the shop.

One can only speculate. Generally speaking, if you break someone's
window, you get to pay for it, in some manner.


Not if the rack was sub-par and caused the event.

You mean if the bus company is nice enough to install bicycle racks
that, as you previously wrote, fit many bicycles and your bicycle
doesn't fit so a window gets broken it is the bus company's fault?

Logically then it is to the bus company's advantage to get rid of the
bicycle racks and thus avoid the expense of broken windows.

It's a non-issue, important only in Joerg's mind. If the bus company had
a problem with broken windshields, they'd have fixed the racks or
protected the windshields long ago.

One might also speculate on whether the majority of the bus riders
actually care whether bicycle racks are installed, or not.


Sacramento Transit seems to think that two bicycle carriers
per bus are adequate. This may miss the larger trend:

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...sit-apocalypse


Sacramento Transit is suffering a substantial decline in ridership. If
they can't catch more split-commute folks (car-transit and bike-transit)
they'll have serious budget problems soon. Observations:

Actually they have a budget problem already. The public transportation
systems in the U.S. are subsidized and all seem to lose money. The New
York transportation system loses about $.75/passenger while the
Virginia HRT losses nearly 7 dollars a passenger.
https://bit.ly/2HiRxTs

Which, given that the average U.S. family owns 1.9 autos seem a
foolish waste of money at one end of the spectrum, or the other.


Yeah, you'd simply throw in the towel instead of trying to fix it.
Right. That is not the modus operandi I am accustomed to as an engineer.
First I will try to find out what's wrong and whether it can be fixed or
not.

Fix what? The fact that public transportation systems in the U.S., and
probably most foreign countries, are subsidized in order to allow them
to charge lower rates? And where does this money come from? Well,
either from taxes or from long term loans that the state or local
government makes, and on which they pay interest.

As I pointed out, public transportation, if they were self supporting,
would probably increase their rates to double, or more what they are
now.

But of course, this is all right. Let the state go into debt to
provide low fares, and ultimately the point comes where taxes have to
be increased to cover the debt and everyone whines about "high taxes".

Reality appears to be a subject that USians prefer to ignore.

[...]


One might ask, "why public transportation" when according to current
figures the average U.S. family owns 1.968 autos?


Typically because they want get to and from work faster. I do it out of
environmental consciousness and it increases my cycling range. So far
only light rail because the bus racks won't accommodate modern MTB. Lots
of cyclists in my area use their pickup trucks instead. The
environmentally worst method is the two-location shuttle method.

No it doesn't increase your range... if range is house to house. What
you are doing is taking a bus to the top of the hill so you can coast
down.


Silly boy. If carrying your bicycle in a pickup causes environmental
damage just ride the bicycle.


And how about the 72 year old accompanying me who cannot hold it at
17-18mph for hours? Just leave him behind on the trail?

But 17 - 18mph? Lets see, that is 27.3 - 28.9kpk... Professional MTB
racers average about 30kph https://bit.ly/2wpdSen you guys must be
racers.

Or liars?

But of course, this is all right. Let the state go into
debt to
provide low fares, and ultimately the point comes where
taxes have to
be increased to cover the debt and everyone whines about
"high taxes".

Reality appears to be a subject that USians prefer to ignore.

Not only.

Upside down bookkeeping, byzantine staff rules and bleeding
cash may just be inherent to public systems, not just in USA:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1AF0HF

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:50:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2018 7:16 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip

That's what our power company PG&E pulled off. Instead of
fixing fire danger prone overhead wiring they announced
they'll simply cut power if there is high wind in summer.
It is up to the political leaders to pull the charter if
such behavior goes too far.


I believe that in most, if not all, cases the generating
plants are the property of the electric company. If the local
government were to "cancel their contract" where would you
get electricity from?

Or do you propose that the local government, in some manner,
perhaps by a tax increase, purchase the generating plants?


It's about the distribution, not the plant. Utilities in
America run on the cost-plus basis which means carte blanche.
They could let them run the power plants that way but allow
competition in the distribution. Even Germany did that which,
compared to a the US, is much less capitalist.

Rate-setting is not carte blanche.Â* It is the opposite of carte
blanche.Â* An unregulated industry would mean all the remote
moonscape towns you think are quaint would not get power because
there is no market. The reason we got the rural electrification
program, TVA, Bonneville, etc. was exactly because private
industry wanted no part of it or the project was simply too big.


It is carte blanche. Cost-plus means the utility can rack up any
amount of cost, knowing they will always get x percent profit on
top of that. I have seen the same behavior in government work.

