Build More Lanes, Please
by Judd WileyJune 10th, 2008, 5:30 pm
We often hear the following: If you build more lanes, traffic will get worse.
Those who argue this point are usually armed with a hefty list of scholarly tomes, reports, journal articles, and so on. This professor. That professor. This professor. That professor.
The eggheads all miss the crux of the issue. For decades, new road capacity has lagged behind (A) population growth and (B) the total number of miles driven by motorists. By the sheer force of basic math, demand is outpacing supply. We are nowhere near equilibrium. Thus, any incremental increase in capacity below the rate of population growth and the rate of increase in the number of miles driven will appear to make traffic “worse” (in the Egghead analysis).
Take a look at the following statistics from yesterday’s Los Angeles Times:
The population of the five-county Southern California region grew 22% from 1990 to 2006, and the total miles driven by motorists has increased about 42%. But the number of miles of highway in the region has increased by only 7.5%.
No matter your ideology, the inescapable fact is that supply is lagging behind demand. 22% and 42% versus 7.5%. Our goal should be to increase road capacity at least by the rate of population growth. Anything less is (A) government negligence or (B) an attempt to socially engineer taxpaying drivers out of their cars.
Plus, we have the money, but have decided to spend it on other things.
Since 2001, Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with state legislators, repeatedly have diverted money from the state’s taxes on gasoline to pay for non-transportation programs. Schwarzenegger plans to do so again in the budget for the coming year. Roughly $5.8 billion in highway and mass-transit funds that were diverted during the state’s repeated budget crises this decade have not yet been repaid.
The purpose of the California gas tax was to create a revenue stream for transportation. And now, because Govs. Davis and Schwarzenegger acted irresponsibly and overspent their budgets, that money has been sucked into the black hole of the general fund.
Another noteworthy point: Mass transit has not made up the difference in any of this.
While the region’s highway capacity has lagged behind population growth, mass transit has not made up the difference. Los Angeles County for the last 25 years has put three-quarters of its voter-approved transportation money into rail and bus systems. Even with the investment of about $7 billion, 85% of commuters still drive.
The reason is obvious, if you’ve ever lived in Los Angeles. The whole concept of forcing mass transit onto a sprawling, car-dependent city is laughable. It often takes you longer to get to the closest Metro stop than it does to get to work. Stupidity at its finest.
But we still hear: If you build more lanes, traffic will get worse.
Thank you, Eggheads. Keep up the good work.
Related Posts
Posted in Gas Taxes, Highways, Mass Transit, Politics, Spending, Subways, Traffic Congestion |
Your arguments make no sense.
Increases in VMT are largely due to sprawl development and, as you note, population growth. But mostly sprawl. Population growth in NE Ohio, for example, has been relatively static and has even gone down in some spots, but VMT has increased significantly. That’s because we’ve built a transport infrastructure and encouraged a development pattern that makes people drive more. You say that increasing VMT is a reason why we need to increase roadway capacity. Yet, widening highways doesn’t help to reduce VMT. It does the opposite. So, you’ll add another lane, VMT will increase again and you’ll call for yet another lane.
Likewise, high population density doesn’t automatically necessitate more roadway capacity for private automobiles. NYC, the most populous city in North America, would never be able to move millions of daily commuters in and out of its central business district if they were all dependent on transporting themselves via private automobile. A growing population is not a justification for increasing roadway capacity. If we followed your “thinking” to its absurd logical conclusion then we’d pave all of NYC to provide the necessary road capacity and parking to serve its 8 million residents and save them from the traffic congestion they’d generate every time a fraction of them wanted to run out and purchase a quart of milk.
Stick to name-calling and outrage, Judd. Maybe go sit in some traffic and slam your fist into the dashboard a few times. Leave policy and planning to the Eggheads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
Yes, induced demand. The entire argument boils down to the following: If you build more highways, people will just use them!
I have a hypothesis of my own, called “induced congestion.”
When you expand highway capacity at a lower rate than population growth (while providing no acceptable alternative), the only possible outcome is more congestion and misery (unless everyone stops commuting or moves away from the area).
Another thing:
Bureaucrats often cite “induced demand” as an excuse for not further expanding capacity, which is one reason why population growth has far exceeded capacity expansion.
So, failure to pave the earth is social engineering, but failure to adequately build mass transit and bicycle facilities is ok? Why assume that the motor vehicle is the default?
You really ought to go back and *read* some of the studies on induced demand. That’s one thing that those “egghead professors” have that you don’t — knowledge.
And drop the faux populism.
The motor vehicle is absolutely the default.
Here’s the 2005 census data on how Americans get to work:
77.0% Drive Alone
10.7% Carpool
4.7% Mass Transit
3.6% Telecommute
2.5% Walk
0.9% Other Means
0.4% Bike
0.2% Motorcycle
0.1% Taxi
Also: I never said that “failure to adequately build mass transit and bicycle facilities is okay.” What are you talking about?
By ‘default’ I meant the default mode of transportation we should subsidize and build.
The term “default,” I would imagine, translates to greater than 50% of transportation spending. Are you arguing that roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc. should receive less than 50% of transportation spending?
How does that work if 88% of Americans currently drive to work?
I agree - we need to add more lanes. MORE BIKE LANES.
Thank you.
this post is such nonsense i’m not even going to take the time to respond to it.
But you did respond.