Transportation Concept
The following is my proposal for a regional transportation network that I believe will most effectively accommodate the needs of King County and Washington State, while drastically reducing its emissions.
Premises:
1) There has already been tremendous sprawl of developments in the region and I
2) People prefer autonomy (i.e. personal vehicles if given a choice). Personal vehicles permit people to travel where they want, when they want, while affording a modicum of privacy.
3) 52% of WA state fossil fuel emissions are due to vehicle due to vehicle transportation (Emissions Pie).
4) This corresponding cost of the imported fossil fuels represents a significant drain on the economy.
5) King county’s work force spends long and stressful hours in the car in heavy commuter traffic (often alone). This probably makes people less effective workers and less satisfied individuals.
Proposal:
Modify the existing road network to accommodate two forms of transportation.
Commuter only network (CVN):
a) Designed for small, lightweight, 1-2 person vehicles not much larger than the passengers themselves, with just enough room for some groceries in back.
b) The vehicles would have a fixed bumper height which would be matched by a guard-rail with a bumper at the same height. This comparable size of all vehicles in this network, combined with the bumper safety features would virtually eliminate mortality and serious injury for commuter riders.
c) The size of the vehicles would enable them to be extremely economical and ideally run on batteries which could power the vehicle for hours the duration of even the longest commutes.
d) Alert automobile manufacturers (or better yet, local Seattle firms) to the existence of a market for these small vehicles in 2015 when the network is slated to open.
e) This network would comprise approximately half of the pre-existing arterial streets and freeways.
Ex. 1: One direction of I-90 would be split in two with the existing 4 lanes split into six or eight (half for inbound, half for outbound), since the commuter vehicles (CV’s) would require less space.
Ex. 2: The same would be true for I-5 except the rush hour lane provides a natural break, enabling 2/3 of I-5 to be devoted to commuter traffic.
Ex. 3. Arterial streets are every 5 blocks in Seattle. Make every other arterial street into a commuter route.
Large vehicle network (LVN):
a) Designed to accommodate the class of vehicles currently existing on today’s infrastructure. The primary purpose of this network would be for the transport of freight (food, materials, etc), but passenger vehicles could be used as well.
b) Passenger vehicles would be discouraged from routine use of this network due to a high tax on gasoline and decreased parking availability for this class of vehicles, making reducing strain on the reduced size of the network.
c) Commercial vehicles would receive a full rebate on the gas tax so that business would proceed smoothly and prices would not rise much due to the tax.
Residential Streets:
a) CV’s and LV’s would co-exist.
b) Traffic slowing devices would keep vehicles from traveling rapidly and make it relatively safe for all forms of transportation.
c) Continue to devlop mass transit (i.e. trains), focusing on high-density areas and travel to regional areas of interest and areas where weather conditions would make access difficult via CV (such as the mountain passes…you can tell my bias).
Food for Thought:
1) Is a top down or a bottom up approach more effective in this case? First, let me describe the bottom-up approach: as gasoline prices increase, people drive more economical vehicles, achieving the same result without a change in the road system infrastructure. Two things prevent this change from occurring as rapidly as the supply (i.e. gasoline price) dictates. One is that people have already invested in large vehicles and it will be some time before the cost of gasoline drives them to believe it is economically wise to consider a new investment. Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), the size of vehicles will also lag consumer preference in a “perfectly safe” world because of the inherent risk of having large vehicles co-existing with small vehicles at high speed. Thus, the road network will have little relief in stress over the next few decades and the increasing population will more than cancel any relief in stress due to size of vehicles. Thus, I foresee a worsening problem unless gas taxes are incredibly high, but then poor families are the ones that really get hurt, The top down approach should be an automobile that more people can afford and it will cost people less during use because electricity will be cheaper than gasoline in the NW due to our hydro supply. A secondary LV would be considered a luxury item and vehicle-sharing companies such as Zipcar would make available to those who chose to own only a CV.
2) Narrowing of Seattle streets. CV routes could be far narrower, permitting more green space or walking/biking space. Residential strets could also be narrower because of the higher percentage of CV's on these roads.
3) Freeway Entrances. The alternation of arterial routes with CV’s and LV’s would separate the entry points for freeways. Some additional infrastructure would be necessary and the cost (including disruption) would need to be ascertained.
4) Sticking points for my plan:
a) Initial Investment. Road designation, freeway entrances, new bureaucratic systems, and education of the populace would require initial investment.
b) Equity. Would the designation of arterial tracts as “CVN” or “LVN” affect the commerce and create issues of fairness? Further study may be needed.
c) Network Boundaries. Initially (at least) there will be an outer boundary for this network, outside of which gas taxes probably wouldn’t be as high. It would be necessary to make sure that the incentive to drive CV’s isn’t undermined by people driving outside of the network to purchase gasoline. Are there other incentive programs that might be more effective. I don’t like the idea of tolls because they slow down commuting or make it difficult to coordinate with network users from a different region.
d) Convincing the Public. If I can't convince this audience, then it certainly won't fly in an audience less accepting of radical change.
5) Untapped Potential: The larger vision is that other regions (most of which face equally severe transportation/energy challenges) would adopt similar plans and create a national CVN. It must start somewhere and I see know better place for it than Washington State/King County.
For now, I’d be very interested to hear thoughts regarding this proposal, both positive and negative. Thanks for your interest!
Robert
posted by photohydraulicturbine @ 8:36 AM
0 Comments
