CONTACTTRAFFICABOUT TOM VANDERBILTOTHER WRITING CONTACT ABOUT THE BOOK
« Why Ants Don’t Get Stuck in Traffic, Revisited
“Lost in the Shuffle” »

The Problem With ‘Shovel-Ready’ Thinking

Via Popular Mechanics:

There are no specific parameters or requirements that define shovel readiness. But according to civil engineers, the idea behind this new buzzword could help scuttle the stimulus bill’s highly publicized, though secondary, goal of infrastructure reform. At issue is that 90-day restriction stipulated by Congress, an even narrower window than the bill’s original 180-day limit. “They’re well intentioned, and they know their infrastructure sucks, so they’re trying to do immediate reactive management to what is a very deep, endemic problem,” says Robert Bea, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. “If you want to patch some potholes in the road, this is a good program. But if you’re hoping for anything long-term with this approach, throw away all hope. It can’t happen.”

The programs that would meet the bill’s 90-day restriction are, for the most part, an unappealing mix of projects that were either shelved after being fully designed and engineered, and have since become outmoded or irrelevant, or projects with limited scope and ambition. No one’s building a smart electric grid or revamping a water system on 90 days notice. The best example of a shovel-ready project, and what engineers believe could become the biggest recipient of the transportation-related portion of the bill’s funding, is road resurfacing—important maintenance work, but not a meaningful way to rein in a national infrastructure crisis. “In developing countries, there are roads that are so bad, they create congestion, because drivers are constantly forced to slow down,” says David Levinson, an associate professor in the University of Minnesota’s civil engineering department. “That’s not the case here. If the road’s a little bit rougher, drivers will feel it, but that’s not going to cause you to go any slower. So the economic benefit of those projects is pretty low.”

I would only disagree in that NYC, there are some roads that are so bad they make you slow down, but the benefit here is that it acts as passive (and inexpensive) traffic calming.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]

This entry was posted on Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am and is filed under Etc., Roads, Traffic Psychology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “The Problem With ‘Shovel-Ready’ Thinking”

  1. aaron Says:
    February 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    Never driven in South East Michigan I take it.

    Of course, the problem here is probably corruption. We haven’t been using availible technology to build roads suitible for our climate. Plus the frequently overloaded semi’s, often driven during peak congestion.

  2. Bossi Says:
    February 9th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    I’ve been espousing much of this same info around the office (just to note again: I’m a traffic engineer, myself). *Real* dedication to improving infrastructure — be it transportation, communication, utilies, etc. — takes far more than a 90 day timeframe. On the one hand, maintenance tasks and short-duration construction requires hefty amounts of generally unskilled labor, which can be a great method of creating jobs; but yes: those jobs are short-lived, and the end result isn’t anything particularly outstanding.

    In my opinion, what is really needed is a two-tier punch: the short-term maintenance projects to get people back to work in the here and now (sole purpose: job creation); and then longer-term projects to take advantage of cheap labor & cheap real estate (sole purpose: long-term growth). Unfortunately, it seems we’re siding too much with the former and that alone.

    I don’t particularly put anyone on account of corruption — I just think it’s reactionary politics representing the short-term reactionary nature of the human psyche. We, the voting public, want our problems spelled out in soundbytes; and we want solutions in the here and now. So long as we can delay the inevitable until it’s someone else’s problem, we all, as a mass, tend to be sort-of OK with that. The comparatively few dissenters either aren’t powerful enough, or they change their mind when it’s their own wallet that they’re asked to open.

  3. aaron Says:
    February 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    True, and rather disheartening.

    Stimulus is a joke now. The recent problem is that our measures of growth haven’t reflect reality. Economic growth has been much lower than our measure suggest and so finance grew much more than it realistically should have. The only way to get things working again that is with real, slow economic growth. Paper only growth will just make things worse.

    Fuel economy has been on a decline for past few years. People don’t understand how important both fuel and time economy are. PhysOrg recently had a good article on a UC Irvine study of how congestion impacts economic growth. Jim Hamilton of UC San Diego also has great stuff on how energy prices affect consumption.

    The congestion that cell phones and high gas prices (people mistake slow for efficient) caused has been a real drag on growth. We really need an information campaign to correct misunderstandings in the public. Quick and smooth acceleration and avoiding brakes needs to be the focus.

    Unless efficiency is increased, we won’t be seeing much growth.

    Tell the fed:

    Drive Sensibly

    “Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration and braking) wastes gas. It can lower your gas mileage by 33 percent at highway speeds and by 5 percent around town. Sensible driving is also safer for you and others, so you may save more than gas money.”

    While technically correct, this statement is likely to be misinterpreted and lead to worse fuel economy. Rapid acceleration combined with rapid braking results in wasted gas. However, quick but smooth acceleration is more efficient than slow acceleration. Slow acceleration spends more time at less efficient vehicle speeds and at engine speeds that are less efficient while the engine is under the heavy load of acceleration. (However, accelerating too hard at low engine speed uses large amounts of gas when it is inefficient. This is why “quick, but smooth” should be emphasized.)

    What is most important is that drivers remain safe and alert. Being aware of what is ahead leads not only to safer driving, but more efficient driving. Avoiding needless braking is where the fuel savings are. Being alert and getting up to speed quickly reduces the burden of congestion, but being over eager will result in waste. A driver should always be going the same speed or slower than the vehicle ahead, unless of course it is safe to go around. Accelerating too much results in unnecessary braking, and acceleration that is wasted and must be done over.

    Stops are by far the biggest fuel waster. It should probably also be emphasized that encouraging communities to properly time traffic signals to reduce the amount of stops and set appropriate speed limits to keep traffic flowing smoothly will increase fuel economy better than any individual effort. When traffic lights and speed limits are set properly, driving at the posted speed will result in better fuel economy and time savings. Removing unnecessary traffic lights and stop signs should also be looked at.

    Bad information has lead to declining fuel economy over past several years, despite rising fuel prices, the purchase of better fuel economy vehicles, and flat and declining amounts of driving. Adaption of moderately poor fuel economy driving behaviors resulting from bad information and price pressures are further compounded by their effect on congestion.

    fueleconomy.gov: fuelecnoomy@ornl.gov
    Dept. of Energy: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov
    EPA, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Center: Web Submission Form

  4. aaron Says:
    February 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Until these misconceptions are addressed, ideas such as gas taxes or carbon-cap will have the opposite of the intended effect.

Leave a Reply

Traffic Tom Vanderbilt

How We Drive is the companion blog to Tom Vanderbilt’s New York Times bestselling book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), published by Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S. and Canada, Penguin in the U.K, and in languages other than English by a number of other fine publishers worldwide.

Please send tips, news, research papers, links, photos (bad road signs, outrageous bumper stickers, spectacularly awful acts of driving or parking or anything traffic-related), or ideas for my Slate.com Transport column to me at: info@howwedrive.com.

For publicity inquiries, please contact Kate Runde at Vintage: krunde@randomhouse.com.

For editorial inquiries, please contact Zoe Pagnamenta at The Zoe Pagnamenta Agency: zoe@zpagency.com.

For speaking engagement inquiries, please contact
Jenna Meulemans at the Knopf Speaker Bureau.

Order Traffic from:

Amazon | B&N | Borders
Random House | Powell’s

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
U.S. Paperback UK Paperback
Traffic UK
Drive-on-the-left types can order the book from Amazon.co.uk.

For UK publicity enquiries please contact Rosie Glaisher at Penguin.

Upcoming Talks

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Twitter
February 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728