Tag Archives: civilengineering

Driverless Cars

Nevada has taken a big step toward allowing driverless cars; they’ve authorized their DOT to start forming rules and regulations for the use of driverless cars.

I picked this up via Ben Brooks who raises a very salient point:

No matter how advanced sometimes you just can’t beat the human eye. Because the first time a ‘driverless’ car kills a kid in an accident that a human could have avoided — well that’s the end of the dream.

A real concern that every right-thinking person should have. I think the problem is that most people view the issue of driverless cars as an either/or situation. Either we all driver our cars everywhere, or we all have driverless cars take us everywhere. I think the reality would be a hybrid.

Imagine jumping in line on an onramp, pushing a button, and allowing the car to take over as it whisks you along safely on a grade-separated right of way amidst hundreds of other cars running driverless. All these cars could have their own onboard computer that would transmit simple information to each other to promote smooth flowing, high speed, safe traffic.

Now imagine, as your car takes you to your highway exit, an alert sounds letting you know you need to take over again. Once on the slower, mixed-use boulevards shared with cyclists and pedestrians, you have to do the work. You are still responsible to keep your eye out for the kiddo chasing their ball into the street.

Many folks are pushing for elimination of cars or at least a significant reduction in cars. Many of these same folks see a future of mass-adoption of mass transit. I just don’t see that happening quite the way some imagine. I think cars will long be an important part of our transportation infrastructure. With as much money as we’ve built into that infrastructure we’d be awfully wasteful to try and abandon that or replace it. Rather we should aim for making the automobiles themselves more efficient. We should also aim for more efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

Ending Ethanol Subsidies

The Senate voted 73-27 to repeal the $5 billion annual subsidy, just two days after rejecting an identical measure. The tax credit provides 45 cents a gallon to oil refiners who mix gasoline with ethanol, a renewable, liquid fuel additive that comes mainly from corn in the U.S.

The Senate voted last week to end $5 billion in subsidies for corn ethanol. This is a good thing.

I’m all for alternative fuels. I’m all for biofuels. But corn ethanol in America is a propped up industry that is raising the price of corn. This rise in corn feed is creating a rise in prices for other types of grains. The states is only seeing this through a few extra cents on a loaf of bread. But in the middle east (where I currently live) I’m seeing prices of bread double (the bread only costs a few cents in the first place).

Government subsidizing of corn ethanol has had so many unintended consequences it should have been stopped a long time ago. Let me name a few:

  • Grain prices are now tied to the volatility of fuel prices
  • The massive increase in corn planting (a row crop) is created more soil erosion
  • Row crops also allow a far larger amount of nitrates to entire the watershed

    • We need to be exploring sustainable forms of alternative fuels and biofuels. Boeing is doing just that.

    A final excerpt:

    The measure passed Thursday would end the tax credit immediately. It would also repeal a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which restricts imports, mainly from Brazil.
    “The best way for ethanol to survive is to stand on its own two feet, without spending something we don’t have to get something we’re going to have anyway,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

    Coburn nailed it. I sure hope this passes in the House as well.

    Northeast Corridor Privatization

    Representative John Mica (R-Florida) and Representative Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) have proposed opening Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor route to the private sector.

    The short story is that the Northeast Corridor would be taken away from Amtrak and taken over by the USDOT. In turn, the USDOT would lease the corridor to a newly created Northeast Corridor Committee. This Committee would then take bids from interested private-sector parties to operate and develop the corridor. This is basically taking the template for private operations of a toll road and extending to a rail line. I think there are some merits to the idea. It brings an element of competition to the corridor. It ensure further development, improvement, and efficiency along the corridor.

    The proposal does not give a lot of specifics… and there are a lot of specific questions that need answering before moving forward with something like this. Here’s a few from Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic:

    How would intercity rail operators interact with the freight and commuter railroads that also use the tracks, in the Northeast and elsewhere? If a PPP were implemented, how much would the government agree to commit to pay for improvements?

    I’m all for trying to put as much of our transportation infrastructure into private operation as possible. However, it needs to be a well-thought-out action. I see how the Northeast Corridor Committee is going to be structured (see page 10, starting with line 4) and it’s clear to me that politics will trump solutions.

