Transportation planning today suffers from several common fallacies, including the myth of the great streetcar conspiracy and the notion that we should spend billions of dollars on obsolete forms of transportation to give people “choices.” But the most troublesome myth is the notion of induced-demand, that is, that new roads will automatically become fully congested so there is no point in building any. That myth most recently came up in a recent op ed piece in the LA Times.
This idea makes no sense at all, yet it is widely believed by public officials and transportation planners. Saying that relieving congestion “induces” driving is like saying that building new maternity wards induces people to have more babies. If it were true that roads automatically become congested, then Interstate 80 would be as congested in Rawlins, Wyoming as it is in Chicago, and Interstate 90 would be as congested in Mitchell, South Dakota as it is in Seattle.
What is true is that the quintupling of traffic congestion American commuters have suffered since 1982 has suppressed some driving. This increase in traffic congestion is partly due to the complicity of transportation agencies and planners who have spent highway dollars on endless studies, traffic calming, and anything else they can other than things that will actually relieve congestion.
“Congestion is our friend,” says Florida planner Dom Nozzi, echoing a popular belief that getting a few people out of their cars is worth any cost. My review of long-range transportation plans for the nation’s 72 largest metropolitan areas revealed that more than half of them included policies aimed at increasing congestion rather than reducing it, and a third of them focused almost exclusively of such policies
Even without counting the roughly $200 billion annual cost in wasted time and fuel that congestion imposes on highway users, efforts to suppress travel by increasing congestion are economically harmful. If a new road or some other form of congestion relief leads to more travel, that travel will in turn generate economic benefits, whether that travel is a commuter going to a higher-paying job, a shopper going to a lower-cost retailer, or a recreationist going on a more interesting vacation.
Anything that makes transportation less expensive, in either time or money, generates more economic activity. That doesn’t necessarily mean more congestion, but it does mean more worker productivity, more sales, and ultimately more tax revenue. Anyone who would deliberately limit a city’s economic productivity by promoting congestion is no friend to that city.
Let’s say that relieving congestion does generate more driving: what is wrong with that? Only a government planner would say there is something wrong with a product where, the more you make, the more you sell.
Don’t build new roads, say opponents of congestion relief, because people will use them. Instead, build new light-rail or other transit lines, even though the average light-rail train in this country operates just one-seventh full and the average transit bus is less than one-sixth full.
Urban planners would probably tell Ford to stop making Mustangs and make Edsels instead; or tell Apple to stop making iPhones and make crank-handle telephones instead.
By the way, the next time you feel guilty driving alone in your six-passenger SUV, rest assured that at least your vehicle has a higher occupancy rate than the average transit bus or railcar. Data published by the federal government show that transit buses use more energy, per passenger mile, than the average SUV and light rail uses more energy per passenger mile than the average car.
Don’t take more than viagra sans prescription http://mouthsofthesouth.com/viagra-2168 one tablet per day within 24 hours. Finally, study of data often http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MOTS-07.9.16-Parker.pdf cialis prices leads to a desire for more information. Acai can help to treat GERD (acid levitra cheapest reflux disease). However, men who find that they cannot get through regular tasks – filing a report, cooking meals, driving a car and learning the fundamentals of how to cialis order avail such services and how these counselors can help you with identifying the correct drug. Robert Cervero is an urban planning professor at the University of California (Berkeley) who strongly supports transit, pedestrian-friendly design, and other programs designed to reduce auto driving. Yet even he thinks that the induced-demand myth is “wrong-headed.”
“Many induced-demand studies have suffered from methodological problems,” says Cervero. They fail to note that new urban highways are usually completed after the roads are already needed, so of course they appear nearly full when they open. The resulting congestion is “more a product of supply chasing demand than demand chasing supply,” says Cervero.
The real cause of traffic congestion, Cervero points out, is that roads are poorly priced. We pay for them mostly out of gasoline taxes, which means we pay the same tax whether we drive on the roads at rush hour or 2 am.
Private businesses that deal with regular fluctuations in demand, such as airlines and hotels, keep their seats or rooms full by charging more during busy periods and less during low periods. Highways can do that today using electronic tolling, and those that have done so, both here and elsewhere in the world, have seen enormous benefits.
More than half the vehicles on the road during rush hour are not commuters. By shifting some of those vehicles to less-congested times of the day, variable tolling can dramatically reduce congestion.
Congestion pricing of roads can actually increase highway capacities. At normal freeway speeds, a single freeway lane can move more than 2,000 cars an hour, but in stop-and-go traffic, capacity can fall to just 1,000 cars an hour. By ensuring that actual use never exceeds 2,000 cars an hour, variable tolling effectively doubles road capacities during rush hour.
