Now one thing I have noticed is the more I read the "Business section," the less "business" I see in it. Case in point, the business opinion writer, Chris Tomlinson, is as leftist as it gets. A firm believer in the church of "Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption," he writes, in the middle of oil town, that we must get out of fossil fuels. Again, and again, multiple times a month, if not a week.
This morning I found this piece interesting from the title. And it should sent a chill down he spine of anyone who wants to call themself a free man or woman. Emphasis mine.
Change is afoot as cities weigh road rationing, but tech can help
Data on driving trends and passenger destinations could help ease gridlock as cities grapple with crumbling infrastructures and limited expansion.
Instead of a single high-occupancy-vehicle lane on the highway, what would happen if most roads were limited to cars carrying two or more people?
Or how about dedicating lanes solely for taxis and buses, or perhaps large trucks? Technology might also help with road congestion, what if you attempted to hail an Uber or a Lyft, but the app rejected your request and directed you to a city bus instead?
Cities with little room to expand roads and bridges are reconsidering which drivers and vehicles they should allow on the limited supply of publicly-funded roads.These potentially expensive alternatives to gridlock are sparking controversy in a nation where people feel entitled to drive their car anywhere and anytime.
Yes Mr. Tomlinson, I feel "entitled" because I pay for it. My fuel taxes pay for the roads, my income and property taxes pay for the buerocrats, and contractors who made decisions on which roads to build, etc. But more than that, I'm a citizen of the great state of Texas, and of the United States of America. It's not up for libtards like you to tell me where and when I'm allowed to drive on public roads.
Roads, rails and ports are also critical for commerce. As technology transforms transportation, governments and businesses are rethinking how they can cooperate to connect customers with the goods and services they desire. Change is afoot...OK, buerocrats in LA decided they will tell their citizens if and when they will move, and by deciding by which method. If the "consumer" (beginning to hate that term) request a taxis or shared ride, "dispatch" will decide if it is more efficient for the collective that they take the train. However, the train may not be the best option for the individual. He may be carrying several packages and he needs the space a vehicle trunk provides. Also, one of the great features of ride sharing is you get the car quickly, faster than most cabs services and defiantly faster than a train or bus. But remember, you're not to make decisions like that, the collective will. We know better.
...Cities and airports are asking ride-hailing firms like Uber and Lyft to share their data on the number of trips to the airport, when are they made, how long cars sit in traffic and how much time they spend at the curb. Architects and planners can use the data to make design decisions.
“We have tons of data in many different formats,” said Trevor Theunissen, senior manager of public policy and communications for Uber. “If we know what you are trying to solve for, we can figure out what we think the best data set or analysis is and the best format to turn that over.”
What’s more difficult for business is revealing what will come next. Will airports need to build landing spaces for flying taxis? Will they still need parking garages? Or can cities start dictating what is allowed on the roads, bridges and infrastructure they build?
Cities are encouraging the development of mobile phone apps that can offer access to all available forms of transportation, from taxis to public buses to ride-hailing services to electric bikes and scooters. But Los Angeles has proposed overseeing those apps to decide what services a passenger can choose under what circumstances. The LA app, for example, may reject a request for a taxi if a commuter train is available.
“The city of Los Angeles has proposed a dispatching model. They will say yes or no to the dispatches on private companies’ apps to better the usage of their infrastructure,” Theunissen said. “We have a lot of concerns for privacy and competitive reasons.”
The city argues that with limited road space, passengers should take the most efficient form of transit available, not necessarily the one they prefer. The alternative is to charge more to use roads, but critics say that would be unfair to the poor who already spend a higher proportion of their time and income on transportation.
The laissez-faire option is for the government to merely maintain the current roadways and allow private companies to jam up every available inch of concrete until commuters are forced to find alternatives. The public, though, wants less time in traffic, not more frustration.
As with any limited resource, the government will eventually need to ration road space. Cities need to involve the private sector, which has the data and technology to improve efficiency to avoid a ham-handed outcome.
The future of commuting need not be constant gridlock but finding an alternative will require deep conversations and compromises.
OK, one question. Will the mayor of LA be compelled to use this transit app from his house to city hall? Will the bureaucrats inflicting this damage on the people that pay their salaries be forced to take three hours on train/bus commute compared to 2 hours by car? And how soon before the benevolent bureaucracy starts charging a fee for their services. BTY, you think this is only for congested large cities. No, travel between cities, and states, is one their mine.
The ability to move at your choice is a fundamental right of every human. Restriction of movement is a classic feature of the dictatorships (see the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba). You think this abuse of your rights can never come to the United States. One word: Obamacare.