Sunday, October 28, 2012

A Reminder on Sustainability Part 2

Last post I reintroduced the idea of sustainability and sustainable transportation for those who may have lost sight in what it is.  This post I would like to revisit William R. Black's Chapter two of his book Sustainable Transportation entitled "The Historical Problem of Sustainability in the Transport Sector."

Black begins that chapter by setting a standard that "On their face, nearly all transport modes are sustainable. This is true whether we are looking at a horse and rider or a Cadillac Eldorado, a sailboat or a 747 airliner. The problem is the coupling of these various transport modes with excessive demand" (Black, 13.)  What Black is stating is that any has the potential to be sustainable and work, but only at a certain level, then once the demand for that system or the number of users for that system reach a certain level, it becomes unsustainable.  Black continues to go into many examples over the course of the human race where this is true.  The first example of this is the Mediterranean  Empires where the use of plank timber and horses became unsustainable.  Today it is almost impossible to find trees that produce plank timber because they were completely used for various uses including ships.  The use of horses throughout the Mediterranean causes an almost impossible to manage fecal matter build up as well as so much dust that there was a constant level of particulate matter in the air.  Later on in the time of the British Empire the same problem with wood and ships arose again as there was not enough available timber to continue to produce the number of ships that were needed.  The horse droppings issue also continued in the 18th and 19th centuries in every major city in the world as the cities became overrun with horses for travel.  Black continues to discuss the newer transportation technologies that include trains, planes and automobiles, as well as ships.  All of these systems would be sustainable at a low use level, but due to the size of the world and it's demand, none of them are sustainable in just about every category of sustainable transportation from safety to emissions to fuel consumption.

So what is the problem here?  The problem is that at every turn the human civilization has run into a major sustainability problem with it;s choice of transportation modes.  Even our current system has already been deemed completely unsustainable, with it's inevitable collapse in the foreseeable future.  So what has to be done?  The transportation sector needs to begin an extreme overhaul on itself.  It must begin to adapt to new technologies that might make some aspects of the system more difficult, but are more sustainable in the long run.  The system also needs to be more diversified and able to adapt so that future ideas do not become the sole type of transportation and thus become unsustainable.  A wide variety of sustainable transportation modes being used in moderation is the only way our system can continue to work.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

A Reminder on Sustainability Part 1

With all this talk of sustainability and sustainable transportation, it can be hard to focus on what sustainability and sustainable transportation is, even when William Black in his book, Sustainable Transportation, gives a detailed and exact definition of what sustainability, especially when paired with transportation is.  I would like to take this time to lay out the aspects of sustainable transportation according to William Black in Chapter one of his book.

William Black uses the first chapter to define sustainability via several different definitions.  Black first quotes the Brundland report of 1987 that defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Black 3.)  This definition does not need to be changed much, if at all, to be a definition for sustainable transportation.  Black continues to discuss the many different ways that one could define sustainability and sustainable transportation but this is how I would define it:

Sustainable transportation is the multi-modal use of various transportation systems that do the following:
1.) Conserve non-renewable resources as to keep the cost of these resources economically affordable for current and future generations
2.) Utilize renewable resources, but at a rate that is slower than the regeneration rate
3.) Manage pollution to keep it at a level that can be repaired by the Earth's Natural systems in a timely fashion
4.) Make transportation available for all who need it without excluding a class or minority of people
5.) Make transportation efficient in time so that it is not a hindrance on society

While that is not the entire definition of sustainable transportation and does not include every facet, it is a good base understanding that can be applied and used when one is discussing sustainable transportation, in my mind at least.

What do you think?  Did I miss anything?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Congestion Pricing, Not a Bad Idea

Diagram of how properly located parking can help retain travel in CBD's after congestion pricing is implementet id   Courtesy of Professor Aly Tawfik. 

