NationStates Jolt Archive

Very annoying train cancelation today - why is it always when you have an appointment for something? AARGH!!! (Yes, I'm British)

Bloody hell, it's got an endorsement already!!

Transport Infrastructure
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Big Yellow Spot
Description: Proposal for miminum standards in national land-based transport networks, and for the reliable provision of public transport.

Where citizens require a medium of travel to reach facilities to which they have a right of use (e.g. health, education facilities), that the following standards be adhered to:

I - ROAD (PRIVATE USE)
1. That adequate road surface, markings & signage be maintained for the type and use of carriageway, including provisions for adverse weather conditions (e.g. gritting in icy weather).
2. That tolls/congestion charges be levied (in place of road/petrol taxes) for the maintenance of the road network and control of the road usage and traffic flow, in conjunction with satisfactory provision of public transport.

II - PUBLIC TRANSPORT
1a. That rail/tram companies be required to inform passengers AS SOON AS delays/cancelations become likely, and of the reasons for those delays/cancelations, or be penalised with heavy fines.
1b. That rail/tram companies be required to maintain the quality of track required to prevent unnecessary delays/cancelations, or be penalised with heavy fines.
2a. That buses be provided where the rail network does not exist, and at a time of day when citizens are able to take advantage of the provision.

III - ENVIRONMENTAL/HEALTH CONCERNS
1. That adequate provisions be made for footpaths/cycle paths, for the good of the environment, and the health and fitness of the member nations.
2. That appropriate priority be given to buses/trams over other road users, to ensure that public transport is encouraged as a preferable mode of travel for citizens.

All appropriate standards are to be judged in accordance with outlined standards and the budget available to member nations to put these facilities into place.

Approvals: 1 (Jako)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 10 2004

bump

Sorry - just realised I accidently put it's strength as "strong" - should probably have been "significant" - could that be changed?

bump

Sounds fine.
Why stop there?
How about making uniform gauges for trains, and roadwidths for 2 and 4 lane highways? That would be an international convenience.

While we understand and like the basic concept, we do not believe this is an issue that should be considered in an international forum. This is something each nation has to do for themselves.

The President of the Council of Twelve

This is a very well written resolution proposal (unlike the current one we're voting on). I also like the idea as the transporting infrastructure in many countries has deteiorated. Easier and more convenient makes our lives better as have more access to societies and cultures along with benefits of free trade.

We have approved your proposal and will vote for it if it reaches the floor. Good luck.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

Anthonycha, thank you for your approval.

Collaboration, I appreciate the feedback. I think we need to let nations have control over how they achieve the improvements needed. Also the market forces in the automobile rail industry will mostly solve those problems for us, and following on from the proposal, a recommended "code of practice" could be drawn up for nations to use as a template, rather than a droconian list of rules to follow.

Colonial nations, this is not just about basic transport standards for the welfare of our people (you only have to look at my nation to see that I don't give two hoots about my people), but it will also improve transport links (and hence trade links) for all in the UN, so help the economy of all member states.

King Flubbert III


OOC: I don't believe the in-game UN should operate the same way as the real UN - it is a substitute for all intergovernmental bodies (including, for example, the EU, under whose remit this could fall)

Bump

This is a very well written proposal (perish the thought we could actually get one of those in the voting floor)...Id be willing to support this!

Thanks. Tell your region delegate, won't you?!

It's got 9 approvals, so not bad for a two day old proposal, but still some way to go, and less than two days to do it in.

2. That tolls/congestion charges be levied (in place of road/petrol taxes) for the maintenance of the road network and control of the road usage and traffic flow, in conjunction with satisfactory provision of public transport.

Eh ? how does the tool/congestion charge system work ?

1. That adequate provisions be made for footpaths/cycle paths, for the good of the environment, and the health and fitness of the member nations.

Well.. we can't have that. No space. Our roads are already laid down, and there's little space either way for a cycle path. There are footpaths on some of them though.

2. That appropriate priority be given to buses/trams over other road users, to ensure that public transport is encouraged as a preferable mode of travel for citizens.

How do you mean 'priority' ?

(OOC: well written proposal :) )

Eh ? how does the tool/congestion charge system work ?

Toll charges on major roads - ie. motorways/freeways - e.g. as in France. Toll booths at regular intervals - the charges needn't be a lot, just enough to contribute towards the cost of maintenance, and make the motorist think about the necessity of the journey.

Congestions charges - something London has introduced and worked very well, considering no one's ever tried it before - set up zones in major cities, and motorists pay a charge if they want to drive in these zones during peak hours (this not need be implemented universally, only in areas suffering from congestion, hence 'congestion' charges) - again, makes the motorist think about using alternative transport, but not ridiculously expensive charges.

