Most Americans have some first
hand experience with our Nation‟s
traffic congestion problems. So
the preface here needn‟t be very
long.
But here‟s a few facts from a 5
year old report that help put the
congestion problem into a broader
perspective. These points are
precursors to the primary purpose
of this blog note: to propose
here a technology solution and
seek some critique, for an idea I
haven‟t found discussed in the
sources I‟ve consulted.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND A PROPOSED WAY OUT
The cost of traffic congestion is large and growing. In 2005, congestion
cost $78.2 billion in America’s 437 urban areas, up 7 percent from 2004.
Population growth and the ensuing urban sprawl is worsening - -
resulting in continuing increases in commuting times, cost, and
wasted fuel. (1)
The average urban driver now spends more than 100 hours commuting
to work, compared to just 16 in 1982--an increase of 525 percent. (2)
The Texas Transportation Institute's annual study of traffic congestion
found that in 2005, Americans spent 4.2 billion hours delayed in traffic
and wasted 2.9 billion gallons of fuel. That’s enough wasted capital to
fund all cancer research in America for the next 13 years. (3)
Aside from time wasted and fuel consumed, traffic can have larger
economic consequences. Traffic congestion in Atlanta has become so
bad that the Chamber of Commerce called it the greatest threat to the
city's economic prosperity. (4)
A FEW FACTS REGARDING THE PROBLEM
SOME FURTHER FACTS FROM STATE-CITY-LEVEL STUDIES
CALIFORNIA : With five of the nation's 20 most congested metro
areas, Californians wasted 871 million hours and 673.5 million gallons
of fuel sitting in traffic in 2005. In the San Fernando Valley area, the
average morning rush-hour speed of 31 mph is expected to fall to 16
mph by 2025 as new drivers crowd the already saturated roads. (5)
FLORIDA : Total vehicle miles traveled doubled in the last 20 years
and are expected to rise a further 50 percent by 2020. (6)
TEXAS : Traffic is growing so quickly that even if public transit use
were to double, the gain would be canceled out by population growth in
as little as three months (per the Texas Public Policy Foundation). (7)
CHICAGO : Rush hour now lasts almost eight hours a day. If time is
money, each year Chicago commuters waste $3,014 per person while
killing time in Chicago’s traffic jams. Wasted gas adds an addition $402
to the bill. Meanwhile, the freight industry loses an estimated $1 billion
per year due to traffic congestion. (8)
REFERENCES
1 http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601
&news_iv_ctrl=1009
2. Stephen Buckner and Joanna Gonzalez, Americans Spend More Than 100 Hours
Commuting to Work Each Year, Census Bureau Reports, U.S. Census Bureau
News, March 30, 2005.
3. How Big is $80 Billion? (bigger than you think!), Coalition Against Insurance
Fraud, June 2005.
4 Larry Copeland, “Traffic Nightmare Beginning to Cost Cities,” USA Today, October
18, 2002.
5. Jim Wasserman, "2020 Traffic Report: Growth Means More Time Behind the Wheel
for Everyone," Associated Press, September 19, 2002.
6. Jennifer Audette, "Losing Patience," The Ledger (Lakeland, Florida), January 7,
2001.
7. Thomas A. Rubin and Wendell Cox, "The Road Ahead: Innovations for Better
Transportation in Texas," Texas Public Policy Foundation, February 27, 2001.
8.
Jon Hilkevitch, “Traffic congestion’s toll is $7.3 billion a year in Chicago
area,” Chicago Tribute, August 05, 2008.
REFERENCES For Charts #1-3
Unfortunately, political considerations often dominate the
development and presentations of information to the public.
These considerations are often driven by the desire of
environmental groups to “force citizens out of their cars”
and into mass transit with little regard to the cost-
effectiveness to Citizens as taxpayers or as users of
America‟s multi-modal transportation systems.
Yet, “systems” is the governing word, because the best
overall solutions must be subject to the broad , structured
approach of “systems engineering” which includes a
reasonably rigorous cost-benefits analysis of the various
options available. Unfortunately, in many instances, sound
“systems engineering” is not part of the process.
WE KNOW THE PROBLEMS - - SO WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS ?
For several decades, there has
been much political infighting
regarding whether congestion
relief is best achieved by:
improved road capacity vs
added bus routes vs a
light-rail track system.