    I’m afraid though that this proposal will be scorned by Democrats (who in general think its a bad thing to place “public” services into private hands) before its even give much thought. Rather than just shooting it down why not give it some thought? Poke some holes in the idea and let Mr. Mica and Mr. Shuster try again.

    Even Ray Lahood is pretty much dismissing this:

    At present, we believe Amtrak is the entity most capable of taking the next steps to modernize rail service in the Northeast Corridor, which is why the administration has serious concerns about any proposal to privatize Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. The administration also has the responsibility to ensure that taxpayer investments are protected and well-managed.

    Is Amtrak currently an example of well-managed taxpayer assets? Let’s be honest. The system currently in place is broken. Amtrak, as it stands now, is not the solution to our countries rail-transportation needs.

    I’d actually favor the reverse of what Mr. Mica proposes. Lets allow Amtrak to quit operating all their routes that generate massive loss. Lets give them the chance to focus on the routes they can make profitable. Make them the Northeast Corridor Committee.

    “Freedom from Oil”

    Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) has released a report titled Freedom From Oil via the Livable Communities Task Force. This report further expounds on Problem No. 4 from our list, Dependence on Foreign Oil. The report also offers some potential solutions.

    High gasoline prices have once again demonstrated how dependent American households are on oil. Coping with road networks and development patterns that for the past century have been built to make driving the preferred and often only means of transportation, Americans are suddenly held hostage to a diminishing and increasingly expensive resource to live their daily lives.

    Indeed, the government has built a road network and actively promoted development patters that now find us tied to a volatile natural resource. So when is the government going to get out of the way? When are they going stop disproportionately funding road projects? When are local zoning commissions going to allow more mixed-use development? These problems are going to take time to solve.

    In the short term, I think that the continued volatility and rising of gas prices is going to help push research and development toward all-electric cars. Hybrids will ease the pain of rising prices, but all-electric vehicles will eliminate it. Such a shift would allow to continue using the infrastructure already in place as well. I think this trend is already starting with cars like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, and Toyota RAV4.

    American dependence on oil is not necessarily a result of preference as much as policy and investment in the infrastructure to create car-dependent communities.

    So many folks are often quick to blame our culture for our car obsession. People are “culturally attached” to automobiles. However, I think the above statement is the crux of the matter. Policy and investment in infrastructure make cars the clear choice for most people. Our subdivisions, schools, supermarkets, and malls are based on zoning structures geared toward driving to get from Point A to Point B.

    I’m a little disappointed with the Federal Policy Recommendations put forth in this report though. Most of them consist of more government-meddling. Government policy, partially due to the fact that Politics Trumps Solutions, often suffers the law of unintended consequences. That’s how we got to the point of car-focused policy and investment we are in now.

    A few of the better ideas:

    1. Continue to increase fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles, which could save drivers the equivalent of $1.00-1.70 per gallon of gas.
    2. Set clear national priorities for our transportation system, including a strategy and performance measures for reducing oil consumption.
    3. Promote Pay-As-You-Drive insurance, allowing consumers to pay less if they drive less.

    A good report. Well worth reading. I’m still polishing off the last of it.

    Responding to Incentives

    We should assume that consumers act rationally given the incentives that they face. Repealing the policies that have shaped current behavior such as undervalued public parking, density restrictions, and tax breaks for homeowners will result in people moving closer to their work places and driving less.

    Emily Washington at Market Urbanism has a great piece on the long commutes that so many people choose.

    I agree with her assumption mentioned above… that is that consumers act rationally based on the incentives in place.

    I chose to buy a house and move out amidst the sprawl when I lived in Indianapolis. After getting married and in preparation for having children we bought a house in the suburbs. Government policy favors this decision. Property taxes were lower. Purchasing the house gave us a smaller payment than rent in the city.

    After living there for a few years gas prices started rising. My wife drove a Honda Civic, but I drove a 4×4 Toyota truck. I finally broke down and bought another Honda Civic for my commute.

    Why? Why didn’t I move closer to my office? Why didn’t I move closer to one of the bus routes? Because the government subsidizes the road infrastructure. Zoning laws promote low-density sprawling suburban developments. Tax law gives an advantage to those who take out a mortgage to buy a home.

