I don’t think your cite says what you think it does. It emphasizes road construction and preservation before “operations.” Within “operations,” it emphasizes technologies like automated toll-paying, intelligent cars, etc. The article hardly mentions anything like traffic engineering competence; when it does it specifically deflects blame from local engineers:
Frankly, I find the idea that traffic engineers (public employees) need financial incentive to do their jobs correctly to be rather odd. I’m curious about OP’s politics (but not curious enough to click Find All Posts; nor to hijack the thread).
I’m still baffled. The main cause of traffic congestion is simply the adverse ratio of cars to asphalt!
[anecdote] Several decades ago I often joined the Bay Area’s southbound I-280 from southbound Saratoga Avenue and found the delay so intolerable I called City Hall and demanded to speak to the traffic engineer! He was a kind intelligent man who explained the problems they were up against there. They needed to widen the Saratoga Ave. overpass, but that would be a very expensive operation.
How about now? Was that overpass ever widened? Is it still intolerable at some times of the day?
Yes, but make it an escalating dollar value, rather than a percent. Use the funds to offset SocSec on the first $X of income. Win-win.
Not Frisco itself, the overall Bay area. SF spends a lot of time, money and energy impeding traffic, not helping flow. Cars are evil, dontchaknow?:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Back to the OP-*Part I:We need to align the incentives - split up a given city / core congestion area into defined routes, and pay traffic engineers based on flow, and pay them well - if they improve current flow 20%, for example, they should make ~$400k a year. So they have an incentive in the positive direction. *
It may be too late for that - this would just cause people to buy electric cars and hybrid cars (which is a good thing, but doesn’t solve the traffic problem). I think we need a more drastic solution, like the congestion charge system in London. It doesn’t have to be city-wide. We could have traffic cameras on high-traffic roads, and charge for usage during peak hours.
As far as city congestion is concerned, building more roads (or making the existing ones more efficient) simply attracts more traffic - until the roads are full again.
This, plus better public transport is the way to go.
Disasters on the Bay Bridge don’t affect the commute in San Jose. Trust me, when I was commuting I never missed a traffic report. Yeah, traffic engineers everywhere should follow best practices. I’m not one, but I’m sure there is variation like anywhere else.
BTW while you say traffic engineers have no incentive to optimize flow, complaints to the politicians in charge of their communities will rapidly give them incentives. That’s how government worked. When my daughter was in college she interned for a state legislator, and when she called a government agency on behalf of a constituent, they jumped.
The congestion I mentioned is with metering lights and HOV lanes. I’m a big fan of them, but in some cases the line on the ramp is bad enough to clog side streets and thus be dangerous.
At the point of maximum congestion, I usually move faster than those in the HOV lanes, by the way. I speculate, though I can’t prove, that the large number of people in HOV lanes moving through multiple lanes of heavy traffic to an exit increases traffic issues a lot.
The OP is obviously unaware of the costs associated with the changes he advocates. While it’s true that traffic flow can be improved, it’s not the engineers that are the obstacle. Historically, infrastructure and maintenance have been substantially under-funded. The costs of interconnecting all of a city’s traffic signals (like the size of Chicago) would be in the billions. Oh, and the construction work to upgrade the signals would require lane closures at all of those intersections.
The biggest problem facing cities and traffic, besides funding, is the inability to increase the number of lanes to handle the current traffic volume. When the roads were designed 50+ years ago, there wasn’t anywhere near the volumes we have today. There is only so much right-of-way, and then you’re talking about purchasing land from private owners. Is the OP proposing tearing down buildings for miles on end just to add a lane? Good luck with that.
The biggest inefficiency is the user; look around in traffic, most vehicles are single occupant. Make it cost effective to car pool and you’ll improve congestion. Make it cost effective & user friendly for suburbanites to use public transportation, and you’ll improve congestion.
Well, I’ve just proposed tapping a literally bottomless funding source - human rage and frustration at being stuck in traffic. If you were stuck in traffic and could complain with money, with a solid belief that something would actually get done about it as a result, wouldn’t you? Collectively, millions would per year in any large metro area.
