Congestion Report
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
For transit, there really is no bigger news this week than the 2007 Urban Mobility Report from the Texas Transportation Institute or the “Congestion Report” as I’ve been hearing it called since its release.
I love it when reports of this nature are released. Not only do they contain a wealth of data, but they make for great spectacle in the realm of media and spin. Within days (even hours) of its release, press releases and stories went flying, all of them seemingly claiming different things. From the fact that transit is responsible for congestion relief to finger-pointing that more roads are needed to relieve congestion to the woe is us, we can’t stop congestion, we can only slow it down.
And the sad truth is that they are all wrong. But they are also, all right.
I’ve spent the last couple days poring over the report and it states simply that we need to do everything to relieve congestion. There is no one solution to the problem. We need more transit. We need more roads. We need companies to change the way they ship things. We need businesses to look into alternatives to the 9-to-5 daily grind for their workers.
The problem is that the general public as a whole just doesn’t get it. It’s true. And they never will. Part of the problem is a lack of focus. We live in a society that almost pushes people to keep their attention span low. There are 100+ channels on cable giving access to any genre imaginable and DVRs to record what you want to watch in case it’s not on when you want to watch it. It’s hard for people to look at the “big picture” of traffic congestion when the NFL season is starting.
According to Commuting in America III the average commute time increased by two minutes from 1990 to 2000. Two minutes. The average Joe going to work just isn’t going to notice a two-minute increase over the span of a decade. If he’s told he lost 40 or more hours a year in traffic, I would suspect you’d get either, “Yeah, that sounds about right,” or “Frickin’ traffic.” I hardly suspect that you would get a what can I do about it response.
People care about congestion. But only as it applies to themselves. If they don’t have congestion in their area, then it’s a “big city problem” or something they don’t have time to deal with because they have their own problems.
Watch the evening news. Traffic congestion will be a hit this week because the report was released, but in two weeks it will be pushed off for the latest info on what’s going on in Iraq or the most recent political stumble by a presidential candidate. Heck, in Wisconsin if the Packers win on Sunday it pushes off pretty much every other news story of the week.
For congestion to truly be combated, we need to stop chest-thumping about which way is the correct way to fix it and start with the top down and make transit as big of an issue as any other in the country. Transit should be as big of an issue on next year’s presidential campaign docket as healthcare, social security or a number of other issues. We need to stop discussing high-minded ideals like “stopping our addiction to foreign oil” and really attack the problem of congestion and the whole U.S. highway infrastructure with all the force this country can muster.
Only then will congestion solutions be more than a report on what needs to be done.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Friday.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Your article is right to the point. America’s attention span is sub-zero at best. The only thing that really gets their attention in the long run is money. Hit them in the pocketbook hard enough, and you will really get their attention.
Having said that, let’s face it. Americans like their cars. As long as they can afford to drive them, transit will take a back seat. In Europe, they raised the price of fuel so high, most were forced into public transit. In reality, they killed two birds with one stone. They got people to use public transit, and that in turn reduced carbon pollution. (NOX, etc.)
I am in the transit business and have talked to many people, and always get the same answer. We want to drive our cars. Until gas prices are high enough to get the publics real attention, any other thesis is, meaningless.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Coincidence….. I participated in a focus group sponsored by TxDot and contracted to the Texas Transportation Institute. Seems like another thing that is being pushed (proposed) are toll highways and/or toll lanes to attempt to minimize congestion or time spent in traffic. When I inquired if some of the monies collected from tolling would go towards mass transit I did not get a definite “yes.” I got more of an impression that the toll monies would go to maintenance of toll roads. I wish state’s DOT’s would have more of an input in the growth of major municipalities. Seems like growth in major cities happens in a pattern that ultimately causes congestion. Instead of developing areas on outskirts of cities with high occupancy types of housing and ultimately creating a traffic pattern which require more highways……..”smarter” alternatives should be looked at. Mass Transit opportunities or considerations should be a required portion for any new development.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
We have to build a better “mouse trap”. The system needs to be automated, fast(at least 150-200 mph), smaller vehicle size and single rail design for simple less expensive construction. We need a national mass transit system that would use the interstate highway system as its base and the rights of way are already established thus clearing the normal 1st red tape hurdles. This would create a massive public works program as did WPA in the 30’s, which would spur innovation and economic growth. In turn, congress can vote to share transportation tax dollars between roads and mass transit. Once transit starts moving down the interstates, every state and local county will be looking for ways to divert its own road tax dollars to try and connect to the interstate system just like we did back in the 50’s and 60’s with the highway system.
Then in large cities, they can either elect to retire older more costly outdated systems and replace with the new one or figure ways to link the new with the old marrying only what is economical and makes sense. This gives the flexibility and freedom to the local communities to choose what’s best for their constituants.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Simplicity itself, that one rail system. Who gets to design it, and own the patents on its use? What guarantee have we against planned obsolescence of this proprietary guideway? Change for the sake of change…
There is a “reason” that the 4′8&1/2″ inch (1435mm) gauge is used worldwide for fixed guideway passenger & freight haul. Small vehicles? Economics of scale & stability problems enter the picture. Energy- monorail is an electric only beast; steel wheel railways operate on any known fuel-prime mover combination. This is more important when strategic issues, not “Sex Appeal” is the primary consideration! Monorail enthusiasts are advised to see the dated but eerily up-to-date “RAIL TRANSPORT & THE WINNING OF WARS” by James A. Van Fleet, Association of American Railroads, 1956.
