The Transportationist

From Well Blog - NYTimes Is Bicycling Bad for Your Bones? . Seems to apply only to racing cyclists, but still raises questions about the healthiness of active transportation.

Posted by David Levinson at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have argued that economics is a subset of transport economics, since transport economics includes time and space, and deals with the movement of many goods, while economics tends to be aspatial (and to a lesser extent atemporal) and focus on one good, money. The objective of this post is to suggest the equivalent of two fundamental relationships in two similar but largely unconnected fields, traffic engineering and macro-economics. These are the equation of exchange and the fundamental relationship of traffic.

The fundamental relationship of traffic says: Q=KV.
where:
Q =flow (veh/hr) = Motorcars/Time (motorcars/time)
K= density (veh/km) = Motorcars/Distance
V_t = transportation velocity (km/hr) = Distance/Time

or in other words, dimensionally:
(M/D)(D/T) = M/T

The equation of exchange says: MV_e=PY
where (quoting and rephrasing wikipedia):
M = the total amount of money in circulation on average in an economy during the period, say a year
V_e = economic velocity, or the velocity of money in final expenditures. (number of times a unit of money is spent in a given time period, e.g. a year). This differs from V_t.
P = the price level associated with transactions for the economy during the period
Y = total output per unit time.

We achieve equivalence if MV=PY can be mapped to KV = Q

First, let us assume that PY is the output, or GDP, this can be mapped directly to Q or motorcars per time

MV_e=PY -> KV_t = Q

where PY -> Q

So does MV_e map to KV_t ?

money supply * number of times money turns over per year =?= (number of motorcars / distance) * (distance / time)

So assuming money supply is a stock like the number of motorcars, and economic velocity V_e is in units of time^-1, then it maps.

This equation is important in economics to understand inflation. If the money supply increases without any change in real output Y, than the price level must increase (if economic velocity V_eis fixed), or the price level can remain constant if the velocity slows down (as in a recession when people spend less).

The equivalent in transportation suggests that if the number of cars in a system increases, and output flow remains constant, then a queue forms and velocity slows.

Other interpretations?

References:

Wikipedia: Quantity theory of money
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics - money, classical theory of

Posted by David Levinson at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via AH: Highway deaths fall in 2009, lowest since '61

By KEN THOMAS , Associated Press
Last update: July 2, 2009 - 11:07 AM

WASHINGTON - Fewer people died on the nation's highways during the first three months of 2009 as motor vehicle fatalities continued to fall to levels not seen in nearly a half-century.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Thursday about 7,689 motorists were killed in the months of January through March, a 9 percent decline from a year ago.

Reporting ahead of the July 4 holiday, a busy period on the nation's roadways, the government estimated that 37,261 motorists died in 2008, the fewest since 1961. If the 2009 fatality trends continue, fewer than 31,000 people will die this year.

In short, recession saves lives. Some other things help too.

Posted by David Levinson at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From Ars Technica: Chicago 'burb ditches red light cameras, no safety advantage

Update: A person "familiar with the matter" in Schaumburg says the city largely decided to get rid of the camera due to complaints from out-of-towners who wanted to shop at Woodfield Mall, and Schaumburg didn't want to ruin its image of being a "suburban shopping mecca."

Posted by David Levinson at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

William Gibson's Neuromancer defines cyberspace as a "consensual illusion" obtained when a user "jacks into" the network. Plans for cities are also consensual illusions, a community agreed upon vision of how the city will look at some future date. Planners are but illusionists, creating and shaping a fantasy for a how city imagines itself, and through this consensus, harnessing the positive feedback processes of public and private investments aiming to achieve self-fulfilling prophesies. By promising networks, development will come; by promising demand, infrastructure will come.

Posted by David Levinson at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Riding for a conference from the Portland airport to Portland State University on Light Rail Transit (LRT) and then streetcar gave me time to reflect on the Elysian Fields of transportation engineering, the Nirvana of networks and nexi.

Portland, Oregon is one of the major battlegrounds in the mode wars (car vs. transit and the internecine rail vs. bus). It has since the 1980s been held up by planners as the exemplar American city that does almost everything right. The foremost thing they do right in the view of the planning establishment is promoting LRT and bicycling.

The fascination with rail transit in particular (especially as compared with bus) was something I have never quite grokked. As a rational observer with formal training in transportation, I have had a hard time understanding the emotional relationship people have with rail. Why do people like LRT more than bus? Is it simply how we operate them, or that it is modern capital, or is there a psychological benefit associated with deterministic tracks vs. widely diverging roads? There are lots of theories on the matter, I will identify a few below.

