Via Planetizen:
Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks (see pages 4-8). Many of those in the exit lane will be low income Americans from households earning less than $25,000 per year. Incredibly, over 10 million of those American households own more than one car.
Soon they won’t own any.
More fundamentally, the freeways are about to get less congested. Not only will the number of vehicle registrations in the United States not grow over the next four years, but by 2012 there should be roughly 10 million fewer vehicles on the road in America than there are today. For the past half century, America has spent the bulk of its infrastructure money on building highways—only to see that soon, $7 per gallon gasoline prices will lead to fewer and fewer people using them.”
The CRC wouldn’t even be open for business in four years, but this report predicts sweeping changes in even that short period of time. However, taken with all of the other information we have about the CRC and the region’s future in particular, should we stop the project in it’s tracks? Or, knowing that the cost of construction materials will only increase and that the region’s population may close to double or even triple over the next 50 years (Metro projections of 3.2M to 6.2M residents in 2060 pdf), would it prove to be smarter and more forward-thinking if we just built the CRC now? Although experts may expect traffic to decrease over the next few years, at some point the overall growth in our region will cause traffic to eventually exceed present levels, so do we seize this opportunity (i.e., federal funding) to build the bridge now or deal with it later? Without the bridge, how long until we reach that point where traffic will again exceed present levels?
Personally, while I feel a 12-lane bridge is overkill for what is actually a four to six lane highway, I do believe that additional road capacity will be required in the future. The current gas crisis may allow us to put this off for awhile, but eventually we’re going to need the capacity, if only for freight. Today I would still choose to save our resources for other, higher-priority projects (sorry, the ‘couv, but this really isn’t an important enough problem to warrant siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars away from other needed highway projects in Oregon). Ideally, we revisit this thing within five to ten years and look at a third bridge to replace the railroad crossing in North Portland and/or a fourth crossing in Troutdale. I know it’s not a popular opinion here, but even with gas prices pushing $4.50 (and eventually much, much more), making room for 1.5 – 4 million new residents will inevitably mean additional road capacity, and new connections to Vancouver/east Clark County will do more for distributing that traffic than funneling everybody into the I-5 corridor.
Continue reading Report Predicts ‘Mass Exodus of Vehicles off America’s Highways’
0 responses to “Report Predicts ‘Mass Exodus of Vehicles off America’s Highways’”
A really self contradicting article. If the highways will be less congested, why need bigger ones ? It also suggested that regardless of who wins the election, gas price on the rising will be unstopable. The country has been heading in the very wrong the direction. Let’s advocate for and add more financial burdens to the people in the forms of taxes, fees based on fault logics and incompetent excuses. America, let’s get up and vote out all the incumbents, and elect the Green party.
Building the multi-modal bridge in the BNSF corridor would cost far less than the list of improvements needed for an over crowded I-5. The $3-4 billion is just the tip of the iceberg, IMO, because further improvements on constricted portions further south will eventually be needed–all the way up to the Freeway Loop’s recommendations—unless we develop a third route, NOW. We have to go all the way down to Memphis, TN, population 700,000 before finding a similar metro-region with only two interstate bridges. Building the multi-modal BNSF alternative–essentially extending the I-405 route about a dozen miles further north before it rejoins I-5— gives all that traffic from West Portland, coming in on five major arterials, another way to go north into Washington. Now, there are only two choices on the northbound direction—is it any wonder i-5 is packed?
Plus the multimodal route would enable rail companies and AMTRAK to start improving their service. Expanding I-5 just perpetuates the reliance on moving freight by truck—a deadly tranportation option. Car-truck collisions kill 4200 people/yr.
You left out the fact that with ALL THE MONEY WASTED ON LIGHT RAIL THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC CONGESTION. Portland is a Socialist joke to drive through due to no one taking the lame train.
All the money spent building light rail systems over the past 20 years, including the current construction, does not add up to the projected cost of the highway portion of this one proposed CRC project.
Incidentally, MAX carries over 104,000 weekday boarding rides. The entire transit system, bus and rail (excluding LIFT service), carries over 309,000 boarding rides. While that’s only a percentage of total trips in the region, it’s certainly not “no one”.
