Recently, a member of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission visited our class and delivered an interesting lecture. The Lehigh Valley, which is comprised of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton has a current population of about 650,000. From 2000-2010, the valley experienced the highest in-migration in the nation's history and by 2040, the population of the Lehigh Valley is expected to be as high as 875,000. This growth clearly puts a much higher demand on the transportation network and a key question that engineers and planners in the area are trying to answer is how to deal with this increased demand.
The only public transportation system currently in use in the Lehigh Valley is busing. The implementation of a rail system in the area has been researched and studied but current population size and distribution make it infeasible. However, with such massive growth expected by 2040 I believe this option should be re-evaluated as higher densities, especially along Route 22, begin to develop. As is consistently seen in a majority of the rest of the nation, personal automobile is by far the most popular choice of travel. 90% of the trips made in the Lehigh Valley are made by personal automobile. I believe that in order for the valley's transportation system to become more sustainable, this percentage needs to decrease and cars must, in addition, become more efficient. The new standard of 54.5 mpg which is to be enforced by 2025 will help in this quest towards sustainability.
A major issue which our speaker pointed out is the growing need to balance jobs and housing. This balance is important as it allows for a strong, sustainable economy centered around a thriving urban core. Other issues to consider are the locations of the population, the fact that the population is aging, and degradation of existing transportation infrastructure. Pennsylvania has the highest number of structurally deficient bridges in the nation and because the funds needed to resolve this issue are not available in enough quantity, this is a growing concern. The fact that we have recognized these concerns is the first step towards solving them. As we move towards a much higher-populated area in the near future, the Lehigh Valley must have adjustments made to not only its transportation network, but its infrastructure as a whole.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Telecommuting
Telecommuting or as it's more commonly called, "working from home" has been growing in popularity ever since its beginning in the early 1970's. There are many positive attributes tied to this type of work and in this post I plan to break these down as well as list some of the drawbacks. Then I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if telecommuting is a viable work option.
Telecommuting is beneficial for employees, employers, and communities alike. Firstly, it allows some who may not have the capability of a traditional commute such as disabled persons, stay-at-home parents, those living in remote locations to have a fulfilling and productive career. Secondly, it reduces traffic density on the roads during the important peak hour times. This not only reduces congestion, but it will also reduce pollution, accidents, oil usage, and wear of our transportation infrastructure.
For employers, telecommuting allows them to reduce their company's carbon footprint. It also allows for increased productivity from workers as time is not lost travelling to and from work. Employee morale is improved and issues such as varying time zones are much more easily navigable. For employees, work-related transportation costs and fuel usage are drastically decreased thus saving them large amounts of money. Many find that it is much easier to balance home and work-life and the conveniences of home are readily available. The overall benefit of telecommuting, in my opinion, is that it reduces energy usage without adversely affecting economic productivity and growth.
Now, the drawbacks. The main criticism seems to be that interactions and relationships that develop in the traditional workplace are severely compromised. Employers and employees are unable to talk face-to-face with one another which can be seen as a weakness in the ability to effectively manage and operate a company. Also, telecommuters may have inadequate office setups at home leading to a decrease in productivity. Along this same line of thought, telecommuting relies heavily on technology in order for it to work smoothly. Any disruption in the telecommuter's network, phone line, etc. could cause the inability to work for a period of time.
Personally, I don't think I would be able to work from home. I need a change of scenery between work and home and I don't think I could do without person-to-person interaction between my coworkers and boss. Having a phone glued to my ear all day does not sound appealing either. But I do recognize that there are many strong benefits to telecommuting, perhaps I'm just more traditional. Do you think telecommuting would work for you?
Telecommuting is beneficial for employees, employers, and communities alike. Firstly, it allows some who may not have the capability of a traditional commute such as disabled persons, stay-at-home parents, those living in remote locations to have a fulfilling and productive career. Secondly, it reduces traffic density on the roads during the important peak hour times. This not only reduces congestion, but it will also reduce pollution, accidents, oil usage, and wear of our transportation infrastructure.