Costs must be "prudent," and costs that are excessive or unnecessary
are disallowed. Utilities are entitled to a fair return but cannot
price gouge, cannot gold-plate the power plant, etc., etc.Â* Well
regulated industries produce reasonable rates and reasonable returns,
and around here, the CUB rides herd on the rate-making process, as do
the huge industrial power users.

Remember Enron? California electricity deregulation? How's that
deregulation thing working for you?


That's what Governor Gray Davis screwed up, creating a big new
bureacracy and not allowing long-term contract. That was stupid and
needless to say, resulted in blackouts. We called the Gray-Outs in his
"honor".


Texas has a species of deregulation, but even it is not free market.


You have choice there and thus they have WAY better rates than we do.

https://www.texaselectricityratings....ctricity-rates

Multiply the TX rates by three and you get the CA rates.


Free market is cable TV, and look how that's working out.


It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free not to
use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly different with
electricity.


Also, how would you propose competition in distribution when the
distribution lines are owned by the incumbent provider?Â* More
wires? Who in their right mind would shell out the cash for a
parallel distribution system? And if there were license
agreements or shared infrastructure, then you would still have an
entity responsible for repairs -- and undoubtedly someone you
thought was incompetent or unworthy to send electricity to your
home.Â* There will always be someone who has to fix the broken
****. PG&E probably has as much competence as anyone when it
comes to keeping lines repaired.


It does but it does not deliver at an adequate price. We have among
the highest electricity costs in the nation and not a very reliable
grid anymore. Of course, part of it are nonsensical political
mandates but a utility is supposed to stand up stronger against
those. Of course, in a cost-plus deal it doesn't really matter to
them or is actually beneficial to them because x percent gueranteed
profit of a high total is more than x percent of a lower total.


... Try this free market electrical distribution system:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015...8699426875.jpg





In many countries that _is_ the work of a government agency or a monopoly.





Of course once furnishing electricity became the
responsibility of the local government it would become a
political factor, like road maintenance?


Everything is a political factor these days.


As I said it is rather easy to build a bike rack that fits
contemporary bikes.

But, according to your posts, the racks are already installed
so you are talking about replacing them with a larger rack?
Perhaps an increase in fare for cyclists until the new racks
are paid for?


No, I already explained that. When a design flaw is discovered
they should try to get the vendor to perform the corrections
for free. Munis have enough clout to tell them that else the
biz in their direction could shrivel up. That's a good
motivator. Competition can be a wonderful factor. Old American
saying: If you don't take care of your customer someone else
will.

And yet in Portland, the private bus line went bankrupt -- along
with the private trolley line. That's how we ended up with
TriMet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Transit


Depends on the company. Our waste collection is done by a private
entity. That runs cheaper, more reliably and more profitably than
the typical municipal deal.

You're changing subjects.Â* Show me one private mass transit company.


That's easy:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/


Is that enough "mass"?

In Germany I used a lot of private transit buses and trains and it
worked well. They were often cleaner than those of the munis.
Unfortunately I can't find useful stuff in English from more recent
times, just in German:

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unterne...7ufYbSq232-ap5


This kind of sums it up, quote "Die Konkurrenten fahren der Deutschen
Bahn davon. 33 Prozent der Leistung im Nahverkehr auf der Schiene werden
in diesem Jahr durch Züge von Abellio, Keolis & Co. gefahren" which
translates into "The [private] competition is pulling away from the
[government-owned] German Railroad. 33 percent of the passenger load in
local rail transit this year will be handled by Abellio, Keolis & Co". I
added comments in square brackets because most readers here won't know
which is private and which is publicly owned.

This is one of the coolest private transit companies where you can ride
a really classic bus if you get a group together:

https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg/ueber-uns/die-svg/
https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg...ward-oldiebus/

They also run the school buses in that area. Sorry, they also have no
site in English. If you want to decipher something let me know.

Smaller ones in the US:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...r-12627172.php


Long story short we must broaden our horizon and look across the fence,
to other countries.

I don't know about the German links, of course. But the one in Florida
seems to rely on picking two super-desirable end links and providing
expensive, faster, no-stop service between them.

In short, it's not providing the same service as the public line; it's
cherry picking. And if the public line decided to do extra runs based on
the same model, in direct competition, I imagine the private line would
go bankrupt.

