h a l f b a k e r ycarpe demi
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Public transportation is in perpetual need of financing. As I recall, Amtrak has never made a profit. These buses, trains and subways have regular routes and destinations which could be modified to include package delivery and pickup hubs. I suggest the public transportation services contract with
UPS, postal services, private bus lines like Greyhound, railroad companies and freight trucking companies to reduce the cost of package delivery for the customer and create income for public service transportation.
Red Star
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Red_Star_Parcels
Surprisingly expensive [8th of 7, Jan 03 2011]
Chicago Freight Subway
http://en.wikipedia...l_Company#Operation
[EdwinBakery, Jan 05 2011]
Amtrak Shipping
http://www.amtrak.c...t&cid=1241267371736
[EdwinBakery, Jan 05 2011]
US Postal Service wants to deliver groceries
http://www.washingt...-deliver-groceries/
US Postal Service would work with retail partners to deliver groceries and other prepackaged goods to homes... [Sunstone, Sep 26 2014, last modified Dec 15 2015]
Amazon tries out taxi deliveries in California cities:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102156232
Amazon is testing deliveries via taxis in San Francisco and Los Angeles as the Internet retailer explores alternative modes of delivery to speed up shipments while restraining cost. Amazon is using the taxi-hailing mobile app, Flywheel, to ship parcels via licensed cabs, studying the feasibility of using taxi fleets more broadly as a delivery avenue. The e-commerce company, stung by shipping delays last Christmas blamed on services such as UPS and Fedex , has been exploring various options from regional couriers to its own delivery vehicles [Sunstone, Nov 05 2014]
[link]
|
| |
I would guess that either: |
|
| |
(a) this is already done or that |
|
| |
(b) UPS has its own carriers because they're cheaper or more
dependable. |
|
| |
The public sector must operate at a loss, or else it begins to take on the attributes of the private sector. |
|
| |
{marked-for-deletion], widely known to have existed and been found to be impractical, uneconomic, rude, inefficient and wasteful. |
|
| |
Them too, but Red Star were worse. |
|
| |
We are aware that that previous statement may stratch credibility somewhat, but yes, Red Star were worse than UPS, by quite a large margin. |
|
| |
We are aware that "worse than UPS" is a first-order logical paradox resulting in a causality violation and implying the existance of a singularity without an event horizon which causes all mass to irreversibly disappear(known as "sending it by UPS") and therefore cannot exist for more than the Planck time without causing the end of this Universe. We wil get back to you on that one. Watch this space. |
|
| |
NB just because it's impossible doesn't mean it isn't true. |
|
| |
And also collecting mail by bus <link>. |
|
| |
This could serve a purpose... |
|
| |
Use feedback from the delivery companies about what's wrong with route, schedule, and service to improve passenger service. The reason UPS doesn't use public transport is that it isn't good enough. |
|
| |
Already baked. Most interstate transportation carriers have an express shipping department that serves this purpose. If you have something that is large, heavy and you need same-day or next day shipping...and you need it for a reasonable price, you can put it on Amtrak, Greyhound, or a major airline. |
|
| |
"Already baked. Most interstate transportation carriers have an express shipping department that serves this purpose." |
|
| |
This idea is for profit losing government buses, trains and subways that are constantly chasing break even or even a little less, not for profit gaining private orgs like Greyhound, or a major airline. But then again some -- not me of course -- would say things like"The public sector must operate at a loss, or else it begins to take on the attributes of the private sector.
— rcarty, Jan 03 2011
Or, The purpose of government orgs is to find a way to lose money as a means to necessitate tax increases in order for the government to hire more employees and increase employment to collect a brokerage fee for the re-distribution of those taxes.
"Taxes create jobs." If you don't believe me look it up. |
|
| |
I would say rather that the purpose of the public sector is to do things that aren't profitable (and are therefore unlikely to be done by private enterprise), or are clearly better if not profitable, but are nonetheless desirable. For example, good management of national parks is almost by definition unprofitable, since it precludes most commercial uses of the land; an attempt to generate profit from national parks would not be for the greater good. |
|
| |
Public transport may be in the same category. If it is considered desirable to increase usage, It may be best to run it at a loss. |
|
| |
Amtrak had major USPS contracts until 1966, and still
carried some mail until 2002. It wasn't profitable. |
|
| |
The possibility of using local transit as the distribution
network instead of larger trucks isn't completely invalid, but
it runs into the same "last mile" issue that current delivery
services have in any but the densest cities. |
|
| |
^ Actually I think using local transit would be a complete loss. You couldn't do it during rush-hour because there's no room, and during off-peak, the buses would be forced to stop at every stop, delaying passengers. |
|
| |
//You couldn't do it during rush-hour because there's no
room// |
|
| |
Maybe for buses, but mail doesn't need to get off at a
platform. Simply tack on an extra car that unloads to a new
niche in the tunnel just in front of or behind the platform. |
|
| |
Obviously the design of a rapid mail exchange system is a
requirement, but it's not completely impractical. |
|
| |
Didn't we do something here once about sending packages via whoever might be going in that general direction? Delivery time frames and package security were issues. |
|
| |
Well, that's it, innit: sure you could tack on an extra car (or trailer), and you could have a dedicated mailman at each station and on each train. Costs just exceeded any benefit. |
|
| |
You could run a mail-only train first thing in the morning, before passenger service starts up. At which point you have to consider if (for a subway system) you want to glom the mail function onto the trains, or simply be using the same tracks. |
|
| |
//and you could have a dedicated mailman at each station
and on each train// |
|
| |
Or you could have a small automated forklift system that
lifts off the incoming mail and replaces it with the outgoing,
with one of the major subway hubs also serving as a sorting
station. |
|
| |
Or you could have pieces of mail individually equipped with reusable motorized roller-skates, zipping to and fro: just type in the "to" address on the roller-skate. |
|
| |
You could also use the subway lines as the main trunks for water, electricity, recycling, garbage, food distribution, etc. |
|
| |
Semantics: perhaps I'd be happy with "build a massive system of interconnected rail-lines, and use it for things such as transit, mail delivery, etc. |
|
| |
My main point is that automated mail handling
systems exist, and tacking them onto a transit
system wouldn't be that difficult. The real question
comes down to if there is anywhere that has a
sufficiently dense transit network that it makes
sense to do so. |
|
| |
Other than NYC, if you can include busses, I can't
think of anywhere that does. |
|
| |
Buses, during off-peak hours, normally don't stop at every stop... of course you could just keep the letter on the bus, or at the stop, until the bus finally did stop there. Otherwise you'd be extending all the passengers' trip time by actually stopping at every stop, also requiring extra buses to fit the schedule. |
|
| |
Private industry partnering with public is like dogs
partnering with turtles to catch the fox. |
|
| |
Silicon Valley boasts the most awesome public transit
system on Earth if you measure awesomeness by
empty seats on multi million dollar street cars and
busses. Once upon a time, here in Palo Alto,
somebody even did the math and found out it was
more cost effective to have busses drive to people's
houses and pick them up limo style than to just drive
around empty. Now of course by more cost effective I
don't mean "cost effective" just slightly more so. It
got cancelled when people realized it glaringly
showed how wildly expensive and useless this
particular transit system was. |
|
| |
Like I've said before, heaven for a big government
type is looking down from their private jet at a long
line of "prolls" cueing up to get on wildly expensive,
incredibly inconvenient public
transportation. |
|
| |
And there are also wildly successful public
transportation systems. The major difference is
usually which private contractor was used to do the
planning and system layout work. |
|
| |
//And there are also wildly successful public
transportation systems.// |
|
| |