 |
 |
Muriel, I find some of your questions interesting and as a society we should always question our strategic directions, economically, environmentally, even philosophically and spiritually. "But...the phrase "productive" heavy vehicles begs the question of what is being produced exactly that is the goal." Road freight transport offers a service that is available to all takers. Our cities and broader society could not exist without efficient freight transport. It is up to society to decide what the acceptable costs of transport are, how clean, how noisy, how long, how tall etc. After all a truck is a product of legislation. But road transport's efforts to function as efficiently as possible within the parameters laid down by society has nothing to do with social engineering. We are specialists that offer a vital service. Not social engineers. Regards, Bob Murphy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel Strand" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Daytime running lights > on the subject of cost-benefit analysis and efficiency: > > the nature of such costs is usually pretty much undisputed. however i > submit that the nature of benefits is far slipperier. what are the > appropriate benefits to be considered? reduction in accident costs? > saving lives? providing transportation? providing essential technology > that helps people meet their desires? providing essential technology > that helps people meet their needs? > > we tend to forget that the fundamental reason to have a large monetary > economy is to help people meet their needs (food, shelter and clothing) > in an easier way. how good are drl's at helping provide for these needs > in a way that they cost people less? anything else is just pandering to > people's notion that chevron fuels your freedom, or that keeping up with > the joneses is an undisputably desirable goal. and what about the > freedom to not drive or to not need to buy a car and gasoline? and, the > phrase "productive" heavy vehicles begs the question of what is being > produced exactly that is the goal. it also overlooks the fact that > 99.999% of engineering is concerned with *production* efficiency, > whereas basically no one is paying any attention to *consumption* > efficiency (in the engineering sense of the word). > > economic efficiency is a very different calculation than engineering > efficiency. economic efficiency seems to mean doing things faster, and > usually has little to do with output as a proportion of input of the > same physical parameter as the output. for example, some sources > propose subtracting costs from benefits, resulting in a situation where > a project that is less efficient (in an engineering sense) but bigger is > deemed more efficient (in the economic sense) than a project that is > smaller but where the *ratio* of benefits to costs is higher. > > lastly, keep in mind the effect of cheap gasoline on economic > motivations. the minimum-wage human-powered price for the (available) > energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is at least $500, which is a > useful rule of thumb for sustainability and also for how skewed our > current economic signals are, relative to the energy prices with which > our political and economic systems were historically formed. > > muriel > > IS Edit wrote: > > > Hi, Steve. I am a bit of a sceptic about the cost effectiveness of > > mandatory daytime running lights and their effectiveness in a sunny > > climate with light coloured landscape such as we have in much of > > Australia (and you have in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and much of > > Texas). There has been some great comments from the group about DRL > > which makes me think there is room for further investigation. And it > > could well be that LED lights with their intense light, long life and > > low current draw might be worthy of some consideration. It could well > > be that the intelligent way forward is to incorporate DRLs into cars > > and leave it up to the drivers to do what they want. If a case then > > clearly establishes itself for their benefit, it would be possible to > > convince people to use them voluntarily. Failing that, mandation. I > > recall before they made bicycle helmets here (in Oz) mandatory > > (causing an immediate reduction in the number of people riding bikes) > > about 80% of bicyclists wore them anyway. Perhaps that same sort of > > thing could happen with DRLs. The case is much clearer for DRLs in low > > light environments than it is here but I for one am open to input and > > appreciate the trouble that people in this group have gone to in > > floating ideas and knowledge, even some of the more colourful > > sceptics.:) As for more freeways, I believe a much higher percentage > > of US vehicular travel is on freeways than it is here in Australia, > > including for metropolitan areas. From a town planning perspective, > > there would be widespread concerns about the traffic generation aspect > > of more urban freeways. I don't know what the right answer is but in > > Los Angeles at one stage 50% of the downtown area was for parking for > > people working in the remaining buildings. That may well be the > > reductio ad absurdum, but even if we had zero emission vehicles, the > > urban amenity impacts of very high levels of motorcar use may well be > > unacceptable and if freeways do, in fact, tend to generate traffic, > > that could well negate the per mile or per kilometre safety > > improvements of freeways in metropolitan areas above a certain minimum > > level. Variable road pricing and improved public transport could well > > have more effect on the road toll than additional freeways, but I fear > > that would be a very difficult ask because the land use planning > > battle in most low density US cities was lost a long time ago. There > > would likely be a huge time lag as we redesign our cities to make car > > free or one car household living practical/desirable. And then we > > would have to grapple with the fear of the street exhibited by > > millions of people who have been hiding in low density suburbs and > > behind locked car doors all their lives. Another huge potential for > > improved road safety in the US is more efficient trucks. Truck > > development in the US has been all but paralyzed by anti-truck > > interest groups including the rail lobby and CRASH which is, I > > believe, partially funded by the rail lobby. The US as I understand it > > still uses a very high percentage of 5 axle articulated vehicles at > > about 36.5 tonnes GCW, much as they did 25 years ago. During that > > time, Australian 6 axle articulated vehicles have gone from a 38 tonne > > GCW to 42.5 tonnes and a 45 tonne GCW is in effect over much of > > Australia and spreading, now. The increase was based on the use of > > "road-friendly" suspensions. Australia has also introduced B-doubles > > (politically correct jargon for B-trains) which are 25 metres long and > > weigh up to 68 tonnes GCW. Their efficiency has seen their widespread > > adoption and they have an impressive safety records. And our > > road-trains are carrying more weight as well, partly through the use > > of tri-drive prime movers and tri-axle air-suspension dollies. More > > productive heavy vehicles mean fewer of them. Fewer heavy vehicles > > mean fewer front ends to hit things. Simplistic but not far off the > > mark. I'd suggest more productive heavy vehicles might be worthy of > > consideration for improving road safety in the US. We're going pretty > > well on it here in Oz, and funny thing is we are using mostly US > > sourced heavy equipment at weights US operators only dream > > about. Cheers, Bob Murphy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: [log in to unmask] > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:10 AM > > Subject: Re: Daytime running lights > > In a message dated 9/6/02 8:32:57 PM Mountain Daylight > > Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > > > > > > > > > Only 30 percent of our VMT is on motorways. > > > > > > > > I agree with Peter that highway deaths are a major issue in > > America. > > We lose around 41,000 people per year in highway fatalities, > > the equivalent of about 14 world trade center attacks per > > year. I can't believe there isn't a rebellion considering > > this fact. Americans value their freedom, however, and they > > consider the ability to drive a basic freedom that is worth > > the risk of being involved in a fatal accident. > > > > I have been looking for things that we could do as engineers > > in order to lower these numbers, and Peter's solution of > > building more "motorways" seems like a very reasonable > > solution. We have achieved significant reductions from the > > historical high of about 58,000 fatalities per year > > primarily due to tougher laws on drinking and driving..... > > but those laws seem to have reached their point of maximum > > impact, and fatalities are now beginning to show a slight > > increase. > > > > We have improved highway geometric designs, improved guard > > rails, and certainly improved the vehicles themselves. > > Until I read Peter's post, I thought the only solution was > > increasing the requirements for driver education, > > particularly for those involved in their first accident. As > > insurance rates prove, once you are involved in one > > accident, you are much more likely to be involved in a > > second (or more.) I still think this is a good idea. > > > > I'm sorry to have to question Peter's number about only 30% > > of the traffic being on motorways. As I looked at the > > national highway statistics a few years ago. I recall more > > like 70% of VMT is on the interstates and arterials, with > > about 30% on local roads. This was the opposite of the total > > mileage -- 70% local miles, and 30% arterial and > > interstate. (I used these numbers to support the need for > > better pavement management on local roads.) > > > > Because of this, I also have to question the impact Peter > > stated of 5,000 lives saved. My friend, even if we only > > save 1 life, we've done good! (to quote an environmentalist > > who was willing to spend an extra five billion $ to > > guarantee a perfectly safe emission level of a rare > > pollutant.) > > > > I will side with Peter and others on the issue of DRL, > > however. I use my lights when necessary to see or to be > > seen. I just purchased a new car last month, and the > > headlights will come on automatically if the lighting > > conditions warrant (as long as the switch is in the > > automatic position.) Don't the drivers have some > > responsibility in this? Isn't this part of improved driver > > education? Isn't this a more effective solution? > > > > Best Regards, > > Steve Mueller > > Denver, Colorado, USA > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: > > 4/09/2002 > > > -- > The political-economic challenge facing California is real. > Every Californian needs to contact their elected representatives > to solve this problem. > > Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official > position is completely coincidental. > ****************************************************************** > > The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian > needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For > a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy > cost, see our web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov > > Muriel Strand, P.E. > Air Resources Engineer > CA Air Resources Board > 1001 I Street > Sacramento, CA 95814 > 916-324-9661 > 916-327-0640 (fax) > www.arb.ca.gov --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 4/09/2002