Similarly, utilities don't want to spend huge amounts of money building infrastructure to serve tiny, rural markets. They wouldn't do it unless they were guaranteed a return, something the market would not do. This means that rate payers subsidize rural communities -- like Cameron Park. Sending buses, electricity, gas, water into the middle of nowhere is expensive to other rate-payers. Joerg is a welfare queen.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-08-29 17:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:39:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-29 16:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 07:45:19 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-28 21:42, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:15:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/28/2018 9:01 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:49:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/28/2018 7:27 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 07:43:58 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-27 18:13, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:43:40 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-08-27 16:20, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 5:49:57 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-27 13:53, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Reading the thread about bus racks being to short for some bicycles
got me to thinking about how the bicycle is supported in the rack.
When I worked in bicycle shops we called those bicycle parking racks
with the two low hoops to hold the wheels "wheel benders" as we often
had wheel repairs that were caused by the sideways force on the
wheels. I wonder if bus racks have the same problem at times if that
front wheel hook is not supporting the bicycle from swaying a bit
side to side.


The wheel hook is what is supposed to prevent it from swaying. A wheel
itself can't. Just imagine: While the racks on our buses are barely wide
enough to squeeze in my 2.25" wide rear tire a 25mm road bike tire would
make the bike almost fall over, considering that the slot is just around
4" deep. Some people who still run 23mm tires or even less would also
risk marring their rims badly when the sides of the rims would bang
against the steel tube of the rack rail all the time. You'd likely feel
the damage immediately the first time you use the rim brakes.

Another detail I noticed: The handlebar end of my MTB was very close to
the windshield of the bus. Scary. I watched it on the freeway and while
the bike "came closer" it didn't quite touch glass. Despite the
panniers. That only worked because I had shortened the handlebar
significantly a few months after I bought the MTB.

What would happen if the handlebar touched the glass?


Possibly a crack. Since it is curved glass that would cause an expensive
repair and loss of service costs while the bus is in the shop.

One can only speculate. Generally speaking, if you break someone's
window, you get to pay for it, in some manner.


Not if the rack was sub-par and caused the event.

You mean if the bus company is nice enough to install bicycle racks
that, as you previously wrote, fit many bicycles and your bicycle
doesn't fit so a window gets broken it is the bus company's fault?

Logically then it is to the bus company's advantage to get rid of the
bicycle racks and thus avoid the expense of broken windows.

It's a non-issue, important only in Joerg's mind. If the bus company had
a problem with broken windshields, they'd have fixed the racks or
protected the windshields long ago.

One might also speculate on whether the majority of the bus riders
actually care whether bicycle racks are installed, or not.


Sacramento Transit seems to think that two bicycle carriers
per bus are adequate. This may miss the larger trend:

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...sit-apocalypse


Sacramento Transit is suffering a substantial decline in ridership. If
they can't catch more split-commute folks (car-transit and bike-transit)
they'll have serious budget problems soon. Observations:

Actually they have a budget problem already. The public transportation
systems in the U.S. are subsidized and all seem to lose money. The New
York transportation system loses about $.75/passenger while the
Virginia HRT losses nearly 7 dollars a passenger.
https://bit.ly/2HiRxTs

Which, given that the average U.S. family owns 1.9 autos seem a
foolish waste of money at one end of the spectrum, or the other.


Yeah, you'd simply throw in the towel instead of trying to fix it.
Right. That is not the modus operandi I am accustomed to as an engineer.
First I will try to find out what's wrong and whether it can be fixed or
not.

Fix what?


Public transportation. So that it becomes more attractive to people and
more of them use it. Having 1.9 cars in the garage is ok if you use them
less. Like my wife and I. Two cars and neither of us exceeds 1000 car
miles per year.

I have outlined a few points that can be fixed with a reasonable effort
if there is a willingness to do so. And yes, one of them is to foster
bike transport. Case in point: When I told two other riders that I
carried my bike onto a light rail train they immediately got Connect
Transit Cards like the one I have. It's the snowball effect.


... The fact that public transportation systems in the U.S., and
probably most foreign countries, are subsidized in order to allow them
to charge lower rates? And where does this money come from? Well,
either from taxes or from long term loans that the state or local
government makes, and on which they pay interest.


You can lower the subsidy if more people ride it. The proof are private
transit providers that I mentioned which usually don't receive subsidies
yet turn a profit.


As I pointed out, public transportation, if they were self supporting,
would probably increase their rates to double, or more what they are
now.


No, I have brought examples to the contrary. It can be done.


But of course, this is all right. Let the state go into debt to
provide low fares, and ultimately the point comes where taxes have to
be increased to cover the debt and everyone whines about "high taxes".

Reality appears to be a subject that USians prefer to ignore.