Still, commuters may resist tolls if they think it is just one more tax for the government to fritter away. Currently, more than 30 percent of federal gas taxes and an average of 23 percent of state gas taxes are diverted to non-highway programs, including mass transit. Instead of providing efficient transportation, this windfall of money has led transit agencies to invest in high-cost transit systems such as light rail and streetcars.
In 1984, the state of Virginia built the 14-mile Dulles Toll Road connecting Washington DC with Dulles Airport, and commuters happily used this road for 25 years. Then the state gave the road to the Washington Airport Authority, which is doubling tolls to help pay for a rail line to the airport that even the DC transit agency doesn’t want. Washington MetroRail, which can’t afford to maintain the trains it has, wanted bus-rapid transit to Dulles Airport instead.
Auto commuters should support congestion tolling as a way of saving time, fuel, and money. But they should vigilantly ensure that the fees they pay go to the roads they use and not to pork-barrel projects that aren’t really needed.
Another cost-effective way to relieve congestion is traffic-signal coordination. Such coordination is inexpensive and can save travelers $50 to $100 worth of fuel and time for every dollar of investment. Yet the Federal Highway Administration says that only one out of four traffic signals are properly coordinated with other signals, partly because too many cities are focusing on building rail transit and making other expensive transit improvements rather than doing things that will really help people.
Automobiles are one of the most economical and convenient forms of transportation ever devised. They are also increasingly safe, clean, and fuel efficient. While we should end subsidies to driving and other forms of transportation, we should also encourage highway officials to cost-effectively reduce congestion in every way they can.
This idea makes no sense at all, yet it is widely believed by public officials and transportation planners
Correct. Some of the planners who comment here believe it too. In fact, they act as if “induced demand” is some sort of revealed truth.
“Congestion is our friend,†says Florida planner Dom Nozzi, echoing a popular belief that getting a few people out of their cars is worth any cost
Correct. Also a belief echoed by METRO, the criminal cabal that rules the Portland metro area.
Even without counting the roughly $200 billion annual cost in wasted time and fuel that congestion imposes on highway users, efforts to suppress travel by increasing congestion are economically harmful.
Absolutely. But welcome to the schizophrenic world of government planners. I’ve held before that planners like the ones in Portland are evil, mentally ill, or a combination of both.
Still, commuters may resist tolls if they think it is just one more tax for the government to fritter away.
Commuters also think, justifiably, that their gas tax money is stolen away to spend on useless (at best), and sometimes harmful, programs to “discourage driving” or provide “transportation choices”.
Another cost-effective way to relieve congestion is traffic-signal coordination. Such coordination is inexpensive and can save travelers $50 to $100 worth of fuel and time for every dollar of investment
True. But as I’ve said before, many cities on the west coast (at least), including Portland and Seattle, engage in the (criminal, in my opinion) behavior of timing lights specifically to maximize the number of red lights encountered. Imagine how these policies increase congestion, increase emissions, and cause commuters to lose money. The Antiplanner should research this area and write about it, since while planners publicly produce platitudes about reducing congestion, they secretly wink lustfully at congestion-producing policies such as red-light synchronization.
Automobiles are one of the most economical and convenient forms of transportation ever devised. They are also increasingly safe, clean, and fuel efficient
Planners who hate freedom never let the facts get in the way of their smart growth/congestion building delusions.
The Antiplanner wrote (quoting Cervero):
“Many induced-demand studies have suffered from methodological problems,†says Cervero. They fail to note that new urban highways are usually completed after the roads are already needed, so of course they appear nearly full when they open. The resulting congestion is “more a product of supply chasing demand than demand chasing supply,†says Cervero.
Many people talking about “induced” demand for highway capacity are really talking about latent demand for same. There is a huge difference.
The real cause of traffic congestion, Cervero points out, is that roads are poorly priced. We pay for them mostly out of gasoline taxes, which means we pay the same tax whether we drive on the roads at rush hour or 2 am.
Not that it matters to the “anti-auto vanguard.” Maryland’s Route 200 (ICC) toll road will be priced to prevent recurring congestion, yet the cottage industry that sprang up to oppose the project (for over 40 years) repeatedly cited “induced” demand as a reason not to build it.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration commented on this subject in a 2006 technical memorandum (.pdf, 95KB), and I repeat some very thoughtful words below (emphasis added):
The road congestion argument has a hidden logical fallacy in that it is measuring a condition (demand in excess of supply), not measuring benefit.
For example, if a road is congested and a parallel road is built with capacity for 50,000 more vehicles per day, and yet congestion does not decrease, then still 50,000 more people are getting to where they need to go. If anything, the continuing congestion means more roads should be built.
