|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Problem with pavement | Views: 671 | | Jul 02, 2007 9:18 pm | | Problem with pavement | # | 
Ken Hilving | | On another discussion, the issue of roads got raised.
I think it is worth taking a logical look at roads, and their expansion as the primary mode of transportation. Since roads are common place, we tend to ignore their impact.
Rainwater has to be considered when building roads. A road has two impacts. First it removes the water absorption capability of the area it sits on. Next, it generates an immediate requirement to handle runoff water. This second impact is not a trivial issue, as the folks here in north and central Texas can attest to as we move from drought to record rainfalls.
Using the standard lane width for US Interstate highways (12 feet) and assuming paved shoulders on both sides of each direction of the highway (40 feet total), we can look at just how much runoff is generated by a 30 mile urban artery during an inch of rainfall.
- 4 lane highway 6,732,000 gallons
- 6 lane highway 9,108,000 gallons
- 8 lane highway 11,484,000 gallons
We officially had 27 inches of rain in June, with significant flooding, erosion of stream and river banks, reservoirs exceeding capacity, and major property damage. There were also several deaths, although I tend to consider these self inflicted or suicide by stupidity.
This runoff did not get absorbed in order to recharge area aquifers and other groundwater systems.
Pavement retains heat, increasing the local temperature during the summer of urban and suburban areas. In the 10 miles between where some good friends live and where I live, there is a 10 degree temperature difference. They are in a suburban neighborhood, while I live in what still passes for rural. Likewise, traffic in their area generates a constant background noise level. When friends and family visit, they invariably comment on the quiet and how nice that is.
Last year in the US, there were 43,000 traffic deaths. A good portion of these occurred when two or more vehicles tried to occupy the same space at the same time. With the exception of our limited access highways, roads, railroads, and pedestrian crossings use a common plane where their paths cross.
The direct cost of highway building comes from federal and state highway department monies. Fuel taxes do not cover these costs, so other tax sources and tolls are used.
Indirect costs include the removal of land from other uses, disruption of local business, and through the disruption of pedestrian traffic patterns communities become "islands". Highways in rural and natural environments disrupt migratory patterns and create "islands" of habitat detrimental to plants and animals. Road kill is another hazard for both animals and drivers. Businesses and homes lost to road construction are also lost to that community's tax base and job base.
Perhaps the biggest drawback with road traffic as we have done historically is its inability to handle increased traffic. Gridlock is becoming common in many urban areas, and highways are running out of space for expansion. Complaints of being stressed out by traffic are increasing.
___
Innovative new transportation systems should, at a minimum, address the problems we have with pavement by doing no worse on any and better on some.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | Jul 02, 2007 11:03 pm | | re: Problem with pavement | # | 
Ron Sam | | Ken
re: This second impact is not a trivial issue, as the folks here in north and central Texas can attest to as we move from drought to record rainfalls.
...
We officially had 27 inches of rain in June, with significant flooding, erosion of stream and river banks, reservoirs exceeding capacity, and major property damage.
Check out this related link:
InsidER
July 2007
North Texas Stream Team Offers Technical Advice, Recommendations
StreamCommunities dealing with issues such as stream-related flood control, stream bank erosion, or stream restoration have an interdisciplinary, interagency resource from which to seek technical advice or recommendations: the North Texas Stream Team.
Continued here:
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/features/2007/jul/StreamTeam.asp
RWSPrivate Reply to Ron Sam | | Jul 03, 2007 12:19 am | | re: Problem with pavement | # | 
Thomas Holford | | > Perhaps the biggest drawback with road traffic as we have done historically is its inability to handle increased traffic. Gridlock is becoming common in many urban areas, and highways are running out of space for expansion. Complaints of being stressed out by traffic are increasing.
I believe this is substantially, if not primarily, a politician caused problem.
It took over thirty years to create the cross town segment of Highway 85/87 in south San Jose. The reason it took so long is that the labor unions, mass transit advocates, railroad nostalgia buffs, and anti-car/anti-growth/anti-energy/anti-sprawl/ant-modernism nihilist activists held the Highway hostage UNTIL the local congressman got federal money to build a light rail line in the median of the highway.
Once constructed, the highway was an enormous relief to congestion and the light rail was an economic, transportation, and public relations disaster.
Thomas HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jul 03, 2007 1:18 am | | re: re: Problem with pavement | # |
Ron Sam | | Ken
What's your feeling about the Trans Texas Corridor? I've heard many negative issues regarding it.
Excerpt from Wikipedia
TTC-35
The system has been criticized for a number of reasons. The TTC will be extremely expensive, estimated to cost between US$145.2 billion to $183.5 billion to complete the entire 4,000 mile (6,400 km) network. Additionally the system will require about 584,000 acres (2,360 kmē) of land to be purchased or acquired through the state's assertion of eminent domain. Environmentalists are concerned about the effects of such wide corridors and private land owners have expressed concerns about property rights.
While Governor Rick Perry is supportive of the TTC, the 2006 platforms of the Texas Republican and Democratic parties each oppose the plan.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Jul 03, 2007 3:16 am | | re: re: re: Problem with pavement | # |
Ken Hilving | | Regarding the link to North Texas Stream Team (part of the North Central Texas Council of Governments), apparently their assistance is limited to advice. Residents in Haltom City have been watching creek erosion eliminate their backyards and threaten their homes. The city responded that it was not their responsibility. On the opposite side of the same creek, overflow flash flooding caused major damage in a manufactured home development. City response was to let the residents know they could not replace their homes even though they all own their own lots (versus a traditional trailer park). Flooding was likely due to runoff caused by the newer site built home development now threatened by erosion.
I have some issues with TTC, but now that it has been halted those issues are not pressing. I think it would have been a great opportunity to move to an innovative transportation system. Less corridor required, less environmental impact, less impact on those living within the proposed routes.
Anyone who has driven from Dallas to Austin, Austin to San Antonio, or San Antonio to the border recognizes that our current roads are already congested and traffic is increasing. The only alternative to driving is flying, and even that involves at least a couple hours on congested highways to the airports.
The challenge is coming up with a solution. Doing more of what we have been doing seems rather foolish to me, but any alternative has to be transitional as well as cost and technology feasible. Tried and failed approaches include highways, flights, and scheduled mass transit.
We also need to expand our consideration of where the flaws and failures have been. Environmental impact - to both the natural and the social environments, for example. Government projects versus private ventures, for another example. Small size of investors and large investments versus large size of investors and smaller investments.
The "we" is the average citizen, which is why I post to forums like this as well as engage directly with those in authority or influential.Private Reply to Ken Hilving | | |
| |
| |