We (all) have to start learning from other countries and vice versa.


[...]


One might ask, "why public transportation" when according to current
figures the average U.S. family owns 1.968 autos?


Typically because they want get to and from work faster. I do it out of
environmental consciousness and it increases my cycling range. So far
only light rail because the bus racks won't accommodate modern MTB. Lots
of cyclists in my area use their pickup trucks instead. The
environmentally worst method is the two-location shuttle method.

No it doesn't increase your range... if range is house to house. What
you are doing is taking a bus to the top of the hill so you can coast
down.


Nonsense. For example, the light rail from Sacramento to Folsom is often
used by riders to cut 30mi out of a long trip that would otherwise make
them late for dinner. The elevation gain is a whopping 100ft or so. The
remainder of 1000-1500ft into the hill country happens on the bike.



Silly boy. If carrying your bicycle in a pickup causes environmental
damage just ride the bicycle.


And how about the 72 year old accompanying me who cannot hold it at
17-18mph for hours? Just leave him behind on the trail?

But 17 - 18mph? Lets see, that is 27.3 - 28.9kpk... Professional MTB
racers average about 30kph https://bit.ly/2wpdSen you guys must be
racers.


Wrong.

https://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php

Quote "Reasonable experience, medium (say 40 miles): average around
16-19 mph". Then, quote "Plenty of cyclists can maintain 25+ mph over
long distances".

The president of a client of mine is in the latter class. I rode with
him, once. He kept it at 25mph and after about 20mins I had it, could
not hang on anymore. Tongue on the handlebar, almost fell over when we
stopped. He continued the trip alone. Heck, he wasn't even out of
breath, it seemed like a walk in the park to him and he is a couple
years older than I am.

Now I could ask whether you are all slowpokes there in Thailand but I
won't :-)


Or liars?


Be careful with such accusations. Calling others liars without any proof
whatsoever may cause people to lose all respect for you.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-08-29 16:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/29/2018 6:16 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/29/2018 10:23 AM, Joerg wrote:

That is poor planning on the part of the transit agency. They need to
change with the market and shift routes to where potential riders
live or move. With buses that is not rocket science.

The riders that were displaced are far away and transit doesn't work
for them anymore. So they drive. At $40 million/mile (for above ground
rail) there will be no light-rail trains out to where they live now.
No point in buses since they are way too slow due to traffic congestion.

Some countries have what's called "BRT" or "bus rapid transit." As I
understand it, things like dedicated bus lanes and legal precedence to
buses right-of-way speed things up considerably, so they compete with
light rail. They typically take steps to speed loading and unloading at
stops (like entries requiring no stairs, and pre-paying of fares).

But I don't know if I've had any experience with such a system. I rode
some buses in Europe, but I don't remember the details, to say if they
qualify for BRT designation.


You can try that out next time you are in the Bay Area:

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/rules-whe...nsit-only-lane

I have also seen transit-only lanes on freeways but don't remember where.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip

That's what our power company PG&E pulled off. Instead of
fixing fire danger prone overhead wiring they announced
they'll simply cut power if there is high wind in summer.
It is up to the political leaders to pull the charter if
such behavior goes too far.


I believe that in most, if not all, cases the generating
plants are the property of the electric company. If the local
government were to "cancel their contract" where would you
get electricity from?

Or do you propose that the local government, in some manner,
perhaps by a tax increase, purchase the generating plants?


It's about the distribution, not the plant. Utilities in
America run on the cost-plus basis which means carte blanche.
They could let them run the power plants that way but allow
competition in the distribution. Even Germany did that which,
compared to a the US, is much less capitalist.

Rate-setting is not carte blanche. It is the opposite of carte
blanche. An unregulated industry would mean all the remote
moonscape towns you think are quaint would not get power because
there is no market. The reason we got the rural electrification
program, TVA, Bonneville, etc. was exactly because private
industry wanted no part of it or the project was simply too big.


It is carte blanche. Cost-plus means the utility can rack up any
amount of cost, knowing they will always get x percent profit on
top of that. I have seen the same behavior in government work.

Costs must be "prudent," and costs that are excessive or unnecessary
are disallowed. Utilities are entitled to a fair return but cannot
price gouge, cannot gold-plate the power plant, etc., etc. Well
regulated industries produce reasonable rates and reasonable returns,
and around here, the CUB rides herd on the rate-making process, as do
the huge industrial power users.

Remember Enron? California electricity deregulation? How's that
deregulation thing working for you?


