A friend of mine works for the GAO (Government Accountability Office) out here in the City of Angels. As cracking the traffic nut in Los Angeles is the Gordian Knot of our time, he hears a lot of supposed "solutions." Sadly, most involve toll roads. However, one we've discussed that I like is the idea of separate roads for semi trucks. More specifically, all cargo coming into San Pedro and Long Beach gets trained up to near Union station where it is then picked up by waiting trailers that then drive off on rig-only roads. With no passenger cars to get in their way, the semis could haul three trailers. Flipside: with no big rigs clogging the freeways, traffic would roll. Furthermore, as 100 percent of all non-weather road damage is caused by 18-wheelers, public roads would last much, much longer and be shuttered less often for repairs. Win/win, if you ask me. Though, there is that up front cost… Still, I think it's a fantastic plan. Now, we just get another series of roads in place for anything with two-wheels and we're in business. What do you think?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I think the current engineering estimate for getting our existing roads and bridges into a safe state is somewhere around 1.6 trillion dollars. Once we are done with that then we can consider separate roads for trucks and maybe also a separate set for stupid drivers.
In the meantime, if we are going to build infrastructure for freight I would vote for more rail – it’s way more efficient.
It makes so much sense I’m sure they’ll find a way NOT to to do it.
100% of all road damage from semis? Surely cars have to exert some small wear & tear on roads. I’ve seen plenty of rural roads in quiet little towns (temperate climates) that are in really rough shape.
But yes, the semis are probably 90% of the wear on interstates and such.
We already have roads that are for the exclusive (well, nearly) use of hauling freight. They’re called railroads.
Shame on America for not using them more.
Pave the world.
I’m sure the eco-friends would love to hear your plans to put two or three highways in the place of one current highway.
While, in principle, your argument sounds logical, it really makes no sense from a logistic perspective. Now, if you were to build one or two additional lanes next to existing highways and restricted their use to tractor trailers, you may have a more workable solution.
Another possibility is to start looking at reducing the max capacity allowance of the rigs. I know in Ohio and Illinois it’s 80,000 lbs while in Michigan it’s 160,000 lbs. And people wonder why Michigan roads are so bad.
If you decrease the allowed weight of the rigs you force more traffic to travel by rail. You do increase the amount of truck traffic, but it would be traffic that would move faster…
Nope, nope. Just get the least competent 10% off the roads, be they truckers, passenger car drivers, motorcyclists, or bicycle riders. Or even just the worst 5% would have a huge positive effect.
It’s much cheaper, doesn’t require a whole new set of roads (and the oil to make them), the electricity to light them, the sewage to drain them, and the squeeze of additional access points to and from the “mixed traffic” roads), and doesn’t present the added infrastructure burdens (like do you need fire and police services on these new “truck-only” roads; what about fuel and and repair services?).
Just get the bottom-level-skilled drivers off the road. It’ll make a HUGE difference, I tellya!
One bad driver on the freeway can cause a mulit-lane bottleneck for miles and miles!
netrun:
If you decrease the allowed weight of the rigs you force more traffic to travel by rail. You do increase the amount of truck traffic, but it would be traffic that would move faster…
I disagree. If rail is not a viable solution, you would just end up with more truck CABS and the DRIVERS (driving those cabs) to haul the same amount of weight.
Reaction time lag is a significant factor in traffic slowness. More drivers = a lot more lag. That’s why any increase in traffic always results in an exponentially longer trip time. It’s like a giant inchworm, expanding and contracting, and it’s very very inefficient.
How about separate roads for speeders? Replace maximum speed limits with minimums. Limit access to certified (certifiable?) cars and drivers. Pay for it with electronic tolls (providing new meaning to the term E-Ticket).
Drivers both manic and mellow need some space, and their relationship could only benefit from a time trial separation.
I’ve seen this concept in practice through the Alpine Gottard Pass tunnel between Switzerland and Italy. Trucks are put onto rail cars sent seperately, thereby keeping the tunnel moving freely ,reducing pollution, wear & tear, accidents, etc. I was pretty astounded when I saw it, but that was one damn nice tunnel.
I agree with carguy’s assertion that rail is more efficient, but I think we’re going to have to work solutions simultaneously by fixing the roads and getting the trucks off the highways. We’ll never catch up just repairing them, the trucks do way too much damage too quickly.