For employers, telecommuting allows them to reduce their company's carbon footprint. It also allows for increased productivity from workers as time is not lost travelling to and from work. Employee morale is improved and issues such as varying time zones are much more easily navigable. For employees, work-related transportation costs and fuel usage are drastically decreased thus saving them large amounts of money. Many find that it is much easier to balance home and work-life and the conveniences of home are readily available. The overall benefit of telecommuting, in my opinion, is that it reduces energy usage without adversely affecting economic productivity and growth.
Now, the drawbacks. The main criticism seems to be that interactions and relationships that develop in the traditional workplace are severely compromised. Employers and employees are unable to talk face-to-face with one another which can be seen as a weakness in the ability to effectively manage and operate a company. Also, telecommuters may have inadequate office setups at home leading to a decrease in productivity. Along this same line of thought, telecommuting relies heavily on technology in order for it to work smoothly. Any disruption in the telecommuter's network, phone line, etc. could cause the inability to work for a period of time.
Personally, I don't think I would be able to work from home. I need a change of scenery between work and home and I don't think I could do without person-to-person interaction between my coworkers and boss. Having a phone glued to my ear all day does not sound appealing either. But I do recognize that there are many strong benefits to telecommuting, perhaps I'm just more traditional. Do you think telecommuting would work for you?
Saturday, October 13, 2012
21st century transportation, a new mentality
It was brought up in class a few days ago that the 20th century mentality towards transportation was to "enjoy your mobility." And now in the 21st century, this mentality has changed to "mobility is a responsibility." I think this is a very interesting change in attitude and it accurately represents the movement towards creating sustainable transportation networks throughout the world.
The 20th century witnessed many transportation milestones such as the introduction of the automobile, the transcontinental railroad, and the airplane. This created high levels of excitement as people could now travel faster and farther, reaching places never before possible. This newly-found mobility was celebrated and encouraged and concerns with carbon emissions, congestion, noise pollution, etc. was not yet a widely held concern. Mobility was not to be kept in check, it was to be enjoyed.
Once the 21st century rolled around, our attitude towards the transportation systems we had previously used with complete freedom and disregard for the environment began to change. In today's world, with fossil fuels quickly running out and carbon emissions at dangerously high levels, there is much more effort to make our transportation networks efficient and sustainable. In our travels, we must be cognizant of these issues and employ methods to move responsibly such as carpooling, walking or biking when possible, and operating vehicles safely.
Who is in charge of making responsible transportation decisions? The answer is, we all are. From government officials, to urban planners, to transportation engineers, to any person taking a trip, we must all work together to ensure that our transportation systems can thrive well into the future. We are quickly approaching a major shift in the way we move from place to place as oil depletion continues to worsen. Alternative fuels will undoubtedly become much more common and many adjustments and innovative technologies will need to be developed.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Reducing congestion, it seems pretty simple
Empty parking lots, wasted land
It seems everywhere you go, especially in retail areas, there are massive parking lots that are largely empty. Doesn't this seem like a huge waste of land? Not only are they seemingly useless but they also create water runoff issues, discourage alternative forms of transit, and act as an eyesore for many communities. So why are they so big and often mostly empty?
There are many codes and ordinances that define parking space requirements for every piece of property in an area. An example of this comes from Columbia, Missouri where every supermarket requires 300 square feet of parking space for every 200 square feet of retail space. Therefore, more land is required for parking than the for the store itself. Reasons like this explain why we usually see hundreds of empty parking spaces.
Multi-level parking garages relieve the problem somewhat as they take up less surface area and if they're underground they may be largely unseen, but we need a better solution. Planners and builders should find ways to bring customers to their stores, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. in ways other than personal vehicles. They should be walk or bike-friendly, they should be close to public transit routes, and they should be situated in ways that discourage personal vehicle travel.
There are many codes and ordinances that define parking space requirements for every piece of property in an area. An example of this comes from Columbia, Missouri where every supermarket requires 300 square feet of parking space for every 200 square feet of retail space. Therefore, more land is required for parking than the for the store itself. Reasons like this explain why we usually see hundreds of empty parking spaces.
