Robert Henry DeDomenico - Comments

I would request that the rules be as explicit as possible regarding the inclusiveness of alternative transportaion systems and methods. The other criteria such as cost/benefit analysis, environmental benefits, societal benefits already have defined, often quantifiable means of measurement for comparison between systems. These programs are clearly aimed at effictively reducing dependence on the current private automobile / public road system. The "fixed guidway" clause that goes on to include rail, bus rapid transit, and ferries, could easily allow rejection of an application on interpretaion that it doesn't fit the category. I should state that I have recently developed such a system, and I would like to have it considered. I think it fails to serve the best interest of the public not to consider concepts on their merits. If the wording could include "common carrier" for "people or goods" such that the comparative evaluation criteria are satisfied, then any appearance of bias toward one alternative to automobiles over another would be greatly reduced. As an example, a system that delivers goods in an effective manner in terms of time and cost, could eliminate the need for a person making a round trip to retrieve the same goods. In this example, there is great benefit to anybody whose personal mobility is already challenged either temporarily or permanently due to a medical issue.