That's what Governor Gray Davis screwed up, creating a big new
bureacracy and not allowing long-term contract. That was stupid and
needless to say, resulted in blackouts. We called the Gray-Outs in his
"honor".


Texas has a species of deregulation, but even it is not free market.


You have choice there and thus they have WAY better rates than we do.

https://www.texaselectricityratings....ctricity-rates

Multiply the TX rates by three and you get the CA rates.

Oregon has lower rates than Texas, and some of the Oregon PUDs have even lower than average rates. That's Peoples' Utility Districts. The opposite of private, for profit.


Free market is cable TV, and look how that's working out.


It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free not to
use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly different with
electricity.

Is it not rate regulated. http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...ble_Television I don't know what they do in California, but often cities will grant a "franchise" just to reduce the number of right-of-way users, but you're right, it is not entirely free market. But then again, many markets have natural entry barriers that produce the same result. The key point is that it is not rate regulated, and you can see what happens to rates. I don't have cable TV either, and it is elective unlike electricity -- which means electrical rates would skyrocket even more.



Also, how would you propose competition in distribution when the
distribution lines are owned by the incumbent provider? More
wires? Who in their right mind would shell out the cash for a
parallel distribution system? And if there were license
agreements or shared infrastructure, then you would still have an
entity responsible for repairs -- and undoubtedly someone you
thought was incompetent or unworthy to send electricity to your
home. There will always be someone who has to fix the broken
****. PG&E probably has as much competence as anyone when it
comes to keeping lines repaired.


It does but it does not deliver at an adequate price. We have among
the highest electricity costs in the nation and not a very reliable
grid anymore. Of course, part of it are nonsensical political
mandates but a utility is supposed to stand up stronger against
those. Of course, in a cost-plus deal it doesn't really matter to
them or is actually beneficial to them because x percent gueranteed
profit of a high total is more than x percent of a lower total.


... Try this free market electrical distribution system:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015...8699426875.jpg




In many countries that _is_ the work of a government agency or a monopoly..





Of course once furnishing electricity became the
responsibility of the local government it would become a
political factor, like road maintenance?


Everything is a political factor these days.


As I said it is rather easy to build a bike rack that fits
contemporary bikes.

But, according to your posts, the racks are already installed
so you are talking about replacing them with a larger rack?
Perhaps an increase in fare for cyclists until the new racks
are paid for?


No, I already explained that. When a design flaw is discovered
they should try to get the vendor to perform the corrections
for free. Munis have enough clout to tell them that else the
biz in their direction could shrivel up. That's a good
motivator. Competition can be a wonderful factor. Old American
saying: If you don't take care of your customer someone else
will.

And yet in Portland, the private bus line went bankrupt -- along
with the private trolley line. That's how we ended up with
TriMet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Transit


Depends on the company. Our waste collection is done by a private
entity. That runs cheaper, more reliably and more profitably than
the typical municipal deal.

You're changing subjects. Show me one private mass transit company.


That's easy:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/

Is that enough "mass"?

In Germany I used a lot of private transit buses and trains and it
worked well. They were often cleaner than those of the munis.
Unfortunately I can't find useful stuff in English from more recent
times, just in German:

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unterne...7ufYbSq232-ap5

This kind of sums it up, quote "Die Konkurrenten fahren der Deutschen
Bahn davon. 33 Prozent der Leistung im Nahverkehr auf der Schiene werden
in diesem Jahr durch Züge von Abellio, Keolis & Co. gefahren" which
translates into "The [private] competition is pulling away from the
[government-owned] German Railroad. 33 percent of the passenger load in
local rail transit this year will be handled by Abellio, Keolis & Co". I
added comments in square brackets because most readers here won't know
which is private and which is publicly owned.

This is one of the coolest private transit companies where you can ride
a really classic bus if you get a group together:

https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg/ueber-uns/die-svg/
https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg...ward-oldiebus/

They also run the school buses in that area. Sorry, they also have no
site in English. If you want to decipher something let me know.

Smaller ones in the US:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...r-12627172.php

Long story short we must broaden our horizon and look across the fence,
to other countries. Just like they (and certainly Germany) could learn a
ton from US bike path designers. If they were willing ...

Sure, throw in the airport shuttle bus, taxis, uber, lyft, etc. That's not the local bus to Cameron Park, which would cost you $20 to Sacto (or more) if it were run as a private business. In fact, it would not even exist because it would not generate enough revenue to stay in business.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-08-30 07:31, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote: snip

That's what our power company PG&E pulled off. Instead
of fixing fire danger prone overhead wiring they
announced they'll simply cut power if there is high
wind in summer. It is up to the political leaders to
pull the charter if such behavior goes too far.


