Car Clash: Europe vs. the U.S.

Europeans are working hard to discourage drivers, cars and parking in their cities.  Why is American city planning different?

Ellen Dunham-Jones is a professor in the School of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  She is a co-author, with June Williamson, of “Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs.”

Which automobile-dependent landscapes in the U.S. are the most forsaken? Where would the pedestrian-oriented European strategies seem most out of place and yet potentially have the greatest impact on increasing affordability, health and livability while reducing greenhouse gases and re-using existing infrastructure? Commercial strip corridors.

Top of the list of unloved, underperforming and ubiquitous places, they were engineered for the single purpose of swiftly moving cars. But overzoned for commercial uses, they are now clogged with cars on both local and through trips. They provide access to cheaper land and “drive till you qualify” affordable housing – but then eat up the savings as transportation costs have risen to 20 to 40 percent of household budgets. They are aging with little prospect of funding for maintenance. And their high vacancy rates just add to the dispiritedness of a failed public realm.

Can they be retrofitted into attractive, transit boulevards lined with trees, sidewalks and affordable housing and anchored by mixed-use centers with a public life to be proud of? June Williamson and I are tracking over 35 North American corridors that are being redesigned not to make driving miserable, but to recognize the multiple social, environmental, economic and transportation purposes that great streets serve. Their integration was highlighted in the grassroots-led temporary re-striping of Ross Avenue as “Ross Ramblas” in Dallas this week at Build a Better Boulevard. Participants employed several techniques of Tactical Urbanism, including pop-up shops, chairbombing and dumpster pools.

Every U.S. city once had street cars. Will Americans ever again support public investment in mass transit?

More typical is the ongoing 10-year revitalization of a five-mile stretch of Columbia Pike in Arlington County, Va. It exemplifies the intelligent use of tight form-based codes to grow from one-story strip buildings in parking lots to mid-rise mixed-use buildings fronting tree-lined sidewalks at nodes on major intersections. The site-specific code quickly tapers heights where the new development faces the existing neighborhoods and new bike lanes on the less busy streets. This strategy retains the existing affordable housing in between the nodes while the tax revenue from the new density goes toward supporting a streetcar.

Cambie Corridor in Vancouver is employing similar techniques but has upped the ante with some stunning modern mixed-use buildings and a highly efficient district energy system that balances out daytime commercial energy demands with the residential night-time peak loads.

Aiding these efforts is the new street design manual for walkable urban thoroughfares. It is the first officially recommended practice that does not refer to sidewalks as “vehicle recovery zones”! El Paso recently adopted the manual to connect its implementation of Bus Rapid Transit with redevelopment of outdated properties along five major corridors. Imagine if all 50 DOTs followed suit and revised their Level of Service Standards accordingly! We might see more transformations of urban highways to boulevards and Complete Streets.

Funding remains an obstacle and demand for Sustainable Communities Partnership federal planning grants far outstrips supply. Can private real estate developers fund streetcars as they did early in the 20th century? Can the public again support public sector investments in infrastructure, as it did mid-century? How else can we provide an alternative to our broken system of “drive till you qualify” affordable housing, accommodate changing demographics and markets and make our least sustainable landscapes into places worth caring more about?

DeKalb businesses launch second improvement district

Atlanta Business Chronicle – by Dave Williams, Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 10:41am EDT – Last Modified: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 11:24am EDT

 

Guardrail work along Mountain Industrial Boulevard

A second self-taxing community improvement district has sprung up in DeKalb County.

The new Stone Mountain CID was approved by the county commission last week and has elected its first board of directors.

The new CID’s members elected developer Emory Morsberger the district’s president, and Larry Callahan, CEO of Pattillo Industrial Real Estate, was chosen to serve as chairman.

Stone Mountain becomes the 14th CID in the metro region, all formed by commercial property owners who agree to pay a tax to finance improvements inside their districts.

The Stone Mountain CID is bordered roughly by Hugh Howell Road, East Ponce de Leon Avenue and Tucker Industrial Road. Other major roads running through the district include U.S. 78, also known as Stone Mountain Freeway, and Mountain Industrial Boulevard.

The new CID already has completed its first project, repairing and replacing guardrails along Mountain Industrial.

The county’s first CID, located in the portion of the Perimeter area inside DeKalb, has brought in more than $100 million in grants since its formation in 1989.

