Humanitarian Government #19: Transportation as a Common Held Item

Humanitarian Government #19: Transportation as a Common Held Item

Good day!

Transportation is almost as complicated as economics, and yes, I'm still working on figuring out more details about government funding and even personal finances. So, please be patient.

For those new, you'll see a word used repeatedly: Erf. It's Old English and means 'inheritance' or 'legacy'. It also is what I call a post-collapsed America who is digging out from an economic and governmental collapse.

Sub-Issue: Personal Vehicles

I've mentioned in other articles about walking distance shopping, doctor's offices and such. I'm not kidding.

I've also mention I live West of the Mississippi River. I say this because the type of culture and transportation system is vastly different than East of the Mississippi River.

The major difference is the West has more of a highway/road and personal vehicle method of transportation. That was almost by design and also not by accident, either. At one time, even LA had trolley systems and other mass transit. There is a push for changing things around in the LA basin and has been changing in the Bay Area (San Francisco for those who don't know the reference) for a while with the BART system. There's only one issue I have with California and their ways of moving back to more mass transit: the Metro Rail system under LA. Being prone to earthquakes and I've been through my share, I'd never go into that system. Not that I don't trust engineers not to have planned about earthquakes in the design, just I don't trust Mother Nature and my propensity of ending up getting her back-hand, so to speak.

Now, again, I focus on jobs, public safety, and being as ecologically and economically sound as I can. Up to this point, I keep harping on costs-longevity pro/cons and this is no different. Yes, everything I offer as a possible pathway will have increased initial costs. Yes, whatever money going to the government to fund all these projects will be more than what is being paid in now. Again yes, what we'd have as a pro to the cost is the longevity, maintaining costs (or lack of with good workmanship), and flexibility. A lack of relying on Corporate America on most everything and turning Corporate America into a system of teaching history and a way of making sure those that hold business understand they are required to be like a person, but also not. The 'be like a person': accountable, responsible, and subject to regulations and consequences for violating the first two. The difference is any form of business that exists in Erf would never, ever exist as a person and have any governmental influence or position.

Sub-Issue: Cars and roads

For personal vehicles, I'd suggest a move to business only. I'll get to more in a bit. The reason I suggest business be covered by personal transportation only for the fact of getting to job sites that may be off the beaten path and also rural areas ways of simply living requires personal vehicles. But urban living, as stated in previous articles, is different.

I've mentioned keeping things within walking distance, preferably. This has many reasons. One is that it encourages or even forces a healthier lifestyle. It also clears the air because of a lack of CO2 and more coming from so many cars, trucks and such. But does this say 'no vehicles'? No. It just changes the way things are done.

Now, I'm well aware of doctors offices, certain shopping and such won't be within walking distance, or a person can't walk without assistance and any other reason. So the question becomes: how to we get people from point A to point B when personal vehicles are limited?

For one, we'd create jobs of a certain type, create multi-layer mass transit, and forms of distant transportation that is more collective than not.

I'll start on the 'collective' first. Say a person needs to get across town to start. Well, there would be two methods: vehicle and mass transit. Both will get you where you need to go, one might take more time than the other, or be more convenient.

To start, either would have at least a small fee attached. For some reason, one appreciates certain things more if there is a cost attached to it. Go figure, but I'm not opposed to small payments to get from point A to Point B.

Some-sort or version of taxi/Uber/public car transport would be the main way of vehicle transport. That could be scheduled, like for appointments of various sorts or scheduled shopping as examples. The other branch of that could be 'on-call' for things like grocery shopping or such. I know, not an immediate going out to the curb or garage/parking space, getting in, and simply going. But think of that vehicle and how you own it.

For one, that car sits on the street, in a garage, or in a parking lot most of any given day. It also costs (my payment is being used as an example) nearly $500/month is ownership loan. Then you've got another $150-$200/month for car insurance, then the costs for gas, oil, tires, maintenance based on electronics and such. Not to mention, in some areas of this nation, you have to pay for that parking, and additional fees for use. You also have to pay for taxes, licensure, and such. So we're talking about $11,700 per year based on what I pay for base ownership costs.