The past few classes we have begun to talk more about solving the problems of the world and particularly America's unsustainable transportation system and in William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation, Black goes into detail about how one of the ways solutions to basically every aspect that makes transportation unsustainable can be solved, or at least improved via pricing.  This pricing would vary from an increase in taxes or cost of transportation modes to tolls.  One of these tooling options is knows as congestion pricing.  Congestion pricing is currently being implemented in Singapore and London, where roads int he Central Business Districts (CBD's) are tolled via automated systems to try and demotivate people from traveling into what is generally considered the areas of highest congestion.  While some criticize this system I think it is a great idea.

Many will criticize congestion pricing or tolling roads in CBD's because it can take business away from those in the CBD due to the decreased travel.  But I think that if it is done correctly, then there should be less economic loss then there is economic and sustainable gain, if not no loss at all.  As Professor Tawfik explained in class, typically free parking should be provided just outside of the tolling area to allow outsiders to park near the CBD and taker public transportation or active transportation into the CBD.  This helps decrease the loss in traffic and business.  I also think that once there is less congestion, it will be easier to get around the CBD and park.  This could potentially increase business for stores and businesses that rely on ease of access to their property.

Overall I think that congestion pricing or tolling works and is a great idea.  It makes those who truely use the system pay for it more.

What do you think?

Not Tolling Roads for the Wrong Reasons

I have recently read an article in the Orange County Register about an approved expansion of a major highway.  The project will include the expansion in both directions of I-405 from Euclid Avenue and I-605.  this is a highly congested area of Orange County that is in dire need of transportation management to help alleviate congestion.  For the purposes of my next argument I would like to avoid discussing the issue of induced traffic and work with the current practice that adding a lane to a major highway can help since both options in this case included adding lanes, that is a different conversation for a different day.

I am extremely confused at the decision that was made by the Orange Country Transportation Agency (OCTA.)  I am not confused that they voted 12-4 to allow the expansion, I am confused that they voted down the proposal to include tolls on some of the lanes of the expansion.  It is estimated that these toll roads would decrease the current 57 minute and 54 minute northbound travels times in the general-purpose and carpool lanes respectively to 29 in general-purpose and 13 in the express lanes.  This alone should be a good reason to want to add tolls.  But the reason the board did not vote to include the tolls is mainly because they could not decide how the estimated $1.5 billion in toll revenue over 20 years would be spent.  The admitted reasoning behind their choice surprises me.  If they were to turn down the expansion entirely due to the idea that there is such a thing as induced traffic I would understand.  But the OCTA still chose to expand the road anyway with no tolls with the money coming from a previously approved half cent sales tax.  My main argument is that there are many ways, especially in California, that the money could be spent that could be decided later on at a more appropriate time.  I am further driven to believe this with the following quote from Chairman Paul Glaab.  Glabb was quoted in saying, "A lot more people are going to move in so it will become congested, and that's why some members wanted to go with the option that includes the toll component because we have proved in Orange County that our constituents will pay a premium in order to decrease the time they're spending in traffic."  Basically, Glabb, who is also the mayor of Laguna Niguel, is admitting that there would still be enough willingness to pay the tolls to justify approving the toll roads.  It just confuses me when in many other parts of the world, more tolls and costs are being added onto driving to try and make the system more sustainable, yet some are still being voted down, not because of the cost for drivers, but because of what seems like bureaucratic reasons.

The article can be found here:



Thursday, October 18, 2012

Transportation Costs Rising

I recently found an article on Business Insider that presented an interesting piece of information.  According to the article, transportation (along with housing) costs have been steadily increasing "like clock work," but income has not.  The article states that according to the Center for Housing Policy, in the 25 largest U.S. metros, housing and transportation has gone up 44% in the past decade, while income as only increased 25%.  Te same report claims that for every dollar that is added to a persons income, they spend roughly $1.75 more on housing and transportation.

I also found this article on seattlepi.com about why in Seattle alone it is getting much more expensive travel.  The article describes eleven ways in which traveling will get more expensive ranging from higher gas prices and higher tolls to higher registration fees.  The increases are hitting every mode of transportation from personal vehicles to ferries and buses, even electric cars.

