Transportation and Equity

During last night’s guest lecture, we discussed the social equity issues associated with the installation of the Green Line light rail system in the twin city area of Minnesota. This light rail line, which intends to alleviate congestion issues between Minneapolis and St. Paul, is being constructed through the center of a low-income neighborhood. While the implementation of this system may benefit the region as a whole (total benefits exceed total costs), the rail line would have damaging effects on this community. This example gives rise to the question: how can transportation engineers measure social equity? Which groups within the population should have their needs prioritized?

By installing the Green Line, twin city transportation engineers could potentially cause small businesses near the rail line to go out of business. The logic behind this claim is that the rail line would disrupt the mobility of individuals within the community, which would reduce the number of individuals capable of accessing the businesses. Additionally, by shifting individuals away from their cars toward rail lines, the businesses would be less accessible. Other intangible consequences of the rail line involve the aesthetic consequences, noise and vibrational effects, and the loss of the community’s identity.

This example displays the complexity of developing transportation engineering solutions. While the long-term benefits of the rail line cannot be disputed, the short-term consequences are severe for the affected individuals. It seems that there will always be individuals who’s needs and desires will be contrary to the goals of transportation projects. How do you think the views of individuals should be weighted by transportation engineers? Should the system operate in a simple majority, or should engineers be given the freedom to make decisions for the betterment of the region?

Education’s Importance

Throughout this semester, we have discussed several issues associated with the current transportation system. We have also discussed potential solutions that can enhance the sustainability of the existing system. One particular solution that could alleviate several transportation issues involves using educational campaigns. These campaigns, which involve large-scale public awareness movements, intend to alter individual’s behavioral patterns. Through television, radio, social media, and other such mass communication methods, educational campaigns provide critical information regarding transportation issues to the public. By communicating the issues and the methods with which individuals can help to resolve the problem, educational campaigns are a strong tool for promoting sustainable transportation.

Educational campaigns have been shown to have strong influences on the behavioral patterns of the public in the past. One example of the influence of education occurred in the United States in the 1970’s. In 1973, in an effort to respond to the energy crisis associated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo, the US created several large-scale educational programs. These programs promoted the use of energy efficient transportation methods such as carpooling and public transportation use. As a result of these campaigns, carpooling increased significantly. Over the ensuing decades, as the scale of the educational programs diminished, carpooling levels decreased as well. This example displays the strong correlation between educational programs and public responsiveness. By utilizing educational programs, transportation engineers can promote public behavioral patterns that are consistent with sustainable transportation ideals.

Reference:

Black, William R. Sustainable Transportation.

Alternative Energy: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

In order to reduce the transportation system’s dependence on petroleum, several alternative energy sources are being developed. One such energy source involves utilizing hydrogen fuel cells to power cars. Hydrogen fuel cells involve the storage of compressed hydrogen gas within a vehicle. This gas, along with oxygen acquired from air, is converted into electricity within the vehicle’s fuel cell stacks. Using this electricity, the vehicle is able to power its electric motor and operate without harmful emissions.

Hydrogen fuel cell technology is certainly an attractive alternative for several reasons. First, fuel cell vehicles emit no greenhouse gasses. Instead, the vehicles only release heat and water. Another benefit of fuel cell vehicles would be the reduced global dependence on petroleum, potentially leading to a lower total cost of travel. Other benefits include the sound reduction of operations and the increased smoothness of the motor.

Despite the benefits of fuel cell vehicles, there exist several challenges that must be addressed before the technology can be viewed as a realistic alternative to internal combustion engines. One such challenge involves the pricing of the vehicles. Fuel cell vehicles are currently more expensive than internal combustion vehicles, and are therefore not an appealing alternative to indifferent consumers. Additionally, fuel cell engines are typically less durable in adverse weather conditions than their internal combustion engine counterparts. Finally, in order to fully implement fuel cell vehicles in our transportation system, there would need to be significant investments in a hydrogen distribution system. The current system of distribution for petroleum would not be successful in distributing hydrogen gas, and therefore a new system large-scale system would need to be developed.

While there are clearly benefits to hydrogen fuel cell technology, there are still challenges that must be addressed before it can be viewed as a realistic transportation alternative. Do you think that fuel cell vehicles can eventually become successful?

Reference:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

Telecommuting: A Realistic Solution?

