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.
The Ideal Communist City
In my latest "Vanishing Automobile update," I report on The Ideal Communist City, a book published in 1971 that accurately describes Halle-Neustadt, a "new city" built in East Germany at about that time. This report includes photographs from my recent visit (with Wendell Cox) to Halle-Neustadt showing that residents began fleeing the city as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was reunified and that those who stayed all bought cars.
I also show that there are incredible similarities between the Ideal Communist City and smart growth. Both promote high-density, mixed-use, mixed-income housing next to transit stations with little room for the automobile. And both fail miserably to give most people what they want. While a few people might like to live in high-density housing, most do not.
My article has generated waves of hostility from smart growthers for mentioning them in the same breath as communists. While I specifically say that I don't think smart growth is a communist plot, both smart growth and communism come from the same source: the belief that some elite should get to decide for everyone else how they should live and move around. That may not be communist, but it is un-American.
I also show that there are incredible similarities between the Ideal Communist City and smart growth. Both promote high-density, mixed-use, mixed-income housing next to transit stations with little room for the automobile. And both fail miserably to give most people what they want. While a few people might like to live in high-density housing, most do not.
My article has generated waves of hostility from smart growthers for mentioning them in the same breath as communists. While I specifically say that I don't think smart growth is a communist plot, both smart growth and communism come from the same source: the belief that some elite should get to decide for everyone else how they should live and move around. That may not be communist, but it is un-American.