Northlake CID May Be Too Small to Energize

Tom Doolittle

“Northlake Station” blog editor, 8-year local writer, tennis coach

 

I’m not promoting a Northlake CID explicitly. Questions abound, but if we should have one, one aspect is worth discussing here: What size does it need to be to work – from recruitment to payoff.

The subject of a possible community improvement district (CID) came up at last week’s Northlake Overlay meeting (reported by Patch’s Ben Schnider, June 8). It has been assumed from the get-go that a CID if formed would be centered on Northlake Mall and would have essentially the same boundaries as the Overlay District. We appear hell-bent on affirming that the “Northlake” name must only be associated with the small area that converges on Lavista Road near the mall and I-285. That’s not a community, it’s a choke point.

A CID is an organization of commercial/institutional property owners that taxes each member to get things done collectively. No room for detail here, but if you’ve been to the area around Perimeter Mall, that’s a CID. The CID paid for the sidewalks, streetscape and lamps but also paid for feasibility studies, planning and reporting that keeps more work in the pipeline. You can multiply the amount of streetscape in Northlake by 20 and that’s just a start of what about 350 owners of high-end property can pay for. The Perimeter CID is up to about $5 million in collections per year, and it claims that every dollar can get matched 25:1 by local, state and federal government. The proof can be seen in the $50 million “fly-over” bridge that was just built over I-285. Do you see the painted highway guard rails near the manicured highway interchange at Ashford-Dunwoody? CID-paid. Need a powerful lobbyist for your area? A CID does that.

Perimeter CID is actually run as two CIDs – one DeKalb, one Fulton. However, their data is kept jointly. The district is about 40 percent larger than the Northlake Overlay (projected Northlake CID area). However, their property is worth at least 10 times that of the Northlake business area. My back-of-the-napkin calculations three years ago showed our overlay zone would generate about $750,000 a year contrasted with the Perimeter CID’s $4 million plus at the time.

Northlake’s lesser $0.75 million should beg reevaluation of our assumed CID area. The amount is enough to clean and secure the place and pay for some studies but a long way from what is needed to get help for roads and bridges. As envisioned, it’s not wrong; it can be the basis of a larger conversation. If you can call it Phase 1 of a more “complete” CID, the whole conversation changes. Of course, there are also many pros and cons to CIDs in general, so all stakeholders, businesses, residents and other partners could raise questions about CIDs in such a conversation too.

The Northlake Community Alliance website (www.nlake.org) says they are working with the fellow who started three CIDs in Gwinnett: Emory Morsberger. However, Morsberger told me he’s been dissuaded by a lack of interest from some major players, most notably Simon Properties. Simon has ignored the CID idea here since at least 2004 when the mall manager at the time peppered them with requests. That hurt because Simon did get involved in Buckhead’s and Town Center’s CIDs.

A developer and visionary, Morsberger is also the guy behind the Brain Train commuter rail plan (http://www.georgiabraintrain.com/) that would come through Northlake and Tucker (more on that another time). Morsberger understands how to shape and size CIDs. He formed them each on different concepts: one, a corridor along US-78; the next, Gwinnett Village (GVCID), which has business centers over a 15 square mile area; and lastly Gwinnett Place, a mall center like the Perimeter CID. In each case, he found a few leaders that paid for a full campaign to recruit the requisite members (51 percent of inventoried property owners). One, Vulcan Materials, a large quarry operation started GVCID. All of these have something which has power that can be overlooked in its influence – a specific jurisdiction that defines the community it serves.

See the GVCID map at: http://www.gwinnettvillage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=248&Itemid=92

In my view, a CID of this type–or partially of this type–could be the answer to Northlake’s limited revenue base and lack of institutional leadership.

A Northlake CID could include both sides of the railway where only the mall side is included in the overlay – important because of the value of rail for growth. It could extend further south on Northlake Parkway and Montreal Road to Lawrenceville Highway and include the entire medical center and whatever revitalization will be stimulated by the expanded I-285 interchange. (Coincidentally, Georgia Power’s DeKalb economic development office is or was located in the industrial park across the tracks from the overlay boundary.)  The CID could potentially move toward Shallowford Road and merge with the proposed I-85 CID coming up from North Druid Hills Road, Clairmont and Buford Highway.

Conversely, Northlake’s business center(s) could be added (piggy-backed) to other envisioned CIDs, given the lack of commercial property interest in the overlay district. Above all, looking at CID boundaries afresh can surface new corporate and institutional leadership. New enthusiasm from a different business community may pay for property inventories and tax digest studies under the rubric of throwing out old assumptions.