Multi-level parking garages relieve the problem somewhat as they take up less surface area and if they're underground they may be largely unseen, but we need a better solution. Planners and builders should find ways to bring customers to their stores, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. in ways other than personal vehicles. They should be walk or bike-friendly, they should be close to public transit routes, and they should be situated in ways that discourage personal vehicle travel.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Kyoto Treaty, United States still won't sign
For those who don't know, the Kyoto Treaty is a binding agreement initially adopted on December 11, 1997 for industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty was an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, how about that for an acronym!). The UNFCCC is a broader international environmental treaty who's goal is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
A total of 191 nations/states have already signed and ratified the protocol, so who's the only signatory still holding out? None other than the United States. Although this may make us seem like the bad guys, there are reasons why the treaty failed several times to find ratification by the U.S. Senate and Clinton Administration in 1997 then again in 2001 by the Bush Administration. The primary reason for our nation's historical lack of support for Kyoto is the fact that it would likely harm the American economy and workforce. Signing the treaty would potentially cause a large loss of jobs and would increase our dependence on foreign oil. Also, the treaty's loose restrictions placed on two of the biggest developing countries China and India, didn't resound well with our governmental decision makers.
So we continue to make the right move by not signing, correct? Well, not necessarily. By being one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the Kyoto Treaty loses substantial power and meaningfulness without our support. Because of this, the U.S. has received plenty of open criticism from other world leaders saying we have failed in the areas of international cooperation and environmental ethics. It is true that the possible effects to our economy are quite devastating but the truth of the matter is that these effects have not been fully proven.
I believe that if we were to finally sign the Kyoto Treaty, the worldwide effort to decrease greenhouse gas emissions would be immediately kick-started. The technological capabilities of the United States are incredibly immense and I believe, upon signing, we would have the leading role placed directly upon our shoulders. This pressure is a lot to deal with, and with the possibility of losing jobs for American people hanging in the forefront it's a responsibility that's tough to decide whether to take on or not.
A total of 191 nations/states have already signed and ratified the protocol, so who's the only signatory still holding out? None other than the United States. Although this may make us seem like the bad guys, there are reasons why the treaty failed several times to find ratification by the U.S. Senate and Clinton Administration in 1997 then again in 2001 by the Bush Administration. The primary reason for our nation's historical lack of support for Kyoto is the fact that it would likely harm the American economy and workforce. Signing the treaty would potentially cause a large loss of jobs and would increase our dependence on foreign oil. Also, the treaty's loose restrictions placed on two of the biggest developing countries China and India, didn't resound well with our governmental decision makers.
So we continue to make the right move by not signing, correct? Well, not necessarily. By being one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the Kyoto Treaty loses substantial power and meaningfulness without our support. Because of this, the U.S. has received plenty of open criticism from other world leaders saying we have failed in the areas of international cooperation and environmental ethics. It is true that the possible effects to our economy are quite devastating but the truth of the matter is that these effects have not been fully proven.
I believe that if we were to finally sign the Kyoto Treaty, the worldwide effort to decrease greenhouse gas emissions would be immediately kick-started. The technological capabilities of the United States are incredibly immense and I believe, upon signing, we would have the leading role placed directly upon our shoulders. This pressure is a lot to deal with, and with the possibility of losing jobs for American people hanging in the forefront it's a responsibility that's tough to decide whether to take on or not.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
I disagree Churchill
In yesterday's class a Winston Churchill quote was introduced to us. It reads...
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Although he was a promoter of science and technology, Churchill also felt that in some instances advancements in these fields could be dangerous to society. Rather than the traditional horse and buggy, people were suddenly zipping around in cars at higher speeds. Many people would think, as it seems Churchill did, that this seemingly more dangerous environment on the roads would lead to more accidents, injury, and death. But as a matter of fact, the ratio of accidents to vehicle miles traveled actually decreased with the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Another major improvement brought about by the internal combustion engine and the introduction of cars was the absence of horse waste that once covered roads and especially city streets where vehicle congestion was much higher. City sanitation improved greatly and a once never wavering stench was reduced to a high degree.