I believe that in most, if not all, cases the generating
plants are the property of the electric company. If the
local government were to "cancel their contract" where
would you get electricity from?

Or do you propose that the local government, in some
manner, perhaps by a tax increase, purchase the
generating plants?


It's about the distribution, not the plant. Utilities in
America run on the cost-plus basis which means carte
blanche. They could let them run the power plants that way
but allow competition in the distribution. Even Germany did
that which, compared to a the US, is much less capitalist.

Rate-setting is not carte blanche. It is the opposite of
carte blanche. An unregulated industry would mean all the
remote moonscape towns you think are quaint would not get
power because there is no market. The reason we got the rural
electrification program, TVA, Bonneville, etc. was exactly
because private industry wanted no part of it or the project
was simply too big.


It is carte blanche. Cost-plus means the utility can rack up
any amount of cost, knowing they will always get x percent
profit on top of that. I have seen the same behavior in
government work.

Costs must be "prudent," and costs that are excessive or
unnecessary are disallowed. Utilities are entitled to a fair
return but cannot price gouge, cannot gold-plate the power plant,
etc., etc. Well regulated industries produce reasonable rates
and reasonable returns, and around here, the CUB rides herd on
the rate-making process, as do the huge industrial power users.

Remember Enron? California electricity deregulation? How's that
deregulation thing working for you?


That's what Governor Gray Davis screwed up, creating a big new
bureacracy and not allowing long-term contract. That was stupid
and needless to say, resulted in blackouts. We called the Gray-Outs
in his "honor".


Texas has a species of deregulation, but even it is not free
market.


You have choice there and thus they have WAY better rates than we
do.

https://www.texaselectricityratings....ctricity-rates

Multiply the TX rates by three and you get the CA rates.

Oregon has lower rates than Texas, and some of the Oregon PUDs have
even lower than average rates. That's Peoples' Utility Districts. The
opposite of private, for profit.


You guys get low cost nuclear power and hydro power from your northern
neighbor. Here in CA much must come from renewables, no matter what the
cost or the consequences.



Free market is cable TV, and look how that's working out.


It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free
not to use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly
different with electricity.

Is it not rate regulated.
http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...ble_Television I
don't know what they do in California, but often cities will grant a
"franchise" just to reduce the number of right-of-way users, but
you're right, it is not entirely free market. But then again, many
markets have natural entry barriers that produce the same result. The
key point is that it is not rate regulated, and you can see what
happens to rates. I don't have cable TV either, and it is elective
unlike electricity -- which means electrical rates would skyrocket
even more.


When I inquired about cable Internet from another provider I was told
"We aren't permitted to provide that at your location, that's Comcast
turf" (Comcast was what Xfinity was called back then or maybe they
aquired them, don't remember).

[...]


You're changing subjects. Show me one private mass transit
company.


That's easy:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/



Is that enough "mass"?

In Germany I used a lot of private transit buses and trains and it
worked well. They were often cleaner than those of the munis.
Unfortunately I can't find useful stuff in English from more
recent times, just in German:

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unterne...7ufYbSq232-ap5



This kind of sums it up, quote "Die Konkurrenten fahren der Deutschen
Bahn davon. 33 Prozent der Leistung im Nahverkehr auf der Schiene
werden in diesem Jahr durch Züge von Abellio, Keolis & Co.
gefahren" which translates into "The [private] competition is
pulling away from the [government-owned] German Railroad. 33
percent of the passenger load in local rail transit this year will
be handled by Abellio, Keolis & Co". I added comments in square
brackets because most readers here won't know which is private and
which is publicly owned.

This is one of the coolest private transit companies where you can
ride a really classic bus if you get a group together:

https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg/ueber-uns/die-svg/
https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg...ward-oldiebus/

They also run the school buses in that area. Sorry, they also have
no site in English. If you want to decipher something let me know.

Smaller ones in the US:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...r-12627172.php



Long story short we must broaden our horizon and look across the fence,
to other countries. Just like they (and certainly Germany) could
learn a ton from US bike path designers. If they were willing ...

Sure, throw in the airport shuttle bus, taxis, uber, lyft, etc.
That's not the local bus to Cameron Park, which would cost you $20 to
Sacto (or more) if it were run as a private business. In fact, it
would not even exist because it would not generate enough revenue to
stay in business.


