A Bitter Medicine for Treating Traffic Congestion

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this blog are expressly my own and are not endorsed by my employer or my employer's partners and supporters.

For many years Metro Atlanta has had some of the most congested roads and highways in the country. In response, State officials want to provide optional toll lanes on area highways that are priced according to the amount of demand for those lanes. Their first attempt with the I-85 "Express" lanes in Gwinnett County has ignited a backlash, with motorists and their elected representatives demanding their removal.

By pursuing congestion-based pricing, the State is taking a reasonable approach. Officials have nonetheless failed to recognize the psychological trauma this exacts on Georgia motorists, habituated to a daily commute where their expenses are all but forgotten.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2010 Urban Mobility Report, Atlanta ranks 11th among the top-100 cities for traffic congestion. The average Atlanta-area driver spent about 43 hours struck in traffic, in addition to their “normal” commuting time. For many, that exceeds the amount of paid vacation time they receive from their employers.

This actually represents an improvement over previous years' rankings, but any relief this provides is probably temporary. State and regional planners realize that Atlanta's outsized unemployment rate means that fewer people are commuting, and that traffic congestion will probably increase in the coming years. During peak travel periods on the highways, even the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are clogged. This has them searching for answers.

One thing they do know is, we cannot continue to build our way out of this mess. Since the early 1960’s, transportation experts have warned against the commonly-held notion that we can solve traffic congestion by building new roads and widening others. Back then, transportation expert Anthony Downs stated it most succinctly:

…peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity.

Now, publications such as this research paper published in October’s American Economic Review are revealing the complexities of traffic congestion and the underlying psychology of the motorist. They even have a term for it: induced demand. There is such an enormous latent demand for road space, some believe, that whenever a measure is taken that moves a commuter out of his or her automobile, another one quickly grabs the open lane.

Historian Lewis Mumford said it most memorably:

Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.

If urban congestion cannot be addressed by increasing road capacity, then what should be done?

Georgia’s Express lane project is based on the success of similar projects in other U.S. cities and also congestion-based toll projects in London and Stockholm. Georgia’s Express lane project gives commuters on I-85 more choices.

They can choose to pay extra for a reliable commute time in a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, the cost depending on the current average speed in the lane. As the speed decreases due to congestion in the lane, the toll to additional drivers entering the lane rises.

For example, taking the entire 15 miles of Express Lane for your evening commute through Gwinnett County on November 11th would have saved you 12 minutes and cost a whopping $1.85.

Additionally, these same commuters have access to an expanded network of inter-county Xpress buses operated by GRTA, and three new park-and-ride lots.

Motorists, long-accustomed to taxpayer-funded highway projects aimed at accommodating more traffic, are chaffing at the notion of paying a fee for the privilege of getting an unimpeded trip down I-85, even when traffic is heaviest.

Their frustrations, while understandable, do not justify the elimination of the Express lanes. Like all projects of such large scale, complexity and scope, the I-85 Express lanes have their share of start-up problems, and most can be corrected.

More importantly, we struggle with the notion of paying-as-we-drive. Although the daily commute by automobile exacts real costs, costs that accrue while we drive, we are psychologically disconnected from them. We usually buy fuel only once or twice a week. Maintenance and repairs? Once or twice a year. The same applies for insurance.

The price of congestion falls into this list of automobile-related variable expenses. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that for this wasted time and fuel, each commuter spent roughly $1,100. The same study estimates that traffic congestion cost Atlanta’s employers nearly $2.5 billion in lost productivity.

Conceptually, these costs could be charged to the driver while on the road, as if they were operating a taxi meter. If we were already accustomed to paying-as-we-drive, the Georgia Express lanes would not raise nearly the stink that it has. Drivers would more easily understand the cost of their commute and be better-informed to make the choices that serve them best.

If Atlanta-area motorists don't want to pay congestion-based tolls on the highways, then they shouldn't. But they will still pay for congestion.

They already do.