1. Ride quality. The quality of the ride on an LRT is smoother and less herky-jerky than a bus, and passengers have a nicer facility.

2. Navigability. It is hard to navigate current US bus systems, while the fewer number of rail lines are fairly easy to figure out. Because trains cannot steer, they cannot get lost the way a bus can.

3. Speed. Trains are faster than local buses, especially if they have their own right of way and few stations.

4. Permanence. I can make a permanent investment decision based on the location of rail lines, as the transit system is committed to this line, while a bus line may be temporary.

5. Nostalgia. People who like LRT recall (or wish they could recall) the immediately post-World War II America when streetcars were at a maximum. 1946 was a magical period in US history, a boom following the long depression, when streetcar networks if not at a maximum were really close. (Coupled with a conspiracy theory about their removal)

6. Sexuality. This is part of the theory presented by Jonathan Richmond's in his book Transport of Delight and earlier paper The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los Angeles. The image of the train entering the tunnel clearly evokes a primal response.

There are logical rejoinders for the first four (though not the nostalgia or sexuality argument I suppose), the most obvious is that if you spent the kind of money you are spending on rail on buses instead, and operated them better, buses would be quite nice. Navigability could be improved with a bit of thought (and trains can divert), while permanence of the last generation of streetcars (1887-1954) clearly was temporary.

The theory I have now adopted comes from my recent trip from Minneapolis to Portland accessing the airport at both ends via LRT, and then riding the Portland streetcar almost full circle. Rail transit forms an urban superstructure. Guideway transit, esp. LRT makes the city more like a single structure, and makes everything seem closer. The LRT vehicle is continuously running, and if activities are along the path of the vehicle, everything seems quite coordinated. In a way by organizing activities linearly (or multi-linearly), it simplifies the city. Hopping on a train is much like getting on an elevator.

LRT, like walking indoors, keeps you enveloped within civilization, while walking, biking, or driving is a frontier experience, you alone in the wilderness. (And bus falls in-between). We can posit that distances within buildings seem shorter than distances between buildings (Some literature along the notions of this idea exist, see Tversky, but it is not directly on point). Distances connected by the urban superstructure will likely feel closer than those which are not so connected. Walking through a modern airport, or the Minneapolis Skyway, will tell you enveloped distances can be quite large, but still not feel as large as leaving one building into nature for another.

Preferences for civilization or frontier-crossing (or degree of each) vary across individuals. Driving of course places you in a machine, but you, not civilization, are operating the machine, so just as driving is freedom, not everyone wants that freedom to drive, they may prefer freedom from driving. The extent to which you believe in the importance of community over individuals (or vice versa) will affect your perception of the issue.

( LRT may also be more popular than traditional underground subway (Metro) systems. People of course like being able to walk out the door and step onto a train more than having to descend through the gates of hell, Metro to get to the underground subterranean system. There are many reasons, not least of which is the extra time and energy required to so descend. The advantages in principle are faster point to point travel time, but that depends on the access cost vs. the in-motion speed. )

Transit invokes further passions because of the positive feedback loop between ridership, revenue, and route frequency, especially where transit is weak as in much of the US. My riding transit creates a positive externality for you (more riders, shorter headways, and more routes), so of course if you ride transit, you want to impose your preference on me. It is only selfishly rational. Further cars use scarce roadspace. While similar feedback loops may exist on the highway side (more drivers means more closely spaced roads), congestion mitigates that and the network is largely built out, so drivers do not feel the same need to impose their modal preference on the transit riding minority. Finally, drivers may benefit in the short term if other drivers take transit. (Where transit is already congested and frequent, additional riders produce few positive externalities as diminishing returns set in).

Posted by David Levinson at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Our Value Capture for Transportation Finance study is now out.

• Policy Summary
• Report to the Minnesota Legislature

Detailed reports will be placed online soon.

About the Study

Large public investments in state transportation infrastructure--such as new freeway interchanges, highways, or transit stations--can increase the value of adjacent private land, sometimes substantially. Capturing the value of this benefit through various tools is gaining interest as a finance mechanism for infrastructure investments. But many questions remain: Does "value capture" promote or hinder economic development? How high should the tax rate be? How stable is the revenue?

To answer these and other questions, the state legislature appropriated funding to CTS to study the public policy implications of value capture.