So why does that work in Germany and other countries? Those are not
cherry-picking operations, they run the gamut.

https://www.svg-busreisen.de/fileadm...etz-Sommer.pdf

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 8/30/2018 9:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip
-more snips-

It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free not to
use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly different with
electricity.

Is it not rate regulated. http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...ble_Television I don't know what they do in California, but often cities will grant a "franchise" just to reduce the number of right-of-way users, but you're right, it is not entirely free market. But then again, many markets have natural entry barriers that produce the same result. The key point is that it is not rate regulated, and you can see what happens to rates. I don't have cable TV either, and it is elective unlike electricity -- which means electrical rates would skyrocket even more.

Economists love cable television price studies and so there
are a lot of those over many years. Cities with monopoly
franchise have rates several time higher than those with 2
or more providers.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/30/2018 9:43 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-30 07:31, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7,
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote: snip
-snips continue along-

You guys get low cost nuclear power and hydro power from
your northern neighbor. Here in CA much must come from
renewables, no matter what the cost or the consequences.


Why ever would Oregon import power from WA or BC?
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy...ydropower.aspx

"Oregon is the second highest hydropower-producing state in
the nation, behind only Washington. (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, February 2016)"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 7:43:46 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-30 07:31, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote: snip

That's what our power company PG&E pulled off. Instead
of fixing fire danger prone overhead wiring they
announced they'll simply cut power if there is high
wind in summer. It is up to the political leaders to
pull the charter if such behavior goes too far.


I believe that in most, if not all, cases the generating
plants are the property of the electric company. If the
local government were to "cancel their contract" where
would you get electricity from?

Or do you propose that the local government, in some
manner, perhaps by a tax increase, purchase the
generating plants?


It's about the distribution, not the plant. Utilities in
America run on the cost-plus basis which means carte
blanche. They could let them run the power plants that way
but allow competition in the distribution. Even Germany did
that which, compared to a the US, is much less capitalist.

Rate-setting is not carte blanche. It is the opposite of
carte blanche. An unregulated industry would mean all the
remote moonscape towns you think are quaint would not get
power because there is no market. The reason we got the rural
electrification program, TVA, Bonneville, etc. was exactly
because private industry wanted no part of it or the project
was simply too big.


It is carte blanche. Cost-plus means the utility can rack up
any amount of cost, knowing they will always get x percent
profit on top of that. I have seen the same behavior in
government work.

Costs must be "prudent," and costs that are excessive or
unnecessary are disallowed. Utilities are entitled to a fair
return but cannot price gouge, cannot gold-plate the power plant,
etc., etc. Well regulated industries produce reasonable rates
and reasonable returns, and around here, the CUB rides herd on
the rate-making process, as do the huge industrial power users.

Remember Enron? California electricity deregulation? How's that
deregulation thing working for you?


That's what Governor Gray Davis screwed up, creating a big new
bureacracy and not allowing long-term contract. That was stupid
and needless to say, resulted in blackouts. We called the Gray-Outs
in his "honor".


Texas has a species of deregulation, but even it is not free
market.


You have choice there and thus they have WAY better rates than we
do.

https://www.texaselectricityratings....ctricity-rates

Multiply the TX rates by three and you get the CA rates.

Oregon has lower rates than Texas, and some of the Oregon PUDs have
even lower than average rates. That's Peoples' Utility Districts. The
opposite of private, for profit.


You guys get low cost nuclear power and hydro power from your northern
neighbor. Here in CA much must come from renewables, no matter what the
cost or the consequences.

No nuclear in Oregon, not since Trojan was decommissioned. I'm almost positive that all the power generated at the Richland nuke plant in Washington goes solely to Washington PUDs. Bonneville hydro goes to Oregon PUDs and not private utilities.

Portland General Electric is other hydro, coal, NG, wind and purchased in the market. https://www.portlandgeneral.com/our-...te-electricity




Free market is cable TV, and look how that's working out.


It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free
not to use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly
different with electricity.

Is it not rate regulated.
http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...ble_Television I
don't know what they do in California, but often cities will grant a
"franchise" just to reduce the number of right-of-way users, but
you're right, it is not entirely free market. But then again, many
markets have natural entry barriers that produce the same result. The
key point is that it is not rate regulated, and you can see what
happens to rates. I don't have cable TV either, and it is elective
unlike electricity -- which means electrical rates would skyrocket
even more.


When I inquired about cable Internet from another provider I was told
"We aren't permitted to provide that at your location, that's Comcast
turf" (Comcast was what Xfinity was called back then or maybe they
aquired them, don't remember).

[...]