Let There be Light

It is time to reflect upon something our federal government did right and on the admirable way it was reported by the NY Times.
On Thursday the Times ran a story about new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.
Since the Energy Independence and Security Act was originally passed in 2007 and signed by President Bush, most news outlets reported how it will outlaw the beloved incandescent light bulb. Congressional Republicans earlier this year tried unsuccessfully to block the law from taking effect, claiming that our nanny government was once again overstepping its authority and limiting our freedoms beyond reason.
The Act is one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen in a long time. First, it addresses a real problem. Our country lacks a clear strategy for growing our capacity to generate electricity in order to keep up with anticipated demand, and much of that demand comes from lighting our homes, schools and offices.
Second, the law is reasonable. Instead of picking products for us to buy, it merely sets efficiency standards for those products. The lighting standards resemble the fuel economy standards it has been setting for automobiles since the seventies.
There is no reason why we shouldn't have better lighting for less money. Today's incandescent light bulb is buggy whip technology. Were Thomas Edison still around he would have no trouble recognizing one of our bulbs, despite his having commercialized the first one over 130 years ago.
Third, the the law is already proving effective. As the NY Times effectively illustrates, the law has prompted manufacturers to introduce a dazzling array of new lighting technologies and products. Despite what the law's opponents claim it has given us more choices, and it will only get better over time.
The law also requires new product labeling to allow us to more easily base our choices on the cost of the bulb, the cost of the energy it uses, and the amount of light it produces. Lighting manufacturers now have an unbiased set of rules for describing product value to their customers.
Score a small but notable victory for good government. Thank heavens the congressional dim-bulbs were defeated, although I wonder whether their aim wasn't so much about scoring a legislative victory as it was about scoring points with their government-phobic constituents.

Our Dope(r) Culture

I saw last Sunday's 60 Minutes report about the ongoing Federal investigation of Lance Armstrong. Pretty damning stuff, including the testimony prosecutors now have from his close friend and long-time teammate, George Hincapie.

What's also compelling is the news that Lance may have failed a drug test in 2000, and the circumstantial evidence pointing to a cover up involving Lance, the Swiss laboratory that performed the test, and professional cycling's international governing body also known as the UCI.

The witnesses all tell the same story: everybody was doping. And when they get caught they lie about it until they can lie no more, followed by a tearful confession.

I follow this painful story primarily out of my love for the sport of cycling. For those who aren't cycling fans, this still should interest.

Star athletes like Lance Armstrong are cultural icons. When they lie and cheat, the way that we react to it tells us a lot about ourselves. Lance is right about one thing, it's not about the bike.

George Hincapie released a statement through his lawyers saying that the whole affair is unfortunate, and that he wished that investigators and reporters would instead focus their attentions on all the good things presently happening in the sport and about the sport's future. It's all water under the bridge.

Many of my cycling friends feel the same way. They love the sport and will continue to follow it, with or without doping. Doping is nothing new to professional cycling and for many decades has been accepted with a wink by insiders and fans alike.

By today's standards, the doping methods used throughout most of cycling's long history were crude and marginally effective. In the early 1990's the dynamic of competitive cycling began to change as more racers adopted powerful new doping methods such as EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone. These were (and still are?) mandatory for anyone wishing to win elite-level races.

All the while, the Lance Armstrong story grew and grew. His victory against cancer and seven Tour de France wins formed the basis for an international brand of books and product sponsorships, and a not-for-profit foundation supporting cancer research and its victims.

Doping in any sport creates a bargain between athlete and fan, providing the fan a more entertaining spectacle with faster races, more points on the scoreboard, more record-breaking performances.

Some say that this and many other doping scandals have created enough negative attention to get professional cycling's authorities, team managers and sponsors to once and for all implement the controls necessary to clean it up.

Even if justice is served against Lance, they say, what good will it do? Consider the harm it will cause his charities and those who receive inspiration for their own battles against cancer. For anyone who really wanted to know, they could piece together enough evidence to realize for themselves that Lance deceived us, and that should be good enough.

Finally, some object to how cycling receives an inordinate amount of attention from the anti-dopers, as we know that doping also pervades the elite ranks of many cherished and profitable sports such as baseball, football, soccer, track and field--even golf.

All that may be true, but our accepting the bargain for cheating and lies about cheating begs larger questions. What constitutes doping, and how do sporting authorities discern legitimate acts of personal care from illicit ones? Why do we restrict doping? Are there any victims of doping, and who are they?

How would we really know that the sport is cleaning itself up? All the competitors rising behind Lance, what message do they get?

For me, the deceit is most unsettling. I hate being played as the fool. 

I asked a friend why someone in such a powerful position as Lance could not come clean and finally tell us the facts of life in sport, what many of us already understand to be true. He said, because too many people can't handle the truth.

How bad do the lies about doping have to get before I exercise my only right to stop being a fan?

We sometimes accept such forms of deceit in other competitive realms such as politics. How does it serve a useful purpose?

Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies.