Yo Cowboy, show me examples where adding freeway capacity has resulted in a meaningful and sustained reduction in congestion, please. Thanks.
Parkersburg, WV (metro pop ~ 150K) has 5 bridges connecting it to Ohio: 2 freeway and 3 local (one of which–gasp–has tolls!). I think Ron brings up a good point.
Before we do anything, though, I would like to see some cheap maeasures to ensure that all through traffic gets off I-5. This has been discussed here before, but the signage north of Wilsonville really isn’t very clear to someone who has never drive here before (ie, a lot of truckers). In fact, the “map” showing our freeway loop makes I-5 look considerably shorter than taking I-205 (which it is, distance-wise).
I would like to see 2 gigantic signs straddling I-5 about 2 miles south of the 205 split. One that says “Seattle, points north and east: All thru traffic use 205” and another one that says “Central Portland traffic use I-5, EXPECT CONGESTION.” There there is little room for interpretation. The next step is to build a truck stop on 205 that can compete with Jubitz.
nuovorecord: show me an example of using a rail line as a substitute for freeway capacity that has resulted in a meaningful sustained reduction in congestion, please?
Fact is, as long as the population grows, congestion will also grow unless we build enough capacity to keep up with demand. It is unreasonable to expect a significant portion of that new population to use transit so demand for roadway capacity must be met with new roadway capacity.
The only other solution is to reduce the population. Ideas anyone? If you really cared about the environment, pollution, congestion, and “global warming” you would refrain from breeding and kill yourself.
If you really cared […] you would refrain from breeding and kill yourself.
Drop the personal and violent hyperbole. Thanks.
The only way to reduce congestion is to get unemployment over 10%…we did it in ’82-85 here in Oregon. I don’t recommend it. Light rail is a reliable option for people who do not want to be stuck in traffic. Ridership numbers do not lie…unlike the CRC suits. Of course, others choose to continue burning money in their SOVs…hey that’s there choice, but not on my dime. Kill the CRC mega-bridge.
In the very long term I have a hard time imagining that traffic will ever justify a 12 lane bridge. Semi-trucks get single digit mpgs, and there isn’t a lot of room to improve, (making them lighter doesn’t work because the entire point is to move things, in particular, big heavy things, unlike cars who just move 150 lb people.) Hybrid trucks are great if you expect them to sit in stop and go traffic/stop frequently like garbage trucks, but are pretty irrelevant when you are doing 55 mph with cruise control on a freeway. And so you are looking at running 12 lanes worth of single-digit mpg vehicles across a river in a post peak-oil world. And that just isn’t going to happen, there won’t be enough oil to do it. The freight will still travel of course, but it will be move by the railroads…
If light rail doesn’t reduce congestion (it may forestall it), it certainly DOES maintain the option of reliable mobility. This is the critical benefit of high-capacity transit. Freeways will ALWAYS be unreliable, thanks to the high incidence of crashes and other disruptions. Disruptions do, of course, occur on transit as well, but less frequently, and are much more easily averted with proper management and funding. So, while the highways are inevitably going to be jammed up sometimes, the transit lines allow people to move reliably, keeping the city working. Cities without this option rely entirely on their freeway/roadway system, and have much less reliable transport systems as a whole.
As for the predicted drop in VMT, I think we can all agree this will depend on the severity of gas price increases. It is almost certain the result will be a new type of transportation policy, and Portland is poised to be a national leader in the transition. That is only, of course, if Obama is elected.
The only way to reduce congestion is the bubonic plague or something similar, which btw is predicted to hit worldwide at any minute.
“The only way to reduce congestion is the bubonic plague”
CHECK THAT!
World War III would do the trick also!
“As for the predicted drop in VMT, I think we can all agree this will depend on the severity of gas price increases.”