With some clever design, the
idea presented in this note
might offer the opportunity for a
non-political, better integration
of these transportation modes,
so each component can be
optimally utilized for the
benefit of the total system.
“What we are after is mobility, and
whether it is achieved by private or
public means is less important than
having it achieved speedily,
efficiently, and at least negative
impact on the environment” …78 …..Jonathan Richmond, “A whole-system
approach to evaluating urban transit
investments,” Transport Reviews, Vol.21, No.
2, 2001
(as quoted in: “Past Performance vs
Future Hopes …”, Ted Balaker, Reason
Institute, Policy Study #321)
CONGESTION POLITICS
Urban rail is often touted as the solution to congestion for many U.S. urban-suburban centers. However, although many dozens of cities have turned to expensive urban rail, they have yet to realize any significant congestion relief. Moreover, American‟s love their suburban homes and their cars - - and for good reasons, including : quality of life; commuting journey times; shopping convenience; better compatibility with weather for daily tasks; and many others.
MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT IS HERE TO STAY
This blog is not intended to substitute for a thorough
analysis of any specific proposed transit project.
Rather, as an engineer but a layman in the Transportation
field, I am just trying to offer an idea that I think might have
some merit. But the concept certainly needs a great deal
of critical study to see if the merits withstand the many dis-
merits that an objective analysis might bring forth.
In the interim, I‟m seeking input from any reader of this blog,
who might add some insight into the pros and cons of this
idea. So with that caveat, the following charts hopefully
explain the concept and some of the issues that I know
remain unanswered here.
FIRST, A CAVEAT RE THIS PROPOSED IDEA
ALTHOUGH I‟M NOT A TRAFFIC
EXPERT BY PROFESSION, I AM ONE,
SADLY, BY VIRTUE OF MY REGULAR
WA DRIVING ROUTES. TO THE
RIGHT IS A SEGMENT OF
INTERSTATE-405, RUNNING N-S,
EAST OF SEATTLE.
BELOW IS A SEGMENT OF STATE
HIGHWAY 167 ALSO RUNNING N-S
FROM RENTON TO PUYALLUP.
BOTH OF THESE HIGHWAYS
OFFER MORE CONGESTION
EXPERIENCE , RELIABLY
FROM MON-to-FRI, THAN
NEARLY ALL CITIZENS
CARE TO PARTAKE OF.
A TOO FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE FOR MOST CITIZENS
• THE BASIC „TRAMMI‟ IDEA IS TO EXPLOIT EXISTING
ROADWAY AND RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BY BUILDING
ADDITIONAL UPPER LEVELS. THIS SHOULD EASE THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONFRONTATIONS AND TAKING OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY, UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH HAS PROVED A
COSTLY STUMBLING BLOCK FOR MANY ROADWAY PROJECTS.
• THE MULTI-MODAL „TRAMMI‟, WITH INNOVATIVE DESIGN
PRACTICE, SHOULD OPTIMIZE MANY COMMUTING TRIPS
WHICH ORDINARILY ARE COMPRISED OF TWO MODES.
• WITH GOOD COOPERATION BETWEEN OPERATORS OF
DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT, THERE SHOULD BE
OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH MODE TO RECEIVE PRIORITY ON
THOSE TRIP SEGMENTS WHERE IT IS MOST EFFICIENT
AND/OR MOST POPULAR FROM A TRAVELER VIEWPOINT.
INTRODUCING THE „TRAMMI ‟ CONCEPT - - IN AN NUTSHELL
• WILL THE THREE-RISE ADVANCED MULTI-MODAL
INFRASTRUCTURE (TRAMMI) INTEGRATE WELL INTO
THE VARIOUS CURRENT SEGMENTS OF URBAN-
SUBURBAN TRANSPORTATION ?
• WHO WILL PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
AND OPERATING COSTS ?
• CAN THE TRAMMI BE COST-EFFECTIVE?
• HOW WILL ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS BE
ESTABLISHED ?
SOME ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME
WE‟LL PROCEED WITH SOME THOUGHTS ON THESE ISSUES
AFTER A LITTLE DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT .
THE STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGY SHOULDN‟T POSE TOO
MUCH DIFFICULTY - - THE ISSUE IS COST-COMPETITIVENESS
AND INNOVATION USED IN THE INTEGRATED DESIGN.