This does lead into an interesting discussion of how logistics are handled in this country now. Everybody wants to be “lean”, which means you get deliveries everyday, drop & hook, and keep the trailer as your daily warehouse, thereby holding no inventory. Looks great on paper, but it’s destroying our infrastructure. Companies need to return to carrying enough inventory that they can be serviced by rail, but nothing has been built that way in years!
How about expanding our rail system to take more trucks off the road?
I thought this might be a good idea some time ago, but it just works on paper, the infastructure cost is just to high, especially in a our super cheap society. I’m with the other poaster the rail system needs to be expanded to take trucks off the interstates. We would still need them for short hops from the rail to the customer but any reduction is better then none. The transportation infastructure in this country really needs to be rethough, it currently does not work. I’m convinced the current people running it can’t fix it though, they are just as dumb and stuck in their ways as the Big 2.8 management.
Creating additional highway capacity that can’t be used by most vehicles is a costly way of handling the problem, and ultimately serves as an accommodation to the trucking industry.
It’s theoretically not a bad idea, but it’s effectively a trucking subsidy and creates an incentive to use trucking instead of rail, which may defeat the point.
Unless it is being drayed (short-haul) put it on rail!
There is nothing more efficient than rail and they (BNSF Railway & Union Pacific Railroad) are privatized.
Expanded rail service would only be of marginal assistance in relieving congestion. So much of the way products are manufactured and distributed has pushed more and more to the less than truckload space which would be unaffected by rail. Add in the city pick-up and delivery drivers and you have most of the trucks on the road you see running routes that rail could not eliminate. Not unless you have rail to every store’s loading docks.
Also, our current rail system is not even near capacity today. You would think the cost of gas would push more cargo to the rail system but instead the rail lines have miles and miles of parked cars because of limited opportunities to be a substitute.
Then next, we can replace those truck-only roads with two strips of metal that perfectly guide the trucks’ wheels to their destinations. Maybe we’ll call them… “rail roads”!
ash78
“100% of all road damage from semis? Surely cars have to exert some small wear & tear on roads.”
Its very small indeed. Mechanical non-weather damage to roads goes as the third or fourth power of axle weight. 40 tons and five axles is 500 to 4000 times worse than 2 tons and two axles – per axle. Per vehicle, its 1250 to 10000 times the damage. Worse than that as the truck lead ‘axle’ is lighter. When you see a sign on a rig proclaiming how much they pay in road taxes, its self serving BS.
Bleach:
I am referencing intermodal (Container on Flat Car) since Long Beach was referenced as an origin point. This traffic is not dependent upon a receiver having a rail siding. That is the engine of growth for rail; handling all of those containers that come into Long Beach now. They go all over the U.S. and are then drayed from intermodal yards to destination. There is a tremendous volume that moves from Long Beach to Chicago via the ex ATSF Railway and there is significant expansion being built in Chicago. Agreed on LCL freight (like less than truckload), rails abandonded that rightly so in 1968.
As for rail capacity, check out CSX’s web site for all of the expansion that they are building in New York, Georgia and Florida. Same for UP in west of Omaha. Excess rail capacity is a thing of the past! The railroads’ ton mileage has expanded greatly since 2003, it has only slowed since the end of 2007 due to the building slowdown though it is up by 4.4% (according to the Association of American Railroads)since 2005 alone. As an aside there is more coal moving on rail now than at anytime in history. Most of the cars that you see sitting are Forest Product cars like centerbeam cars, woodchip cars and boxcars that have been idled due to markets that have collapsed like the building slowdown(bust). I’m not a rail foamer, but I was in it the biz for 20 years and still consult with some shortlines.
Back to the point, we can’t keep building highways as we can’t fix our existing ones (reference I-35 in Minnesota)much less pay for new ones. We need a comprehensive transportation policy in this country and rail has to be part of it.
Thx.
Long haul trucking should be a thing of the past. Thank your local teamster for the large number of trucks on the road. Is it just possible that rails limited opportunity is due to design? How many new rail routes are there? It would be interesting to see the growth of rail miles in the US in the last 50 years.
Separate roads do exist in some limited capactiy, North of L.A. on the 5 freeway there are truck bypass lanes but they are open to cars too (?).
Question, does anyone know the law in CA at least regarding what lanes big rigs can occupy? I drive the 60 fwy daily and see dozens of truck out in the number 2 or 3 lane chugging along and backing up everything behind them. It seems they have no care about the effect of trying to pass another truck that is going 2 mph slower than they are. I say vanquish these guys to the right lane.
