28 votes
I disagreeRank1706
Idea#560
Discover new ways and new technologies that stimulate the use of mass transit throughout the US.
Some of the ways may include funding opportunities for small communities, grants for cities that would get them to consider a light rail system, new technologies that could move people without requiring regular oversight (like the system of sliding walkways they have at Heathrow airport that moves people without requiring a driver).
Tags: new technology
This is a great idea, just as important as single payer health care. I would observe that it is a policy area that fits or spans or is spread across all of the twelve core policy areas (agriculture, diplomacy, economy, education, energy, family, health, immigration, justice, security, society, and water).
For example, we should be restoring neighborhoods and small to mid-size cities where pedestiran, bike, and zip cars are the norm, as well as mass transit, and dramatically reducing the externalization of costs from Wall-Mart and Exxon, where we pay $3 for a gallon of gas that externalizes $12 per gallon to the environment and the public for many generations down the road.
The US government is unintelligent because we have not held it accountable for making informed coherent decisions across all policy areas. The Cabinet departments fight for budget share on behalf of their FINANCIAL stake-holders, not in the public interest.
THAT is what has to change, and we change it by eliminating data pathologies and information asymmetries. I have a briefing on this (words in Notes format) at www.oss.net/HACK.
Please consider the Open Source Agency idea as one that would embrace your own contribution to this forum.
Support transportation demand management rather than increased highway capacity. This means getting people out of their cars.
Focus on Transit Oriented Development that supports local communities and economies.
Federal funding for Mass Transit. If we can spend a trillion dollars to blow up Iraq, we could spend a trillion to build light rail. I rode the San Jose train and it was a marvel. I met very interesting people there... and on Halloween Night, it was a rolling party. I played guitar and we did group sing alongs. You just can't do that stuck in a traffic jam by yourself. gregvanderlaan.com
Mass transit only works in cities with centralized populations. Light rail in Houston was a massive mistake. It has done nothing to help traffic congestion and serves mainly as a mobile homeless shelter.
On the other hand in Albany, Ny and surrounding communities the D&H railway once connected a string of communities together. Now that the railway is defunct everybody drives their car into the city. There's a constant problem with finding a parking space and dealing with traffic. If the railway was restored people could drive to parking lots along the right of way and catch a train into the city. It would stimulate the economy in the inner city
Then again if you provided housing for your homeless population maybe they wouldn't take shelter on the train.
In Albany, NY if they didn't have shelter they'd freeze in winter.
If there was enough demand for rail transportation, then wouldn't the railway be making a profit and still be in business?
I will happily support programs to help the homeless find jobs and get back on their feet. However, it should be by my own choice not a tax funded program.
That said, those that would rather freeze than get a job, have every right to do so.
The D&H was originally a coal hauling company and there were a number of lucrative markets that were ignored because gas was cheap. Today the cost of gasoline is much more expensive and a passenger line connecting the rural villages between Amsterdam and Albany would no doubt improve the situations of many but there are a number of reasons it hasn't been attempted.
If there was some way for local Government, businesses and the railway to form a passenger business together they would find it easy enough to make a profit. But the benefits are diverse between businesses that have not worked together in the past.
Part of the benefit would be to the local economy caused by funneling of passengers along the railway corridor. Another part would be the reduction in maintenance allowed by running local passengers on steel rails. A third part could be had by a reduction in required parking spaces in the city because people could park along the right of way and ride the train in.
No, the reason its not done is because everyone has their own little project and the political backing isn't currently there. Instead the separate groups that would benefit so well together spend twice as much apart.
There isn't much doubt that a transportation system using cars that was originally designed to take advantage of the cheapness of fuel will be harder pressed as the price of that fuel climbs but there isn't anyone out there other than the government who is capable of pulling the benefactors together into one group to make an alternative possible. And as long as there are people who have a strong enough voice who suggest that there is no such business because there is no demand and others who believe them and fight rather than see a resolution that would benefit all I think it will not happen.
No business run by government turns a profit. It sounds like you have researched and analyzed the issue well enough to present it to some investors and run with it though. Venture capitalists don't care how politically popular your idea is. They just want you to show them how it can make them money. If you decide that only the government can get it done, it will never happen.
In 2002 rail transit cost around 12 billion dollars in subsidy money which is why people believe its a losing proposition. What they don't see is the 20 billion in savings caused by reduced congestion, 8 billion reduction in road maintenance costs and 6 billion in reduced crashes. Taking all that into account sure looks like a profitable venture to me.
There is this popular belief that nothing run by government can be profitable but you couldn't be any more wrong. The above information is repeated throughout many government endeavors. If you only concentrate on the subsidy and ignore the costs that would have been paid without the government service it makes great political capital for those who are against the service in the first place.
If you check my figures you'll see I ignored an additional 20 billion or so in cost savings nationwide.
I see the problem now! You are saying that the railway would only be profitable if you closed the roads. Not enough people prefer the train to their cars to make it work. How do you propose to force people to use mass transit instead of roads they already voted and paid to build?
I wont force them to. You just provide them the option. I certainly would like the option.
As far as the roads go the railroad is part of it though the railroad companies have always built sections they have wanted the US Government has provided them right of way and funds to do it.
Of course the original suggestion here proposed new ways and new technologies. The sliding walkways, the high speed busses they use in South America that have special lanes and only stop like a train at stations, Monorails and more. There are probably methods of mass transit that work in your town but not in mine. I have never believed that one size fits all.
I mentioned the D&H in particular because its a historical railroad. One of the first inn this country. There's a piece of it that still operates in the Adirondacks taking skiers to the mountains and leaf watchers in fall. It wouldn't take much to provide mass transit into Albany, NY, perhaps using trains similar to what traveled there in 1802 and stimulate our local tourist industry too.
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web