Talk:Transportation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Transport (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

POV/Unsourced claims[edit]

"Such mass transit as exists in the U.S. requires massive subsidy -- about 90% of the real cost of providing one trip is paid by those not maming it -- ticket prices do not come close to covering system costs. There is always a minority advocating more mass transit in the US. Such advocacy is rarely successful. When it is, the ridership that in fact occurs falls well short of the inflated projections used to justify its construciton."

Heh, I agree 100% with the statement, but it's very POV.--Rotten 05:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't conform to NPOV. It's clearly written to make transit advocacy in the US sound like lunacy. I'd like to see this rewritten, and I'd like the statistics to be sourced. You only see numbers like 90% coming from anti-transit groups, libertarian think tanks, Wendell Cox and the like. "rarely successful"? Ridership falls short of projections? This is clearly not encyclopic language, in addition to being pretty much untrue. Passdoubt | Talk 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

this is a statement of fact, therefore it is NPOV. And since mass transit funding is lunacy, it sounds fine to me.

Clearly not encyclopedic, sounds about as much like propaganda as like encyclopedia to me... 86.219.105.185 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, since defenders of monorail systems (the chronically unprofitable Las Vegas Monorail comes to mind) keep pointing out that no local mass transit system has ever maintained a balanced budget without any public subsidy over the long term. Only long haul mass transit like planes and trains can make the numbers work (and even then, just barely). --Coolcaesar 11:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rail Freight[edit]

This article needs more info about our huge use of freight rail. We have more miles of rail than any other nation of earth and they aren't there for looks only (as this article would imply).--Rotten 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It says very little about freight in general. Not pipelines, trucking, anything. Water freight gets a mention. Hey, at least it's not as light on freight as Transportation in New York City. So, does someone who knows something want to put a freight subsection into each section, or create a separate freight section? There are, incidentally many articles about individual railroads, connected through a link to their list. Jim.henderson 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The article has since been expanded. -- Beland (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Transportation in Alaska, proposed merge[edit]

No thanks. Would make this page much too long plus Alaska is far away distinct enough from the rest of the U.S. to earn its own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarfingle (talkcontribs) 01:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Also a no. Alaska is a large place with special problems and opportunities in transport, just as New York is a small place with special problems and opportunities in transport. Both of them properly have their own article. Jim.henderson 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rail vs Truck[edit]

According to my information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, truck freight accounts for more than any other mode of transportation. While rail freight accounts for more tons per mile traveled, truck shipments dominate the transportation industry both in value and weight of shipments. I checked the sources for the claim of "40% of all shipments are by rail" and the source is understandably biased (Association of American Railroads) and they provide no source for their claim. The other recently added, and more reliable source, shows that rail owns a 38% share of the freight movement by ton-kilometers. They have no mention of the total amount of freight hauled by value or weight. According to my source, in 2002 the rail industry shipped 31% of all ton-miles, and trucks accounted for 34% of ton-miles. However, if you look at the total value or weight, there is no comparison. Rails are mainly used to haul bulk freight over long distances... hence their dominance in the ton-miles catergory. Trains carry freight over longer distances without stopping, which is why they are more efficient than trucks. But as far as the total volume/value of freight, trucks dominate the industry. Therefore, I am changing the intoduction... if anyone has further proof then just let me know. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Article quality[edit]

Not to sound harsh, but this article needs a lot of work. The sections are not uniform and there is a whole table for shipping while pipelines has only numbers? For anyone working on this article, a good place to start would be the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the U.S. Department of Transportation. They have lots of good info and stats that are needed for an article like this. I'm willing to do some work on this, and I made a few changes today, but this whole article needs to be rewritten. It has no "flow" and seems disjointed. Not to mention some glaring errors and uncited material. I'm not trying criticizing anyone's work, but transportation is my primary area of interest (and also my occupation), so I'd like to see this page look a little better. If anyone is willing to work on this with me please let me know. My field of expertise is trucking, and as a result of that I know a lot about highways and interstates. I'd like to see this article reach Featured status, and if anyone would like to collaborate with me on this, you know where to find me! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work.
Synchronism (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the major organizational problems. If people want to identify errors and missing citations by tagging them {{Dubious|date=November 2008}} and {{Fact|date=November 2008}} or mentioning them here on the talk page, that would be helpful in bringing this to Good Article status. -- Beland (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Very nice work. I haven't had much time for editing lately, but I get five days off on thanksgiving weekend so I'll probably be doing some work on this around then. I think the list of mass transit systems could be split off into it's own article and of course the intro needs to be expanded to summarize the article. Thanks for the work. On another note, I'm not a big fan of using tags to flag errors... I tend to fix them on the spot instead of cluttering an article with tags. If I can't find the information to correct the errors then I use the tags. It always irks me when people complain about problems without doing anything to fix them. But anyways... its looking good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no "highway" section in overview?[edit]

The intro has tons of information about the country's road usage, but the rest of the article has none. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. I'm fixing this.--Loodog (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

...time passes...the intro was getting very long; I moved most of the details to subsections. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The airline info needs to be expanded on to discuss the monolopy airline industry that provided air service for the USPS in the early years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.160.194 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...[edit]

Interestingly, even though this article relates to the US, and I have never left India, I seem to be able to help with this article..... If anybody needs help in anyway, I'm there, I'm good at stuff that relates to Transport.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved without discussion[edit]

The title, along with the rest of the article is in American English. It is okay to categorize it as "Transport", but the title must be left in American English which is the preferred "Transportation" in the US. Student7 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Please check links in "Outline" articles to confirm that this is reverted correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that your blanking of the target made the talk page move require admin action. (The article move already required admin action, because of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur this article should be in American English and under an American English title. If User:The Transhumanist does that again with no warning or attempt at good faith discussion, please block or ban him. Thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

America's Highways Reference[edit]

It may be of interest to the maintainers of this page to know that I recently posted a PDF copy of the 1977 Federal Highway Administration book "America's Highways 1776-1976" at the Internet Archive. This is a primary source used by most of the historical accounts of the US highway system. --BenFranske (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence[edit]

The first paragraph of the History section ends with an unfinished sentence.

"Economic expansion in the late 18th century to early 19th century spurred the building of canals to speed goods to market, of which the most prominently successful example was the-" Uncle Alf (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No Statutory Category (e.g., U. S. Traffic Laws/Uniform Traffic Code)[edit]

It's not very exciting (until you get stopped for, say, going from MN where you can pass at 10 mph over the posted limit to IA where you can't exceed the posted limit while passing...) but there should be a category under U.S. Transport/POVs dealing with standardization and/or the lack thereof of traffic laws at the federal level.

There is a website by an org., National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO). But the committee died in 2009 while the defunct and inaccurate website lives on. The Wiki page for Uniform Vehicle Code still links to this dead site, but there is no other source I can find for what was once the province of the now nonexistent ICC.

The point for including a category here is not to explain all of the variations from state to state on traffic laws. Those could be linked, state by state. Instead the point is to capture the history and ongoing activity to standardize/regulate traffic codes at the federal level -- if any!

And any added category must distinguish between driving laws and vehicle laws -- the latter being laws covering such things as how bright the lights can be, how many taillights a vehicle can/must have, etc. That, too, might be a category to include but that info. can presently be found under NHTSA info. online.

Webistrator (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)