Well.. we can't have that. No space. Our roads are already laid down, and there's little space either way for a cycle path. There are footpaths on some of them though.

Well, it might not be possible everywhere, but some roads are wide enough, or some roads could be closed to cars, or there may be space in some areas for foot/cycle paths off-road (they don't have to be very wide, so may be able to squeeze between buildings). Most cities were built around rivers, so riverside paths could be used. Just enough to create at least a couple of routes across town that aren't dangerous/unpleasant for cyclists/pedestrians to use.

How do you mean 'priority' ?

Setting up the road system (eg. traffic lights) to give a slight bias towards cyclists/buses/trams to make those journey times slightly quicker, and hence more atttractive to the individual motorist.

It's not about making motoring impossible, just helping encourage the use of other means of transport. If all this is done right, it can help all traffic move more efficiently, and hence cheaply (so commercial traffic can save money, too, and can become more competitive - see, it helps the economy too).

(OOC: well written proposal :) )

OOC:Thanks

i believe the oil and automotive industries can blessed well build
and maintain their own rights of way, just like guideway based systems
are required to. this would go a long way toward leveling the playing
field and unhiding the advantages of the latter.
without transportation infrastructure neither the kinds of cities we have today nor the
numbers of people who live in them could survive.

i don't want to see large massess of people starve when the oil runs
out which is what we are facing (or more often denying) now.

i do want to see human numbers reduced, but by reduced birth rates and the resaulting attrition, not draconic enequaties.

so i'm in favor of the part of your resolution that supports public
and alternative transportation but not for the continued defacto handouts
to the very industries that are at present in least need of them
meaning oil and auto of course and the defacto subsidy of building
their streets and roads for them.

we do desperately need a SUSTAINABLE and environmentaly friendly
infrastructure, and that is NOT rubber tyre on pavement (which also
fails to addiquately address the
mobility needs of large segments of the population, the very young
the very old, the mentaly challanged
the empoverished and those who have no bussiness driving do to
fatigue or recreational anesthsis
and i'm sure there are other signifigant demographics on that list as well)

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah to most of it, I'm not so sure about the replaceing of private cars with public transport. Practically, for people who live in very rural areas it's not really a feesable option. The environmental betterment would be outstanding and we understand this, but there would be civil uproar and a valuable tax base would suddenly vanish. Fredona would prefer to see more funding put into alternatives to petrol and desil instead.

Why don't you just privitize the whole system of railroads like they were in the 1800's. Their constant compition with each other forced them to stay on time. Plus your proposal should be under the headline to reduce trade barriers because the train system espically in america is used to transport hundreds of thousands of tons of raw materials and products a day.

OOC: Nucular, the railways in Britain are privatised - believe me, it's just shit. Also, I don't live in America, so that's got nothing to do with it - I found it difficult to decide which category - it's not really Free Trade, as there's no mention of tariffs, and it has environmental benefits, but that wasn't the motive behind it, so I put it as Social Justice (which includes basic welfare, and I thought decent transport provision would contribute to people's welfare).

IC: Fredona, I'm not advocating replacing all private cars with public transport, just the provision of decent public transport, which tends to be particularly poor in rural areas. There will be loss of tax - but a better system of charging for how people use their cars (petrol tax, toll charges and congestion charges) could replace nominal road taxes, which don't encourage people to think about how much they use they cars.

Carlemnaria, the technology doesn't exist to replace a petrol-based automotive industry with something less polluting - it's too expensive and hasn't been perfected yet. More research is needed but it belongs in a different proposal.

It is the government responsibility to maintain roads anyway, and this is where any charges will go - there will be no handouts to the automotive industry.

Plus, the measures are designed to improve traffic flow, by making people think about whether their journeys are necessary - if you improve traffic flow, the car engines will work more efficiently, and produce less pollution.

Right now GM has produced a hydrogen car. It is going to be out on the market in about 5 years. Though the only problem with Hydrogen cars are that since the US's power comes mainly from coal we will be using up more natural reasources to make hydrogen then we would be getting back. This is so because Hydrogen is mainly be electrolists, the process requires that electricty is used to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen. The only solution is to increase the number nuclear power plants. The reason Solar power does not work, is because you would need the whole state of Rode Island in order to produce enough hydrogen for one day to supply the demand. Now think about how the NationStates game has over 550,000 nations. It would simply be impossible to produce enough hydrogen unless you use nuclear power.

Exactly. Like I said, the technology doesn't exist, in practical terms. This proposal contains measures designed to tackle many of the problems now, before better forms of propulsion come onto the market.

Mussolini did not make the trains run on time.
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm

Mayor Daly of Chicgo did though (same concept).

If this fails We'll help with a retry by assisting in a telegram information campaign.