Source: www.streetsblog.net

Even casual observers of transportation policy have noticed DOT’s emphasis on livability and, by extension, their fascination with “active transportation’ (aka biking and walking).  Livability is a worthy goal for all communities and, though it is still a somewhat ill-defined policy concept, biking and bike paths are certainly key components.

In an effort to make Washington, DC more livable, the Mayor and Federal policymakers decided to put a bike path down the center of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the Capitol with no connections at either end.  For those who do not frequent that area, this is not a typical bike path.  Instead of narrow lanes down the curb side of the roadway, this bike “path” is a full three auto lanes wide going right down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Yes, approximately one-third of the capacity of an already busy street in our nation’s capital was taken to serve a handful of cyclists.  The result has been increased congestion, increased emissions, long rush hour delays, and the ire of many DC visitors, cabbies, workers, and residents. This is not a very livable result for any but the cyclists and, in apparent reaction to public pressure, DC has just announced that autos will now be able to use the left lanes again.  Good for them, and an important lesson for other transportation policy makers.

Now, lest you believe I am anti-bike, I want to assure you this is not the case.  Two of my three grown children bicycle regularly in Old Town Alexandria, a nearby Washington suburb.  One does not own a car and cycles to work every day.  If for no other reason than their safety, I support adequate accommodations for cyclists.  That having been said, if cyclists are to be taken as serious members of the transportation community, perhaps it is time that reasonable requirements be placed upon them to insure they can safely interact with other road users and provide the necessary funding to support their projects.

Items that DOT and other transportation policy makers might consider are:

• Training, testing, licensing, and minimum age requirements for cyclists.
• Required insurance coverage to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users.
• Minimum equipment standards and safety inspections.
• Mandatory helmet laws.
• Bike path user fees.
• Bicycle and tire excise taxes to fund bike path construction and maintenance
• Enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists.

For policy makers who support increased use of cycling, failure to consider and provide proper regulatory oversight of new policies – and appropriate funding mechanisms to pay for it all -- is irresponsible and unfair to other road users.

The real issue is not bike paths.  It is how do policymakers determine the best use of limited transportation dollars to improve our transportation system while increasing mobility for all Americans?   There are many worthy projects, in all modes, that are well worth considering.  A bike path to nowhere is not one of them.

source: outdoor.com

As concern about global climate change continues to rise, more and more people are talking about shifting freight from trucks to rail. Rail is more efficient, many believe, and it requires less fuel consumption.

“This would really benefit the environment,” they say.

We say, “Not so fast.”

A recent analysis published in Transportation Fundamentals examines the truck vs. rail question and finds some interesting answers. According to author Noël Perry, managing director and senior consultant at FTR Associates, most of the U.S. freight now traveling by truck would actually require more energy consumption if transported rail-only. While rail itself is more fuel efficient, it creates far more of certain emissions than trucks are allowed to under current standards. Clearly the addition of trucks, at least in some stages of the supply chain, allows for the most effective — and greenest — combination of resources.

As Perry writes, “Existing market forces have already done an excellent job of maximizing fuel efficiency by allowing rail and truck to do what they do best.”

What they do best, according to Perry, is intercity long-haul for rail and more local short-haul transportation for trucks. The biggest challenge to combining those strengths is accessibility to intermodal terminals to enable convenient truck-to-rail transloading. The government should, Perry argues, support increased accessibility to those terminals. He also favors modifying truck size and weight standards and lowering rail’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limits to current truck standards. These actions would represent significant steps toward a greener transportation system.

Valid points, all.

There’s also the question of congestion in the nation’s freight system, a problematic issue that could become very serious in the event of a major increase in rail freight. Industry analysts have predicted that adding even 25 percent more freight into the already overburdened rail system would create serious congestion, efficiency and productivity issues. What repercussions could we expect from adding even more freight than that?

When it comes to road congestion, the picture looks no rosier. While many rail proponents push for a modal shift that would remove 10 percent of freight traffic from America’s highways, that remains an unachievable goal. In fact, an American Trucking Associations (ATA) analysis found that doubling the freight tonnage traveling by rail would result in only a roughly 1 percent reduction in trucks on the road by 2018.  To multiply that figure by 10 would require tremendous rail infrastructure investments, which seems highly unlikely — especially given that the last major line-haul route built in the United States was constructed in 1909.

Clearly, there are no quick answers. But with freight tonnage projected to grow 28 percent by 2018 , it’s good that analysts like Noël Perry are asking — and finding answers — to the questions. Let’s keep that conversation going.

A day does not go by in Washington without legislation intended to fix one problem ultimately affecting a host of other issues. It’s the principle of unintended consequences, and a fact of life in our complex world where everything has become so interconnected. Nowhere is this more evident than the transportation industry, which touches our economy, our environment and our infrastructure in virtually innumerable ways. It’s like the lyric from the popular children’s song that says “The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...” Trucking, it seems, is connected to everything.

