Mobilization of the -- Present??

[Sega DogTagz]

Many countries are facing challenges regarding transportation. Highways are becoming more congested and roads are simply becoming unable to handle to workload. The American Airline industries (and a few others) are really falling on hard times. The auto industry is under a major reform and the people don’t seem to quite know what they want anymore.

With the travel infrastructure collapsing in many places in the word, what do you propose we do about it? How do you fix the problem in your country, and what do you think the world as a whole can do to the system to prevent this from happening in the future?

The best solution I would have is an increase in the budget for mass transit. A system of busses and trains is a must in this day and age. Also Amtrack could use the money. Their service is over-priced and still sucks.

I’ll also throw this out there

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/pop...16&src=news

A shot clip from an Obama speech where he continues his brilliant plan of taking brilliant plans from other countries. In this one, he invests some serious moneys into High speed rail (like France, Japan).

I like the idea. I was always jealous of that part of Europe’s high speed transit system.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Kevin]

I'd love to see Obama's high speed rail plan become a reality. Europe and Japan have these systems, so why can't we? It would be a great alternative to plane travel.

[Flyboy Fox]

Britain's travesty of a public transport system (rail in particular) could benefit from this, too. I wish we could take cues from our neighbours in that respect...

[goodone121]

Umm, where does this money come from?

People will have to see a tax hike to pay for this. If anyone was to take this on, it should be the private sector.

[Indigo Rush]

Umm, where does this money come from?

And considering America is in a lot of debt...

[Sega DogTagz]

Meh, taxes are life anyway, people complain over an inevitability. I’d gladly pact a few cents more on my tax forms if it meant a reliable long distance mass transit solution that could keep the prices down.

If anyone was to take this on, it should be the private sector.

That sounds like a bad idea too me. Sure, it gets the taxpayer off scott-free but in this situation your introducing an entrepreneur x factor. Somebody is going to look too profit off of their construction efforts and in the end we as taxpayers are mostly likely to take an even bigger hit than by us footing the bill in the first place. They'll gouge us for every penny to ride the rails. It'll be Amtrak all over again.

Those Ya-Hoo's charge 50 bucks to get from DC to Philadelphia. The Chinatown Bus line will do it for 5. (no joke).

I personally like the idea of a government owned mass transit system. The subsidies will keep the costs cheap and since there will be a nationalism ego involved, the country is guaranteed one of the finest creations in the world.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Tornado]

Mass transit can almost never be handled by the private sector because they almost always lose money. I think we need a high speed rail system (though high speed rail isn't usually that expensive comparatively speaking, so it could probably be handled privately), but I'm incredibly doubtful that the government will ever let anything happen to the airline industry. I also question whether it will even work in America. It is so successful in Japan (in particular) because cars aren't as widespread and the geography is well suited to that of railroad systems. In America, not so much.

On the other hand, we could just build more roads.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Tornado

[Flyboy Fox]

Roads take financing too (not to mention the incredibly difficult process of finding suitable ground without having to evict people/take over owned land etc). Not to mention how much that would encourage more cars on the road, when Obama has clearly stated wanting to cut down on carbon emissions.

[Tornado]

Not to mention how much that would encourage more cars on the road, when Obama has clearly stated wanting to cut down on carbon emissions.

A few problems with this:

1. I highly doubt the amount of cars driven is particularly related to congestion problems. Maybe in really big cities like New York, but even in L.A. I doubt it applies that much.
   
2. Building more roads would almost certainly lower carbon emissions.
   
3. Cars are far more practical than trains are, and the only real ways to travel long distances on the cheap is cars and trains.
   
4. The average automobile these days is way, way down on the list of carbon emitters. The fact that the Obama administration has shown a clear lack of understanding on that fact since before even getting into office (and a few U.K. laws tell me that this isn't strictly an American problem) does not change anything.
   