These two articles got me thinking.  Why is the cost getting so much higher?  It is not just because of the price of oil because these increases are across the board in many places.  I think it has to to with a growing country and a failing infrastructure that needs to money to stay afloat.  As I have stated several times, the US infrastructure could use several trillion dollars in improvements.  And while these all are not coming at once, repairs need to be made, and the money needs to come from somewhere.

As for now I am okay with the cost of driving, especially in metropolitan areas, increasing because hopefully it will spur a growth in public and more sustainable transportation, but overall this is not a good sign for the future.

For further reading please see the two articles:
http://www.businessinsider.com/housing-transportation-costs-are-rising-2012-10

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/10-ways-your-transportation-costs-are-going-up-3478560.php

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

MTA Hikes

As anyone could probably notice from my other blog posts, that I am a big proponent of finding ways to save money for both the government and the users of our transportation system.  Recently I read this article online about several proposed MTA rate increase.  Each of the proposals vary slightly, some charging more for daily use and some more for long term/unlimited passes while some are a combination of both.

I find this rather funny that I read this article about raising fares just after going through the list of many different ways to entire people to use public transportation as opposed to cars.  Now while I understand that  the MTA does need increases in revenue to make improvements and repairs, but I think that the money could be raised differently.  I think this because I run under the assumption that raising the cost of something will cause less people to use it, thus could drive more people to not use the public rail system.  Luckily these proposals would also increase rates for using MTA owed bridges so it might be more costly to drive across these bridges, but the changes may affect users of the rail more then those driving.

In my opinion I think the best way would be to increase fares just on the bridges to encourage more users of the rail system and raise the cost for single trips.  If someone plans on taking a single trip on the MTA they most likely will pay the extra dollar, while people who use it every day, the majority of the traffic, would not be affected.

What do you think?

For  the full artcile please click here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/mta-fare-hike-2013-unveils-four-proposals-125-monthly_n_1966975.html

Sunday, October 14, 2012

E-Tickets...finally

The MTA has announced that they are currently looking into and planning on developing an E-ticket program that would allow passengers to purchase tickets ahead of time and present them upon arrival.  Two different systems are being considered, one that involves per-purchasing a ticket then printing it out, and the other is a bar code that can be displayed via a smart phone and scanned by the conductor.  Either of these systems would make it much easier for the average user to take a train.  This would decrease the wait time for tickets for those who still would rely on the paper, bought at the station tickets, and would allows those who use the new system to bypass the lines entirely.  This could also alleviate stress as people would not need to worry about showing up early for a train and could essentially show up right as the train is about to leave and still get on without being charged extra. The MTA expects the system to start user testing in mid- to late-2013.

I personally think that this is a great idea...yet is also a bit late.  While I knew there was no electronic ticketing system, I was actually surprised once I thought about it.  Our world is constantly being integrated with mobile technologies and this is the next logical step, but other transportation sectors have already been using electronic tickets.  The aviation industry has been using e-tickets for several years now and it would seem to me that that air travel requires more security and planning ahead where e-tickets would be more easily hackable or not necessary for lines.  It just seems to me that this is the next logical step for train transportation and I am surprised it has taken this long for an e-ticket system to be even thought of.

Either way I am excited to see how it turns out.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20121013/NEWS01/310130010/MTA-plans-e-ticket-app?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|PoughkeepsieJournal.com|s

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Chevy Volt...a good start

With all the talk that everyone has been involved in about global warming, the soon to be oil crisis and the general fact that our current transportation system is unsustainable, I thought I would like to make a comment about one type of transportation that seems to be heading in the right direction, the Chevrolet Volt.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia (wiki/Chevrolet_Volt)

For those of you who don't know the Chevy Volt is a combination electric and gasoline powered car.  The Volt is the most fuel efficient car with a gasoline engine in America as rated by the EPA.  The mileage rating is slightly confusing because of the system that it runs on.  It is officially rated at 93 miles per gallon equivalent  which takes into consideration both the gas and electric engine.  How it works is initially the electric battery runs the engine until the power is drained, then the gas engine kicks in have and helps the electric until the destination is reached.  One can simply plug in the car anywhere they go to recharge the battery.  I even saw one this past weekend plug into a normal outlet with a special adapter at parking lot at a farm.

