A holistic view of "rush hour"

[frogcycle]

Holistic: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary).

If our nation were a corporation with a profit motive, we would not have the absurdities we do today. In particular, with respect to energy consumption, the infrastructure that has been built over the past many decades would never have happened. We would not have torn up the interurban rail systems, would not have ever-wider massive concrete ribbons like octopus arms around every major city, would not have the choking gridlock morning and night.

If the nation as a whole were to be viewed as a business providing goods and services to outside customers (the rest of the world), then it would look at the cost of producing those goods and services and manage intelligently. It would not allow suboptimization, where one "department" makes a profit at the expense of another and to the detriment of the enterprise as a whole.

This is applicable in many areas, but my focus for this blog is specifically rush hour commuter transportation. To produce those goods and services, we need to obtain raw materials, move them from place to place, process them into salable goods, then move those to market. We need to move the employees around to facilitate their participating in the processing, either directly or in support roles (hr, finance, healthcare, etc.). We need to feed, clothe, house, and provide healthcare to those employees.

A business facing this challenge would NOT decide to concentrate huge numbers of employees in high-density areas with highrise offices, have them live in single-family homes a few dozen (or more) miles away, and drive a vehicle burning imported fuel sitting on overcrowded highways morning and night to go to and from those offices. It is just stupid.

That business, if a good case could be made for needing all those people to work in those offices, would find the most cost-effective means of getting them there. That means using the least possible externally-purchased fuel; spending the least possible on paving highways, and having them waste the least possible productive time sitting behind a steering wheel.

We as a society justify building highways as a common need. But we balk at building mass transportation. People make a lot of money building highways. People make money building cars. So our "business" is sub-optimized. One department is turning a profit, while another is hemorrhaging red ink, and the business as a whole is going bankrupt.

All the talk of increasing CAFÉ standards, of encouraging hybrids and alternative fuels is all well and good. But it will take years to have any significant effect on the problem. Increasing the fuel efficiency of a car from 20 mpg to 40 mpg is a great goal; but when it is sitting idling in traffic, it is far less efficient than its rating. Getting cars off the road, getting the occupants onto a bus or a train, is something that can make a dramatic difference quickly.

We need to look at this as an extension of the mindset that building roads is justified. We need to build remote parking facilities, dedicate express lanes, and deploy fleets of energy-efficient buses (rail systems as well, but the costs and time to construct make those a secondary option). This is something that can be launched immediately. The resistance to public transportation is largely bogus - people say they like the "convenience" of coming/going on their own schedule, without depending on a timetable. What the heck is "convenient" about sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic an hour or more morning and night? And if you DO need to go somewhere during the day, what is wrong with a cab - or a company having a fleet of loaner cars available?

I have not done the math; it seems almost pointless. The difference in energy consumed per person-mile by having people on buses vs. in individual cars is huge.

All we need to do to start getting a quick payback in reduced oil imports is deploy the buses. Give them priority lanes, both on the highways and downtown. Perhaps add fleets of downtown shuttles as well. This is already in place, but it is generally viewed as a second-class-citizen necessary evil. It needs to become the norm.

Charge for the ride, sure, but make it reasonable. The overall cash flow is the key. If the business (the country) is benefiting through reduced oil import, with the attendant reduction in political issues, improvement to air quality, improvement to quality of life of the people, then this is a good investment. It should not be sub-optimized; it might be that a straight cost analysis in a particular market says it costs more to build the parking lots and buy the buses than just to repave the highway and muddle on. It might be that a municipality is currently in a cash crunch and can't make the changes locally. We as a nation need to say this is our responsibility. We need to be more efficient to stay competitive in the world market. That is, we as a nation need to reduce dependence on foreign oil - fast!

I suggest a two-part approach on a national level:

First, kick-start the bus manufacture. We have companies that can build them; they struggle to get cash-starved municipalities to pay enough to make it worthwhile. We need, as a nation, to consider the manufacture and deployment of those buses as important to our national interest as is the manufacture of armored humvees, or fighter planes. Whatever form the overall package needs to take, do it. If the federal government buys them and gives them to a city, well, maybe that's not so bad. They equip the National Guard with vehicles, don't they (well, at least theoretically)?

Second, kick-start the infrastructure. More incentives in highway funding to provide express lanes, satellite parking, and downtown shuttles.

There is a certain "if you build it they will come" aspect to this - once the buses are running so frequently (full or not) that the convenience factor is mitigated, people will use them. But there is nothing wrong with getting a little heavy-handed about it. Chicago is currently considering a tax on commuters - $15/day to drive into the city. I say good for them. That would pay for a lot of suburban parking lots, if a holistic approach spanning multiple municipalities could be taken.

The most compelling argument to be made for this is it requires NO new technology! Just do it! Improving the infrastructure can come with time - better shuttles, better efficiency of the buses, etc. We just need to force the paradigm shift - make "rush hour traffic" obsolete.

This is low-hanging fruit! A quick payback in reduction of oil imports, in reduction of fossil fuel burning, in quality of life to many people, and even a shot in the arm to auto manufacturers to build buses and shuttles.

And getting traffic below the gridlock level will mean that those who for whatever reason do need to drive can do so at reasonable, fuel-efficient speeds.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I love how many buses are using alternative fuel/power too.

[valerief]

2. School busses cause morning drive delays of a half hour or more for

me and ALL the polluting cars on the road. It's the "stop at every house, wait for mama and kiddie to cross the street, and wait for momma to cross back" delay.

I swear ExxonMobil invented schoolbuses.

[frogcycle]

5. I've tried and tried

to figure out the point of this response.

I, too, am inconvenienced by school buses. The stop and go while kids amble to their seats can be infuriating. But what does it have to do with my post?

is it that school buses inconvenience you so buses are bad so we should not put more of them on the expressways to reduce the congestion?

is it that school buses are a pet peeve, so when you saw the word "bus" you just had to fire off a sound bite?

[Vodid]

3. Good!

Your thinking is on the right track. Thanks for writing this. The implementation, I'm afraid, will require us to be in even more desperate times before any changes can or will be made.

[frogcycle]

4. Not really

It is just getting the fed to stimulate the paradigm shift. Yes, it means expenditures, but it is spending money to pay American companies to build buses and providing incentives to cities - which don't have to call for any additional spending - just put "strings" on fed highway funds already being spent

The key is to not have it seen as "welfare for poor people" which is what the right wing would say. democratic spendthrifts giving buses to minorities - even (gasp!) immigrants!

The people in all those gridlocked cars are largely middle/upper income suburbanites. They hate the time they spend doing that. The Chicago area Metra trains are generally packed. People WILL use it, and as long as the righties see it as something they benefit from...

Of course there are lots of commuters who travel to/from locations or at times such that this won't work for them. No big deal. I'm not saying tear up the roads - just relieve the pressure at the worst points. If it reduced oil imports by a tangible amount, it could drive gas prices down for everyone.

One reason for high prices is when consumption exceeds the refining capacity, then the oil companies buy elsewhere at higher cost. I don't mean to start a discussion of whether they should increase capacity (they should) - I'm just being pragmatic. Get consumption below that breakpoint, take some of the pressure out of the system, and everybody benefits.