MBS Transportation Proposal -Sept 2011-PDF

8/4/2019 MBS Transportation Proposal -Sept 2011-PDF

1/21

Most Americans have some firsthand experience with our Nationstraffic congestion problems. Sothe preface here neednt be verylong.But heres a few facts from a 5year old report that help put thecongestion problem into a broaderperspective. These points areprecursors to the primary purposeof this blog note: to propose atechnology solution and seeksome critique, for an idea Ihavent found discussed in any ofthe sources Ive consulted.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND A PROPOSED WAY OUT


2/21

The cost of traffic congestion is large and growing. In 2005, congestioncost $78.2 billion in Americas 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, andwasted fuel. (1)The average urban driver now spends more than 100 hours commutingto work, compared to just 16 in 1982--an increase of 525 percent. (2)

The Texas Transportation Institute's annual study of traffic congestionfound that in 2005, Americans spent 4.2 billion hours delayed in trafficand wasted 2.9 billion gallons of fuel. Thats enough wasted capital tofund all cancer research in America for the next 13 years. (3)

Aside from time wasted and fuel consumed, traffic can have largereconomic consequences. Traffic congestion in Atlanta has become so

bad that the Chamber of Commerce called it the greatest threat to thecity's economic prosperity. (4)

A FEW FACTS REGARDING THE PROBLEM


3/21

SOME FURTHER FACTS FROM STATE-CITY-LEVEL STUDIESCALIFORNIA : With five of the nation's 20 most congested metroareas, Californians wasted 871 million hours and 673.5 million gallonsof fuel sitting in traffic in 2005. In the San Fernando Valley area, theaverage 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 yearsand are expected to rise a further 50 percent by 2020. (6)

TEXAS : Traffic is growing so quickly that even if public transit usewere 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 ismoney, each year Chicago commuters waste $3,014 per person whilekilling time in Chicagos traffic jams. Wasted gas adds an addition $402to the bill. Meanwhile, the freight industry loses an estimated $1 billion

per year due to traffic congestion. (8)


4/21

REFERENCES1 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 HoursCommuting 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, October18, 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 BetterTransportation in Texas," Texas Public Policy Foundation, February 27, 2001.

8. Jon Hilkevitch, Traffic congestions toll is $7.3 billion a year in Chicagoarea,Chicago Tribute, August 05, 2008.

REFERENCES For Charts #1-3
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009


5/21

Unfortunately, political considerations often dominate thedevelopment and presentations of information to the public.These considerations are often dominated by the desire ofenvironmental groups to force citizens out of their carsand into mass transit with little regard to the cost-effectiveness to Citizens as taxpayers or as users ofAmericas multi-modal transportation systems.Yet, systems is the governing word, because the bestoverall solutions must be subject to the broad , structuredapproach of systems engineering which includes areasonably rigorous cost-benefits analysis of the variousoptions available. Unfortunately, in many instancessystems engineering is not part of the process.

WE KNOW THE PROBLEMS - - SO WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS ?


6/21

For several decades, there hasbeen much political infightingregarding whether congestionrelief is best achieved by:improved road capacity vsadded bus routes vs alight-rail track system.With some clever design, theidea presented in this notemight offer the opportunity for anon-political, better integrationof these transportation modes,so each component can beoptimally utilized for thebenefit 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


7/21

Urban rail is often touted as the solution to congestion for many U.S.urban-suburban centers. However, although many dozens of citieshave turned to expensive urban rail, they have yet to realize anysignificant congestion relief. Moreover, Americans love theirsuburban homes and their cars - - and for good reasons, including :quality of life; commuting journey times; shopping convenience;better weather compatibility; and many others

MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT IS HERE TO STAY


8/21

This blog is not intended to substitute for a thoroughanalysis of any specific proposed transit project.Rather, as an engineer but a layman in the Transportationfield, I am just trying to throw an idea out that I think mighthave some merit. But the concept certainly needs a greatdeal of critical study to see if the merits withstand themany dis-merits that an objective analysis might bringforth.In the interim, Im seeking input from any reader of this blog,who might add some insight into the pros and cons of thisidea. So with that caveat, the following charts hopefullyexplain the concept and some of the issues that I knowremain unanswered here.

FIRST, A CAVEAT RE THIS PROPOSED IDEA


9/21

ALTHOUGH IM NOT A TRAFFICEXPERT BY PROFESSION, I AM ONE,SADLY, BY VIRTUE OF MY REGULARWA DRIVING ROUTES. TO THERIGHT IS A SEGMENT OFINTERSTATE-405, RUNNING N-S,EAST OF SEATTLE.BELOW IS A SEGMENT OF STATEHIGHWAY 167 ALSO RUNNING N-SFROM RENTON TO PUYALLUP.

BOTH OF THESE HIGHWAYSOFFER MORE CONGESTIONEXPERIENCE , MON-to-FRI,THAN NEARLY ALLCITIZENS CARE TOPARTAKE OF.

