Thursday, June 30, 2005
Crowded Commutes
Note: This is from the online edition of the Wall Street Journal, which is a pay site.
I've posted some tidbits below - e-mail me with your e-mail address if you want to see the whole thing and I'll send you a pointer to it that's free of charge on the _WSJ_ Web site.
Crowded Commutes
Why Spending on Light Rail And Traffic Technologies May Not Ease Gridlock
By KIRSTI MCCABE
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
June 29, 2005 5:39 p.m.
WSJ.com: What are the economic implications of the growing problem of traffic congestion? Is it having any measurable effect on productivity?
Mr. Downs: The basic problem of our society is not congestion, it's that we want to move too many people at the same time, and that problem arises from the way societies in the United States and throughout the world are organized.
No society could organize itself to create sufficient roads or other means of transportation so that everybody who wants to move at the same time could move at 60 miles per hour. [Time spent sitting in traffic] is not wasted time. From the point of view of the driver who's sitting there, it seems like a waste of time, but it's the price society pays to organize itself efficiently.
We're spending more time than we'd like [in traffic], and the time we're spending is getting greater as time passes. [But] it's impossible to conceive of a rush hour without congestion. We'd have to reorganize our society totally, and that would cause extreme inefficiency in productivity.
WSJ.com: In many urban areas, particularly smaller and mid-sized cities, building an extensive public transportation system isn't practical or cost-effective. But in larger cities, should policy makers being doing more to encourage the use of public transportation or expand current systems to reach more potential users?
Mr. Downs: For politicians to say we're going to fix traffic congestion is a lie; they can't fix it. They're tempted to do so because they hear people complaining about it so much.
In Phoenix, the mayor said when we build a new light-rail system, traffic will fall dramatically on all the expressways. That's not true; it won't fall at all, in fact.
Almost all cities that have added light-rail systems -- even in Los Angeles, which added a heavy rail system -- there's been no reduction in traffic congestion. In fact, traffic congestion has gotten worse, not because they added public transit but because of rising population and rising incomes.
As long as we have rising population and rising incomes, public transit additions are not going to reduce traffic congestion. There may be good reasons to build them -- expanding capacity, and for giving people more choices if they can't drive -- but reducing congestion is not a good reason. It won't work.
I've posted some tidbits below - e-mail me with your e-mail address if you want to see the whole thing and I'll send you a pointer to it that's free of charge on the _WSJ_ Web site.
Crowded Commutes
Why Spending on Light Rail And Traffic Technologies May Not Ease Gridlock
By KIRSTI MCCABE
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
June 29, 2005 5:39 p.m.
The U.S. Census Bureau issued a report in March indicating that the average American spends more than 100 hours a year commuting to work. Meanwhile, the Texas Transportation Institute issued a study in May indicating that the average American wastes 47 hours a year stuck in traffic during peak travel times and the related waste of time and fuel costs Americans about $63 billion a year in urban areas.
Anthony Downs, a senior fellow in metropolitan policy and economic studies at the Brookings Institution and author of the books "Stuck in Traffic" and "Still Stuck in Traffic," says traffic is the price Americans pay for rising productivity and prosperity. While many policy prescriptions are being considered, they will do little more than slow the pace of rising traffic congestion.
WSJ.com talked with Mr. Downs about the escalating problem. His advice: Get used to it.
WSJ.com: What are the economic implications of the growing problem of traffic congestion? Is it having any measurable effect on productivity?
Mr. Downs: The basic problem of our society is not congestion, it's that we want to move too many people at the same time, and that problem arises from the way societies in the United States and throughout the world are organized.
No society could organize itself to create sufficient roads or other means of transportation so that everybody who wants to move at the same time could move at 60 miles per hour. [Time spent sitting in traffic] is not wasted time. From the point of view of the driver who's sitting there, it seems like a waste of time, but it's the price society pays to organize itself efficiently.
We're spending more time than we'd like [in traffic], and the time we're spending is getting greater as time passes. [But] it's impossible to conceive of a rush hour without congestion. We'd have to reorganize our society totally, and that would cause extreme inefficiency in productivity.
WSJ.com: In many urban areas, particularly smaller and mid-sized cities, building an extensive public transportation system isn't practical or cost-effective. But in larger cities, should policy makers being doing more to encourage the use of public transportation or expand current systems to reach more potential users?
Mr. Downs: For politicians to say we're going to fix traffic congestion is a lie; they can't fix it. They're tempted to do so because they hear people complaining about it so much.
In Phoenix, the mayor said when we build a new light-rail system, traffic will fall dramatically on all the expressways. That's not true; it won't fall at all, in fact.
Almost all cities that have added light-rail systems -- even in Los Angeles, which added a heavy rail system -- there's been no reduction in traffic congestion. In fact, traffic congestion has gotten worse, not because they added public transit but because of rising population and rising incomes.
As long as we have rising population and rising incomes, public transit additions are not going to reduce traffic congestion. There may be good reasons to build them -- expanding capacity, and for giving people more choices if they can't drive -- but reducing congestion is not a good reason. It won't work.
Comments:
Post a Comment
