However, these options require commuters to invest in additional assets such as storage and security, which most people in the region cannot afford. A low household income forces 80% of people in La Paz to use public transportation according to Swisscontact Bolivia (P¤gina, 2013). Furthermore, the size and geography of the region makes it even more challenging and undesirable to walk. As a result, available substitutes may not solve the region’s need for an effective mass transportation system that can relieve the last-mile problem. The limited options in the transportation industry affect the consumers directly.
Private minivan drivers have been continuously imposing price increase with an empty promise of upgrading their services, leaving commuters with higher fares and a mediocre service at best. The local governments have tried to stop the price hikes, but the drivers have always managed to neutralize the governments’ political power through strikes that frequently bring the region to a halt. Overall, commuters from La Paz spend on average 40% of their family income in transportation according to the government’s bus system social media site.
As of today, public transportation in the area is provided by the government and the private sector. This latter is owned by individuals whom in many cases purchase a used imported vehicle to transport commuters at relatively high fares. The industry has been practically self-regulated until recently, but this self-regulation was aimed only at maintaining fair competitions among drivers. What’s worse, since the service providers are also the regulators, they disregarded many key components of the transportation system: the quality of the service; the efficiency and effectiveness of the system; and the fair reatment of customers.
With respect to commuters, switching from one provider to another one makes little difference while switching to another type of transportation As a consulting company based in the United States but working in a developing nation, we are aware that creativity is important in tackling such a challenge. The rest of the paper will explain our process in trying to solve the last-mile problem in the region. First, we will discuss how we utilized Mind Mapping to further understand the last-mile problem. Second, we will elaborate on how we used the Morphological
Forced Connections method to develop a series of creative alternatives to solve the problem at hand. Consequently, we evaluated the solutions considering our clients’ constituency needs and will offer what we believe is the best solution. Nevertheless, we are aware of potential issues that may arise which we acknowledge in our paper, followed by where we see the project going. Ill. Tool 1: Mind-Mapping The first tool we utilized was mind-mapping: the process of building a diagram to visually outline information or ideas.
Mind maps provide a visual representation to brainstorm a central idea with connecting branches of associated topics. It begins with a single word or statement in the center of the board, paper, or any written material. Next, words, categories, or concepts that are associated with the center idea are added. Everything is related to the center and stems outward leading to subcategories and different connections. This mechanism enables groups to see the problem clearly and brainstorm related topics or solutions. It facilitates exploration, making connections, showing thought processes, recalling information, planning, and organizing.
We began with this tool so that we could fully develop our understanding f the problem and explore solutions that already exist worldwide. We each spent time researching articles and solutions that different cities and countries have used to solve the last mile problem. We let the problem and solutions incubate for several days and then met for a group meeting to mind map what we discovered. In our meeting, we laid the last mile problem down as our center. From there we thought of our different categories that helped create a wide understanding of our problem.
These categories were: who, what, where, reasons/why, and supporting articles/ examples. We then created subcategories: user’s needs connected to who the problem effects and issues with current solutions connected to the examples. The first step was laying out what the last mile problem is. Although public transit such as trains, trams, busses, and shuttles exist in urban and suburban areas, destinations are often farther away from the stations than walking distance. This often makes public transit systems ineffective. We laid down ideas on our mind map about what this problem includes.
For example: people can’t get home or to work from the bus or train, no road access, no parking, hills difficult to walk or bike, there re lack of alternatives, elderly or children can’t walk long distances, etc. Next, we mapped out who has to deal with this daily issue: people who cannot afford cars, low- income families, students, commuters, workers, drivers, and governments. This then led to our subcategory of the user’s needs: time, money, energy, access, and convenience. Where the last mile exists was another category.
We brainstormed ideas such as: spread out populations, urban areas, big cities, remote villages, and mountainous regions. Reasons why this problem is occurring was also addressed: nstable governments, lack of city planning, lack of money, geography, spread out cities, lack of incentives, crowded cities, unstable population, lack of design thinking, attempted solutions and the issues for why many have been unsuccessful. A few examples of attempted solutions included: Brazil has built a bus-rapid transit (BRT); Columbia has the largest network of bike lanes; small city cars have been built, skyrails, and electric bikes charged by solar power.
SS172AW American Culture Week six Discussion
Week Six Discussion2222 unread replies.2222 replies.
Answer two of the following questions (drawing from Chapters 4 and 5 in Sternheimer’s book), and respond to at least one other student’s post afterward for a total of at least 400 words.
1. In Chapter 4, Sternheimer discusses the concerns about technology raised by the communications scholar Neil Postman, who was fond of saying “technology giveth and taketh away.” What were Postman’s main concerns about technology’s impact on our ability to think? According to Sternheimer, in what ways was Postman “partly right”? Given that she was writing in 2013, does her argument (and/or Postman’s) hold up in 2022? In your mind, what has the internet age done to our critical thinking skills, especially in regards to beliefs about politics and vaccines?
2. Discuss some of the scientific studies on television that have been conducted over the years. What were some of their key findings, and what seem to be some of their insights and limitations? Specifically, what links do these studies find between ADHD (and even autism) and television? Do we see similar issues surrounding internet access?
3. What problems does Sternheimer find with linking media to violence, and what approaches does she suggest as an alternative? What role might media play in making the public think that violence (and youth violence in particular) may be more common than it appears? (Think about recent media coverage of “rioting” for example). Finally, what factors does Sternheimer suggest are better indicators for violence?
4. How has the media approached the relationship between violence and video games, particularly since the Columbine massacre in the 1990s? What issues does Sternheimer find with the argument that children are prone to imitating media violence? Finally, consider the followingnews report (Links to an external site.)on a crime blamed on Grand Theft Auto. Is this another example of media hysteria surrounding video games, or do you believe such games require closer scrutiny?
Important: The Discussion Board is meant to be collaborative and safe space for idea sharing and critical thinking. Since we do not have the visual cues and immediacy of feedback/response as in face to face conversation, please reread your responses carefully before you post them to make sure you are respectful of others in your printed conversation. Please proofread and spell-check your postings before submitting them.
On the discussion board no personal attacks will be tolerated, however, differences of opinion areacceptable and encouraged, though, again, make sure your responses are respectful. Finally, from timeto time, I will also post my personal thoughts and opinions on the discussion board. In no way arestudents expected to conform to or follow along with my personal beliefs—in fact, students should feelfree to respectfully disagree with me or to offer counter-opinions at any time.
Note: In general, you are required to post a minimum of one response to each of the two discussionquestions AND one response to another student’s (or instructor’s) posting per week. Thus, a minimumof three discussion postings totaling a minimum of 400 words are required each week. (Please note thatyour response posting should be just as substantive as your responses to the discussion questions. Thus,brief responses such as “Good posting, I agree with you!” are not acceptable for full credit.) Discussionboard postings are graded according to the criteria listed on the Discussion Board Grading Rubric below.