Strictly speaking, I would rather have my government put money into something that isn't quite as much of a money pit as public transportation. I really couldn't care less about carbon emissions because its likely that ICU engines as they are now won't be around that much longer anyways.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Tornado

[Flyboy Fox]

My understanding is still that public transport is preferable to private transport when cutting down on carbon emissions, and should therefore be encouraged rather than discouraged. That is why a fast and efficient train system would be preferable to building more roads.

[Tornado]

That is why a fast and efficient train system would be preferable to building more roads.

Why is it that we can't do both?

[Flyboy Fox]

Because there is not endless money, nor is there endless land. How many people will have to lose their homes or sell up private land for this?

[Tornado]

Because there is not endless money

The Obama administration has made it quite clear that they don't give a shit how much deficit spending they perform, so that is not applicable to this discussion.

nor is there endless land. How many people will have to lose their homes or sell up private land for this?

Please. You act as if the paving more road will force people out on the street. No one will have to do anything. Do you even know the process that the government takes when it does put down new roads? They start by asking who would like to sell their land when the issue comes up. Usually, the offering price per acre and the convenience more road adds causes people to sell. If no one wants to sell space for the road, however, the road simply doesn't get built.

And considering you have to do much the same process to lay tracks as you do when you pave roads, its not like a high speed rail system will be any better in that respect.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Tornado

[Flyboy Fox]

I didn't ignore it. Hence why I used it as an answer for not doing both - each one will have the same problems.

And I know from experience that people CAN lose their homes and be bullied out of their land over these procedures.

As for the money thing, of course it's applicable, since we're discussing theoretically about what would be best - not what Obama will actually do.

[Tornado]

And I know from experience that people CAN lose their homes and be bullied out of their land over these procedures.

So why exactly is a rail system any better?

[Flyboy Fox]

Because - and only because - it is better for the environment and for reducing carbon emissions. People will likely lose their homes/land either way, but my belief is that if something NEEDS to be done to ease the problem of daily transportation gridlock, then a more efficient train system is the better of two evils.

[Tornado]

Because - and only because - it is better for the environment and for reducing carbon emissions.

So is building more roads, which also has the bonus of being more practical to use.

The "Save the Earth" argument probably won't be applicable for too much longer anyways.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Tornado

[Sega DogTagz]

[*]I highly doubt the amount of cars driven is particularly related to congestion problems. Maybe in really big cities like New York, but even in L.A. I doubt it applies that much.

The consensus for worst congestion areas in the US belong to Los Angeles and Washington DC. (I’ve lived in both and I can vouch for that). The simple fact is that the existing roads there aren’t capable of handling the sheer amount of people that move in and out of the cities every day. It just wasn’t built too.

It’s impossible to expand many of the roads due to constraints from housing and malls practically built on the cubs. Creating new roads leads to the added problem of creating extra bottlenecks, which can easily make the problem at hand worse.

And considering you have to do much the same process to lay tracks as you do when you pave roads, its not like a high speed rail system will be any better in that respect.

While track lines have to go through the same approval as roads, the space needed for a two way rail is significantly less than that of another highway. On top of that, Trains can be built on a much more vertical scale than roads, and can bypass problems through the sky. (Not over houses, but still).

I like the idea of restoring existing highways while supplementing them with a re-invigoration of public transportation. The more people who ride the rails to work, the less people there are for me to fight with on I-95.

[Tornado]

The consensus for worst congestion areas in the US belong to Los Angeles and Washington DC. (I

Edited April 17, 2009 by Tornado

[Sega DogTagz]

Oh, OK

I wouldn’t say that our Metro system is excellent though (excellent by comparison maybe). Go check out the Russian Moscow Underground. It’s so extravagant, it’s ridiculous.

Even so Metro is only a local solution. Obama’s High speed Rail would provide transportation from a city to city basis.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Kevin]

Umm, where does this money come from?

People will have to see a tax hike to pay for this. If anyone was to take this on, it should be the private sector.

Yes, I agree that private businesses could do a lot better job at building all these roads, bridges, etc. Even John Stossel brought up a good point about it.