Is “Congestion Relief” a Red Herring?
Decatur Metro | October 11, 2011All over metropolitan Atlanta, politicos are speaking a language their constituents want to hear. “Add a penny to our sales tax and you can go right on doing what you’ve been doing all these years, be it driving, cycling or skipping to work, but faster!”, they announce.
OK, here’s an actual quote from an actual person…
“[Beltline projects] are worthy purposes for the city of Atlanta, but they are not related to relieving the Atlanta region’s traffic congestion,”
That’s Sandy Springs Mayor Eva Galambos, who went on to say that the Beltline doesn’t connect to the MARTA system, which is false and the topic of a different post, but really it could be just about anyone these days.
The way to sell a transportation tax to the populace is to talk endlessly about “congestion relief”. And yes, if they add a few lanes to your interstate of choice, for a few months you’ll enjoy a bit more elbow (side-mirror?) room along your commute. But then suddenly…ok, gradually…something called “triple convergence” sets in.
An 2004 article from from Anthony Downs at the Brookings Institute entitled “Why Traffic Congestion Is Here to Stay…and Will Get Worse” describes this phenomenon as “the complex process of adaptation through which the various sectors of the metropolitan system adapt to changes in other sectors – specifically to changes in locations, times and modes of travel.”
Which means that if you’re city is appealing, and not DYING, any sort of “congestion relief” – especially when it comes to widening and building new roads – will eventually dissipate as more people discover this new, quicker route around your city.
But most political folk know this, yet they still call for it. Why?
Because talking “congestion relief” is a good way to sell your growth-plan to your current population. Growth of the metropolitan area is the endgame for all transportation initiatives: cars, trains, buses, bike lanes. If you’re an up and coming metro-area, as Atlanta is, you’ve got to be very concerned about how your transportation will evolve alongside your population or you could end up stifling your growth. And since Atlanta’s growth potential is currently hottest at its center, transit projects tend to be a key piece of that. But in the end, the common goal among all is growth, even though we may spend a majority of our time focusing on “congestion”.
So what’s the deal? Why can’t anyone fix the problem of congestion? Here’s a most intriguing answer from that same article: congestion may be a problem for you the individual, but it’s actually the solution for your metro area.
There is only one feasible way to accommodate excess demand for roads during peak periods: by having people wait in line, or in other words, by accepting traffic congestion. Congestion is an essential mechanism for coping with excess demand for road space. We need it! Peak-hour congestion is the balancing mechanism that makes it possible for Americans to pursue goals they value, such as working while others do, living in low-density settlements, and having many choices of places to live and work.
That’s why the only effective deterrent to traffic congestion is stuff you don’t want, like population declines or job losses in your area. There’s no really GOOD solution, because it’s really not a solvable problem. Yes, you can minimize congestion for a time, but ultimately, its in both your interest and the interest of your elected leaders for you to soon again be waiting in a line somewhere, trying to get to work.
Latest from Decaturish
Sorry, I don’t want to be off topic, but I can’t believe the mayor of Sandy Springs made that comment. How uneducated can you be?
“Congestion is an essential mechanism for coping with excess demand for road space. We need it! Peak-hour congestion is the balancing mechanism that makes it possible for Americans to pursue goals they value, such as working while others do, living in low-density settlements, and having many choices of places to live and work.”
Certainly there is no solution to congestion. But isn’t that why the terms “mitigation” and “relief” are used, and not “elimination?” And for the quote, are these really the things that are “valued?” How about spending time making life enjoyable like being with your kids/family or a hobby? Does anyone here get the thrill of a lifetime from “working while others do” or “living in low density settlements?” Sounds like a bunch of rationalized, intellectualized hooey.
Yeah, that quote wasn’t perfect, but I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. “Working while others do” won’t provide any great thrills, but it certainly still seems to be the dominant way to do things in the modern world. If you have proof that it doesn’t have to be this way, I’d like to explore that. But for now I’ll assume it’s what we do because it’s the best solution.
As for living in low density settlements, well it’s probably pretty obvious that I agree with you there, but still, you could make a similar argument about urban life. The NYC subway is slammed at rush hour and while it’s inconvenient for the rider, I’m pretty sure politicos and city advocates wouldn’t want it any other way. A comfortable train or easy-commute highway at rush hour is a bad sign for economic life in your city.
If my spouse and I and our kids were all on vastly different work and school schedules– we’d never all be together. So I see the benefit to “working while others do”. I would think an alternative would require a reworking of many aspects of society . . .
Good point on working while others do to have time to spend with them. Guess my response was more a reaction to the values being presented as sources of inspiration vs the things we are willing to deal with to get something else. At the metro level, i am not sure how much we can tolerate.
My take on things having to be this way vs another gets somewhat ethereal for me. It doesn’t have to be any particular way for the individual. My only proof is my own experience – for the most part it is not that way for me. But I recognize that making the popular choice often makes things seem easier. Not necessarily better or more fulfilling, but more convenient.