I don’t find the Antiplanner’s analogy to a maternity ward to be very informative. I am not sure what is a good analogy. I was thinking that when a popular movie comes out, the theaters are crowded no matter how many screens are showing the popular movie. But nobody would say that it doesn’t make sense to devote as many screens as possible to the popular movie even though it doesn’t relieve the congestion.
I’m not liking the Apple analogy. Ford made Mustangs and Edsel’s. Apple never made traditional telephones. Though now that Steve Jobs has stepped down who knows what the future might bring.
Antiplanner wrote:
“But the most troublesome myth is the notion of induced-demand.”
It is not a myth. It is real.
When new capacity is provided, two things happen quickly. Firstly, the traffic, like water, finds its own level, and so traffic will distribute from other parallel routes. Secondly, if congestion has limited car use, the latent demand for traffic will be expressed.
As time passes, people change jobs. They can either move house (emotionally draining and expensive) or they can drive further. Which they do, depends upon how busy the roads are. If new capacity reduces congestion, then people will drive further, and so the same number of car drivers impose their unit of congestion onto more roads.
Congestion is now increasing (despite Antiplanner’s excellent King Canute impression).
What finally locks the new capacity up is that new offices and malls are requested by developers. Every office gives 15-20m2 of space per employee, and every employee apparently needs to drive their own car to work. Do the maths yourself – that’s a lot of cars. Whilst spare capacity is available, more development is provided, until the roads lock up solid.
So that is why roads feed in on themselves. It is not a myth, as I have shown.
The good news is that this is all unnecessary. When the decision comes to build offices and malls, the first question is – how much development can the road take? When is the road ‘full’? If the road network is modelled carefully, a conservative idea of ‘full’ is used, and transit in the form of Park and Ride is used (if necessary, together with congestion charging) the roads will never lock up.
““Congestion is our friend,†says Florida planner Dom Nozzi”
Muppet.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Another cost-effective way to relieve congestion is traffic-signal coordination. Such coordination is inexpensive and can save travelers $50 to $100 worth of fuel and time for every dollar of investment. Yet the Federal Highway Administration says that only one out of four traffic signals are properly coordinated with other signals, partly because too many cities are focusing on building rail transit and making other expensive transit improvements rather than doing things that will really help people.”
Good, something that we can agree on. And there are systems like SCOOT which can do all of the legwork for you. It is important, though. not to mix unsignalised roundabouts into the network (for good technical reasons).
http://www.scoot-utc.com/
The Antiplanner wrote:
Another cost-effective way to relieve congestion is traffic-signal coordination. Such coordination is inexpensive and can save travelers $50 to $100 worth of fuel and time for every dollar of investment. Yet the Federal Highway Administration says that only one out of four traffic signals are properly coordinated with other signals, partly because too many cities are focusing on building rail transit and making other expensive transit improvements rather than doing things that will really help people.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
metrosucks wrote:
True. But as I’ve said before, many cities on the west coast (at least), including Portland and Seattle, engage in the (criminal, in my opinion) behavior of timing lights specifically to maximize the number of red lights encountered. Imagine how these policies increase congestion, increase emissions, and cause commuters to lose money. The Antiplanner should research this area and write about it, since while planners publicly produce platitudes about reducing congestion, they secretly wink lustfully at congestion-producing policies such as red-light synchronization.
But many times such congestion-oriented policies are put in place because the elected officials in charge of those cities feel that those policies are what their constituents want.
There isn’t a lack of road space, there’s a lack pricing it properly. If motorists had to at least pay $1 for every mile that they drove, there’d be less traffic congestion for sure.
But the most troublesome myth is the notion of induced-demand, that is, that new roads will automatically become fully congested so there is no point in building any. That myth most recently came up in a recent op ed piece in the LA Times.
This idea makes no sense at all, yet it is widely believed by public officials and transportation planners. Saying that relieving congestion “induces†driving is like saying that building new maternity wards induces people to have more babies.
The only way the bolded analogy were true is if the new maternity ward makes it seem substantially easier and cheaper to breed.
Anyway, enough of us have quoted the literature here that spending any more time on the merits of actual reality on the ground is useless.
DS
Ah, the mentally ill, auto-hating planner speaks up. We were waiting for your wisdom. How convenient that you can simply say “enough of us have quoted the literature here”, yet not have to actually quote any real, scientific studies to back up your claim.
Metrosucks, you love communist roads, but be honest that you love communist roads.
C. P. Zilliacus says:
But many times such congestion-oriented policies are put in place because the elected officials in charge of those cities feel that those policies are what their constituents want.