A TOO FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE FOR MOST CITIZENS


10/21

THE BASIC TRAMMI IDEA IS TO EXPLOIT EXISTINGROADWAY AND RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BY BUILDINGADDITIONAL UPPER LEVELS. THIS SHOULD EASE THERIGHT-OF-WAY CONFRONTATIONS AND TAKING OF PRIVATEPROPERTY, UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH HAS PROVED ASTUMBLING BLOCK FOR MANY ROADWAY PROJECTS. THE MULTI-MODAL TRAMMI, WITH INNOVATIVE DESIGNPRACTICE, SHOULD OPTIMIZE MANY COMMUTING TRIPSWHICH ORDINARILY ARE COMPRISED OF TWO MODES. WITH GOOD COOPERATION BETWEEN OPERATORS OFDIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT, THERE SHOULD BEOPPORTUNITY FOR EACH MODE TO RECEIVE PRIORITY ONTHOSE TRIP SEGMENTS WHERE IT IS MOST EFFICIENTAND/OR MOST POPULAR FROM A TRAVELER VIEWPOINT.

INTRODUCING THE TRAMMI CONCEPT - - IN AN NUTSHELL


11/21

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

WELL PRECEDE SOME THOUGHTS ON THESE ISSUES UNTILA LITTLE DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT .


12/21

THE STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGY SHOULDNT POSE TOOMUCH DIFFICULTY - - THE ISSUE IS COST-COMPETITIVENESSAND INNOVATION USED IN THE INTEGRATED DESIGN.


13/21

A HIGHWAY-BASED 3-LANE, THREE- RISE CONCEPT


14/21

A RAIL-BASED 2-LANE, THREE- RISE CONCEPT


15/21

SOME DIFFICULTIES MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED AT LOAD ANDUNLOAD JUNCTURES, WHERE ONLY A SINGLE MODE OFTRANSPORT IS DESIRABLE. BUT SUCH JUNCTURES ARE INUSE TODAY.


16/21

WILL THE THREE-RISE ADVANCED MULTI-MODAL

INFRASTRUCTURE (TRAMMI) INTEGRATE WELL INTO

THE VARIOUS CURRENT SEGMENTS OF AUTO-BUS-TRAIN

SOME ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED

THIS WILL TAKE SOME WELL-ROUNDED ENGINEERINGSTUDIES - - BEST FOLLOWING THE a) PRELIMINARY DESIGN;b) DETAIL DESIGN STAGES USED FAIRLY ROUTINELY INLARGE ENGINEERING PROJECTS. THE TEAM WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE REPRESENTATIONBY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FROM ALL OF THE MODESINVOLVED. THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN CAN ADDRESS , IN LIMITEDSCOPE, THE TOP LEVEL DESIGN, COST AND PUBLICACCEPTANCE ISSUES. IF THE INITIAL STUDY RESULTS AREPOSITIVE , THESE CAN THEN BE ASSESSED IN GREATERDETAIL WITH THE HELP OF ADDITIONAL EXPERTS.


17/21

WHO WILL PAY FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS ?


THE FEDERAL DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD COVERTHE INITIAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN COSTS. THE FEDERAL GOVT CAN CONTRIBUTE THE AIRSPACEABOVE ITS MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND BEREWARDED WITH ADDITIONAL LANES OF CAPACITY. DITTO FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS. THE RAILROADS CAN CONTRIBUTE THE AIRSPACE ABOVEITS EXISTING RAIL LINES AND BE REWARDED WITH AID INREDUCING ITS COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING PASSENGERS ANDCARGO. WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND DESIGN, THERE MAYBE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EACH MODAL OPERATOR TO REDUCETHEIR CURRENT COST STRUCTURE OR EXPAND RIDERSHIP ,DUE TO THE EASIER TRANSFERABILITY BETWEEN MODES.


18/21

CAN THE TRAMMI BE COST-EFFECTIVE?


OF COURSE THIS IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN AT THIS STAGE, ANDDEPENDS ON THE INNOVATIVENESS AND SKILL OF THEDESIGN TEAM IN EXPLOITING THE MULTI-MODALTECHNOLOGY


19/21

HOW WILL ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS BE

ESTABLISHED ?


MANY OF THE ANSWERS WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THEPRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGE. THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, AS THE DESIGN PROGRESSES,SOME INITIAL MARKETING SURVEYS TO HELP ESTABLISHTRAVELER THOUGHTS, PREFERENCES AND IDEAS


20/21

IF YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS TO

CONTRIBUTE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) ,

OR KNOW OF SOME PERTINENTREFERENCES, PLEASE JOT THEM DOWN

AND SUBMIT THEM.

THEY WILL ALL BE GREATLY

APPRECIATED.

READER THOUGHTS


21/21

THE END

ACTUALLY, ITS NOT THE END - - YOURVOICE IS IMPORTANT TO OUR NATION.CITIZEN INTEREST, DIALOG AND DATAARE CRITICAL TO GOOD CIVICOUTCOMES. AND THAT INCLUDESOUTCOMES WHICH SIMPLY ASSUREPROPER CONDITIONS FOR THE FREEMARKET TO WORK.

Documents

MBS Transportation Proposal -Sept 2011-PDF