Traffic Congestion Costs Chicago $7.3 Billion Per Year
by Judd WileyAugust 6th, 2008, 3:22 pm
Chicago loses $7.3 billion each year in time, fuel, productivity, and environmental damage due to traffic congestion, according to a new study by the Metropolitan Planning Council.
The breakdown is as follows:
- $6.98 billion in lost time
- $354 million in wasted gas, based on 2005 prices. (In today’s prices, the cost would be about $681 million)
- $33 million in environmental damages
Another way to look at this is that, for every hour a driver sits in rush hour traffic in the Chicago area, he loses $14.58, or $3,014 a year.
Perhaps the most interesting finding is the fact that congestion is about as pervasive on arterial roads as it is on highways.
Only in the city of Chicago itself is congestion greater on the expressways than on arterial routes. In every other part of the region, the percentage of vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours traveled under periods of congestion are higher on arterials than on expressways. Likewise, the majority of total vehicle-hours of delay occur on arterials, rather than on expressways, with the exception of Chicago outside the CBD.
In other words, once you get off the main highway, traffic is just as bad if not worse. This makes sense, since arterial roads usually have fewer lanes, more intersections, frequent traffic lights, left hand turns, and are often lined with gas stations, shopping centers, and businesses.
So the question is, what to do?
The report offers some suggestions:
- Make better choices about land use and development patterns
- Provide more information to drivers on traffic patterns
- Introduce some element of pricing to motivate people and businesses
- Improve transit alternatives
The answer is most likely a combination of smarter development/planning, mass transit expansion, and yes, more road capacity to meet demand.
[Read the full report]
Posted in Highways, Traffic Congestion |
But building more road capacity will still lead to congestion eventually– and it’s not in line with the kind of long range goals we need to think about for the environment. I think it makes more sense to focus on mass transit and market rate pricing for parking.
thebird,
You’re referring to the “induced demand” hypothesis here. But expanding capacity doesn’t necessarily lead to more congestion, especially considering that existing road supply in many areas currently doesn’t equal demand.
The automobile is never going to go away. Whether we like it or not, we all need to accept that reality. Once we run out of oil, we’ll just have electric cars powered by nuclear energy or some other form of energy. We can’t undo half a century of auto-centric growth and development. And as our population continues to grow, the reality is that we need more road capacity.
That said, why can’t we build more road capacity and aggressively expand our subway/light rail/long-distance rail networks?
I want to see a massive subway refurbishment and expansion. I want to see light rail extending way out into the suburbs. I want to see long-distance lines criss-crossing the country, putting the Europeans to shame.
Why can’t we pursue all options and let Americans make their own transportation choices? It is the practical answer to this entire debate over transportation. This doesn’t have to be a zero sum game.
Building capacity causes congestion? Someone better tell the MTA that! They are (supposedly) building an entire Second Avenue subway line parallel to the existing Lexington Avenue line to relieve congestion. What fools! Don’t they realize that they’ll induce demand and simply cause more congestion?
As for Chicago, two words: Crosstown Expressway.
That’s a great point. If we’re going to apply the “induced demand” hypothesis to road capacity, we should also apply it to subway/light rail capacity. If you build more subway/light rail lines, they’ll become more crowded! The logical conclusion is, hilariously, that we should slow subway/light rail construction in order to decrease congestion on these lines. Strange how you don’t hear the “induced demand” crowd making this point. I guess “induced demand” only applies to road capacity?
Induced demand works on roads because they are under-priced. With road pricing and market rate parking charges you no longer have induced demand.
And mass transit isn’t “under-priced”?
Are you arguing that subway fares are priced at “market rates”?
I don’t see the point in #5 as being particularly coherent. The NJ Turnpike has seen steady increases in traffic volumes, as have the tolled crossings into NYC. These volumes have increased over time despite steady toll increases and, in the case of the tolled crossings, despite a declining level of parking capacity in Manhattan. The simple fact is that a wealthier populace and a larger population is simply going to require more road capacity. There is nothing tricky or sinister about this. NYC unwillingness/inability to add capacity over the course of the last 40 years has not decreased the need for that capacity, it’s just made getting around that area a less humane experience.
By the way, on some level “induced demand” is real. Not in the sense that we would all quit are jobs and spend 24 hours a day driving if only there were enough lanes, but in the sense that a connection between two places allows for commercial and social relationships between people in those places, thus inducing the travel that such relationships imply. It’s funny as to how this notion has become an excuse to NOT build. Connectivity “induces” commerce and social exchange. The Brooklyn Bridge “induced” mass commuting from Brooklyn into Manhattan, “induced”, I’m sure, romances between Manhattanites and Brooklynites, brought families separated by the East River closer together. The Second Avenue Subway (if it’s ever built) will “induce” some additional commuting between the far east avenues of Manhattan and downtown. In other words, a person living on York and 80th may be more willing to stay put if her apartment if her job moves from midtown to downtown if the commute remains doable. But all of the above are good things. Connectivity is a good thing. The sad fact is that there is no way that any of the crossings in NYC that facilitated the growth and interconnectedness of the city with itself and the rest of the region could be built today, in part because of the bad rap given this induced demand theory.
I think a lot of people think that the gas tax covers the cost of highways. But, in fact it falls short. Maybe that’s why some here are saying that highways are under priced.
SandyM, I think that’s debatable, but in any event, the people who invoke “induced demand” typically object equally strenuously to highway capacity additions that are solely toll financed, such as the current proposed widening of the NJ Turnpike between exits 8A and 6, financed solely by turnpike tolls.
thebird,
I have enjoyed reading your discussion on the Daily Kos about our site.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/9502/00738/512/563917
However, let me correct a few things here.
—–
You write: They want to cut mass transit funding, license bicycles, expand suburbs and kill cities.
We don’t want to “cut mass transit funding”. In fact, we are in favor of aggressive mass transit expansion. We all use the DC Metro almost every day.
We don’t want to “expand suburbs”, as you put it. But we think that since many Americans already live in the suburbs, they should have adequate road capacity and mass transit options.
We don’t want to “kill cities.” I’m not sure I understand your point here.
—–
You also write: They may even be global warming deniers– or if they’re not that illogical and unscientific now then I bet they were a few years ago.
Let me clarify: We don’t believe in man-made global warming. At least, we don’t believe that it’s been conclusively proven yet. Derk has commented on this before.