I'm using $500 (payment), $200 (insurance), $225 for gas ($3/gallon, 75 gallons for the month), $50 (per month set aside for maintenance—oil, tires, tune up) for that base ownership. I know in New York City, you've use costs in certain areas, tolls, and I've heard up to $700/month just for parking. With those added costs ($700 for parking and $200 for toll/use fees per month), you're talking $1875 per month, a cool $22,500 per year. That's based on a four year old car. So, if you got a new car, those are running on average $50,000 for most makes and models now, plus the interest, and spread that over 5 years. Also, another nice little trick for both homes and cars: you pay your interest first before your actual payment on the car. Meaning banks or other lenders make sure they get their money before anyone else. I'm not going into more math, but is it worth having something that you only need for a relatively limited time for actual use instead of that cost or a bit more for a 'commercial' vehicle that is in use most of the time, used more than by yourself or family, and the costs spread out among more people? Especially if you figure out your shopping lists and such and control the amounts of trips you make per month? As stated, you can schedule times, have the added benefit of managing your spending better since you're not going to a grocery store or some big box store nearly daily and buying more or frivolous items than on your list each time you go?

If you're disabled, meaning a wheelchair or unable to use normal transportation, that is another branch of commonly-held transportation. If you're talking urgent, fast-reaction could be another branch, and emergency would be ambulances. So, even at $25/trip (both ways if one destination) if you go by $11,700/year, that equals to 468 round trips. So, if you make one trip per day, that's roughly 15 to 16 months worth of trips. However, considering commonly held, multiple person use, and more, we could even drop that cost down to $10 or $15, use hybrid vehicles for even less fuel cost (electrical use would be from solar shingle use on whatever maintenance/storage buildings for the most part), and that range (rounded up) of $12,000 to $23,000 per year isn't just on one person anymore: it's spread out and yes, your trip cost would be covering things like accident coverage, specialized vehicles and such. So we're talking small costs, managing your shopping better or having small cost but things delivered in still limited amount of vehicles owned and operated by businesses, and still getting everyone to wherever. We could, if worst comes to worst, have neighborhood short-term rental situation, too. It's up to not only the city, but the neighborhood on if that's something worth while. That means a few (determined by the neighborhood and space) cars dedicated only to that neighborhood for rental.

Not to mention, roads could be less than what we have today. Depending on how a town or city wants to plan things, the green space could be within the square or whatever other shape used and roads only around the outside, meaning, more or less, the 'backyard' of houses would be partially that green space, fenced or not, and the 'front' of those houses would be where the only roads would be. But also, over the lifespan of a road things would change. Yes, more than likely two lanes either direction, but built and maintained more along the lines of what Germany does.

For one, Germany doesn't pick the lowest bidder as first choice or only way of dealing with public spending of this sort. They weigh the costs, maintenance length, materials, and durability as being determinations of accepting a bid or not. In this sense, the co-op type working environment would still allow for bidding on contracts and such, not just willy-nilly public building and lowest bidder with the propensity of cutting corners and lousy construction that needs to be re-constructed a few years later just to make profit or a bigger profit. The way Germany does things, is the contract bid is put to the one needing something done. That is looked at and considered. Then any cost overruns aren't paid for by the tax-payer: it's the contractors issue and they are the ones to eat costs and issues either not covered in the contract or avoidable issues covered in the contract. Fines for poor construction and such also fall into that category. So contractors do well by the employees, do good work and keep issues to a minimum. I know of the airport there and the overruns and such....that isn't a road and I'm not in the particulars of that. The Autobahn, however, is where I'm focusing at. Their good workmanship on the road and the lesser amount of maintenance due to that good workmanship is where the profit comes from for the most part.

Sub-Issue: Mass Transit

We can also have buses, trolleys or light-rail (or both), bike rental or simply ownership and use. Again, with the bikes, you get exercise and a healthier method of living. Buses, trolleys and such are also methods of transportation that the costs are spread out among everyone. Light-rail could connect not only within certain cities because of that city being spread out enough for that to be feasible, but also in multi-city areas. I'm talking places like the LA basin, the Bay area (which already has BART), the Denver Metro area, and the like. Multiple subdivisions and cities, all interconnected in various ways and next to each other, so that's not so bad of an option.

Say you're more dependent on mass transit and whatever form you take has a stop a few blocks away, the weather is bad, and you find yourself needing to walk there instead of taking a bike to that hub. What to do...call in sick if you have to go into an office? Or, the city or even a listing of on-call drivers in the neighborhood takes you there, and possibly pick you up later for just enough to cover fuel and a bit of time? Both solutions would work. Also, I'm hoping that most corporations will learn from COVID and post-COVID employee attendance improvement and production that they'd lean back or continue to move toward remote work. Some jobs can't, I know. But those that can, should, but also compensate for room and things like costs for internet/cable and such. That, and I know this isn't transportation, but look at my housing and infrastructure articles and how things would be done for those items.

Sub-Issue: Nation-wide Transportation

Of course, planes would still be a method of national travel that is quick. But if you had the time, schedule, and would rather see a bit of the US/Erf in a way that doesn't require a road and keeping concentration on that road, what then?

