Problem: Can the current U.S. road system handle future urban growth efficiently?

[chris08876]

The Real Problem:

Traffic congestion is not primarily a problem, but rather the solution to our basic mobility problem, which is that too many people want to move at the same times each day. Why? Because efficient operation of both the economy and school systems requires that people work, go to school, and even run errands during about the same hours so they can interact with each other. That basic requirement cannot be altered without crippling our economy and society. The same problem exists in every major metropolitan area in the world.

In the United States, the vast majority of people seeking to move during rush hours use private automotive vehicles, for two reasons. One is that most Americans reside in low-density areas that public transit cannot efficiently serve. The second is that privately owned vehicles are more comfortable, faster, more private, more convenient in trip timing, and more flexible for doing multiple tasks on one trip than almost any form of public transit. As household incomes rise around the world, more and more people shift from slower, less expensive modes of movement to privately owned cars and trucks.

With 87.9 percent of America's daily commuters using private vehicles, and millions wanting to move at the same times of day, America's basic problem is that its road system does not have the capacity to handle peak-hour loads without forcing many people to wait in line for that limited road space. Waiting in line is the definition of congestion, and the same condition is found in all growing major metropolitan regions. In fact, traffic congestion is worse in most other countries because American roads are so much better.

Figure 3.9 2020 Congestion Forecasts, No Trucks



Figure 3.10 2020 Congestion Forecasts, With Trucks

Forecasts of future traffic on the National Highway System demonstrate the magnitude of this problem, assuming that the existing highway system is not improved by 2020. Specifically, by comparing Figures 3.9 and 3.10 side-by-side, it is apparent that the congestion-causing potential for trucks is great. Without trucks, most congestion would reside within major metropolitan areas (Figure 3.9). When trucks are added to the highway system, congestion spreads into what are now essentially rural corridors (Figure 3.10).19

Analysis of major urban bottlenecks with regard to trucks also is revealing (Figure 3.11). This analysis used the bottleneck locations identified in the recent American Highway Users Alliance study along with the same truck forecasts used in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 at these locations. When trucks are removed from these bottlenecks, delay is substantially reduced, but is still present at relatively high levels. Since these bottlenecks are dominated by weekday commuter traffic, this is to be expected. Trucks can be expected to have a greater proportional effect on congestion where bottlenecks are located in smaller urban, urban fringe, and rural areas.

In addition to these bottlenecks which are primarily related to mixing urban commuting and trucking, bottlenecks that primarily affect trucks also exist. These include border crossings with Canada and Mexico and local access highways to intermodal facilities, such as ports. In fact, a recent study of border crossings indicates that trucks can be delayed on average 30 minutes each time they try to cross from Mexico into the United States.20 Border delays — and the increased transportation costs they create — can seriously affect international trade between the United States and Canada and Mexico. Also, because trade is increasing between Canada and Mexico, delay to shipments on interior U.S. highways increases the costs of performing this trade. In essence, congestion on U.S. highways has become an international — not just a national — problem.

================================
1)http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...ortation-downs
2)http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congesti...4/chapter3.htm

[pdxtex]

out west not only is capacity an issue, but tire choice. really. studded tires are legal in oregon and washington. combine rainy climate with metal tire studs and ouila, mega ruts down the middle lane of the highway. the profile is bowed like charlie browns pitchers' mound. im not sure why they are still legal. it doesnt snow that often and most people just uses chains for crossing mountain passes....

[hammersklavier]

What is the underlying data the model uses? As this graph shows, nearly every traffic demand projection for the past 15-20 years has been a wild overestimation, each successive one showing more ridiculous a departure. In fact, if the real rate continues (i.e. traffic demand holds steady/decreases slightly) then the only congestion issues U.S. cities will have to solve are the existing ones.


Source

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

What is the underlying data the model uses? As this graph shows, nearly every traffic demand projection for the past 15-20 years has been a wild overestimation, each successive one showing more ridiculous a departure. In fact, if the real rate continues (i.e. traffic demand holds steady/decreases slightly) then the only congestion issues U.S. cities will have to solve are the existing ones.


Source

They used census data from 2000. Also, they based it on the the slowdown in economic output of certain metros based on the time in travel for trucks as well as cars. Theres a whole book on the type of information or principles concerning the methodology that was adopted into the paper when it was written. Stuck in traffic: coping with peak-hour traffic congestion(May 1, 1992) by Anthony Downs, Brookings Institution.