When individuals discuss potential methods to reduce transportation levels and enhance the sustainability of our existing system, one major idea is to reduce the number of commuters using the system each day. As information technology has advanced over the past decade, the idea of telecommuting has gained momentum as a potential solution. Telecommuting involves the possibility of employees operating from their homes. These employees are able to connect and exchange information with coworkers and clients electronically, reducing the importance of their presence at a central office. While telecommuting would reduce a significant portion of daily travel, it would come with a set of benefits and consequences that complicate its status as a sustainable transportation alternative.

The use of telecommuting throughout the nation would have several positive effects on the transportation system. One major benefit of telecommuting would be the drastic reduction of vehicle miles traveled associated with the reduction of commuters. With fewer commuters making daily trips, the total emission levels, total fuel consumption, likelihood of collisions, and congestion levels of major transportation systems would decrease. Additionally, workers would have the potential to be more productive. Without the lost time associated with commuting, individuals would have more time and more energy to devote to their jobs.

While these benefits associated with telecommuting would certainly improve the sustainability of the existing transportation system, there are several factors that bring the practicality of telecommuting into question. One criticism of telecommuting involves employee interaction and accountability. Without a central meeting location, individuals cannot exchange information or operate in teams as effectively. Additionally, the lack of an authoritative figure in an individual’s workplace could reduce the worker’s motivation and ability to meet their goals. Finally, telecommuting would give rise to several ethical issues. Without a central work location, employers would face severe accountability issues such as the provision of a safe work environment. The loss of efficiency and the transitional difficulties associated with telecommuting reduce the practicality of the method.

While the implementation of telecommuting would have positive influences on the transportation system, it would also have negative influences on employers. One of the major challenges associated with this type of transition is determining the relative weight of these pros and cons. Do you think telecommuting would be a beneficial system, or do you think it would do more harm than good?

Reference:

http://voices.yahoo.com/telecommuting-pros-cons-employers-331947.html

Urban Density: Positive or Negative for Sustainability?

Earlier in the week, our class was able to listen to a lecture by Wendell Cox. Mr. Cox provided an interesting and unique perspective on the issues associated with attaining sustainable transportation. His ideas were particularly interesting because he did not share the same beliefs as the majority of transportation engineers. One idea that I found to be particularly interesting was Mr. Cox’s stance on urban density’s influence on sustainable transportation.

Before discussing Mr. Cox’s views, I will present the general belief of transportation engineers on the relationship between density and sustainable transportation. Transportation engineers generally view the major contributor to the unsustainable nature of our transportation system to be the high level of vehicle miles traveled. This high value results in several negative externalities: higher emissions levels, lower urban air quality, higher potential for collisions, higher fuel consumption, and lower use of mass transit. According to these individuals, reducing total VMT could alleviate several of these issues and enhance the sustainability of our transportation system. The logical method to reduce VMT is to increase urban density and prevent urban sprawl. By reducing sprawl and increasing population and urban density, individuals will make shorter trips and have a higher likelihood to utilize mass transit systems. These shorter trips and shift away from car usage would reduce VMT, and therefore be beneficial to our transportation systems.
Mr. Cox, however, had an opposing view to these ideas. He stated that while an increased density would reduce the distance of trips, it would create more problems than it would solve. By increasing urban density, the same number of individuals will be using a smaller transportation network. This would increase congestion levels, resulting in lower speeds and higher travel times. By increasing congestion levels and reducing speeds, vehicles would actually operate at lower fuel efficiency levels. The vehicles would emit more greenhouse gasses and consume more fuel. Additionally, the higher congestion levels would increase the societal cost of transportation systems, increasing the lost opportunity cost of individuals stuck in traffic.

Mr. Cox’s unique views were certainly interesting to hear. The presence of a “devil’s advocate” voice that presented the benefits of issues that we have typically tried to reduce all semester, such as urban sprawl, was eye opening. This presentation showed the benefits of hearing all perspectives of an issue before making a decision, and I appreciated the opportunity to attend Mr. Cox’s lecture.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward?

During Tuesday night’s guest lecture, I noticed one particularly interesting concept. The speaker broke the idea of sustainable development into three components: development’s influence on the environment, economy, and society. The environmental qualities include reduced emissions, diminished pollution levels, and other such characteristics. Strong economic effects include economic growth and job creation. Finally, the desired social characteristics of a project involve improved safety and quality of life for locals. If a project is truly sustainable, it should result in improvements in each of these areas. The three criteria listed above are certainly important. However, I believe that the expectation of improvement in each area is not entirely realistic. I believe that the limited resources available to transportation engineers, as well as the often conflicting nature of these areas, results in a type of tradeoff for each transportation project.