One example of how one issue can have a ripple effect on many others is truck productivity. The crux of the issue is truck size and weight, a debate that’s been raging for years in Washington and throughout the transportation sector. Recent forecasts estimate that freight volumes will increase nearly 28 percent by 2018, a growth curve that — absent any change in current size and weight restrictions — will require several million more trucks on America’s highways to meet demand. “More jobs, now that’s great!” you might think … until you consider the interconnected, unintended consequences: more traffic congestion and lost productivity. Increased fuel consumption and higher carbon emissions. The effect of more trucks putting more miles on a highway infrastructure already strained to the breaking point. The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...

Many in the industry think the solution is clear: improve truck productivity. And there is a precedent — our counterparts in Europe, Canada and Australia have already done that and are reaping significant benefits. There’s plenty of research to support it. A 2008 American Transportation Research Institute study found that aligning our truck size and weight with the higher international standards would lead to great gains in productivity, as well as reductions in carbon emissions and a better shot at competing effectively in the global marketplace. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has produced a list of recommendations — including raising the allowable weight of six-axle vehicles to 97,000 pounds and permitting 33-foot trailer combinations in certain states, and expanding the use of triple trailers where it is safe and practical to do so. We hope Congress will seriously consider them. With the projected rise in freight volumes, maximizing the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure has never been more important.

One state that may prove to be a good test bed is Maine. The Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill recently signed into law by President Obama includes a provision to create a one-year pilot project to study the effects of eliminating the 80,000-pound vehicle weight limit on Maine’s federal highways. Allowing heavier trucks for a year will give researchers a chance to assess the impact on the much-debated areas of safety, commerce and road wear and tear.

It will be interesting to see how this experiment will educate the debate and, ultimately, the policy decisions which result. If the experience of our international colleagues is any guide, the consequences of more productive trucks will bring measurable benefits — for highway safety, the economy, our environment, congestion, business efficiency, energy policy and many other issues. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone ...

I recently attended the Intellidrive USA Working Group meeting, which was held October 29^th - 30th in Detroit.  It was an opportunity for IntelliDrive partners and stakeholders to discuss future plans, as well as ways to increase stakeholder involvement.

IntelliDriveSM is a U.S. Department of Transportation initiative focused on advancing connectivity between vehicles and road infrastructure, the objective being to improve the safety and mobility of the U.S. transportation system. A demonstration “test bed” is under way outside of Detroit where 75 miles of roadway has been equipped with 52 Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) devices. The Test Bed can accommodate third party applications, a range of on-board equipment, as well as a variety of vehicle types.

This is potentially exciting technology that has enormous safety implications. The idea behind Intellidrive is to make vehicles smarter and more aware of their surroundings and road conditions, essentially by enabling vehicles to “talk” with each other as well as with sensors in the highway itself.

The program intends to create the platform, specifications, and ultimately, a wireless connectivity network embedded in critical infrastructure that would bind together multi-modal systems – autos, trucks, trailers, highways, traffic flow and control systems, tolling systems, etc. The benefits of such a connected infrastructure would be: improved traffic safety and mobility (better traffic flow and congestion management), improved highway utility, automated e-payment for tolls and user fees, fewer carbon emissions and reduced environment impact, and better roadway system management tools for both private industry and local, state and federal government.

Now in its early stages, much of IntelliDrive’s focus centers on answering basic questions. What will the system look like and how will it work?  Which stakeholders should be brought to the table? How should they be engaged?  How should the U.S. DOT undertake the user ROI assessments that must be made? How do we balance direct user benefits from less tangible “societal” benefits?  What is a realistic project deployment schedule? And finally, where will the development funds come from?

Let me offer a few recommendations:

Increase efforts to get varied stakeholders to the table…  Quickly!

In a room full of interested parties, I was the lone representative from commercial trucking.  The potential issues, experiences and perspectives offered by trucking -- including carriers, vendors and truck manufacturers, are too important to neglect.  IntelliDrive will advance the fastest if it is directed by the collective input of a consortium of parties – government, technology providers, road design and construction and fleet operators - each who will benefit from its progress.

Consider funding prior to the creation of detailed implementation plans

Funding sources – public and private -- should be identified as soon as possible.  This will help to define realistic constraints and will enable near-term implementation of the IntelliDrive services that have the fewest barriers and highest benefits.

Derive an overarching ROI

It is imperative that discrete and quantifiable user returns be identified early on to justify the large investment that IntelliDriveSM will require.  Each stakeholder should have a clear and compelling case for support.

And lastly, approach implementation in a phased manner by identifying “quick wins” that can be rapidly deployed, demonstrating and validating future benefits- think the Pareto rule 80 - 20.  We certainly need an overarching vision. But with the rapid advancements typical of technology and software as user experience is gained and capabilities evolve, smaller investments with direct ROI enable quick receipt of benefits . . . a measured and controlled “learn as we pay, improve as we learn” approach.

Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov

In this way, we can accelerate the promise of smart vehicles and smart highways to the benefit of everyone that shares our nation’s highways, bringing to reality those returns in safety, better mobility, less congestion and less impact on the environment sooner than later.