Monday, May 09, 2005
Big Surprise! Congestion Is Worse
The Texas Transportation Institute has published its 2005 "urban mobility report" on congestion in 85 urban areas. This year's report includes data from 1982 through 2003.
Of course, congestion is worse than last year, mainly because road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. Although the rankings of regions have changed a bit, there is really little new in this report so it is sort of a ho-hummer.
The report recommends new roads, HOV lanes, traffic signal coordination, and other actions to reduce congestion. It also gives a lukewarm recommendation to transit, saying that without transit congestion would be worse, but not really saying that investments in transit will help reduce congestion. The American Public Transportation Association is a major sponsor of the report so it has to say something nice about transit.
What is missing from the report is any mention of congestion pricing as a way of controlling congestion. While the report does mention electronic tolls as a way of saving time, it fails to point out that tolls that vary by the amount of traffic may encourage some people to drive during less congested times of the day. Perhaps some tollroad company needs to co-sponsor the report before they will mention tolls as a solution to congestion.
I've said this before but it bears repeating here. The report's congestion numbers are based on formulae, not on actual measurements of congestion. For this reason, comparisons of congestion for 2003 or another year between urban areas are not really valid. However, it is more reasonable to compare changes in congestion between urban areas. The fact that Los Angeles is reported to have the worst congestion in 2003 is less meaningful than that Los Angeles had the greatest growth in congestion from 1982 to 2003. But even temporal comparisons should be made with caution as the Institute changed the way it calculated congestion starting in 2000 and has not recalculated the numbers for previous years.
Of course, congestion is worse than last year, mainly because road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. Although the rankings of regions have changed a bit, there is really little new in this report so it is sort of a ho-hummer.
The report recommends new roads, HOV lanes, traffic signal coordination, and other actions to reduce congestion. It also gives a lukewarm recommendation to transit, saying that without transit congestion would be worse, but not really saying that investments in transit will help reduce congestion. The American Public Transportation Association is a major sponsor of the report so it has to say something nice about transit.
What is missing from the report is any mention of congestion pricing as a way of controlling congestion. While the report does mention electronic tolls as a way of saving time, it fails to point out that tolls that vary by the amount of traffic may encourage some people to drive during less congested times of the day. Perhaps some tollroad company needs to co-sponsor the report before they will mention tolls as a solution to congestion.
I've said this before but it bears repeating here. The report's congestion numbers are based on formulae, not on actual measurements of congestion. For this reason, comparisons of congestion for 2003 or another year between urban areas are not really valid. However, it is more reasonable to compare changes in congestion between urban areas. The fact that Los Angeles is reported to have the worst congestion in 2003 is less meaningful than that Los Angeles had the greatest growth in congestion from 1982 to 2003. But even temporal comparisons should be made with caution as the Institute changed the way it calculated congestion starting in 2000 and has not recalculated the numbers for previous years.
Comments:
There was plenty of support for public transit in the article. Here's a direct quote.
"Providing More Transit and Freight Rail Service has been the traditional response to congestion. In some metropolitan areas, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to undertake major highway expansions because of funding constraints, increased right-of-way and construction costs, and opposition from local and national groups. However, it is clear that adding new physical capacity for highways, transit, and railroads is an important strategy for alleviating congestion."
Also, adding capacity to the transit system, whether it is to the bus system, urban rail system or commuter rail system will assist in relieving congestion on the roadway network. Finally, adding capacity to the intercity rail system can reduce the use of highways by trucks."
The article supports Smarth Growth patterns and transit oriented communities.
Post a Comment
"Providing More Transit and Freight Rail Service has been the traditional response to congestion. In some metropolitan areas, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to undertake major highway expansions because of funding constraints, increased right-of-way and construction costs, and opposition from local and national groups. However, it is clear that adding new physical capacity for highways, transit, and railroads is an important strategy for alleviating congestion."
Also, adding capacity to the transit system, whether it is to the bus system, urban rail system or commuter rail system will assist in relieving congestion on the roadway network. Finally, adding capacity to the intercity rail system can reduce the use of highways by trucks."
The article supports Smarth Growth patterns and transit oriented communities.