I will explain the logic behind this statement with a hypothetical example: a major highway constructed near the junction of several rivers. The meeting of rivers often provides an ideal location for industrial firms. The water can be used as a power source, as well as a material for production processes. The construction of a new highway will make the location even more appealing for these firms, as their transportation costs for inputs and outputs will be significantly reduced. Assuming there are no zoning regulations in this region, the construction of this highway will result in a significant boost in the local economy. The influx of firms to the region will cause job creation and economic growth.

Despite the economic growth in the region associated with the construction of a highway, the project will likely have negative effects on the environment and local society. As production firms establish themselves within the region, they will likely increase pollution levels (both from vehicle emissions and operating emissions). Additionally, the presence of factories will diminish the aesthetics of the region. The social quality of the region will decrease as well due to noise damage, aesthetic damage, and and potentially hazardous pollutants that are being introduced to the region. Therefore, while the construction of a highway strongly enhanced the regional economy, it did so at the expense of the environment and society.

While this example shows the tradeoffs associated with transportation development projects, it is admittedly shortsighted. Perhaps the region’s growing economy will attract a larger labor force, which will allow greater tax revenue to be used for environmental and social programs. Do you think that there is an inherent tradeoff between these three criteria in each transportation project, or do you think that it is possible to consecutively enhance all three areas?

Urban Planning: Poverty Trap

In today’s class, we discussed the trend of spatial mismatch between inner-city residents and employment opportunities. Historically, cities have had strong, bustling centers. These monocentric cities had high employment and residential densities. Workers lived close to their jobs, and they had relatively short commutes. As transportation technology progressed, skilled workers with higher income were able to afford housing and commuting expenses that moved them further from their employment regions. Recently, the developments in information and communication technology have reduced the necessity of office clusters in city centers. The primary incentive for central city location of office firms is to reduce the travel time associated with face-to-face meeting with clients and other firms. With technologies such as email and skype, this face time is no longer worth the high cost of central-city office space. The progression of these developments have contributed to the gradual decline of the monocentric city.

Where do these jobs go? Office firms have been moving from expensive central-city locations to cheaper locations on the edges of urban areas. This relocation, as well as the growth of transportation technology, has allowed significant urban sprawl in many cities. However, while this relocation is appealing for skilled workers with the purchasing power to afford suburban life and high commuting costs, it has been devastating for lower-income individuals. As more jobs depart city centers, unemployment levels in urban areas have risen. Low income individuals are put in a difficult position by this trend: in order to reach the job opportunities that are locating outside of cities, they must use expensive commuting methods such as personal vehicles. However, for many of these individuals, personal vehicles simply aren’t affordable. While public transportation provides access to some job opportunities, it does not provide the full accessibility to opportunities that cars do due to the limitations of route choices. As a result, low income individuals can become stuck in a “poverty trap” in which they do not have adequate access to career opportunities.

The issues of poverty traps and spatial mismatches are troubling. The idea that motivated individuals cannot gain access to career opportunities provides a major issue of social equity. However, the decline of monocentric cities is an economically natural event, and inhibiting it would reduce the efficiency of the economy. What do you think of this issue? Do you believe there are any realistic solutions?

Reference:

O’Sullivan, Arthur. Urban Economics.

Other Transportation Alternatives

At this point in our course, we are beginning to transition from the planning phase to the solutions development phase of the course material. In the spirit of this transition, I would like to list a few public transportation alternatives that could be utilized to enhance the efficiency and relative sustainability of urban transport systems. These alternatives are modifications of existing transportation alternatives and can be used in was that reduce the overall cost of transportation.

One type of transportation solution involves the use of shared-ride taxis. The taxi system, as it currently exists, is a very inefficient means of transport. While time costs are reduced for individual users, the vehicles often operate below their passenger capacity. Additionally, with existing single-user cab system, there is a demand for a higher number of total cabs in a city, and the time spent waiting for an open cab is generally higher. These factors result in a higher level of emissions and lost time, which result in inefficiencies that could be avoided through the use of shared-ride taxis. If shared-ride taxi systems were implemented, multiple individuals with different destinations would be able to use the same cab. This would reduce the total number of cabs needed by a city, cutting the total emissions of cabs. Additionally, the amount of time lost by an increased trip length (due to other destinations in your cab) would be offset by the time saved in finding available taxis.

A second transportation solution would be the enhanced use of subscription commuting. Subscription commuting involves advance payment for commuter bus services. These services could become an appealing alternative to car use for several reasons. The use of subscription commuting would reduce overall commuting costs including gas expenses, vehicle purchase and maintenance expenses, and parking expenses. Subscription commuting also has the potential to save time for individuals, reducing time lost from accessing vehicles, finding parking, idling in congestion conditions (in regions with HOV lane access), and walking from parking areas to final destinations. However, this time saved may be offset by the increased trip duration associated with the destinations of other users. On aggregate, subscription commuting would be a very attractive method of emissions and congestion reduction. This system would reduce the total number of cars using a road network each workday, which would help alleviate these issues.