All we have to do is allocate that funding specifically for road improvements, and we have a substantial new funding source. And we should tune the “punishment” component so the EV for a good traffic engineer should still be in the 300’s, and a great one in the 400’s. Win/win, for people on the road, the city, and the engineers.
All I’m looking for is a 10%-20% improvement, so I doubt whole-city upheavals are necessary. And with the incentives proposed, I trust the engineers to do the right cost/benefit analyses with the budget allocated to them to maximize their impact.
Again, these are actually the situations most in need of optimization. When roads were built for traffic of 50 years ago, and money or land isn’t available for city-wide overhauls and lane expansions, your only option left for improvement is getting smarter, and working with the network as it is to optimize it from there.
Quite the contrary - I believe if we give smart people a strong positive incentive, and financially-measured performance objectives, they will find a way.
Many here think I’m ragging on traffic engineers when I have so much faith in them they’re actually what I’m proposing as the solution.
The problem isn’t traffic engineers being lazy, the problem is a lack of continuous and ongoing optimization efforts, with enough incentives that really smart people want to tackle them.
The “punishment” aspect is simply a real-time feedback mechanism that takes care of side streets and problems that are currently too small for city-driven road improvement plans - it’s not intended to put them into bankruptcy, it should be specifically tuned such that traffic engineers actually driving 10% improvements make pretty substantial money.
You haven’t addressed that your system measures the wrong things. And I’m not sure that you’ve really taken seriously the point that transportation projects are under the control of elected politicians and whatever legislative body they serve in, not traffic engineers.
It’s a brilliant plan - find someone to blame for the problem, punish them for not fixing the problem, get everyone mad at them for not fixing the problem.
The problem with the OP is the simplistic idea that a traffic engineer operates independently and with a large amount of authority over roadway projects, which simply isn’t true. They are only a small part of an effort which includes personnel responsible for maintenance, planning, zoning, construction contracting, resource management (money), real estate, utilities and easements, environmental issues, storm water management, public safety, and a multitude of other areas. All of which can impact traffic, so it is unreasonable to place either blame or reward to a traffic engineer who plays only a part of roadway and traffic management. And while drivers have the right to complain, they are laymen who have no idea about how all these issues interact. To give them the power to directly affect the pay of a single entity in this process is ludicrous.
I disagree that it measures the wrong things. It’s tuned specifically to alleviate the traffic burden, by increasing flow and reducing commute times for everyone, and measures and incentivizes accordingly. What do you feel it should be measuring?
And sure, current projects may be under the control of elected politicians. It would probably be up to one of those elected politicians to implement a system like this with traffic engineers under them paid to optimize the network, and with decision-making power allocated to individual engineer’s zones in terms of which innovations to try, when to schedule construction, and so on.
The fact that things currently operate a way other than my proposal is rather the whole point of the proposal - because the current system sucks for many cities, and could be better.
Do you work as an engineer, Mr. Innuendo? I didn’t think so. When I was a worker-bee engineer several decades ago, some of us worked overtime for free, just for the thrill and glory of solving problems!
One obstacle these public traffic engineers face is managers who thwart their efforts and make work unpleasant. By providing a pot of money for these mismanagers to squabble over, I’ll guess that problem may get even worse!
I specifically said why you’re wrong about this. Let me repeat: there are many things that can be done that will result in an overall improvement in transportation that will not benefit drivers, especially people who drive alone during rush hour. Examples include turning a driving lane into a bus-only lane or a bike lane.
Such decisions can, in some circumstances, move more people more efficiently to where they need to go, but that does not mean that someone who insists on driving alone in congested areas will benefit. The flaw in your system is that if more people who happen to be non-drivers benefit from such a proposal, their views aren’t counted in your system.
So if a traffic engineer wants to close my street for a month to do some wild experiment, I’m at the mercy of the whims of a government contractor, rather than being able to appeal to my elected leaders to inject some sense into this road dictator’s head? No thanks.