Happiness for Atlanta Transportation

This November voters in the Atlanta region will decide on a referendum for a new one percent sales tax that would be used to dramatically accelerate spending on transportation projects in Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties.
Like many people I am hopeful that this effort leads to a more balanced transportation system that gives more metro residents a choice of walking, cycling, riding public transportation or driving.
But how and where should this change in thinking start?
Fifteen percent of the funds raised by this tax will go to local governments for any transportation projects they choose, and the remaining 85 percent will fund a list of projects voters can review before the November referendum.
Developing that list is the responsibility of a group of county commissioners and mayors called the Atlanta Regional Roundtable. Its executive committee is now drafting the project list which will be reviewed and approved by the full Roundtable before going to voters in the Fall.
To be sure, most of this money will be spent in service of Atlanta's roadway empire, based on the tired assumption that we need and want more pavement and more elaborate intersections. And as has history always shown us, the result will eventually take us back to where we started.
There are better ways of approaching this.
Each of those taking part in these decisions, including Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, should first read The Politics of Happiness, a delightful essay written in 2004 by Enrique Penalosa. He writes how, as mayor of Bogotá, Columbia, he cast aside this old way of thinking in favor of an approach that considers what really makes a city a great place to live.
Like all bustling world capitols, Bogotá struggles with traffic congestion and air pollution. They also face societal problems such as crime and poverty.
Perhaps, Penalosa assumed, transportation policy goes farther at influencing public well-being than simply providing mobility.
Instead of spending $600 million on a new freeway, he decided to spend $300 million on a modern bus system serving all parts of the region. They created hundreds of pedestrian-only streets, parks, plazas, and bike paths, planted trees, and got rid of cluttering commercial signs. They constructed the longest pedestrian-only street in the world, through some of the poorest neighborhoods in Bogotá.

All this pedestrian infrastructure shows respect for human dignity. We're telling people, “You are important—not because you're rich or because you have a Ph.D., but because you are human.” If people are treated as special, as sacred even, they behave that way. This creates a different kind of society.

This makes me think how our roadways and our parks share the same status in that they are both forms of public space: our space.
As you move about Atlanta's roads, ask yourself what you see in terms of the public realm. All of those elaborate turn lanes, traffic signals, billboards, parking lots, the dearth of trees, safe sidewalks and bike lanes...send the message "we are trying to get you there as quickly as possible, sorry if it isn't happening that way."
What if we instead thought of the journey itself as having an intrinsic value?
What if at least some of our public realm serves our needs for transportation and for recreation, social contact, and reconnecting with nature?

A city is successful not when it's rich but when its people are happy. Public space is one way to lead us to a society that is not only more equal but also much happier.

Let's not forget that we have our share of societal problems with crime and poverty. We, too, can make smarter transportation policy decisions that will make our communities more livable.

- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!

Biking to better commute options

In keeping with the spirit of last Tuesday's Georgia Rides to the Capitol event in Atlanta and also as a tribute to the start of my work at the Clean Air Campaign, I wish to reprise a wonderful opinion piece by Jim Durrett that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed in 2009. Durrett wrote about riding his bicycle as a daily commute to his job as executive Director of the Buckhead Community Improvement District (CID.) A CID is an organization of property owners and businesses who tax themselves to pay for transportation and other area-specific improvements.
Many have assumed for far too long that the most reasonable way for people to commute to their jobs and schools is via the solitary drive in a car. Our current struggles with traffic congestion, air pollution and rising gasoline costs tell a different story.
Durrett eloquently explains the need to give Atlanta-area commuters more transportation options such as mass transit and bicycling, and how this approach benefits all commuters: That’s the thing about not driving. Regardless of how one feels about it, the folks on bikes, walking or riding in buses and trains are not driving cars, not taking up precious capacity in our road system. They’re not in your way and they’re not adding to traffic congestion. In fact, they’re helping to reduce it. We have to get past this false idea that it’s cars vs. everything else, including public transportation. It is not an either/or situation; it is a both/and situation and opportunity.
My new job affords the luxury of choosing how I commute four miles from my home to the Clean Air Campaign's offices, either by bicycle or by bus. While riding my bike, some motorists traveling in the same direction as I will have to slow down until it is safe to pass me.
Some will not like this and let me know. They feel that bikes don't belong on the road especially when it slows them down.
How can I help them understand that they are merely racing past me to reach the next traffic bottleneck a little sooner, to wait with the other cars at that gridlocked intersection, that overflowing left turn lane, that cop holding up traffic for a school's "car pool" lane?
I am not their problem, and neither are the hundreds of thousands of other clean commuters in Atlanta. We need all these transportation options, and more.
The sixth-annual Georgia Rides to the Capitol event was held to rally political support for improved conditions for cycling, including the development of regional systems of both on-road bicycling facilities and multi-use-trails. I and one thousand other cyclists loudly demanded action on a proposed three-foot safe passing law now before the Senate.
More laws that protect cyclists and provide safer routes will give commuters more opportunities to ditch their solo commutes. For now, I'll do my part as best I can.
You can join the revolution, too.

- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!

The Biggest and Best Job Ever

So far as my career choices go, the third time is a charm.

I left IBM in 2008 feeling as if I had fought long enough in the world of information technology. For most of my 25 years there I developed and sold products tailored for use in very specific industry settings, products that were often on the leading, bleeding edge of electronics manufacturing, digital medical imaging, life sciences R&D, paper-making, and so on. Not only were we faced with competition from smaller, more nimble innovators, we often struggled to convince skeptical customers of the product's value based on a very limited history of practical use.

It was a privilege to work at IBM, and I learned just how hard it is to translate the tremendous potential of technological innovation into sustainable businesses.

In 2009 I joined the renewable energy industry, seeing how solar energy seemed poised to take off in Georgia. I loved working in this field and the sense of satisfaction I got knowing how this work will inevitably become an important part of Georgia's energy future.

Fueled by a wave of Federal stimulus funds, solar did take off. At Empower Energy Technology we completed three really excellent commercial projects in 2010. But without further action by Georgia regulators and legislators to create a level playing field for us renewable energy upstarts, the future of solar energy currently lies in the powerful hands of Georgia Power and the state's electric membership cooperatives.

I am thus starting a new career in transportation advocacy with the Georgia Clean Air Campaign. They want me to develop relationships with executives at private and public organizations who employ 100 or more people and to convince them to provide their employees with options for doing their work other than through the solitary daily commute in an automobile.

I'll be speaking the language of alternative commuting, such as employee teleworking, compressed work weeks, commuter shuttles, car pooling, mass transit, and (my favorite) transportation under one's own power. My new boss was worried that this wouldn't interest me as I have been immersed in all the technology of my past 27 years.

What alternative commuting may lack in glitz is more than compensated by its results. Already enough workers in metropolitan Atlanta telework in one week to eliminate an amount of traffic equivalent to what passes through Atlanta's bloated Downtown Connector in one day. And that only represents a small percentage of all the Atlanta workers who can potentially telework.

Talk about making an impact!

Besides, the case for commute options practically sells itself, transcending much of what culturally and politically divides us on other important issues. Who can argue with cleaner air, less traffic congestion, saving money and happier employees through the use of methods that have a long history of success?

Georgia workers need year-round alternatives to the solitary commute by automobile as urgently as they need air conditioning in August. This will become reality through more education and gradually changing people's perception of what constitutes "normal" commuting behavior.

Let me tell you how!

The Water-Electricity Nexus

Water and electricity represent two resources essential for maintaining our standard of living and economic growth. At last month's Clean Energy Speaker Series at Georgia Tech I learned how our use of both creates a very tight relationship that must not be overlooked.

The seminar started with comments from Judy Adler, a Senior Program Officer at the Turner Foundation who oversees their water, energy and air programs. She emphasized the importance of viewing water and energy issues holistically, especially as Georgia's governor is about to commit to a $300M plan for new reservoir constructions in efforts to strengthen the State's ability to meet its growing demand for water.

The important question of how the Governor's plan will be paid for has yet to be determined, but it hopefully will be directly linked to water usage in a way that rewards efficiency and penalizes those who waste it.

When it comes to all the ways that we use fresh water, I was surprised to learn how much goes to energy production. Water used for cooling purposes is an important resource for all thermoelectric power plants, and electric power generation accounts for one half of total freshwater use in Georgia.

Many power plants return most of this water to the local river or lake, albeit at a higher temperature, and the rest is lost or “consumed.” But the newer plants consume much more water, which creates added stress on water supplies and water ecology.

These are the power plants that we easily recognize by their distinctive cooling towers, which signify a process called mechanical draft cooling. Most of the water they use is lost to evaporation and not returned. For example Georgia Power and its partners are using $8.3B in Federal loan guarantees to double the size of its Plant Vogtle nuclear plant, which uses mechanical draft cooling.

When all four nuclear reactors are online, Plant Vogtle will consume more water from the Savannah River than is consumed by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah combined. That's water removed from the river and not put back.

I am not going to argue here about the necessity of building the nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, but the fact that this and other power plants consume so much water prompts some important questions.

Faced with a serious long-term water supply problem, Georgians are being asked to pay more in their taxes and in their water usage fees.

How much should the power plant operators pay? Currently they pay nothing.