And most importantly the overall efficiency of travel was greatly improved. Travel no longer depended on a horse's stamina but rather an easily reproducible piece of technology. Once the internal combustion engine and the automobile were made cost effectively and affordable by the middle class, thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line technique of mass production, societies in many places were able to enjoy the many benefits that the new technology had to offer.
So Churchill, I disagree with your "gloomy milestone" classification, I'd consider the development of the internal combustion engine to be quite spectacular.
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Although he was a promoter of science and technology, Churchill also felt that in some instances advancements in these fields could be dangerous to society. Rather than the traditional horse and buggy, people were suddenly zipping around in cars at higher speeds. Many people would think, as it seems Churchill did, that this seemingly more dangerous environment on the roads would lead to more accidents, injury, and death. But as a matter of fact, the ratio of accidents to vehicle miles traveled actually decreased with the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Another major improvement brought about by the internal combustion engine and the introduction of cars was the absence of horse waste that once covered roads and especially city streets where vehicle congestion was much higher. City sanitation improved greatly and a once never wavering stench was reduced to a high degree.
And most importantly the overall efficiency of travel was greatly improved. Travel no longer depended on a horse's stamina but rather an easily reproducible piece of technology. Once the internal combustion engine and the automobile were made cost effectively and affordable by the middle class, thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line technique of mass production, societies in many places were able to enjoy the many benefits that the new technology had to offer.
So Churchill, I disagree with your "gloomy milestone" classification, I'd consider the development of the internal combustion engine to be quite spectacular.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Is it fair?
The following situation and accompanying question were posed in a recent class discussion: Two commuters are both traveling to the same workplace. Gerald takes a light rail commuter train and experiences a travel time of 30 minutes. Gregory drives a personal car and experiences a 10 minute travel time. Is this fair?
In my opinion it's not a matter of fairness, but simply a matter of differing situations. There are many reasons for which this scenario may be occurring. Perhaps Gerald does in fact own a personal car but he chooses to take the bus to save money that would otherwise be spent on gas. Or maybe he enjoys reading the paper during his commute in the morning, and not having to operate the vehicle in which he's riding allows him to do so (I realize some commuters attempt to read the paper as well as drive their own vehicle but that's a topic for another discussion).
Perhaps one day a massive car accident blocking all lanes occurs on the main road which Gregory travels, and rather than the 10 minute drive he's used to he's stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half. As he sits frustrated watching the clock on his dashboard, Gerald swiftly passes him by on a quick and reliable train ride to work.
If Gerald doesn't own a car but wishes he did so that he could shorten his travel time, then perhaps he should start saving for a car, or cut spending in some other area of his life so that he may afford one. It's not as though he is for some reason forbidden from choosing to drive his own car. I realize some people may not have the financial means to purchase a personal vehicle and that scenario may be viewed by some as unfair. But the fact of the matter is, we live in a world with a wide-ranging socioeconomic scale and there are amenities that are attainable for some and unattainable for others.
Because there are those who may not be able to purchase or operate a personal vehicle, it is important that we provide safe and reliable transportation alternatives. By making these systems (bus, rail, etc.) as efficient as possible, the difference between Gerald and Gregory's travel times may be reduced. And again, I don't believe this is making the situation more or less fair for anyone, but I do agree it's a step in the right direction for making all transportation systems/modes efficient and effective.
In my opinion it's not a matter of fairness, but simply a matter of differing situations. There are many reasons for which this scenario may be occurring. Perhaps Gerald does in fact own a personal car but he chooses to take the bus to save money that would otherwise be spent on gas. Or maybe he enjoys reading the paper during his commute in the morning, and not having to operate the vehicle in which he's riding allows him to do so (I realize some commuters attempt to read the paper as well as drive their own vehicle but that's a topic for another discussion).
Perhaps one day a massive car accident blocking all lanes occurs on the main road which Gregory travels, and rather than the 10 minute drive he's used to he's stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half. As he sits frustrated watching the clock on his dashboard, Gerald swiftly passes him by on a quick and reliable train ride to work.
