The Texas Transportation Institute recently published its latest urban mobility report, rating the amount of congestion in each of more than 100 urbanized areas. The report also estimates total congestion costs in 439 urbanized areas.
The Antiplanner has taken previous reports with a grain of salt because congestion estimates were based on formulas rather than on actual measurements of traffic delays. This report, for the first time, incorporates information from actual traffic speeds. The authors say they have backtracked this new methodology to the year 2000, but data before then (which go back to 1982) rely on the old methods. There does not appear to be a significant discontinuity between 1999 and 2000, which suggests either that the old methodology wasn’t too bad or the new data don’t play a huge role in the calculations.
One problem the Antiplanner still has with the report is how it treats transit. A table on page 13 of the full report claims to estimate the congestion benefits of public transit. But this table assumes, first, that without public transit there would be no private transit; and second, that without public transit every transit rider would buy and drive a car. Neither of these assumptions are credible.
The charge of medicine is somehow more if you don’t have prescription of this kind of medicine will be cheaper than the branded viagra sales online . Many medical institutes and reputable pharmacies have recognized such needs and developed medications that can remedy erectile dysfunction, and they don’t interact with the lipid-lowering medications. buy cialis tadalafil appalachianmagazine.com I know because I was one of you otherwise it may come to feel like a horse again generic viagra for sale and we had a full week of excitement and climaxes. Considering that brick tadalafil india online or mortar pharmacies have big overhead expenses or should retain a share of drugs on a platform.
The report indicates that 86 percent of the benefits of transit are in the nation’s 15 largest urbanized areas. Just 9 percent of the benefits are in the next 31 urbanized areas, and only 5 percent are in the remaining 393 urbanized areas. The Antiplanner would agree that nearly all transit benefits are in 6 or so major urbanized areas (New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington), but I suspect even in those areas the report overestimates the benefits.
The report estimates that the annual costs of congestion climbed from $24 billion in 1982 to $91 billion in 2000 to $126 billion in 2007, then fell slightly to $114 billion in 2008 and $115 billion in 2009. But these are the costs to drivers and passengers and ignore the costs to shippers and other businesses, which are probably several tens of billions of dollars more.
The report suggests that the $12 billion reduction in congestion costs from 2006 to 2007 resulted from a 2.2 percent increase in freeway and major arterial lane miles combined with a 1.7 percent drop in vehicle miles of driving. This shows that it is possible to build your way out of congestion, despite what many people claim.
The only question is what is the most cost-effective way of doing so. The Antiplanner suggests that this question be answered by asking transportation users to pay the full costs of the facilities they use, which will give them an incentive to drive at less-congested times or on less-congested roads while it gives transportation providers an incentive to offer the facilities people really need.
We need the great words of Wisdom from Dan and Highwayman to help us understand this report. Only then can we discover that cars are evil and transit, mix-used development, planning, and (to quote Dan) gubmint is Good and Pure.
Antiplanner wrote:
“One problem the Antiplanner still has with the report is how it treats transit. A table on page 13 of the full report claims to estimate the congestion benefits of public transit. But this table assumes, first, that without public transit there would be no private transit; and second, that without public transit every transit rider would buy and drive a car. Neither of these assumptions are credible.”
I think it’s a question of terminology. It says ‘public transport’ rather than ‘public transit’ or ‘private transit’. Public transport is a term in use in the UK, and just means transit, whether owned by the local municipality or by a private company.
Two nations divided by the same language.
Thus:
The 2010 Urban Mobility Report database includes the effect of several widely implemented
congestion solutions. These provide more efficient and reliable operation of roads and public
transportation using a combination of information, technology, design changes, operating
practices and construction programs.
Benefits of Public Transportation Service
Regular-route public transportation service on buses and trains provides a significant amount of
peak-period travel in the most congested corridors and urban areas in the U.S. If public
transportation service had been discontinued and the riders traveled in private vehicles in 2009,
the 439 urban areas would have suffered an additional 785 million hours of delay and
consumed 640 million more gallons of fuel (Exhibit 10). The value of the additional travel delay
and fuel that would have been consumed if there were no public transportation service would be
an additional $18.8 billion, a 16% increase over current congestion costs in the 439 urban
areas.