Trains.

We used to have Amtrak all over the place in the US, but as cars became more and more prevalent, that service is now limited and mainly on the East Coast. But trains, and that track, could be a decent way of not only transporting people, say, from one end of a state or region to another or across the nation, but also could carry non-toxic and various time-sensitive items. Mail, the paper kind that is getting rarer, could also be carried instead of trucks.

High speed rail isn't out of the question in the US if we'd invest in it. There has been a proposed rail line from the Wyoming southern border to the northern New Mexico border in Colorado stalled for decades. Part of that is money and it's being pushed by a private company. Part of it is land and how the proposed track would be placed and not only be within areas directly in the middle of properties, but also what is being offered isn't even fair market value of that land. If I was a rancher or farmer and something was being proposed on my land that would break it up and create issues with livestock or getting to or from crops, I'd not sell either. But, there is a way of dealing with that, but isn't being utilized.

What am I talking about? Normally, there is side-land or even land that could be used for rail between directions of traffic in highways across the nation. Yes, this means private companies wouldn't be involved in that building and maintenance of those lines. Yet, instead of creating ways other than car to get from one end of the state to another, that isn't being proposed as even an option. If you're talking about mountain crossing, because that's an issue in my State, yes, things will get complicated and expensive fast. Yes, getting across the nation would cost a nickle or two, so to speak, more than owning a car and paying for gas, but, I would argue not by much anymore. Granted, slower than a plane, but high-speed rail, even with stops, can be as much or fewer hours less travel, depending on the speed of the train, the amount of stops, and such. Remember, when you have security, multiple engineers and other transport jobs running around the clock, you're not spending your time looking or booking hotels and such. So when you're talking maybe the same sort of costs for a cross-country car drive (or less, it all depends on the variety of train we're talking about, sleeper versus chair type cars, meal cars and such), but yet you've less issues to contend with and such, which is better?

When it comes to freight, I've issues.

Right now, there are only a handful or less companies that run our nations freight trains. Now, this is important to address and not just because of the option of over the road (OTR) trucking, either.

The first major one is the moving of toxic or noxious freight both in solid or liquid forms. This is because a good amount of rail lines go through towns, and I get why. Most freight lines have been in existence for quite a while and those towns either are or were stops or hubs of various business. As I said, I get it. However, it's not the lines I have a problem with. It's the way things are run.

The train lobby isn't huge, but it's been pushing for decades for looser regulations and waivers about various safety measures.

One of which is using robotic/AI methods to check rail lines. This checking is routine and needed, but the way the robotic/AI works, doesn't show some of the things a human looks for when doing those same checks. They are either overlooked, or simply not checked. Now, rail has to be fairly precise or risks of derailment escalate fast. A reason why cutting back on humans and leaving rail safety more in the hands of robots/AI isn't a good reason. Also, again, that reason is that fat bottom line and lack of being willing to keep minimal safety beyond the minimum owners and corporations are willing to take a risk on. New Palestine isn't and hasn't been the latest of toxic or noxious rail accidents. Yet, they pay only a pittance, convince the government things are cleaned up and healthy for residents, yet the environment and people are still being affected today.

That and they've lengthened the trains they run with fewer people doing that running. Simple physics about the weight, length, and the amount of time to stop a train doesn't help matters. Now, where I live, there is one major line, and several branches I can get to quite easily and fairly fast. Also, one of those branches is mainly for coal cars going to a power plant and crosses a major north/south highway artery. That bridge has high, metal sides along with concrete to help...note that word...keep things safe and off the highway.

Guess what? That didn't stop at least three to six cars full of coal from leaving the rail, breaking the wall, killing one, and shutting down that major highway both directions for at least 24 hours. Yes...then there is the fight between the State and railroad company on whose responsibility it is on maintaining things. Being a bridge over a state/interstate highway the rail company says it is the State's responsibility. The State said it was the rail line. It's still in court, the bridge is fixed, but the issue is still no one is truly taking ownership of the problem. Being what that area is, both should be doing various things. The infrastructure of the bridge and making sure it's going to be able to deal with the amount, length, and weight of train cars should fall to the State. The rail, inspecting and notification of issues with the bridge, and taking ownership of the accident should be the rail line...but I'm getting into details that you, dear reader, should have input on also.

So, what am I getting at?

I've said it before: if corporations don't want to step up, do the right thing, be willing to have less of their bottom line fattened up by cutting jobs and safety; we the public will fix that issue. If that means pulling ownership, telling whomever they're out of luck on getting paid for their current ownership because they failed to keep minimal safety...so be it. Again, I care more about people than corporate profits.