Researchers reviewed the relationship between transportation and land values, including the measurement of benefits from a transportation improvement, as well as the legal and economic frameworks for capturing the value gains. They explored the major financing techniques associated with value capture--such as joint development of infrastructure and adjacent private parcels, rezoning and reselling, impact fees, special assessment districts, and tax increment financing--and some examples of their implementation. They then evaluated several of the proposed policies and their suitability for implementation locally, based on the criteria of economic efficiency, social equity, adequacy as a revenue source, and feasibility.

Posted by David Levinson at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via MPR news, It's one thing to get your ticket punched a response by LRT Muggee Chuck Laszewski.

Posted by David Levinson at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Finance and Commerce Cities reconsider options as concrete-asphalt cost gap narrows. MARQ/2 Project in Minneapolis (busway and road reconstruction) will go with concrete.

Posted by David Levinson at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From NY Times Nothing to Hide in Airline's Campaign. Really. an interesting tact by Air New Zealand. Not as far as the now deceased Hooters Air.

Posted by David Levinson at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Bus schedules are public data, aren't they?

From VentureBeat
Apple kills Routesy app, my iPhone gets less useful

Apparently, predictions of bus arrival times are not necessarily public data (this is disputed), so NextBus Information Systems (now separate from NextBus) has had the Routesy application for the iPhone killed.
Discussion here and here. (and a response here

Too bad it has come to this, NextBus had a nice thing going in Emeryville in the late 1990s.

Posted by David Levinson at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I noticed two people have been killed by garbage trucks in Minnesota in the past few weeks, and did a google search for the phrase "killed by garbage truck", it is not as uncommon as it may seem, or as it should be. A sampling from the first few pages of the Google search below:

• St. Paul artist killed by garbage truck 6/26/09

• 5-year-old killed by garbage truck in Brooklyn Center (Minnesota) (6/4/09)

• Man killed by garbage truck (Sydney) 4/10/09

• Downtown Worker Killed By Garbage Truck (Des Moines) 11/7/08

• Woman Killed by Garbage Truck in Dupont (bike) (Washington) 7/8/08

• Pedestrian on Farmingdale campus killed by garbage truck (New York) (5/26/08)

• NSW: Sydney Dance Company director killed by garbage truck (8/17/07)

• San Rafael man struck, killed by garbage truck in Sausalito 6/4/07

• Child Hit, Killed by Garbage Truck (Las Vegas) 1/27/07. From the article some more evidence:

  In December of 2004, 19-year-old Ashley Ipock was hit and killed when a Republic truck driver slammed into the back of Ashley's mother's SUV.

  In October of 2006, 3-year-old girl Ditavea Hankston was critically injured when a Republic Services track slammed into the car she was in that was stopped at a red light, crushing the back seat. Police say the driver was not paying attention and couldn't stop in time. They cited him with five traffic violations, including failure to use due care.

  The child was in the hospital for two months. When she came home she could not speak, or move on her own.
  

• Toddler Killed By Garbage Truck (Denver) 11/28/05

• Mount Pleasant bicyclist hit, killed by garbage truck. (Charleston) (12/23/03)

I could not find a systematic database of these (which is not to say no one is tracking this, I just don't know). So the question is, are these random tragedies, or is there a systematic problem (lack of safety equipment on trucks, poor driver training, poor pedestrian/bicyclist training)?

Posted by David Levinson at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Light-rail mugging suspects are charged in string of attacks

following up on Ex-transit reporter mugged at light-rail stop

Posted by David Levinson at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On June 24th, MnDOT held a "Long-Range Funding Solutions Symposium" to examine issues associated with the long-term funding of transportation. I was asked to be a discussant. These are my comments in extended form.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the topics raised today.

First, MnDOT has identified $50 Billion of unfunded "needs" for additional resources of which 86% are for the purpose of "mobility" over the next 20 years. I am not clear as to how these needs were identified, but several points should be kept in mind. First, this is a slow-growing region (and outside the Metro a declining state). It has 5 million people now, and at best is growing at about 1 percent per year. Second, per-capita Vehicle Miles Traveled has been flat for almost a decade, and overall VMT growth has been flat for about half a decade. There are several reasons for this, most recently recession and high gas prices, but I think the most important is market saturation. if speeds are not growing (because we have maxed out the network given current technologies and face diminishing marginal returns to new road construction), and people have finite time, they choose not to devote additional time to travel (and thus distance). Fortunately, since the I-35W Bridge Collapse, MnDOT has adopted a "fix it first" approach, so that system preservation, operations, and maintenance get the largest share of the existing budget, and comprise the first funded element of needs.