There were approximately 55 billion passenger-miles of travel on public transportation systems
in the 439 urban areas in 2009 (4). The benefits from public transportation vary by the amount
of travel and the road congestion levels (Exhibit 10). More information on the effects for each
urban area is included in Table 3.
Antiplanner wrote:
“The report suggests that the $12 billion reduction in congestion costs from 2006 to 2007 resulted from a 2.2 percent increase in freeway and major arterial lane miles combined with a 1.7 percent drop in vehicle miles of driving. This shows that it is possible to build your way out of congestion, despite what many people claim.”
You can indeed build you way out of congestion.
When a new road is built, three things happen.
1. Some people who couldn’t make a journey conveniently by car can now do so. They may, for example, live a bit further away. Car use on the road goes up a bit.
2. Since the new road is less busy than neighbouring roads, some traffic moves across to it. Car use on the road goes up a bit.
3. Since the new road is still not congested, someone asks if they can build a large office block there. Everyone needs to arrive by car, apparently. The road locks up solid.
Of these three effects, the last is usually the most important – it is what killed the Newbury Bypass. Sorting out a bus service to bring people in from satellite car parks, is, I think, the best way to avoid this problem.
This shows that it is possible to build your way out of congestion, despite what many people claim.
Only for a short period of time. But you knew that already.
I suspect even in those areas the report overestimates the benefits.
I suspect you’ll provide evidence to back this evidenceless claim, too.
But these are the costs to drivers and passengers and ignore the costs to shippers and other businesses, which are probably several tens of billions of dollars more.
Indeed. This is a common claim. It is true.
The Antiplanner suggests that this question be answered by asking transportation users to pay the full costs of the facilities they use, which will give them an incentive to drive at less-congested times or on less-congested roads while it gives transportation providers an incentive to offer the facilities people really need.
I agree.
And not only facilities, but fuel and material as well. I know the Koch boys are paying for a PR campaign to avoid lowering their profit under their outdated business model, but still. Full price on oil and transport materials would do wonders for not only congestion, but public health as well.
DS
Uh Highwayman, I mean, Dan, you mean that only cars and trucks pay the full price of their use. Government public transit of any sort would be fully exempt, obviously.
dan asserted:
Full price on oil and transport materials would do wonders for not only congestion, but public health as well.
Please elaborate.
But before you do, please include a discussion of the merits of taxing electric power generated at fossil-fuel-powered generating stations and consumed by the “clean electric” transit vehicles (and, for that matter, other electric vehicles).
C.P, Dan was implying, of course, that regular, evil fossil-fuel cars would be taxed to death and it would be business as usual for public transit or electric cars, or any other mode of transportation favored by the planning elite.
CPZ,
Internal combustion on roads in cities – as Atlanta taught us – has wide-scale implications on human cardiopulmonary health. Small-scale health we know from LA is detrimental to the SES disadvantaged communities, esp kids and negative IQ outcomes. So it depends on what scale you mean. East TX also is a convenient test bed for negative transport outcomes – with the plant damage due to low-level ozone. Sierra as well.
I’m Totally on board with the problems with coal and Hg and fun discussions on SOx cap and trade outcomes and reductions in acid rain damage. This is why we see expansions in RESs across the country, RGGIs, etc. China cornering the market in REMs is a sign of angst to come. Especially when the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA, I doubt we can solve these problems in the next 5-7-9 years.
DS
Cars aren’t evil, it’s government planning only for cars to the detriment of pedestrians & mass transit that is evil.
” I know the Koch boys are paying for a PR campaign to avoid lowering their profit under their outdated business model,…” – Dan
Considering the majority of Koch Industries business isn’t oil, if this was their motivation they’d be putting their dollars into other things. But you’d realize that if you took 3 minutes to research Koch Industries instead of using a lazy and nefarious ad hominem attack on fellow human beings.
prk:
Do the words you typed mean that you disagree with my assertion that you quoted? Is your claim the Koch boys did not hire a PR firm to burnish their image to maintain profit?
DS