Oh and no busses or commercial vehicles in the carpool lane.
Separate truck/car lanes has been done in Jersey for 40+ years on the Parkway and Turnpike. Sections of each are reserved for strictly for cars, while cars or trucks are allowed on parallel sections. All exits are accesible by both, but crossovers between the two are infrequent.
Doesn’t prevent traffic jams, and actually exacerbates them when the two sets of traffic merge back together. It may work if it were set up as purely cars or purely trucks, but I doubt it. Vehicle density will always be the key driver. Either higher speeds or more real estate will be needed to reduce traffic congestion.
As for Cali, doesn’t matter; it should fall into the Pacific sooner or later, clearing all the traffic jams.
Improving the rails would be a great idea, but politicians won’t do it because the truckers union is too large. Also, as a side note, California won’t fall into the ocean, it will just slide up to hang with Canada… let them deal with the traffic.
New roads in any built-up area are now virtually impossible to build. Getting the right-of-way is too difficult and costly.
On the other hand, with fuel costs increasing dramatically, just-in-time processes become more expensive. Just-in-time treats goods in motion or stuck in a warehouse as stranded money that isn’t doing anything for you. At some point, it becomes economically feasible to accept the extra handling, extra transit time and warehousing costs that moving goods by rail imposes on you.
Great article. I think we should rely more on our rail systems (maximize in everyway) AND help out our nations truck drivers as much as possible. They are our lifeline and I respect their line of work. If dedicated roadways are financially possible then do so, after the rail systems are operating near or at full capacity though.
Ryan
I agree with nudave.
I’m sick of seeing our highways become free warehouse space.
Rail is cheaper, more ecological, and doesn’t throw blown tire carcasses all over the road.
If anything positive comes from the current gas crises, I hope that it revitalizes the rail freight industry.
Trains. 8:1 efficiency compared to trucks and a much smaller ROW required.
“It takes two lanes of a given size to move 40,000 people across a bridge in one hour by using modern trains, four to move them on buses, 12 to move them in their cars, and only one lane for them to pedal across on bicycles.”
— Ivan Illich, Energy And Equity, 1974, p.62
Yes. I believe that paralleling every major interstate and state highway with a 2 lane road built to autobahn specifications is a great idea that will meet with nothing but success when the subject of financing comes up.
Sure, it’s a compelling idea and subject that could bear further discussion, but seriously, I don’t exactly enjoy paying $4 for a couple tomatoes at Safeway, but I sure know I wouldn’t enjoy paying $10 for the same tomatoes and a 90% increase in licensing fees.
Separate truck/car lanes has been done in Jersey for 40+ years on the Parkway and Turnpike. Sections of each are reserved for strictly for cars, while cars or trucks are allowed on parallel sections. All exits are accesible by both, but crossovers between the two are infrequent.
Doesn’t prevent traffic jams, and actually exacerbates them when the two sets of traffic merge back together. It may work if it were set up as purely cars or purely trucks, but I doubt it. Vehicle density will always be the key driver. Either higher speeds or more real estate will be needed to reduce traffic congestion.
As for Cali, doesn’t matter; it should fall into the Pacific sooner or later, clearing all the traffic jams.
Even more interesting is that on those sections of the NJ Turnpike that split the car and truck lanes, the car lanes usually get traffic backups sooner than the truck lanes.
Well, maybe it’s not too significant in Los Angeles, but in northern climates, the most significant damage to roads is done by STUDDED SNOW TIRES. Just look at the ruts in the freeways that need repair the worst — usually the LEAST amount of rutting exists in the “slow lane,” which takes most of the truck traffic.
And, you sure don’t need dedicated roads for three-trailer rigs — some states have been running them in normal traffic for years. Though, the triple-rigs do cause cause their own kind of damage — they are especially hard on bridges. They’re a good way to squeeze a decade or two of life out of your bridges….
Why does it matter, isn’t the gov-ment going to make us all go back to the double nickel anyways? Sorry you don’t like toll roads Jonny, as I’m sure your GAO friend has explained to you, they are the only conceivable way to get our highway infrastructure back up to par. Have you seen the new told road system around Austin? Its amazing, and well worth the pocket change. Tolls would also be the only way to pay for a truck road system, and would do a much more efficient job of accessing the repair costs of road damage caused by big-rigs to our highways than our current tax-the-hell-outa-diesel system that unfairly punishes people who just want to drive torquey oil-sipping cars.