Well, I admit I don’t know how it works on the east coast, but no one here has ever been elected on the basis of promising increased congestion. Planners talk out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, at election time, the tripe about “livability” and “transportation choices” comes out. One the other hand, once they are in their six-figures a year office jobs at Metro, their real agenda is revealed through arcane planning documents the public isn’t aware of: documents that plot out a multi-decade war on the automobile, plans to increase congestion, and plans to hinder the economic growth afforded by the automobile.
Sure, there are those anti-auto ideologues in downtown who may vote for such policies if they were clearly spelled out at the ballot box, but the majority of the population is hoodwinked and lied to with platitudes.
Too bad gas and diesel taxes pay for vehicles that don’t use that to propel them, then the greedy governmental-rail complex could be defunded.
You ever notice that the whole point of government is to select the worst solution to any problem.
Irandom, roads are there regardless of cars and gas taxes.
“When new capacity is provided, two things happen quickly. Firstly, the traffic, like water, finds its own level, and so traffic will distribute from other parallel routes. Secondly, if congestion has limited car use, the latent demand for traffic will be expressed.
As time passes, people change jobs. They can either move house (emotionally draining and expensive) or they can drive further. Which they do, depends upon how busy the roads are. If new capacity reduces congestion, then people will drive further, and so the same number of car drivers impose their unit of congestion onto more roads.”
So that’s why traffic in Pittsburgh is among the worst in the nation.
Hmmmm….. wait a second…. 😉
metrosucks wrote:
Well, I admit I don’t know how it works on the east coast, but no one here has ever been elected on the basis of promising increased congestion.
But promises and assertions are made that rail transit (especially) is a “real” solution to highway congestion, even though there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Planners talk out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, at election time, the tripe about “livability†and “transportation choices†comes out. One the other hand, once they are in their six-figures a year office jobs at Metro, their real agenda is revealed through arcane planning documents the public isn’t aware of: documents that plot out a multi-decade war on the automobile, plans to increase congestion, and plans to hinder the economic growth afforded by the automobile.
Even at [Portland] Metro (I presume that’s the Metro that you are speaking of), the planners are supposed to be reporting to elected officials. Now I realize that Portland Metro is somewhat unique, since it has the only directly-elected board in the U.S., but still, they are elected.
Sure, there are those anti-auto ideologues in downtown who may vote for such policies if they were clearly spelled out at the ballot box, but the majority of the population is hoodwinked and lied to with platitudes.
Many times, I see it as an “inner” vs. “outer” syndrome. The voters in the inner county or municipality don’t want all those nasty cars from the next ring out of counties coming into (or through) their communities, even though most of those anti-car voters own and use motor vehicles themselves. In other words, it’s a variation on the theme of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, (or NIMBYism), which elected officials and the planners that work for those elected officials pander to.
In this sense, I realize that Portland, with its urban growth boundary and elected Metro board, are different from some other places in the U.S., but I still assert that NIMBYism (often masquerading as environmentalism) is part of the problem.
but I still assert that NIMBYism (often masquerading as environmentalism) is part of the problem.
Agreed. Planners promise pleasant-sounding generalities but deliver the cruel reality of higher congestion, increased costs, and aggravation to the general public. But you’re right; keeping additional growth (and the infrastructure to support it) out is more important to the voters than benefiting themselves by supporting infrastructure improvements. Sadly, the Portland area certainly drives political consensus in the state.
C. P. Zilliacus says:
“But promises and assertions are made that rail transit (especially) is a “real†solution to highway congestion, even though there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.”
Yes and no. I think that this argument is fading into the sunset. The argument has shifted to “transportation choices” from “congestion relief” because the data didn’t back up the claim. Funny enough, the data doesn’t work too well for the “increase highway capacity” claim either.
“Many times, I see it as an “inner†vs. “outer†syndrome. The voters in the inner county or municipality don’t want all those nasty cars from the next ring out of counties coming into (or through) their communities, even though most of those anti-car voters own and use motor vehicles themselves. In other words, it’s a variation on the theme of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, (or NIMBYism), which elected officials and the planners that work for those elected officials pander to.”
I agree, but suburban, or “outer,” residents are no different. These residents oppose street connectivity in their areas because they don’t want people driving and parking on “their” streets. It’s all fine and dandy if suburbanites want to drive into the city, but they’ll be damned if somebody is going to drive down their street.
metrosucks wrote:
Agreed. Planners promise pleasant-sounding generalities but deliver the cruel reality of higher congestion, increased costs, and aggravation to the general public. But you’re right; keeping additional growth (and the infrastructure to support it) out is more important to the voters than benefiting themselves by supporting infrastructure improvements. Sadly, the Portland area certainly drives political consensus in the state.