Think: and I know I'm going a bit off topic but bear with me.

People come up with the idea or way of doing or making something. People make or do that something. The same people or others generally buy in one form or another that something, they also in most cases pay taxes on that something, and lastly any issues from that something, they are the first to suffer consequences and be kept in the dark. What does all this have in common? People. Where does corporations come in? They may buy or take an idea, find ways of making that into reality, sell that (generally) both to the government and citizenry, set pay and price, determine what a satisfactory profit margin is, and in a great many ways and means, learn or find out about issues and then fail to address them. This last step forces either the government or citizenry to shoulder the burden of their greed and failures of accountability and responsibility about those issues. So no, I have not one single neuron of empathy or sympathy for a company and it's leadership if they suffer consequences when they look at profit margins and try to find ways of making those profit margins fatter at the expense of the very core and bedrock of those profit margins instead of looking at things in ways that would be better but would force modifications of age old business models.

Still, the circle of industry/business is a similar but strange animal to most other circular systems, so to speak. Industry/business can treat their employees better and equitably by employing enough people to allow for vacations, making sure they are able to survive comfortably and stay healthy and still make profits. If they do more than the minimum and allow their employees enough pay to do more than survive, the circle goes into people being able and willing to buy more, consume more in various ways, and be willing to produce more because they're being compensated accordingly. Does it mean short-term profits are lower? Yes, more than likely. However, does that mean long-term profits exist and your corporation lasts longer? Absolutely, and that profit margin? A couple of things.

One is: if you want more money, fine. But long-term profits that can be plowed into upgrading and adapting your business to the time gains you more...but again, over time and your ownership in whatever way exists longer and you can use smaller profits to invest (if you're talking personal) into other things and create jobs and opportunities for more than your business and all that feeds back into the circle.

Two is: if you're using profit margins and stock market figures as a measure of business health, I'm sorry to inform you but those don't reflect real life. Yes, it may for the business but also look at who all is investing in your business and how small a pool those people are. Not to mention, if even one small segment fails, and you try to keep those profit margins high, you're setting yourself up for a domino effect that will crash everything because one business or segment of that limited pool of investors will effect another, and things won't just be bad for those who got you into the position of wealth and power, but also for yourselves and those who you've woven into the web of wealth and power to get even more of that wealth and power by means that harms the entire circle.

Jeeze...sorry about that. But as I've said, I've issues with people not listening and I've issues with close mindedness.

Still, lets get back to transportation.

Sub-Issue: Who is the Owner?

The citizenry as a whole, nation-wide, would be owner/operators of transportation and even freight movement. Over the road trucking would be more within states from train hubs to remote areas. Small cost and time-limited rental trucks/cars for transport from urban to rural areas woven into various forms of car, trolley, light-rail, and bus routes, along with disability and urgent/medical transportation could help not only the economy because of the construction of these webs, but also the amount of people for maintenance, operating, and producing such items. Yes, car manufacturing would lessen, but then again, our car manufacturing base is dependent on parts and such made from outside the US anyway, and mass production is no longer a good business model.

Closing

I'm sorry about the rant earlier. I also know the outlay for this will be massive. But the same could be said about The New Deal when it came about to dig us out of The Great Depression. Yes, cost outlays will be large, but if we as a society keep up with maintenance, upgrading as necessary, allow profit but not excessive profits, allow change rather than hinder or hide that change in all ways, the US could, even today, either avoid a collapse which I'm surprised hasn't completely happened yet, or take some of the sting out from the collapse I see coming. First economically, then it will be government that will fail.

We as a nation, as a society, need to grow up. No, individuality can't be ever gotten rid of. If we do, we become stagnate and the groups and cells of people will tear everything to bits and whatever is left will either be taken over by other nations, form various regional nations, or turn damn near tribal and brutal because humanity can't survive individually. We're an integrated, and global, society and we need to recognize that. We need to recognize that there are things we have learned in this nation aren't necessarily true and need to learn that history and prevent that history from repeating....in this nation and not in other nations or regions.

But it's up to all of us on whether or not we change things, and not just how we get from point A to B or even Z. But that since everything is interconnected, know that change will come whether we like it or not, and that change, even if it starts in one small section of living, will ripple out to affect everything.

The question is: do we allow a small, a very small, group to dictate what we believe, how to live, and what to think....

OR

do we get together and determine those very same things and not just think of ourselves individually at all times, but think of people in general and how that will affect us individually and the future?

Either way, it won't necessarily be us who ends up living with the consequences of the decision. It will be the generations young enough to be affected and the one being born today and beyond.