    I think governmental incentives, and all their unintended consequences, are responsible for the so-called “irrational” decisions made by people when it comes to residences and commutes. Am I silly for thinking that, if governmental incentives are removed, people will naturally move into more dense housing areas that reduce their commute and travel times.

    Politics in Transportation Funding

    Yonah Freemark over at The Transport Politic laments the broken funding structure of transportation projects:

    But in a country where the vast majority of people drive to fulfill the majority of their transport needs, it would be politically untenable to suggest that most roads money be transferred to transit users.

    True. We spend money on gas to fuel our cars. We pay gas tax when we fuel our cars. We expect that tax to better the driving environment for our cars. Pretty simple relationship.

    Nonetheless, the American transport funding mechanism is routed in the user fee, a product of a certain logic that assumes that people should pay for what they use.

    I disagree here. Our transport funding mechanism isn’t entirely rooted in a user fee… it’s rooted in a gas tax. If it’s a user fee then it’s predicated upon the wrong idea, that the good I’m using is gas. The reality is that I’m using infrastructure. Gas is my fuel, but when I drive from point A to B I’m consuming the infrastructure. I’m placing wear and tear on the infrastructure.

    If I buy a Nissan Leaf I suddenly stop paying the gas tax… but I’m still consuming the infrastructure. If Doc Brown installs a “Mr. Fusion” unit in his Delorean he stops paying the gas tax… but he still consumes the infrastructure. That’s why a true user fee is a good idea. The logic “that assumes that people should pay for what they use” is the right logic. It’s just distorted through Disparate Funding Structures (one of our main problems).

    Yonah finishes by throwing out two solutions to the funding structure problem:

    But a right-headed long-term approach would require that either we pull the national government out of the transport financing game altogether, or that we pull away from the direct connection between highway user fee collections and spending.

    I think he’s on the right track when he mentions pulling the national government out of the transport financing “game.” Such an appropriate word there. One of our other main problems, the fact that Politics Trumps Solutions, has turned our transportation funding into a game where the States are unwitting contestants in a sort of Survivor-esque reality show.

    Now, how do we go about pulling the national government out of the “game?”

    “Moving Things”

    Another transportation blog I recently discovered, Cap’n Transit, has started an interesting series of articles on “moving things,” ie. freight hauling. You should read these little snippets. I especially appreciate some of the information and data he links to in these articles.

    One quote caught my attention:

    Reducing highway and fuel subsidies is one way to make the cost of trucking more apparent.

    This is touching on a solution to one of our problems, the True Costs are Hidden. Fuel taxes (with generous help from the general federal budget) fund our highway infrastructure and therefore hide some of the costs associated with shipping freight or transporting people by car.

    We need to reduce the subsidies to the highways and at the same time require shipping companies (and motorists perhaps) to directly fund the infrastructure they are using. This will put the different modes of “moving things” on more equal footing.

    Privatized Transportation Works

    Dave Talley, superintendent of Norfolk Southern’s Lake Division, wrote a great op-ed in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

    The freight rail network has been a bright spot in a troubled economy. That’s because freight railroads, unlike trucks, airlines or barges, have been using private capital to invest in the rail network and facilities in northeast Indiana and around the country.

    A small caveat here. The railroads do use some federal money through FRA grants that seem to generally be dispersed through state DOT’s. If you look through these grants though, the dollar amounts are a fraction of the capital that the railroads put into their own infrastructure.

    All the same, Dave’s point is important. These private companies, the freight railroads, have shown amazing resiliency in the midst of economic problems. They aren’t waiting around for a bailout.

    Even through the recession, railroads such as Norfolk Southern steadfastly have stayed committed to providing safe, reliable, efficient and affordable service, employing people in well-paying jobs that support families and communities.

    Safe, reliable, efficient, affordable. Can we say these same things about our public transportation and its infrastructure? Not always.

    …since 1980, freight rail industry has invested $480 billion to maintain and modernize the nation’s rail network so taxpayers don’t have to.

    Looking ahead, these investments are not slowing down. In 2011, freight railroads plan to spend a record $12 billion of their own money on capital expenditures – on things like upgrading tracks, new fuel-efficient locomotives and new intermodal facilities.

    Yeah, the $1 million and $5 million grants listed on the federal grants site don’t really touch the figure the railroads are fronting on their own.