Frequently the planners (unless they are dealing with federal planning regulations that mandate financial constraint in some regional planning documents) don’t want to talk about transit capital costs or transit operating costs (and transit operating deficits) at all.
bennett wrote:
Yes and no. I think that this argument is fading into the sunset. The argument has shifted to “transportation choices†from “congestion relief†because the data didn’t back up the claim. Funny enough, the data doesn’t work too well for the “increase highway capacity†claim either.
“Transportation choices” sounds (to me) like “spend tax money (paid by highway users nationwide or statewide) on expensive rail systems that most users of the transportation system will not patronize.”
Increased highway capacity? Maybe it doesn’t always help, though I have seen cases where it works, and works well.. But how about adding managed highway capacity?
I agree, but suburban, or “outer,†residents are no different. These residents oppose street connectivity in their areas because they don’t want people driving and parking on “their†streets. It’s all fine and dandy if suburbanites want to drive into the city, but they’ll be damned if somebody is going to drive down their street.
Suburbs on the Outer Limits [great TV series] are indeed as bad as (and sometimes worse than) “inner” suburbs or central cities. Based on many years of observing the scene, I do believe that NIMBYism is a root cause of this, regardless of which suburb or inner city we are discussing, though a few “inner” communities know full well that those outer suburbs benefit them more than they hurt them.
C.P,
I pretty much agree with everything you say. Cities and burbs no doubt have a symbiotic relationship. While the burbs benefit the city, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. Suburbs wouldn’t exist without the urbs to latch on to.
Also, my take on why increased highway capacity doesn’t work that well is because highways are only a part of the problem. We need to be focusing on an integrated roadway network that includes highway expansion, elimination of dead-end subdivisions (for emergency management if nothing else), etc. etc. etc. We’re building highway capacity down here in ATX like it’s going out of style and it’s not helping congestion at all because decades of NIMBYism has resulted in a street system that is fragmented and has few connections. If there is a minor fender-bender on Loop 1 (which is completely linear. thanks TXdot) it damn near shuts down the whole west side of the city, because there is no forgiveness in the grid (or rather, there is no grid).
And yes, outside of a few outliers, rail transit doesn’t reduce congestion either.
RE: Managed Highway Capacity…
Sure, why not. But again, it’s only a piece of the puzzle.
Frequently the planners don’t want to talk about transit capital costs or transit operating costs at all.
No need to single out one group. Welcome to humanity. Keystone XL pipeline ‘no significant impacts’? Balderdash. This is how we roll.
DS
When new capacity is provided, two things happen quickly. Firstly, the traffic, like water, finds its own level, and so traffic will distribute from other parallel routes.
Ah, so congestion is reduced on those other parallel routes. In my little, pea-brain, that sounds suspiciously like Mission Accomplished!
But planners hate reducing congestion, so they make up excuses to not improve capacities in any manner.
Though politicians make up excuses not to improve transit services too.
bennett wrote:
I pretty much agree with everything you say. Cities and burbs no doubt have a symbiotic relationship. While the burbs benefit the city, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. Suburbs wouldn’t exist without the urbs to latch on to.
Thank you.
Absolutely correct regarding that symbiotic relationship. I am not a fan of Portland’s regional government, for it seems to exist mostly to promote Smart Growth, promote its light rail plans and keep the urban growth boundary as tight as possible. But I have seen a few elected officials who can and do see regions as being a collection of units of local governments that should be cooperating on things where such cooperation makes sense (highway planning, air quality planning, water and sewer system planning (yes, that does sometimes make sense) and even transit planning (sometimes)).
But when things deteriorate to “screw them,” “keep their cars out of our communities,” and “let’s get them to fund our transit system,” then the whole suffers. But I am not a fan of using regional organizations (like Portland does) to force local governments to do things that their constituents do not want them to do, for it is fundamentally undemocratic.
Also, my take on why increased highway capacity doesn’t work that well is because highways are only a part of the problem. We need to be focusing on an integrated roadway network that includes highway expansion, elimination of dead-end subdivisions (for emergency management if nothing else), etc. etc. etc. We’re building highway capacity down here in ATX like it’s going out of style and it’s not helping congestion at all because decades of NIMBYism has resulted in a street system that is fragmented and has few connections. If there is a minor fender-bender on Loop 1 (which is completely linear. thanks TXdot) it damn near shuts down the whole west side of the city, because there is no forgiveness in the grid (or rather, there is no grid).
Lack of connections between neighborhoods (be they urban or suburban) is a prescription for at least peak-period congestion, and often all-day congestion. Network redundancy is a good thing, and it’s one of the reasons that Los Angeles works as well as it does. Lack of that redundancy means that one (sometimes small) problem can cause massive congestion (regardless of mode of transportation).