You're changing subjects. Show me one private mass transit
company.


That's easy:

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/



Is that enough "mass"?

In Germany I used a lot of private transit buses and trains and it
worked well. They were often cleaner than those of the munis.
Unfortunately I can't find useful stuff in English from more
recent times, just in German:

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unterne...7ufYbSq232-ap5



This kind of sums it up, quote "Die Konkurrenten fahren der Deutschen
Bahn davon. 33 Prozent der Leistung im Nahverkehr auf der Schiene
werden in diesem Jahr durch Züge von Abellio, Keolis & Co.
gefahren" which translates into "The [private] competition is
pulling away from the [government-owned] German Railroad. 33
percent of the passenger load in local rail transit this year will
be handled by Abellio, Keolis & Co". I added comments in square
brackets because most readers here won't know which is private and
which is publicly owned.

This is one of the coolest private transit companies where you can
ride a really classic bus if you get a group together:

https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg/ueber-uns/die-svg/
https://www.svg-busreisen.de/die-svg...ward-oldiebus/

They also run the school buses in that area. Sorry, they also have
no site in English. If you want to decipher something let me know.

Smaller ones in the US:

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article...r-12627172.php



Long story short we must broaden our horizon and look across the fence,
to other countries. Just like they (and certainly Germany) could
learn a ton from US bike path designers. If they were willing ...

Sure, throw in the airport shuttle bus, taxis, uber, lyft, etc.
That's not the local bus to Cameron Park, which would cost you $20 to
Sacto (or more) if it were run as a private business. In fact, it
would not even exist because it would not generate enough revenue to
stay in business.


So why does that work in Germany and other countries? Those are not
cherry-picking operations, they run the gamut.

If it could work here, it would work here. There is no prohibition on running a bus company . . . into bankruptcy. It's been done and was done in my fair city. Cost structure is more favorable here than in Germany because of low fuel cost, low minimum wage, low taxes, absence of unions, low regulation under state DOT and federal MCSA (ICC is gone). You tell me why it doesn't work here. Could it be because the returns are too low to interest investors? Gee. I wonder. Hey, maybe its because people would rather drive their cars!

Where there is a market, it does work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoltBu...regon_2014.jpg (BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 8:33:04 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2018 9:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:16:40 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 15:17, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:00:21 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip
-more snips-

It's not free, it's chartered just like electricity. Out here only
Comcast/Xfinity is allowed to lay cable TV. However, one is free not to
use it. Our family doesn't use it. This is slightly different with
electricity.

Is it not rate regulated. http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...ble_Television I don't know what they do in California, but often cities will grant a "franchise" just to reduce the number of right-of-way users, but you're right, it is not entirely free market. But then again, many markets have natural entry barriers that produce the same result. The key point is that it is not rate regulated, and you can see what happens to rates. I don't have cable TV either, and it is elective unlike electricity -- which means electrical rates would skyrocket even more.

Economists love cable television price studies and so there
are a lot of those over many years. Cities with monopoly
franchise have rates several time higher than those with 2
or more providers.

Cable was a bad example. Cities typically regulate through franchises, which is not a monopoly per se but a use right of public facilities. See e.g. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/revenue/58882 The deal with "cable" is that it can be delivered through the air (Dish) or via phone lines by the incumbent telecommunications provider -- who also has a franchise. So there typically is competition. There is plenty of competition in the Portland market. Still high cable prices.

But, cable is a bad example because of content costs, and content is not a commodity like electricity. You don't get a kilowatt of Game of Thrones.

Even more O.T., competition has driven down the cost of internet, and the local telephone company, Century Link, put fiber in my neighborhood which I dropped into my house. To make things easy for the installer, Century Link wanted to drape it off the pole over to the side of my house -- another spider web. I requested that it be put into the conduit that goes from the pole to my basement, which caused them to balk because they would have to pull the fiber and spend 30 minutes longer with the install. They said I needed a nearby power source for the converter box (optical to CAT 5E) and that I would have to run wire through my house rather than dropping it through an outside wall, which looks ****ty. O.K.! I mounted the converter box to inside cement wall (thank you hammer drill), put in a new outlet box in the joists (you have to avoid circuit with upstream GFC), pulled CAT 5E through impossible spaces into attic, ran down to new outlet box along with new 110 line/coax for antenna. Super tidy installation.

So, last week I was cutting a bush on the property line and just about cut my neighbor's new fiber, which was just draped through the bush. Incroyable.. If you don't ride herd on those guys, they'll just string **** willy-nilly.

-- Jay Beattie.