To expand on an idea above, why not start annual testing all drivers over 65? When they can’t pass the eye test, or the practical, the loss of those drivers will ease congestion. And as America continues to get older, the effects will compound.
Somehow, this doesn’t seem right.
“Though mass transit could have been done better in spite of our distances. The former US auto industry played a major role in the lack of a mass transit/rail system in this country.
There are entirely too many trucks on our highways (one engine per box) and entirely too few cargo trains (one engine per 50 boxes) on our albeit limited railways.”
the above written by one of our posters here is a good observation.
My suggestion here is to nationalise the rail lines mostly just the major routes, but not the rolling stock. Then the track maintenace would become a Federal responsibility, just as the paved roads are. Then invite trucking companies to set up intermodal facilities with their own rolling stock.
Computers would control traffic with speeds limited to 40mph. Rail crossings could also be set up like conventional intersections but with look-ahead sensors so trains needn’t stop.
Limit trains to hauling ten railcars so that much lower cost tractor units could be employed and thus encourage a competitive environment for new entrants.
T2
“Though mass transit could have been done better in spite of our distances. The former US auto industry played a major role in the lack of a mass transit/rail system in this country. There are entirely too many trucks on our highways (one engine per box) and entirely too few cargo trains (one engine per 50 boxes) on our albeit limited railways.”
the above written by one of our posters here is a good observation.
My suggestion is to nationalise the rail lines mostly just the major routes, but not the rolling stock. Then the track maintenace would become a Federal responsibility, just as the paved roads are. Then invite trucking companies to set up intermodal facilities with their own rolling stock.
Computers would control traffic with speeds limited to 40mph. Rail crossings could also be set up like conventional intersections but with look-ahead sensors as before so trains needn’t stop.
Limit trains to hauling ten railcars so that much lower cost tractor units could be employed and thus encourage a competitive environment for new entrants.
T2
The traffic issues in L.A. and Atlanta are the worst in the nation according to several different sources including Forbes and CNN. Atlanta was actually ranked the absolute worse large city for commuters, even worse than L.A. Having lived all my 33-years in Metro Atlanta, I’ve got a head of gray hair and Xanax prescription to support that claim- driving here SUCKS!!!
Semi-trucks may play some role in the traffic issues entering and leaving the city, but I attribute FAR more of the problem to people that are just too freakin’ stupid to drive! Whether it’s lack of driver’s eduction and training, disregard for fellow drivers or maybe mental retardation…but I can spot at least ten “problem drivers” during my 83-mile round trip commute each day.
By far, the two offenses that I see over and over countless times are-
1) Having no concept or understanding of the phrase “slower traffic keep right” and instead parking against the wall of the left lane of a 7-lane interstate poking along at 55mph while all the lanes to the right move faster than you!
2) Apparently, a substantial number of motorists here do not bother to look ahead and attempt to anticipate if any change in speed or lane is needed. They must forget that those on-ramps they pass every single day will likely have cars on them that need to merge into the traffic flow. Rather than adjusting speed or changing lanes to allow them to merge, they completely ignore them until they either slam on the brakes OR force the merging traffic into the shoulder/emergency lane of the highway.
Seriously….the driving test should be MUCH more difficult. I like to believe that the dumbest of people will weed themselves out eventually, but I don’t want them to off me in the process!!!
Let’s just use trucks for the final, local delivery loop. It is much more efficient and economical to ship by rail.
we can’t even take care of the roads and bridges we have now….
i think we should invest instead in more and better rail systems for freight.
PS, the Garden State Parkway in Jersey doesn’t have truck only lanes, however the Jersey Turnpike does for about half its length as it nears New York City. Or better put, it has car only lanes. The highway splits into two parts, cars only on the left side, and no restrictions on the right side.
As for traffic jams, i find that barring an accident, both sides carry about the same amount of traffic. If there is a problem on one set of lanes, one can move to the other if in a car, so they are always about even.
Also understand that this is wildly expensive in terms of construction, real estate and management, and that the tolls are kinda high, and due to get higher. And in Jersey, there is simply no more room for even more highways – anywhere. We are full. I doubt that there will be any more major highway consturction in the entire Northeast corridor anywhere.
At least I hope not.