But adding new highway capacity, and especially if that capacity makes the network more robust, is a good thing.
Your Loop 1 example works well for the Capital Beltway. A small (or large) problem on that road (even a short lane blockage) causes nearby arterial roads and highways to fill beyond capacity as soon as the traffic reporters mention the Beltway incident. The Md. 200 (ICC) toll road will provide some redundancy for the “top” side of the Beltway, from I-270 to I-95, when it is (mostly) completed in the coming months.
And yes, outside of a few outliers, rail transit doesn’t reduce congestion either.
Agreed.
Transit isn’t supposed to reduce congestion, it’s an other means of getting around town.
If you want to reduce traffic congestion, make people pay to drive!
FrancisKing wrote (and I am sorry for not commenting sooner on your post):
[Regarding induced demand]
It is not a myth. It is real.
Latent demand – but that’s not the same as induced demand.
Consider the case of the Øresund Fixed Link (bridge-tunnel for highway and railroad) between Sweden and Denmark, where the only connection prior to 2000 was by ferry (including railroad car float operations), or Denmark’s Great Belt Fixed Link between Zealand and Funen (which also replaced ferries for railroad and highway vehicles). Is the traffic on these two (tolled) crossings somehow “induced?”
When new capacity is provided, two things happen quickly. Firstly, the traffic, like water, finds its own level, and so traffic will distribute from other parallel routes. Secondly, if congestion has limited car use, the latent demand for traffic will be expressed.
I don’t disagree with the above. But that’s latent, not induced traffic.
Consider also that new capacity means that temporal shifts in traffic may take place.
As time passes, people change jobs. They can either move house (emotionally draining and expensive) or they can drive further. Which they do, depends upon how busy the roads are. If new capacity reduces congestion, then people will drive further, and so the same number of car drivers impose their unit of congestion onto more roads.
It also depends on where those jobs are, right? It also depends on real estate prices, quality of public schools, crime rates and other matters that are difficult to quantify.
Congestion is now increasing (despite Antiplanner’s excellent King Canute impression).
Where?
What finally locks the new capacity up is that new offices and malls are requested by developers. Every office gives 15-20m2 of space per employee, and every employee apparently needs to drive their own car to work. Do the maths yourself – that’s a lot of cars. Whilst spare capacity is available, more development is provided, until the roads lock up solid.
Some of those commuters may be able to use broadband to commute from their home without setting foot near a motor vehicle of any sort.
So that is why roads feed in on themselves. It is not a myth, as I have shown.
I respectfully disagree.
The good news is that this is all unnecessary. When the decision comes to build offices and malls, the first question is – how much development can the road take? When is the road ‘full’? If the road network is modelled carefully, a conservative idea of ‘full’ is used, and transit in the form of Park and Ride is used (if necessary, together with congestion charging) the roads will never lock up.
Many counties in the U.S. state of Maryland, where I have lived all my life, have so-called adequate public facilities ordinances (APFO). In Florida, they have so-called “concurrency” laws. I am totally unsold on such requirements, even though they have (in the case of Maryland) been in place since the 1970’s.
APFO’s have slowed and sometimes even stopped development. On the east side of Montgomery County, Maryland, large areas were in “development moratorium” even as several large employers packed-up and left for greener pastures elsewhere. But loopholes in the law allowed development of new greenfield residential housing subdivisions anyway, and traffic got worse and worse, in spite of the APFO.
bennett wrote (with emphasis added):
We’re building highway capacity down here in ATX like it’s going out of style and it’s not helping congestion at all because decades of NIMBYism has resulted in a street system that is fragmented and has few connections.
This might be of interest (from the excellent New Geography site):
Austin’s Not That Weird
C.P.Zilliacus: [Regarding induced demand]
“I don’t disagree with the above. But that’s latent, not induced traffic.”
The first item is not latent demand, it is just existing traffic spreading out a bit. The second item is latent traffic.
“It also depends on where those jobs are, right? It also depends on real estate prices, quality of public schools, crime rates and other matters that are difficult to quantify.”
Yes, and that’s just my point. Either the person moves house to be closer to their new job, or they don’t, in which case they drive further. Why is the new job further always further away? Dunno. It just is.
“Some of those commuters may be able to use broadband to commute from their home without setting foot near a motor vehicle of any sort.”
Still, the majority of people will drive cars, and this is induced (not latent) traffic, created because the extra capacity leads to extra traffic, from development traffic and from making new trips which just didn’t occur to anyone before.
“Where?”
Okay, so that may not be obvious, but as people drive further, the congestion increases.