Also a paper concerning the data which is based on the information used in the book: http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net...012-appx-a.pdf

The formulas still apply for doing studies concerning traffic, economic output as a result of congestion, reduction/increase in traffic, ect.
===============================================
===============================================
Some sources/research papers for anyone interested in traffic studies, and principles behind some of these studies:

References
1 Federal Highway Administration. “Highway Performance Monitoring System,” 1982 to 2010 Data. November 2012. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm.
2 McFarland, W.F. M. Chui. “The Value of Travel Time: New Estimates Developed Using a Speed Choice Model.” Transportation Research Record N. 1116, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987.
3 Ellis, David, “Cost Per Hour and Value of Time Calculations for Passenger Vehicles and Commercial Trucks for Use in the Urban Mobility Report.” Texas Transportation Institute, 2009.
4 Populations Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau. Available: www.census.gov
5 2009 National Household Travel Survey, Summary of Travel Trends. Available: http://nhts.ornl.gov/index.shtml
6 American Automobile Association, Fuel Gauge Report. 2011. Available: www.fuelgaugereport.com
7 Means of Transportation to Work. American Community Survey 2009. Available: www.census.gov/acs/www

-------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================

[10023]

No, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the US commuter rail system can't handle future urban growth.

[mSeattle]

^That. And in cases it doesn't meet current needs (too few runs). Also, we still have many miles to go in densification to make increased rail investment work.

[10023]

Actually in many regions the density is there. What's not there is the infrastructure, and that actually has more to do with right-of-way than money, as far as I can tell.

The Northeast corridor, for instance, has more than enough density for intercity rail to be efficient, cost-effective and attractive to travelers. But Amtrak shares tracks with freight trains that keep it from people a real high-speed service, and it's probably impossible to secure the RoW through that part of the country to build dedicated track.

[MolsonExport]

If only half the truck loads could go by rail instead, this would substantially reduce congestion. Of course, rail is inefficient for short haul trips, yadda yadda yadda. But I do think if the true cost of infrastructure and road wear-and-tear was borne by trucking firms, rail would be much more appealing.

[DBR96A]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

...if the real rate continues (i.e. traffic demand holds steady/decreases slightly) then the only congestion issues U.S. cities will have to solve are the existing ones.

We can start by alleviating two of the most severe cases of highway stenosis in the United States.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If only half the truck loads could go by rail instead, this would substantially reduce congestion. Of course, rail is inefficient for short haul trips, yadda yadda yadda. But I do think if the true cost of infrastructure and road wear-and-tear was borne by trucking firms, rail would be much more appealing.

Thanks MEx

This is a long standing problem, earlier dealt with by so-called piggy backing trucks on rail cars and more recently by containers. Unfortunately most citizens don't realize how much their road taxes subsidize trucks at the expense of a lack of more attention to rail. It is similar to the problem with transit support subsidies. We, the public, appear to enjoy supporting the concrete and road building industries over anything that supports building public transportation and or the rails. I doubt this will change and many now seem to tout technology, e.g. system managed traffic controls as the coming solution to increased traffic on our built out roadways. Good luck with this and thank god that you have an IPad to play with while you are stuck in traffic.

[memph]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If only half the truck loads could go by rail instead, this would substantially reduce congestion. Of course, rail is inefficient for short haul trips, yadda yadda yadda. But I do think if the true cost of infrastructure and road wear-and-tear was borne by trucking firms, rail would be much more appealing.

Not just that, but you'd have less ridiculous nonsense like California blue berries in Ontario supermarkets in August. Basically if there's a local source for products, it will be more likely to be favoured. It's one thing to get avocadoes from California in Ontario, but blue berries?

[EastSideHBG]

Here in the Philly area an overwhelming majority of roads can't even handle what we have today let alone years from now. Far too many roads are woefully inadequate, traffic signals aren't synced, etc. Whenever PennDOT and/or local municipalities update roads and/or intersections, they usually just create a new problem somewhere else (case in point they did a huge improvement to an intersection near me recently but decided in their infinite wisdom to give a straight green to northbound traffic instead of a left turn arrow, which now causes a backup that effects the lane next to it).

Add this all in with how old and in disrepair much of our road network is, and I see nothing but trouble for the future.

[Wizened Variations]

I think the increased traffic projections for 2030 are "pie in the sky" projections based upon two incorrectly assumed axioms:

A) The supply of energy for transportation is infinite, and

B) The increase in the cost of energy will be equal to something like the CPI.


I have worked oil wells and know the business. I can tell anyone that the cost- defined as the amount of energy necessary to extract newly found oil (step outs, oil shale plays, new discoveries) per barrel of oil pumped out of the ground is increasing rapidly, bottom line.

I, like almost everyone who blogs at skyscraperpage.com have been aware of the rise of China, and, the radical increase in oil imports China consumes. Brazil, Indonesia, the Middle East (yes OPEC), and India also are consuming larger portions of the oil (and natural gas) pie.

Regrettably the size of the pie is increasing slower than demand, and, will continue to do so.

***********

Whether we like it or not, the worldwide increase in energy consumption and the increased real cost per unit energy will change everything, including transportation.

The question how would doubling the real cost of oil (and gas) affect transportation by 2030?

1. The increase in the cost to repair infrastructure will most likely be greater than the increase in the price of energy. The price of steel, concrete, asphalt, and copper, for example, can be expected to at least double when compared to the cost of labor.