Because congestion relief is so temporary after new infrastructure is introduced, a general rule of thumb is that the amount of time lost during the upheaval of its construction is never made back up via efficiency or capacity on the back end.
So, even if your ride is speedier for a certain period, you’ll likely still carry a time deficit. Isn’t there a movie coming out where currency is based on time rather than money? They oughtta do that now.
So glad she is not our mayor. I love how everyone talks about how it doesn’t effect them. Yet they will use those roads & services if it helps them get where they want to go
A rather myopic view. She doesn’t consider solutions to congestion that don’t involve living 40 miles from where one works.
Congestion is a cost of living and working in an attractive area. One that balances with other costs such as housing, taxes, density etc…
A co-worker shared with me that just buying gas to commute to his distant, spacious home costs over $800.00 per month. He and his wife drive an H3 Hummer and a GM1500. I respect his right to make that choice but he can’t conceive that his fuel costs were a predictable outcome of it. Instead, he blames the gubmint for overtaxing gasoline and not allowing domestic drilling. Drill baby drill.
Curing traffic congestion with more lanes is like curing obesity with a bigger belt.
We, somehow, need to get everyone on the same page in working toward a region that allows each and every one the choice to live close to work/school/shopping/etc. Where getting around without a car is not just an option, but practical.
The Beltline is a project that helps get us closer to that goal – a long term solution that includes the re-thinking of the neighborhoods near the transit loop – the creation of thousands of housing units whose occupants will potentially be able to live with out a car, or at least certainly live without getting on the interstate every day. This will help alleviate congestion on the highways for those that chose to use them. This isn’t that hard to understand is it?
Geoff,
It’s not that difficult for you or I to understand, but very difficult for someone who wants the most square footage for their housing budget. Housing is typically cheaper further out from the core, further away the jobs, which means more driving miles, which means more congestion on the road with other like-minded people. If you build it (the wider roads), they will come (from further and further out).
Many people (and I’m not one of them) value (house) space over time. For me, my time is quality of life. I’d rather spend with my kids in our small (by many people’s standards) house than little time with my kids in a huge house.
As it, it’s human nature for a large percentage of the human population to want a huge house, so there’s no solution to the congestion problem short of government intervention. In Seoul, for instance, the zoning laws effectively curb urban sprawl, keeping the metropolitan area relatively tight (and dense), which makes mass transit like subways very cost and time-efficient for operator and rider alike. Yes, the subways are crowded during peak hours, but they run on time and the commute time is short given the amount of people moved over a certain distance. The price to pay are small homes, but that’s not a bad thing, IMHO. It encourages people to get out (in parks, restaurants, etc.,.) rather than hibernate at home.
The only workable solution to congestion in Atlanta I can think of is cooperative and thoughtful urban (and suburban) planning enforce with tight zoning laws. But, we’re likely to see pigs fly first before any such thing happens in Georgia.
+1
David
Two things:
1. Preaching to the choir here but, when factoring in transportation costs, living farther out is not necessarily more cost effective. People are beginning to get this, at least I think/hope. Here’s proof: http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/distant-suburbs-more-expensive-in-uli-analysis/
2. The greater supply of walkable housing we provide, the lower the prices will become. Again, it comes down to choice. Our nation’s current zoning laws have made it illegal, literally, to build walkable housing, which has exacerbated our congestion problems over the past 50 years. Consumers have not, until recently, really been offered a choice to live without a car and commute. You are correct, a change in zoning is in order. But actually, it may not be tighter zoning that we need – just different. A move to widespread use of the form-based code (http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes) and a more common-sense and cooperative approach to regional planning could help us move the chains.
Also David,
“it’s human nature for a large percentage of the human population to want a huge house”
This is absolutely wrong, IMHO. We, in most of the world, lived, for 5000+ years, in dense urban settlements (even the small towns were dense). Not until the advent of the car and the highway (less than 75 years ago) did we begin to change our common settlement pattern, particularly in the US.
I believe it’s human nature to live near one another in order to satisfy our genetic needs for social interaction and to help each other out. Once we got away from this, we began to see large societial cracks form. If we can work to rebuild communities that actually embrace community – like we’re doing here in Decatur – we just might see improvements in many of our societial problems (such as obesity, anti-social behaviors, etc., etc.). You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Geoff,
Dense towns were more for communal defense than wanting to live shoulder-to-shoulder with one’s neighbor. Protecting one’s life with expensive walls and militia took precedence over expansive rooms in one’s home. Transportation, as you point out, was also key. Few people could afford a horse, so they had to haul everything by hand (cart) or pay someone with a cart to deliver it. Furthermore, construction techniques and difficulty in heating them made it more difficult to build larger homes. Insulation was poor and Wood/coal was not cheap. Building materials were also more expensive. Last, but certainly not least, there wasn’t a lot to *do* at home besides eat and sleep. Sure, the wealthy could read and play/listen to music, but there weren’t any home theater systems, computers, gaming tables, home workshops, etc.,. in people’s homes back then. So, people literally didn’t have enough self-entertainment items to fill their homes with.