The only way I can show this is paper and pencil. Draw two horizontal lines on a piece of paper. Mark on each five points in a row, left to right, labelled A through E. Draw arrows (each representing a car) as follows:
A – B, B – C, C – D, D – E. Four cars, one car on each section of road.
A – C, B – D, C – E. Three cars, but now two cars on some sections of road – less traffic, but more congestion, because the cars are travelling further.
Do you see it?
“I respectfully disagree.”
I am grateful for your respect – not often seen from some people on this site – but your maths is wrong.
To go back to the ferry example. I don’t know the infrastructure in question, but was can pick a more abstract example. A ferry can carry 40 cars, but 50 cars arrive. The traffic flow is then 40 cars, with a latent demand of 10 cars. Suppose a 60 car ferry is provided instead. This has extra capacity. 60 cars turn up – the original 40, the latent demand of 10, and 10 more induced because the service is better.
Dan,
in regards to your comments about ~”planners not addressing capital costs”:
You replied: “No need to single out one group.”
What relevance does “one group” have?
What does that even mean?
Do “planners” & others in gov have no real understanding of cost–benefit analysis & such? Am I overly-something or wrong?
Seems like you are trying to surreptitiously play the race-card, in the term of “one group”.
Whatever–So what? How does that “one group” measure the costs to taxpayers & the value received by “users”–a much smaller “group” than the payers–taxpayers.
Can you address that?
Focusing on one group? Yer own word “Balderdash” applies.
What does an energy source transportation line (Keystone XL pipeline) have to do with anything? Do you want to increase imports? Where should the US get 20 million barrels/day?
It is sad that while everyone (the whole population) benefits from petroleum, but some are against. No drilling? Where?
The US has plenty of oil to drill more: ANWR, 3 coasts, shale, etc., but certainly not to be self-sufficient. BTW, ethanol is terrible, for many reasons–number 3 is that sugar (more carbs) should be used, such as the Everglades.
Are your aware that ethanol does not work & has many negative consequences
(ie higher food costs, as well as not being a net contributor to the energy mix)?
So, for the idiot planners, let me give you a dose of reality. I sell Medical, and Laboratory equipment, and I take home about $75K a year as the principal of my own business. If I have customer who has shown the Willingness, Ability, and Authority to buy, and will ONLY give me the Order if I go meet with him – I’m going to to go because it is MY Business. I have little choice, and my annual sales are anywhere from $350K – $750K a year, and I gross about 20% on each sale, I also have to fund most all of my receivables. THAT is the business of my life, and I drive up and down the west coast at my customers request. That is what planners fail to consider, and that is the BUSINESS of our lives.
CP,
Thanks for the link. Very astute. Austin is an “oasis” in Texas, but that’s a low bar.
Tombdragon says: So, for the idiot planners, let me give you a dose of reality. I sell Medical, and Laboratory equipment, and I take home about $75K a year as the principal of my own business. If I have customer who has shown the Willingness, Ability, and Authority to buy, and will ONLY give me the Order if I go meet with him – I’m going to to go because it is MY Business. I have little choice, and my annual sales are anywhere from $350K – $750K a year, and I gross about 20% on each sale, I also have to fund most all of my receivables. THAT is the business of my life, and I drive up and down the west coast at my customers request. That is what planners fail to consider, and that is the BUSINESS of our lives.
THWM: So if you were a plumber & had to move all sorts of gear, tools, parts, etc around in a minivan, that would be fine too.
CPZ:
Rail transit is a solution to road congestion for everyone who avails themselves of it.
When you are riding on a train, you will never be stuck in a traffic jam.
Scott:
The single most ridiculous bumper sticker ever.
“no drill, no spill”
More like, “no drill, no car”, because the stuff doesn’t just well up out of the gas pump.
@Andrew: The question is not that you take the train, it’s where the train takes you. And if the train does not take you where you want it to go precisely at a given time. The overall train speeds would be no more than 75 miles per hour or less. This is not innovative even if they experience no traffic. Other railroads routinely ran trains at those speeds 70 years ago other trains went as fast as 110-125 mph, and still couldn’t compete against cars and planes. Where as the venerable bus can use the same road as the cars and can be given signal priority or seperate lanes. The bus is far cheaper than the train and given it’s size is more energy efficient than the train. And given how easy it would be to obtain the buses and the fact it requires no real construction you don’t have to wait a decade with uphill battles with construction. I like this posts title “Myth that will not die” because like vampires and werewolves there is only one way to kill a mythical creature, you have to make a terrible, terrible movie about it……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2T7d8j6I5I
Randall:
Induced demand
Of course induced demand is real. When you provide more of something that is free that exponentially increases convenience with each new connection, obviously new demand occurs that did not exist prior to the new connection being made. Think of a belt highway around a metro area. Was there any significant radial travel demand before it was built? Probably not, because it was so inconvenient to make those trips.
congestion pricing
Congestion pricing is morally wrong. Roads are built for the common good of all citizens, and it is a natural right to travel on them on equal terms as the need arises. Congestion pricing reserves road access at the most desirable times for people with the most money, thus excluding poorer commuters and forcing their lives to be more inconvenient due to their inability to afford the use, or forcing them to use more of their scarce resources simply to exercise the right of travelling to work or to conduct business.