While the two solutions proposed in this entry would only provide minor changes to the total transportation system in a city, I believe that any effort that can reduce emissions and congestion issues is a positive. Do you view these two alternatives as viable solutions?

Reference:

O’Sullivan, Arthur. Urban Economics.

Importance of Transportation Modeling?

In Friday’s class, we discussed several issues associated with the four-step transportation planning model. These limitations ranged from specific functional flaws (iterations of variables, difficulty of data collection, etc.) to more general statistical modeling issues (rational choice assumption, complete information assumption, etc.). As the class progressed, the relevance of the four-step transportation planning model came increasingly into question. I will discuss one particular issue associated with the model, the utilization of intangible variables in utility functions.

In the four-step transportation model, several utility functions are used to transition between the mode choice and traffic assignment steps. These functions intend to display how the aggregate values of intangible variables (time value, comfort, aesthetics, etc.) influence an individual’s mode choice. The theory behind mode choice is sound: by using census data, surveys, and other types of measurement systems, transport engineers can provide values to these qualitative variables as well as possible. Certainly, a best-attempt measure is better than a lack of inclusion of these variables altogether. However, it is possible that the current system simply isn’t good enough.

In gathering data for these variables, one must rely on subjective data that doesn’t necessarily reflect population truths. Surveys, in particular, are unreliable measures of qualitative variables. When participating in a survey, it is highly likely that an individual will misrepresent components of their decision-making processes. For instance, many people would likely place a high value on the importance of reducing transportation emissions in a survey, but this does not mean that they would change their transportation patterns. As these types of misrepresentations of values and preferences increase, the coefficients assigned to utility equations become inaccurate. This results in flawed mode choice models, and in turn, flawed traffic assignment models.

The question remains: what can be done to enhance the reliability of the four-step transportation model? It is easy to critique the existing system, but it is much more difficult to create practical solutions. It is likely that there are much more effective manners of data collection than surveying, but these methods would involve huge, unrealistic expenses. While the existing system may not be perfect, it seems to be the best available option with the available resources.

Reference:

http://stattrek.com/statistics/data-collection-methods.aspx

Congestion Free Pricing: Pros and Cons

One of the recurring issues associated with transportation networks involves congestion. Excessive congestion levels contribute to several transportation issues including increased emissions, reduced fuel use efficiency, and the lost opportunity cost of individuals stuck in traffic. Cities throughout the world view congestion as a very significant issue. In fact, in London, congestion was viewed by the public as a more pressing issue than crime reduction. In order to reduce congestion issues, transportation engineers have devised several different types of pricing methods to discourage network use and reduce congestion levels. One such pricing method utilized in London is the creation of a ‘congestion-free area.’ This system involved the use of an 8 pound charge ($14.93) for each private car entering certain regions of the city with particularly bad congestion issues. The system did not charge other types of vehicles such as motorcycles, bicycles, mopeds, handicapped vehicles, buses, or taxis. By introducing the congestion-free area system, the Greater London Authority hoped to reduce car use within the city and shift the mode choice of individuals toward public transportation issues. Indeed, since the system was implemented, there has been an 18% decrease in vehicle trips within the congestion-free area.

Pictured: London’s Congestion-Free Area

What are the results of this system? On one hand, the system was effective in reducing congestion within the congestion-free areas. Of the 18% decrease, roughly 9% of the individuals changed their mode choice to public transportation. About 4.5% of the travelers altered their routes to the avoid congestion-free areas, and the remaining individuals either walked, used taxis, or traveled at times in which the congestion-free pricing system was not in effect. From a transportation engineer’s perspective, this large-scale shift in mode choice should be viewed as a success. With increasing public transportation use, congestion levels should decrease to a more acceptable level.

However, as with most policies, this system has consequences that may make it impractical for other cities. By discouraging an individual’s access to certain regions of a city through private transportation means, the government is effectively discouraging the individual from consuming goods or services within that region. By reducing an individual’s incentive to visit certain regions of a city, a government will face firm opposition from the businesses located within these regions. Therefore, while London was able to successfully install this system, it would be difficult for other cities to follow suit.
References:

http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/11_26_07_Congestion_Pricing_Leape.aspx

Black, William R. Sustainable Transportation: Problems and Solutions