I disagree. I think you are looking at the wrong axis of the demand curve, and it is just confusing the issue. If there is 1% less gasoline in the US next year than this year, (because China bought that 1% or depletion wiped out that 1% or Iran blew that 1% out of the water at the start of WWIII,) then that will push the price up X%. It turns out that that X% increase in gas prices is what it takes to get people will drive 1% less, therefor consuming 1% less fuel. So it doesn’t really matter what exactly X is, (it seems to be around 100.) Of course, in the long term (20+ years,) VMT will increase more if X is higher because cars will get more efficient for the same amount of fuel and it will be worth it to upgrade, but that is a very slow process because cars are expensive and new high efficiency cars even more so.*
But my point is that the shape of the demand curve and the price that settles at is actually irrelevant to the VMT decrease in a short time period, (the 2012 number mentioned in the article,) the only number that is relevant to VMT is the quantity of oil which we (the US) can expect to get our hands on, and we know that is going down. So if you just measure how much it goes down, the VMT drop will be very similar…
*Apparently 25% of car owners owe more money on their cars than they are worth right now. I suspect that many of those people are the people making less than $25k/year.
“”I 1% les(because China bought that 1% or depletion wiped out that 1% or Iran blew that 1% out of the water at the start of WWIII,) then that will push the price up X%. X% in drive 1% less, what exactly X is, (it seems to be around 100.) in the long term (20+ years,) VMT will increase more if X””
LOL!!LOL!!
Mathew, your a trip!
LOL!!
Lenny said: “The only way to reduce congestion is to get unemployment over 10 percent”
The only way to reduce congestion is to STOP population growth.
“Light rail is a reliable option for people who do not want to be stuck in traffic. Ridership numbers do not lie…unlike the CRC suits. Of course, others choose to continue burning money in their SOVs…hey that’s there choice, but not on my dime.”
Moreover, light rail must not be built with subsidies on the dimes of the people who do not use it. One estimate has the cost of Max on the proposed Columbia River Crossing at $9.00 per passenger ride – and that is exactly what the fare per person riding it should be if motorists are to be tolled. The cost of providing bicycle infrastructure per bicyclist rider using the crossing (although so far concealed from the public to support a bicycle agenda) is undoubtedly much higher. That is a reality check real world reason why bicyclists need to be tolled thereby reflecting those costs paying their own way with their own dimes. The lowest cost of provided infrastructure on the crossing per user, SOV’s or otherwise, is still the highway portion – and who knows how the next generation of cars and trucks will be powered. The fuel source will undoubtedly be much cheaper than oil – and unless we want that 10 percent of unemployment, it must be.
And so you are looking at running 12 lanes worth of single-digit mpg vehicles across a river in a post peak-oil world. And that just isn’t going to happen, there won’t be enough oil to do it. The freight will still travel of course, but it will be move by the railroads…
I don’t believe or agree with that for a second. You really think that trucks can’t be powered more efficiently? That we can’t make trucks that will run off of batteries for a full work day?
Plug in trucks are almost an easier thing to solve for than cars, since truck drivers are required to stop every X hours for X number of hours. While the driver recharges, the truck can too.
And hybrids can be good for more than stop and go, that’s just what they’re currently designed for. There’s a number of configurations possible, including the hydraulic one developed by Ford that they’ve discussed using in the next generation F-150. NY City is getting garbage trucks using the technology with a 30 to 50% fuel use and pollution reduction.
Unit wrote: Freeways will ALWAYS be unreliable
Definition of “Always”: 1 : at all times : invariably
2 : forever, perpetually
3 : at any rate : in any event (as a last resort one can always work)
So, to paraphase Unit’s opinion:
“Freeways are (at all times) unreliable”.
Let’s take a look at the current ODOT Speed Map:
Right now, I see a lot of green (meaning traffic is moving per freeway design); some sections of yellow, and red on I-5 north from I-405 to the Interstate Bridge and a little red on 217 south of Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.
It seems that although there are some unreliable segments of the Portland freeway system, that transit likewise suffers from reliability issues that do not make the collective system a total failure. If we are to suggest that improving I-5 is not worthy, then I will argue that improving MAX is not worthy, because in my eyes TriMet has severe reliability issues (on my line 12 bus); therefore the entire system is unworthy of further investment.
NY City is getting garbage trucks using the technology with a 30 to 50% fuel use and pollution reduction.
Yes but as Matthew alluded to the largest benefits of hybrid tech come from stop & go conditions because of regenerative braking. The hydraulic system you describe is exactly that… a means of storing energy from braking for reuse later.