We cannot know what "needs" for mobility are if we have an unpriced (or underpriced) transportation system. People will always over-consume if they are subsidized, and people do not presently pay for the congestion externality they impose on others. Once we have something like marginal cost pricing (or a second-best version thereof), we can determine which links generate more revenue than they cost to operate and maintain, and that will signal where capacity should be added, where the benefits of added capacity outweigh the costs.

Another way of thinking about what $50 billion means is that Minnesota is a state of 5 million people, so that amounts to $10000 of new construction for each resident of Minnesota (because this is above and beyond the funded part which takes care of preservation (we hope)). Over 20 years, $10000 per capita is $500 per year, or about $0.50 per trip. But that $0.50 per trip is not to pay for existing infrastructure, that is to pay for new infrastructure those travelers may or may not use; or if we were to charge users, we would be looking at 10 to 100 times as much per trip, as the new capacity built for $50 billion will serve only 10% to 1% of trips, most trips will continue to use pre-existing infrastructure.

We could also talk about mobility vs. accessibility, and why is it important to enhance mobility, but that is another long discussion, and the reader is referred to the Access to Destinations study for details.

Attention is a scarce resource, spending time on non-starters like $50 Billion in "mobility" needs detracts from real problems with existing infrastructure.

In short, the $50 Billion suggested comprises Wants not Needs. (as Jim Erkel calls it the Rolling Stones theory of transportation finance ... You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need).

Second, we need to re-examine the institutional structure of transportation funding and administration. We should consider a public utility model where a transportation authority or utility with independence from the legislation and executive branch of government determines how much is required to maintain (and as necessary expand) the transportation system, with oversight from a Public Utility Commission or similar. This would resemble how Natural Gas and Electricity and Water and Sewer in many places are currently delivered. Like those, transportation is a utility that has costs that users should bear as directly as possible. The user fee notion would be embedded into the governance structure of such a transportation authority. The British might call this a Transportation Trust. We could consider how this is organized at different levels of government (keeping state and local separate or bringing them together?)

Third, Value Capture has not been fairly characterized in the presentation made today. If we do not have road user fees, transportation creates value for land-owners. (If we do have marginal cost user fees, a closed system, and invest the revenue in transportation, making some simplifying assumptions, we would not have additional land value associated with investment (in the absence of agglomeration economies)). Since we do not have road user fees, value is created. Several of the methods proposed by the value capture study hold promise for financing transportation systematically, not just at the project level.

Fourth, in the short-term (next decade or so), gas taxes, indexed and adjusted appropriately should be used to fund transportation, as they are administratively much more efficient than road user charges. They have several advantages: foremost they are cheaper to collect than most of the proposed VMT charges. An annual odometer reading is certainly a similar alternative, but that does not have the environmental benefits of discouraging motor fuel consumption and encouraging better mileage. Ultimately as the fleet becomes electrified, the gas tax becomes a better and better incentive to move in that direction. If today 100% of the drivers use gas and pay for 100% of roads (which I recognize is not strictly the case at the state level, but is simply illustrative), and next year only 50% of drivers used gasoline, the remaining 50% would pay for all of the roads by doubling the gas tax. That provides a somewhat stronger incentive to switch to electricity. If the following year another 25% switch to electricity, than 75% use electric and 25% use fuel and pay the motor fuel tax, which is now 4 times as high. Eventually this becomes unsustainable as the last drive of a gasoline-powered car could not possibly afford 100% of the road system's costs, but in the meantime the incentive works in the right direction for the environment, and since government is always a lagging indicator, retaining the gas tax for as long as tenable should be considered the near term solution, with continuing research into road pricing, additional demonstration, and deployment of select strategies like High Occupancy Toll lanes. See Beyond the gas tax for a further discussion.

At any rate, as I have learned today, in Minnesota transit funding depends on the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, so I will do my part to help fund transit and buy a car.

Posted by David Levinson at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just found out that professor Paul Wright, who taught me the Introduction to Transportation Engineering course at Georgia Tech, passed away.

The transportation professoriate has a lost a number of giants in the past two years:

• David Forkenbrock of Iowa,
  
• Ed Sullivan of Cal-Poly San Luis Obispo,
  
• Ryuichi Kitamura of Kyoto and Davis,
  
• Reg Golledge of UCSB,
  
• Charles Lave of Irvine, and
  
• Tom Maze of Iowa State.
  

(updated 6/23 w. Reg Golledge, 6/24 w/Charlie Lave)

Posted by David Levinson at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)