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:

msussm@gmail.com.

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.