The price of access to roads has to be an equal fee level that is unchanging with time. Travel is not a market good but a human right.
relieve congestion
Why haven’t enough roads been built? The answer as near as I can tell is that the citizenry is opposed to new roads being built near where they live, and the electorate is unwilling to support increases in gas taxes and tolls needed to build the roads. People support the concept of new roads in general, but not when they bring more cars to their community, so very little gets built. That so many gas taxes have not been raised since the 1980’s or early 1990’s is another obvious reason. We cannot build what we refuse to pay for.
Andrew, we already know what you’re going to say: 4 lanes: bad, two rails: good!
And maybe people don’t want gas taxes raised because they know a lot of the money is stolen for bs like rail and transit.
Metrosucks, Joe Stalin would be so proud of you! lol
Andrew:Congestion pricing is morally wrong. Roads are built for the common good of all citizens, and it is a natural right to travel on them on equal terms as the need arises. Congestion pricing reserves road access at the most desirable times for people with the most money, thus excluding poorer commuters and forcing their lives to be more inconvenient due to their inability to afford the use, or forcing them to use more of their scarce resources simply to exercise the right of travelling to work or to conduct business.
The price of access to roads has to be an equal fee level that is unchanging with time. Travel is not a market good but a human right.
THWM: Roads do have an imporantant civic function as a commons, but as soon as you throw automobiles & trucks on to them you have a big expensive mess.
Despite O’Toole’s bogus “free market” bullshit, market mechanisms such as tolling/congestion charging do help, send a message that excessive driving comes with a price.
“When you are riding on a train, you will never be stuck in a traffic jam.” – Andrew
I’m not sure what rail lines you ride but it’s been quite common during rush hour travel on LRT lines to find myself sitting on the train at a station while the train is stopped to keep a proper separation between it and the train ahead of it.
The train, or streetcar, Andrew is riding is called Subsidy.
“THWM: So if you were a plumber & had to move all sorts of gear, tools, parts, etc around in a minivan, that would be fine too.”
Unfortunately that is not how it works – You, obviously an idiot planner – with a big ego, have no concept of what, and how people conduct their business, and what they need to do to be successful. I may have to stop everything in the middle of one job, and go to another facility and deliver product, and the difference between you and me is that I am not under the false impression that I am able to prioritize another individual’s life. I drive a car because it is convenient for me, and my life. I understand that the lives of mine and my neighbors are not to be lived as planned by those who have no idea what priorities are important to us a individuals. I pay for the privilege of driving on roads paid for by my gas taxes, not for light rail, or trolly’s – that few people choose to ride, and I resent sitting in traffic congestion, that is planned for, and collectively applauded by planners to justify their role in harassing the public to live as they plan, rather than living to suit their individual needs, and aspirations.
Tombdragon, you’re right that highwayman is an idiot, but he’s no planner. Just another leech on the taxpayers, hoping that somehow we can all be fleeced so he can ride around the US in subsidized comfort.
metrosucks; The train, or streetcar, Andrew is riding is called Subsidy.
THWM: The road, or street, you’re driving is called Subsidy.
Tombdragon; “THWM: So if you were a plumber & had to move all sorts of gear, tools, parts, etc around in a minivan, that would be fine too.â€
Unfortunately that is not how it works – You, obviously an idiot planner – with a big ego, have no concept of what, and how people conduct their business, and what they need to do to be successful. I may have to stop everything in the middle of one job, and go to another facility and deliver product, and the difference between you and me is that I am not under the false impression that I am able to prioritize another individual’s life. I drive a car because it is convenient for me, and my life. I understand that the lives of mine and my neighbors are not to be lived as planned by those who have no idea what priorities are important to us a individuals. I pay for the privilege of driving on roads paid for by my gas taxes, not for light rail, or trolly’s – that few people choose to ride, and I resent sitting in traffic congestion, that is planned for, and collectively applauded by planners to justify their role in harassing the public to live as they plan, rather than living to suit their individual needs, and aspirations.
THWM: I agreed with you and you’re calling me an idiot?
I have a friend that’s electrician he moves his gear around site to site in a van, but his wife works in a hospital and she gets to work by suburban train.
Damn you guys are thick headed!