Long-haul trucks will not see the magnitude of efficiency gains from hybrid tech which local delivery and service vehicles will see.
“I don’t believe or agree with that for a second. You really think that trucks can’t be powered more efficiently?”
There are ways, like decreasing rolling resistance, (metal on metal is good) and slowing down, but no, there isn’t a lot more energy that can be pushed out of a diesel fuel on rubber tires traveling at 55 mph.
“That we can’t make trucks that will run off of batteries for a full work day? Plug in trucks are almost an easier thing to solve for than cars, since truck drivers are required to stop every X hours for X number of hours. While the driver recharges, the truck can too.”
They do make battery operated forklifts that can operate all day, but a forklift moves not much faster than a walk and spends a lot of it’s time stationary, and it requires a lot of batteries to do it. (Fortunately in the case of a forklift, it tends to need the weight, so it isn’t a problem.)
The best range on an electric car in production today is 220 miles, or 4 hours at 55 mph. The battery pack weighs 1000 lbs of that 2700 lb car. That works out to 594 lbs-miles/lb battery. Assuming that you didn’t have to beef up the suspension and everything else, (i.e. that the rest of the car stayed 1700 lbs,) if you doubled the size of the battery you’d only get 320 miles out of it, (because the car would now weigh 2700 lbs.) To actually double the range so that it could drive 440 miles would require adding 3900 lbs of batteries to the thing. The batteries alone runs about $50/lb, so the you are looking at $250k for just the batteries on a very aerodynamic vehicle that has no towing capacity, just so you could do 55 mph for 8 hours. (Don’t truck drivers normally work 10s? We’ll ignore that.)
So assuming someone built a truck that was just batteries+cargo, (no sleeper cab, no cab at all, no frame, no anything, except batteries and cargo,) and was just as aerodynamic as a sports car, a truck that could haul a 20 ton load 440 miles on battery power would run $6M for the batteries and weigh 60 tons empty. It would be much easier and cheaper to put that kind of cargo on an electrified train system or a barge or hire people to drag it. (And in any case, we’d run out of Lithium before we built enough battery operated long haul trucks to actually cause congestion anywhere except the charging stations.)
Of course, better batteries would always help, but the Lithium-Ion batteries used to do that 220 mile range were invented 40 years ago, and have finally gotten to the point that they can be made for $50/lb and don’t tend to catch fire, (too often,) so even with the better batteries that are being worked on today, long haul battery operated trucks are still a longs ways off…
Yes but as Matthew alluded to the largest benefits of hybrid tech come from stop & go conditions because of regenerative braking. The hydraulic system you describe is exactly that… a means of storing energy from braking for reuse later.
I thought, that according to Fred Hansen, the benefits of hybrid technology in heavy vehicles simply did not materialize???
Which is it? Is Fred right (and thus if TriMet won’t go hybrid, why should anyone else?) or is he wrong (which I tend to believe; since every other major transit agency in the U.S. disagrees with him)?
Which is it? Is Fred right
I’m not sure why you’re pitting my remarks against Fred Hansen’s.
We were discussing potential long-term benefits from improvements to vehicles, such as from hybrid tech, including the newly-developed hydraulic hybrids, as applied to long-haul trucks.
For heavy urban-use vehicles, including transit buses, these are recent technologies. If TriMet isn’t seeing huge gains, that may be their experience, but as the technology is refined, it should benefit transit vehicles as much as it has cars. (And the results for cars has been sometimes mixed, depending on the model and usage pattern.)
Personally, I’m comfortable with TriMet skipping a generation on hybrid bus technology while other transit systems develop a long-term track record with the technology. (But I *do* agree that TriMet needs to accelerate replacement of the oldest non-low-floor and non-AC buses in it’s fleet, hybrid or not.)
TriMet should be (and I have heard is) looking into using trolley busses. This would be an extremely smart move. They are far more cost effective than slow moving streetcars in that streets do not need to be torn up and totally rebuilt to add rails which consumes a huge amount of energy, and far more efficient than their diesel counter parts that get only 5 miles per gallon. Furthermore, modern day trolley busses are low floor, quiet and have small diesel engines in them so they can be moved to and from the electrified routes and around the maintenance facilities without being connected to overhead wires. Instead of proposing a web of cost prohibitive streetcars, politicians too should be backing the trolley bus option. .