A HIGHWAY-BASED 3-LANE, THREE- RISE CONCEPT
A RAIL-BASED 2-LANE, THREE- RISE CONCEPT
SOME DIFFICULTIES MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED AT LOAD,
UNLOAD AND PERHAPS OTHER JUNCTIONS, WHERE ONLY A
SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORT IS DESIRABLE OR FEASIBLE .
BUT NOW LET‟S JUST VIEW THIS AS AN ENG‟G CHALLENGE.
• WILL THE THREE-RISE ADVANCED MULTI-MODAL
INFRASTRUCTURE (TRAMMI) INTEGRATE WELL INTO
THE VARIOUS CURRENT SEGMENTS OF AUTO-BUS-TRAIN
RETURNING TO ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED
• THIS WILL TAKE SOME WELL-ROUNDED ENGINEERING
STUDIES - - BEST FOLLOWING THE a) PRELIMINARY DESIGN;
b) DETAIL DESIGN STAGES USED FAIRLY ROUTINELY IN
LARGE ENGINEERING PROJECTS.
• THE PRELIM. DESIGN TEAM WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE
REPRESENTATION BY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FROM
ALL OF THE MODES INVOLVED.
• THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN WOULD ADDRESS, IN LIMITED
SCOPE, THE TOP LEVEL DESIGN, COST AND PUBLIC
ACCEPTANCE ISSUES. IF THE INITIAL STUDY RESULTS ARE
POSITIVE , THESE CAN THEN BE ASSESSED IN GREATER
DESIGN DETAIL WITH THE HELP OF ADDITIONAL EXPERTS.
• WHO WILL PAY FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS ?
SOME ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED
• THE FEDERAL DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD COVER
THE INITIAL (RELATIVELY MODEST PRELIMI. DESIGN COSTS.
• THE FEDERAL GOV‟T CAN CONTRIBUTE THE “AIRSPACE
ABOVE ITS MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND BE
REWARDED WITH ADDITIONAL LANES OF CAPACITY.
• DITTO FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS.
• THE RAILROADS CAN CONTRIBUTE THE “AIRSPACE” ABOVE
ITS EXISTING RAIL LINES AND BE REWARDED WITH AID IN
REDUCING ITS COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING PASSENGERS AND
CARGO.
• WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DESIGN, THERE MAY
BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EACH MODAL OPERATOR TO REDUCE
THEIR CURRENT COST STRUCTURE OR EXPAND RIDERSHIP ,
DUE TO THE EASIER TRANSFERABILITY BETWEEN MODES.
• CAN THE TRAMMI BE COST-EFFECTIVE?
SOME ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED
OF COURSE, THIS IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN AT THIS STAGE, AND
DEPENDS ON THE INNOVATIVENESS AND SKILL OF THE
DESIGN TEAM IN EXPLOITING THE MULTI-MODAL
TECHNOLOGY.
BUT GIVEN CURRENT LARGE INCREMENTAL COSTS OF
ADDRESSING INFRASTRUCTURE IN HIGHLY BUILT UP AREAS,
THERE SHOULD BE SOME COST MARGIN AVAILABLE FOR
INNOVATION. MOREOVER, THE LIKELY CAPACITY INCREASE,
SAVINGS IN FUTURE REBUILDS, AND REDUCED WASTAGE
OF TAXPAYER FUNDS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.
• HOW WILL ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS BE
ESTABLISHED ?
SOME ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED
• MANY OF THE ANSWERS WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGE.
• THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, AS THE DESIGN PROGRESSES,
SOME INITIAL MARKETING SURVEYS TO HELP ESTABLISH
USER THOUGHTS, PREFERENCES AND IDEAS
IF YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS TO
CONTRIBUTE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) ,
OR KNOW OF SOME PERTINENT
REFERENCES, PLEASE JOT THEM DOWN
AND SUBMIT THEM TO:
THEY WILL ALL BE GREATLY WELCOME.
READER THOUGHTS
THE END
ACTUALLY, IT‟S NOT THE END - - YOUR VOICE IS IMPORTANT TO OUR NATION. CITIZEN INTEREST, DIALOG AND DATA ARE CRITICAL TO GOOD CIVIC OUTCOMES. AND THAT INCLUDES OUTCOMES WHICH SIMPLY ASSURE PROPER CONDITIONS FOR THE FREE MARKET TO WORK.
Top Related