This single rail discussion is over a hundred years old. Like miracle carburetors and 100 mpg cars (no sane person will take his family on the freeway in one of these), there has to be a massive program of shifting from what is in place to the “new system” and that is not going to take place on a change for change’s sake. The leading lights at Lake Tahoe have turned down several workable proposals to bring steel wheel systems to access and circulate the Reno-Truckee- South Lake Tahoe market. Waiting for “The monorail…” The transportation of the future- and it always will be..
Monorail & mag-lev systems are So-o-o Sexy! Finding just the right one, a cross section capable of passenger & freight (containers- anyone have a monorail ready to move containers…) -theres the rub. Maybe we need two monorail sections, one for passenger & freight, right?
By now someone is thinking about running two non-compatible monorail sections in one corridor, and wants to diverge routes. Think on it. I know; every podunk County transportation district can have their own “Approved” monorail technology. “Works in Vegas!”
Seems like we went through this before. In 1838, the US Congress passed the “Post Road Legislation, decreeing ALL RAILROADS to be “Post Roads, Guarantors of Societal & commercial cohesion. Within three decades, standard gauge guideway had been decided.
We have been searching for a standard guideway for monorails for about 100 years now. That is the big problem, you need 3 or 4 monorail sections in play to do what one standard rail line can accomplish.
Steel wheel systems move people at 25-45mph downtown in brand new & vintage streetcars over 100 years old; Pre WWII steam mains reached 100mph on the Milwaukee, New York Central; also Union Pacific, Santa Fe & Pennsylvania RR’s- ditto for diesel ops. Electrified main lines made 100mph operations common in the pre WWII US, even local interurban commute lines like Chicago’s & L.A.’s Pacific Electric. Worldwide we see many 200 mph+ operations, day in- day out. 100 ton carloads are commonplace for 60 mph+ freight trains of 100+ cars. All these examples are on standard gauge track structure. Stretching from Central America to Northern Canada.
This is not meant to rain on someone’s parade. But, Cheese, Louise! We are at the threshold of the greatest double-barred challenge to USA transport ever- Global Warming & Peaking Oil. The question is not about finding a way to “Entice People Out Of Their Cars” -pray that this was as mundane as that…
Peaking Oil is a very real threat, noted by several US Intelligence agencies, by Oil geologists, energy investment firms, and, in secret energy policy meetings, by V.P. Dick Cheney (Darth Vader was many things, but no one ever considered him a fool). Lately, even Big Oil execs are ‘fessing up. Wonder why they aren’t throwing money at exploration & new refineries? Its not all environmemtal roadblocks, folks.
Responsible ones are more inclined to listen to the monorail proposals when they come from individuals who intimately understand the NREA network railway mode in the various particulars that have enabled it to endure into this new millenium. And, are able to knowledgebly find fault with the reported $Trillion steel wheel system rail capacity & extension program underway in China. Try it. Monorail is like the Concorde, nice to have…
Monorail enthusiasts would be well advised to focus their creative energies on their locale’s active & dormant rail corridor, to assure victuals and necessities of life distribution when diesel fuel is diverted from long-haul trucking to protect agriculture. Incremental change with technology and labor pool at hand.
Apologies for length. See James H. Kunstler’s “THE LONG EMERGENCY”
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 am
Thanks Fred for pointing out how the media jumps on the TTI annual reports that indicates the U.S. is incurring increased congestion, which should not be unexpected for that is what we have consistently experienced. However, the sad part is that the media headlines the congestion and implies we should somehow try to relieve it. We have been trying to do this for a century and have spent continually millions on expanding highways for relief as a norm so people today expect we should continue to do so.
Actually by relieving congestion, we encouraged increased auto use and created a vicious lose-lose cycle. Another sad thing is that we using funds that are more general that everyone pays such as sales tax and general bonds to fund congestion relief rather than taxing roadways users.
Meanwhile other developed countries have built far less road infrastructure with greater congestion and despite over their imposing a fuel tax which in most countries is 2-4 times what the U.S. pays, auto use still increases. Hence, they are now resorting to other forms of pricing (i.e. entry tolls into CBD, HOT lanes, higher: parking fees, registration and licence fees) and are making headway on congestion relief. Incidentally, much of the funds they collect are use it to augment transit.
Another point is that many transit advocates claim transit relieves congestion, which I question because transit use increases as congestion increases. Actually, transit use increases at a greater rate if there is good reliable and frequent if the transit system is one that has priority features i.e. BRT, LRT, or Metro.
But to provide a decent priority transit system that is cost-effective there is a dilemma, for it requires a good section of the route that has corridor density, which most American cities lack. Therefore, whenever we consider building a transit priority system we should mandate a coordinated dense mixed-use corridor development as well. (Example Curitiba, Brazil)