“TriMet should be (and I have heard is) looking into using trolley busses.”
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=196182
Go to page 11.
Bob R. wrote: Personally, I’m comfortable with TriMet skipping a generation on hybrid bus technology while other transit systems develop a long-term track record with the technology.
But there was no objection for TriMet’s early adoption of biodiesel (despite now legitimate concerns about it, including the announcement by several European countries that are back-tracking from implementing more widespread use of the fuel), or objection towards TriMet’s implementation of light rail technology or Portland’s Streetcar?
I can certainly understand hesitation from bleeding-edge technology but TriMet’s hesitation is rather selective – let’s go full-bore when it comes to “rail” projects, but when it comes to bus technology we have to remain behind the times until the technology is “proven”. Hybrid technology in busses is well-proven technology; why would Seattle have purchased 250 busses in service today, with orders for 600+ more? Why would the New York City MTA order several hundred hybrids? Why would conservative agencies like the LTD and C-Tran go with the technology?
The answer is simple: TriMet discriminates against bus improvements. And that’s why progressive transit agencies that fully invest in their systems (bus AND rail) are seeing far greater transit usage while Portland’s transit ridership didn’t start to grow until this year, after two years of stagnation.
“I can certainly understand hesitation from bleeding-edge technology but TriMet’s hesitation is rather selective – let’s go full-bore when it comes to “rail” projects,”
Rail based transit is basically the same today as it was 100 years ago with a few exceptions for level boarding and no conductors. That is only bleeding edge if you happen to be Amish.
“But when it comes to bus technology we have to remain behind the times until the technology is “proven”. Hybrid technology in busses is well-proven technology; why would Seattle have purchased 250 busses in service today, with orders for 600+ more?”
Because it is is the only way to put buses in their bus tunnel without making people turn blue from CO2 poisoning or deaf from the noise. And I’ve told you that before.
“Why would the New York City MTA order several hundred hybrids?”
I expect that hybrids in New York City might perform differently than in Portland because there are buses routes in New York city that average less than 4 mph. Hybrids are a lot more fuel efficient than regular vehicles when they just sit there with the engine idling, (a consideration that I don’t think is included in the CRC’s analysis.)
Why would conservative agencies like the LTD and C-Tran go with the technology?
C-Trans isn’t conservative, where did you get that idea? The people of Clark County don’t want them to develop their service by spending money on actually improving headway or running later in the afternoon, so C-Trans blows their money on expensive buses instead.
Matthew wrote: Rail based transit is basically the same today as it was 100 years ago with a few exceptions for level boarding and no conductors.
I can go to the Oregon Electric Trolley Museum and pull out a 1920s era trolley. Should we replace the modern Streetcars with those vintage machines – no HVAC systems, very uncomfortable seats, poor lighting, no insulation, etc.?
Because it is is the only way to put buses in their bus tunnel without making people turn blue from CO2 poisoning or deaf from the noise. And I’ve told you that before.
That assumes the hybrids are ONLY used in the tunnels which they aren’t. Seattle could have continued using trolley poles on the busses (trolleybusses). Those hybrid busses are used on non-tunnel routes.
I expect that hybrids in New York City might perform differently than in Portland because there are buses routes in New York city that average less than 4 mph. Hybrids are a lot more fuel efficient than regular vehicles when they just sit there with the engine idling
And the average speed of TriMet’s slowest bus route is…?
C-Trans isn’t conservative, where did you get that idea?
I don’t see C-Tran acting as a transit industry leader, they are pretty much “follow the leader” and “make do with what we have”.
C-Trans isn’t conservative, where did you get that idea? The people of Clark County don’t want them to develop their service by spending money on actually improving headway or running later in the afternoon, so C-Trans blows their money on expensive buses instead.
Last November a new transit center opened and 3 routes now run later into the evening than before (and the 4-Fourth Plain now runs 5AM-Midnight weekdays and 6:45AM-Midnight weekends).
Additionally, most (if not all) the money they have for new buses is from completely different funds sources than operating funds. Also it’s easy to forget that until a few years ago, they were running 20-year-old buses.