Another question: How would the introduction of accurate cost signals change Georgia's renewable energy industry?

Our utility companies strenuously oppose legislation and policies needed for Georgia to develop a healthy renewable energy industry. Specifically, most states now have a renewable portfolio standard that sets specific targets for the development of renewable energy sources. Many states also do not impose territoriality protections for the utility companies and thus allow private equity sources to spur the development of new energy sources and provide customers with more energy choices.

Without either of these conditions, Georgia's renewable energy industry remains in the shade. Utility industry lobbyists argue the renewable energy is "too expensive" relative to coal and nuclear power.

But what if the many externalized costs of coal and nuclear actually became part of a utility company's profit and loss? What if the value of the $8.3B in Federal loan guarantees for Plant Vogtle were shouldered by the Southern Company's shareholders?

Maybe, we should start by sending them a water bill. That's how the rest of us have to live.


- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!

Over Our Heads About Solar

Solar energy: mention it and people are likely to recall images of vast sun-drenched desert tracts covered with solar modules or mirrors. Searching the Web for "solar energy" is likely to produce news stories of big projects in the Mojave, Sahara and Negev (Israel,) places that reliably receive a potent daily dose of sunlight, measured in what industry professionals call sun hours.

Photo: A concentrated solar thermal project near Barstow, CA. Credit: U.S. Department of Energy

These projects attract hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public and private capital, each generating anywhere from 30 Megawatts to over 370 Megawatts of power, enough electrical generating capacity to meet the needs of a half million Americans.

To make this work, the U.S. government lavishes loan guarantees and expedites the review of projects on public land for multi-Megawatt and even Gigawatt solar power plants.

From an energy policy standpoint, how much should we rely on these utility-scale solar projects in our effort to secure a more sustainable system of electric power supply?

I think that the current zeal for projects like these should be tempered by more localized approaches to supplying renewable energy, with more control given to the states and cities in determining how much they achieve their own energy self-reliance. Renewable energy does not have to be harnessed in a few desert areas and shipped across country. In fact, public support for clean energy may hinge on the opposite.

These big power plants unarguably generate clean, renewable energy at an economic cost but also share some of the same drawbacks their coal- and nuclear-powered brethren do.

Developing large tracts of wild lands often raises concerns about the destruction of valuable wildlife habitat. Even if developers can successfully answer these concerns, it adds significant time and cost to the projects--and negative public opinion about solar energy.

Generating power at centralized locations far from our urban population centers creates additional challenges in terms of reliability, cost and economic value to consumers. The larger the facility, the greater the likelihood of its causing a major disruption in service due to an equipment malfunction, human error, or (heavens forbid) terrorist attack.

Despite the financial support and attention given to these large solar projects, the majority of our current solar power comes from thousands of systems as small as 3 Kilowatts in size installed on rooftops, in fields, over parking lots and even along highway rights-of-way.

2.4 MWp installation, Maryland. Photo courtesy of Kohl's

Since 2006 -- the first time a big concentrating solar thermal electricity power plant was built since the early 1990s -- solar photovoltaics (PV) has added 13 times more capacity to the U.S. electric grid than concentrating solar power plants, and with much less hub-bub.

This alternative approach to solar distributes our generating capacity over every locality from Alaska to Florida and California to Maine (and Hawaii and Puerto Rico,) closest to where the energy is needed. Recent studies show how distributed photovoltaic power could provide for much of what we need, including all of the projected growth in our electricity demand, both technically and commercially.

According to the report: Energy Self-Reliant States: Homegrown Renewable Power, more than 40 states plus the District of Columbia could generate 25 percent of their electricity just with rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.

Image courtesy of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Questions about cost and economics always must be first addressed. Solar electricity is not cost competitive with bulk, baseload power generated from coal and nuclear plants— but it does not have to be. Distributed solar provides electricity when and where power is most limited and most expensive, during those hot sunny afternoons when the demand for electricity can reach critical peaks. At these times local utility companies have to supplement their base generating capacity with more expensive electricity sourced from special-purpose “peaker” power plants, or from the spot market.

Solar electricity also mitigates the risk of fuel-price volatility, as ratepayers can understand when they find those pesky fuel surcharges in their power bills.

By the way, when a utility company like Georgia Power compares the cost of alternative energy with their costs, they frequently fail to mention this or any of the other surcharges and fees which appear on ratepayer bills. Consumer beware!

I'll continue this article next week, when we look further into the challenges of transmitting and distributing large amounts of electricity from remote plants, the economic benefits of localized renewable energy, and recent product developments that make rooftop solar more practical than ever.

Until then, thanks for reading!