The question now is, is this helping us?  Is it leading us in the right direction?  I think it is.  Most cars in the US have fuel mileage int he 20's and 30's and SUV's are in the teens.  So to see a car with an almost triple digit MPG rating is exciting to me.  Now I know that this is not the final solution and I know that this is actually not really making a dent.  We still need transportation modes that are independent of oil entirely and ones that can run on electricity not generated by fossil fuels.  But it is certainly a step in the right direction.

What are your thoughts?


For further reading please check out these websites:

http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/faq.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Fuel_economy


Sunday, October 7, 2012

Deadline Nearing, Where's the Money?

The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which was approved by California voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, allows for $2 billion to be spent in various sectors of the transportation in California.  I recently read an article online about this act and how the deadline for construction to start on a group of projects associated with this act is approaching fast.  Through this act the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund has a set a number of over or underpass projects in Riverside and San Bernadino County's, an area known as Inland that have yet to be started.  These over/underpasses are located in a heavy transit area where traffic is stopped on major roads every time trains cross the roads.

The theory behind these renovations is that when there are less rail road crossings in populated areas, then traffic is decreased due to less stoppages and dangerous emissions will decrease because less trucks and cars will be idling while waiting.  These changes can also decrease the delivery time goods because of this decrease in road traffic.

The only issue is that 14 of these projects have yet to start and if they do not start by the end of 2013 they lose their funding.  If these jobs are not started, $114.5 million in state bond funds to help build an estimated $535.6 million worth of rail road grade separations.  The reason these jobs have not gone through is that there is still an issue finding the funding for these projects.

This can seem very confusing to me, and I am sure it can be confusing to others as well since this funding is supposedly already guaranteed from the bonds.  This is what I think is a major part of the problem that we are having in this country.  This country needs trillions of dollars of improvements in its infrastructure and could also use the economic boost that would go along with it and there is always an issue with where the money comes from.  I understand that money does not grow on trees, but I think that the system becomes messy and complicated when acts are passed that do not already have the money in place for them.

The good news behind this is that when these 14 projects are put in place the Public Works Department will not be able to handle all the work and will need to sub-contract out the work to other companies, thus adding more work to the area.

For further reading please read this article:

or the web page for the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund:


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Less Roads, Less Traffic

Chapter Seven of William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation discussed urban sprawl and congestion.  In class we also discussed this topic and induced traffic was brought up by the end of class.  Induced traffic is the topic of an article posted by Professor Tawfik by the Seattle Time's Eric Pryne in his article entitled "When roads are widened, travel can rise drastically."  Induced traffic is the basic theory of "if you build it, they will come."  If a new lane or road is built, traffic may actually increase according to this relatively new theory.  Pryne's article discusses the widening of a bridge on interstate 90 that has actually caused an increase in traffic congestion, not a decrease.

I have taken this information and have thought about a different yet very similar theory that was also discussed in class.  The theory is that if you REMOVE a lane of travel, the number of trips could decrease and in fact decrease enough to cause less congestion.  I think this is currently happening on Lafayette College's campus.  With the current quad construction, the stretch of High Street/Sullivan Road near Acopian and Markle Hall is currently set at one way traffic into campus, but one must drive around South College Drive or down Sullivan Road toward the Fishers to get off campus.  While one would think this can cause more congestion and traffic, it seems to have done the opposite.  There seems to be less traffic on all roads.  In my opinion this is an example of the opposite of induced traffic.  Basically, since there are less options there is less of a demand.

I also think that once the Quad construction is done this reduced traffic will continue due to the lack of driving options around campus, especially since there is a lack of parking.

What is your opinion?