I don’t see C-Tran acting as a transit industry leader, they are pretty much “follow the leader” and “make do with what we have”.
They now have more hybrid buses than TriMet (and these are not “TriMet Tank” design, either). And one of their older buses is a B100 demo bus.
It’s a bit awkward this would come up right now, since on Tuesday I was at their board meeting and commented about all the comments here (not just from me!) about the new buses. One of the other issues passed at the meeting other than the CRC decision (in the Consent Agenda, so not much discussion of it or info on what buses) was on sending some of their oldest buses to the auction lot. So someone out there in the Portland area is buying new buses and retiring the old ones… isn’t that a main complaint that another transit system isn’t doing the same?
Jason wrote: So someone out there in the Portland area is buying new buses and retiring the old ones… isn’t that a main complaint that another transit system isn’t doing the same?
I’m not complaining about C-Tran. In fact I’m complimenting the good folks on the north side of the river.
An agency that has been known for financial issues in the last decade has risen above those issues and has invested in their bus system by building new, modern transit centers, and purchased new busses (and hybrid-electrics at that, along with their sub-30 footers).
Meanwhile, TriMet is disinvesting in the bus system despite a reputation of being a well-run transit system.
While C-Tran cares about their bus riders and is providing service and amenities to attract riders (and growing, despite various service cuts), TriMet is doing little-to-nothing for the bus rider on its system. TriMet, if it continues this path of disinvestment, will watch potential transit ridership flock back to private automobiles, carpools, vanpools, or other modes of transport while commuters in other cities will gladly accept their public transit services. Contrary to the so-called “transit advocates” who support only rail-based transit, bus ridership across the nation takes off when it is properly invested upon; and rail-based transit is no guarantee of acceptance as several rail-based systems have scaled back operations or even shut down altogether.
Erik, today I saw two 1800’s (99% sure) running a so-called ‘frequent service’ bus route. Point taken, we have to invest more in buses by now.
America…
About to stop driving?
About to elect a black president?
How would have ever imagined such a thing? Hooray to the future, different than the old future.
I’m not complaining about C-Tran. In fact I’m complimenting the good folks on the north side of the river.
Erik, I’m aware of this… I was referring to the comments on Portland Transport as a whole, to avoid making what would’ve appeared to be a personally-directed statement.
[T]oday I saw two 1800’s (99% sure) running a so-called ‘frequent service’ bus route.
I think I’ve seen the 1400s, 1700s and 1800s on just about every Frequent Service route. When 5-Interstate was around, I never saw a low-floor bus on it (most were the 2100s).
My guess is if TriMet were pressured or faced legal action to remove the older buses from service, they would, but we probably wouldn’t like the results.
Jason Barbour wrote: My guess is if TriMet were pressured or faced legal action to remove the older buses from service, they would, but we probably wouldn’t like the results.
The LACMTA got hit with a lawsuit which they were forced into a federally mediated consent decree. This resulted in a MASSIVE investment in brand new busses (including local, mainline, articulated and BRT routes), all of which are CNG powered, allowing LA to maintain its relatively low fare structure and have an average fleet age of around seven years old.
Meanwhile, the LACMTA has finally set a plan which focuses in transit investment which includes investments in rail projects as well as bus projets, without discrimination. A huge network of rail projects, combined with continued investment in bus projects, BRT projects, and bus stop improvements.
When you say “we wouldn’t like the results”, does “we” refer to the light rail advocates who would see their pet projects zeroed out for ten years? Or “we” being the Portland metro area watching TriMet become the Portland Traction Company of the 1940s basically shutting its entire system down out of despiration?
the LACMTA has finally set a plan which focuses in transit investment which includes investments in rail projects as well as bus projets, without discrimination.
Erik,
I wouldn’t be as fast to characterize what LA is doing as “without discrimination” until you’ve looked at the investment breakdown between here and there. Whatever arbitrary standard you hold against Tri-Met (“my route could use more luxurious buses with faster headways and more security, therefore Tri-Met is discriminating against bus service and bus riders in Portland by spending anything on rail for good looking, rich, white collar citizens”) [Note: Not an actual quote] you aught to be applying elsewhere if you want to approach validity.