Yet, the *desire* to have a larger residence within one’s means has always existed.
I work OTP way up in John’s Creek and have had countless conversations with my co-workers about how much time they spend in their cars any given week, spend on fuel, the proximity of restaurants and cultural events, etc.,. and while some of them logically understand the “quality of life” side of things, they just can’t seem to shake the notion that they must have a huge-ass house.
ITP – “If you shortened the commute time for everyone in your family, you could spend more time doing the things you enjoy”
OTP – “But, how would I fit all of my shit into such a small house ?”
ITP – “How much of your shit do you actually use ?”
OTP – “It doesn’t matter. I like having it”
ITP – *sigh*
OTP – “Besides, I heard city school systems suck, and we can’t afford private schools”
ITP – “For the most part, yes, but there are some excellent in-town public schools”
OTP – “Well, if you say so” *disbelieving look*
ITP – *sigh*
ITP – “What about having easy access to a wide variety of restaurants, cultural events, exposing your children to different cultures, etc.,.”
OTP – “Oh, you mean The Braves, The Varsity, The Fox, and The Aquarium ? That’s all we ever like going downtown for once or twice a year.”
ITP – *sigh*
That’s paraphrased, but sums it up pretty well. Can lead a horse to water, but…
This whole discussion would also be incomplete without discussing race and crime. It’s not uncommon for OTP to believe ITP is a crime-ridden nest full of people that don’t look, think, or act like us.
I think the people who want large houses are often inexperienced home owners. They don’t understand that even the most expensive, newest homes eventually develop wear, tear, walls that need painting, roofs that need repairing, foundations that need help, etc. And those incredibly high vaulted ceilings have light bulbs that are hard to replace, ceiling fans that are hard to fix, and cobwebs in places that no extension broom will ever go. Closet space, large bathrooms, and large kitchens, I understand. The rest is just room that will eventually get dirty, chipped, banged, moldy, buggy, and cobwebby. Large homes were maintainable in the days when the owners could afford full-time housekeepers, cooks, grounds people, nannies, etc. Now they are like a brand new expensive car–they depreciate fast and need expensive, constant maintenance. Only the land holds value (if ITP, OTP that doesn’t even seem true anymore.)
I stumbled on this yesterday. More arguments in favor of density.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/
I’m not sure the government is the only answer to this. WHy not make highways use based? To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) we pay for our expressways through a gas tax….if we remove the gas tax and toll all express ways that may be a way to deal with it. If you actaully have to pay for what you use it may make you think twice about living so far away from work.
I never drive on the exrpressway, but pay for them through a gas tax. I’d rather just be tolled and save money at the pump.
Gasoline taxes, sales taxes (yes, you pay sales tax in addition to gasoline tax in Georgia and 75% goes straight to GDOT), tolls, etc. only provide 50 to 60 percent of the money needed to build and maintain roads.
IMO the gasoline tax and road tolls should be turned up until they provide 90-95% of the cost of building and maintaining roads. I don’t seem it happening any time soon, though. Look at how people squawked about the HOT lanes on I-85, and how our governor responded.
I realized the other day…with all the squawking about the HOT lanes, did any of the articles about it detail how they are supposed to work? I had to come across it in the article linked to in the post above to really understand it’s purpose and how it worked.
“That’s why the only effective deterrent to traffic congestion is stuff you don’t want, like population declines or job losses in your area. There’s no really GOOD solution, because it’s really not a solvable problem. Yes, you can minimize congestion for a time, but ultimately, its in both your interest and the interest of your elected leaders for you to soon again be waiting in a line somewhere, trying to get to work.”
DM, this post and especially the last paragraph get at the real issue: Growth. You are right that politicians use congestion relief as a way to persuade people to go along with their plans. Politicians and planners also like to scare everyone by asking people to imagine what metro Atlanta will look like with 3 million more people in the next several decades. However, they never mention that they are putting the cart before the horse when talking in these terms. The truth is the “expected” growth will not occur if these transportation projects are not completed.
But I’m okay with that. I actually do not want 3 million more people to move to metro Atlanta. I moved here over 30 years ago and could honestly do without all the growth of the 90s and 00s. Metro Atlanta business leaders and boosters start the meme that we need more growth, more homes, more jobs, more shopping centers, more diversity, more this and more that. Those ideas seem to have passed through the water supply so that many metro Atlantans repeat them and honestly, but naively, believe that neverending growth is good and possible. So long as you play this zero-sum, rat-race game, you are right DM, you will create more congestion and exacerbate existing problems by encouraging millions more to move here.