This means far more "band aid" type repairs.

2. The increase in the price of energy, despite the most innovative computer scheduling and vehicle motive power, will be greater than the savings innovation brings. Emphasis will be on both increased transportation efficiency and reducing transportation volume.

3. The increase in the price of energy will affect transportation inversely proportional to weight, bulk, and, distance traveled. The shorter the distance carried, the lighter the item transported, and, the smaller the item is to be transported, the more rapidly the price of transporting that item will increase.

An example of this will be companies like Amazon making huge warehouses in metro areas, where despite local sales tax costs, the final shipping distance to the consumer lowers.

The internet model will change.

4. Freight rail transportation will boom, as methodologies will extend intermodal shipping closer to the individual consumer. Intermodal freight yards will continue to evolve towards handling smaller items faster over shorter distances.

**************

The old suburban model is rapidly dying, not because of a change in ideology, but because the increase in the cost of energy and it's ripple effects throughout the world economy, forces increased density.

The whole concept of "Green" is just a fuzzy friendly way of showcasing possible alternatives to radical market driven cost increases.

[10023]

Originally Posted by memph

Not just that, but you'd have less ridiculous nonsense like California blue berries in Ontario supermarkets in August. Basically if there's a local source for products, it will be more likely to be favoured. It's one thing to get avocadoes from California in Ontario, but blue berries?

Or just eat food that's in season, which is probably going to be better anyway.

When somebody complains that the tomatoes (or whatever) they bought at the supermarket in January weren't any good, I want to smack them in the back of the head.

[pm91]

I've always felt one of the best and cheaper ways to help congestion during peak hours are buses. Houston's Park and Ride system is good, but can really be better, like WAY better. A lot of the P&R's should have parking garages so they could accommodate more. Commuter rail is too expensive and hard to get funding as a result. Park and Rides are essentially what BRT does but just for morning and evening rush hours.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

out west not only is capacity an issue, but tire choice. really. studded tires are legal in oregon and washington. combine rainy climate with metal tire studs and ouila, mega ruts down the middle lane of the highway. the profile is bowed like charlie browns pitchers' mound. im not sure why they are still legal. it doesnt snow that often and most people just uses chains for crossing mountain passes....

This. People are STILL driving around Portland with studded tires.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

In my mind, there are two main issues relative to transport infrastructure.


1) Rail systems cannot handle future capacity

It isn't simply a problem of a lack of rail mileage, it's also one of historical decay and reduction in capacity.

Looking at the rail corridor that bisects Birmingham's downtown, it might look substantial for a Southern city, but it's actually last than half the size it used to be.



2) Throughout the US, there is very little (especially in the Southeast) institutionalized control on the amount of development that occurs near controlled access highways.

All I need to say here is that you can't build an effing bypass without explosive suburban growth swarming to it (I-285 anyone?).




Unless you can design freeways for the explicit purpose of moving traffic around congestion instead of opening up rural areas for development, it's impossible to create an efficient system. I'd actually argue that at this point it's impossible to mold what we already have into something efficient.

[memph]

Originally Posted by tascalisa

2) Throughout the US, there is very little (especially in the Southeast) institutionalized control on the amount of development that occurs near controlled access highways.

All I need to say here is that you can't build an effing bypass without explosive suburban growth swarming to it (I-285 anyone?).

What about not putting any freeway exits in areas that are undeveloped?

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by memph

What about not putting any freeway exits in areas that are undeveloped?

That's the issue I was implying. You can't build an enormous bypass, or anything like it, that cuts through a rural area without encouraging sprawl. As it is, it is politically unpopular to build such a route without local factions crying for access to it.

A perfect situation would be a freeway tens of miles long that avoided congestion, but you'll never get that because it is politically unpopular to deny access to an uncongested roadway.

[KevinFromTexas]

Problem: Can the current U.S. road system handle future urban growth efficiently?

Austin says no.

Seriously, we need more rail. It's a capacity issue (which we're lacking). It's already been proven that things like bypassing highways and toll lanes haven't worked here. We need more capacity in the central part of the metro. Tearing down neighborhoods to expand urban streets into highways isn't an option and ruin this city. It's something that was proposed in the 1960s with highways planned all over town. Nearly every Austinite today is horrified at what was proposed back then.

Austin is a special case since we have only one interstate highway in the metro. The only other north/south artery is 2 miles west of downtown. There is a third, but it's at least 12 miles east of downtown where no one lives or wants/needs to go anyway. We do have two central highways that run east/west 5 miles north and south of downtown, and two more east/west highways that form a semi-loop around the city about 15 miles north and south of Austin.

It's too bad it would cost a fortune, because what Austin really needs is a subway system. It would be difficult here since the city is hilly and sits on limestone that is just a few feet under ground.

There are other things, too, that would help the situation. Americans can't tear themselves away from their cars. I ride my bike whenever I can.