If Gerald doesn't own a car but wishes he did so that he could shorten his travel time, then perhaps he should start saving for a car, or cut spending in some other area of his life so that he may afford one. It's not as though he is for some reason forbidden from choosing to drive his own car. I realize some people may not have the financial means to purchase a personal vehicle and that scenario may be viewed by some as unfair. But the fact of the matter is, we live in a world with a wide-ranging socioeconomic scale and there are amenities that are attainable for some and unattainable for others.
Because there are those who may not be able to purchase or operate a personal vehicle, it is important that we provide safe and reliable transportation alternatives. By making these systems (bus, rail, etc.) as efficient as possible, the difference between Gerald and Gregory's travel times may be reduced. And again, I don't believe this is making the situation more or less fair for anyone, but I do agree it's a step in the right direction for making all transportation systems/modes efficient and effective.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
With new U.S. DOT fuel efficiency standards, everybody wins
Just recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new national standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for passenger cars and light trucks. Their new standards will apply to vehicles built between the years 2017 and 2025, by which time the fuel economy for an average car will have reached 54.5 miles per gallon which is almost two times better than the fuel economy of cars on the road today.
The results of these new standards are nothing but positive on all fronts. Not only will we reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, but Americans will use less fuel thus saving money as well as conserving a valuable and quickly diminishing natural resource. The popularity of fuel efficient cars such as the GM Chevy Cruze and the Ford F-150 with its EcoBoost engine, show that Americans as well as car manufacturers are already responding to the newly announced standards.
American carmakers are supporting these new standards as well. They are willing and ready to build cars that the American public desires. With fuel efficient tools and technologies already in place, manufacturers can continue to build upon these and create more innovative solutions. With the support of 13 major automotive manufacturers, responsible for building 90% of the cars sold in the U.S., it is clear that these new standards are a great boost towards a more sustainable future in the transportation realm.
"Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before--all while maintaining safety, protecting the air we breathe, and laying the groundwork for automakers to create jobs, developed advanced technologies, and improve quality of life for American families."
Works Cited
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/08/cafe-2017-2025.html#.UEagwfvlfTo
The results of these new standards are nothing but positive on all fronts. Not only will we reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, but Americans will use less fuel thus saving money as well as conserving a valuable and quickly diminishing natural resource. The popularity of fuel efficient cars such as the GM Chevy Cruze and the Ford F-150 with its EcoBoost engine, show that Americans as well as car manufacturers are already responding to the newly announced standards.
American carmakers are supporting these new standards as well. They are willing and ready to build cars that the American public desires. With fuel efficient tools and technologies already in place, manufacturers can continue to build upon these and create more innovative solutions. With the support of 13 major automotive manufacturers, responsible for building 90% of the cars sold in the U.S., it is clear that these new standards are a great boost towards a more sustainable future in the transportation realm.
"Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before--all while maintaining safety, protecting the air we breathe, and laying the groundwork for automakers to create jobs, developed advanced technologies, and improve quality of life for American families."
Works Cited
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/08/cafe-2017-2025.html#.UEagwfvlfTo
Monday, September 3, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
What comes first: people or roads?
In Wednesday's class our professor posed to us the following question: What comes to an area first, people or transportation? I believe that both cases exist but in different stages of development. Initially, people precede transportation systems. It's not logical to simply build a road to nowhere; a road is first built because people have the need to get from one place to another and at both ends of the road there must be something worth traveling to. Once this road has been established it is likely that it will become increasingly used. With this increased density on the road, people will begin to stop along the way and choose to settle or build around this important artery of transportation. So in this stage of development, it is clear that transportation precedes people.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Introduction to my blog.
This is a blog I've created as part of my Transportation Engineering course here at Lafayette College. Transportation is all around us and it is something we certainly cannot live without. Not only must humans be able to transport themselves from place to place but also animals, materials, and the earth itself. Life on Earth isn't still; it's moving, adapting, growing, flourishing, diminishing. In today's world, we have complex systems of multimodal transportation and throughout the course of this fall semester I will be exploring and analyzing these systems as part of my class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)