Slashdot Mirror
DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation
An anonymous reader writes The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a 300-page PDF outlining the grim future of transportation infrastructure in North America over the next thirty years, and inviting debate on the issue. The report presents a vision of 2045 with LA-style traffic jams in Nebraska, trains too full to pick up any more passengers and airports underwater due to climate change — all in a climate of chronic under-investment, even at levels needed to maintain existing transport infrastructure. Among possible solutions outlined are self-driving cars using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2I) crash-avoidance technologies, such as those currently in development by Google — and in fact transportation secretary Anthony Foxx was joined by Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the launch of DOT's "Beyond Traffic" initiative.
They want more funding. As do most governmental departments that release these gloom and doom scenarios.
Yeah, it does include that as part of the solution. Though at 300 pages it's still not all that in-depth.
"Congestion can also be managed through land use policies that help to reduce commuting distance.
Mixed-use developments, where homes are near jobs, mean that commutes are shorter, and often
make it possible for people to walk or bike to work. In general, development patterns that promote
denser land use rather than sprawl help to reduce total commuter travel demand.
Employers can be an important partner in managing congestion through travel demand, if they are
able to facilitate flex-time schedules and teleworking. This reduces the need for commuters to be
traveling during peak times. Employers may also provide benefits and amenities that encourage
employees to use public transit, or to bike or walk to work."
30 years and airports will be underwater? I'm willing to believe man has an effect on the climate, but alarmist crap like this doesn't help your cause. Did John Kerry start working for the dot?
RFA. The report clearly is talking about flooding due to more severe weather. Which is a claimed product of global warming. With the case in point being both JDK and Newark Liberty having closed as a result of - wait for it - flooding during Sandy.
Example: I can take Caltrain from Mountain View to SF for 8.00 one way, so 16.00 round trip.
Those fares are high - That 3 zone trip would cost $7.25 cash fare, or $6.75 if paid with a Clipper Card. But if you were a regular commuter, you'd buy the $179 monthly pass, which equates to around $4 each way. It's over 40 miles by car, you'd be hard pressed to pay all expenses for a car for 10 cents/mile.
The train takes around 45 minutes to make the trip. Driving with no traffic also takes around 45 minutes, but during commute hours, 60 - 90 minutes is more realistic. If you can live and work near the stations on both ends, the train makes much more sense than driving. The financial district in SF is just a 15 - 20 minute walk from Caltrain, so there are a lot of jobs within walking distance of the SF Caltrain station, and SOMA is becoming a bigger and bigger job center.
The problem with Caltrain isn't the expense -- it's quite reasonably priced with a monthly pass, the problem is the schedule... trains run infrequently, non-comute headways are 60 minutes, and many stations are served infrequently (or not at all) by express trains so even during commute hours, some stations have 60 minute headways, so staying at work a few extra minutes could mean getting home 90 minutes late. Plus, infrequent trains mean commute hour trains are often standing room only... and their train cars are not built for standing - there are few handholds and narrow isles can make it hard for passengers to get on/off trains.
But you're absolutely right that the Bay Area suffers from too many competing transit systems, with disparate and often confusing fare structures, they finally have a single regional payment card (Clipper Card), but the even that is clunky and works differently on different systems. BART gets the lions share of funding (both through a dedicated sales tax and grants for capitol projects), but is very expensive for users, not very reliable, and is running at capacity with very little that can be done to improve capacity without spending billions of dollars. Yet they keep expanding the system.
thanks for your pointless sophistry
the simple fact is we do not fund american infrastructure enough, and this hurts our economy in relation to places that do
it's not complicated nor difficult to understand
here, educate yourself:
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fa...
http://www.infrastructurerepor...
after you have some actual understanding of a topic, only then should you speak on the topic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lots of driving on private property tends to mean it's becoming public property.
That's a ridiculous statement. Private roads are private infrastructure and are built and maintained with private funds. If Disneyland wants to gate its parking lots and prevent people from driving or parking on the lots, that's Disneyland's business. It's also Disneyland's business to pony up the money to repair potholes in its parking lots if it wants to. It could let the lots turn to gravel or mud pits if it wanted.
But getting back on subject: so few people drive only on private property with a vehicle registered to drive on public streets that it's not worth figuring out when you were on public or private. Every registration renewal, list the new odometer reading. 1/20 times, someone walks out to your car to double check it, so you can fudge if you like to gamble against a hefty fine. Vehicles that drive only on private property like farm trucks, tractors, and Disney trams are already non-registered.