One thing is for sure: By expanding the base, you’ll have to rely less on Simon Properties’ Northlake Mall for leadership. I think all forms of our local stakeholders would find progress faster if we didn’t focus so much attention on the mall and its owners.

Looks like we need another overlay meeting, DeKalb.

DeKalb County Schools seeks 1-penny tax increase

Atlanta Business Chronicle  – by Carla Caldwell, Morning Call Editor                       

Date: Friday, June 17, 2011, 6:06am EDT

The DeKalb County (Ga.) School Board will ask voters in that county to approve a five-year penny sales tax to cover a $475 million list of schools’ improvements and building, according to the Dunwoody Reporter. Voters go to the polls in November.

Projects the district hopes to tackle include replacing up to seven schools, the newspaper reported.

If approved, the new SPLOST would run from 2012 until 2017. Shoppers would pay the increase in Decatur, portions of DeKalb that fall within Atlanta, and throughout DeKalb County.

The school board approved a draft plan in May to keep the county’s school millage the same: $22.98 dollars on every $1,000 of value on DeKalb residences. The board is required to adopt a millage by July, the newspaper reported.

Atlanta worst for senior transit options

Atlanta Business Chronicle – by Carla  Caldwell, Morning Call Editor                       

Date: Wednesday,  June 15, 2011

 

Metro Atlanta will have fewer public transit options for seniors in the  coming years than any other metropolitan area in the country with 3 million or  more residents, according to a new survey from Transportation for America, a  national coalition of public officials, and transportation and real estate  groups. According to the study, by 2015 approximately 90 percent of metro  Atlanta adults ages 65 to 79 will not have access to public transit.

In the study called “Aging in Place, Stuck without Options,” Atlanta was  followed in its population category by Riverside-San Bernandino, Calif.,  Houston, Detroit and Dallas.

New York City was separated into a category by itself due to the area’s large  population.

For metropolitan areas with 1 million to 3 million people, Kansas City is  ranked worst for senior transit options, followed by Oklahoma City, Fort Worth,  Nashville, and Raleigh-Durham.

Click  here to read the report.

Construction Begins for New Health Sciences Research Building

Facility Includes Pediatric Research Partnership Between Emory and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta

Construction of a new Health Sciences Research Building on the Emory University campus will kick off with an official groundbreaking on June 15.

More than half of the new facility on Haygood Drive will focus on pediatric research through the Emory-Children’s Pediatric Research Center, a partnership between Emory and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, who will work closely with key affiliates including Georgia Tech and Morehouse School of Medicine.

“In breaking ground for this new building, we celebrate our long partnership with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and the momentum of our growing research collaborations,” says S. Wright Caughman, MD, Emory Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and CEO of the Woodruff Health Sciences Center. “This partnership will lead to continued medical advances that will benefit pediatric and adult patients in Georgia and throughout the world and will help Emory and Children’s reach the top ranks of pediatric research institutions.”

The new building will encompass 200,000 gross square feet, with four stories above ground and one floor below grade. In addition to a number of pediatric focus areas, the new research building will include investigations in adult cancer, immunology and drug discovery.

“This is another monumental day for Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory and for the children of Georgia and beyond as we are excited for the chance to further develop a robust pediatric research program,” says Donna Hyland, President and CEO, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. “Atlanta is blessed with many fine institutions – like Emory – who believe in collaboration, and we will continue to grow because it’s the collaboration among our clinical and academic professionals that will determine how much we are able to provide for Georgia’s children now and in the future.”

A two-story working bridge will connect the new building to the Emory-Children’s Center building, adjacent to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and the home of Emory’s Department of Pediatrics. In addition to research space, the Emory-Children’s Center also houses a pediatric outpatient center, the largest pediatric specialty group practice in Georgia.

“The bridge that links the new research building to the Emory-Children’s Center is an architectural highlight and gateway to the Emory campus. But more importantly, the bridge is a symbolic link between Emory and Children’s and reflects our shared commitment to child health,” says Barbara J. Stoll, MD, George W. Brumley Jr. Chair, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

The building’s open design, accommodating 65 lead researchers and their teams, will feature natural light in laboratories and corridors. The building will include a 175-seat auditorium and a café dining area with outside seating.

Designed by architecture firm ZGF (Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects LLP), the building is expected to be LEED-silver certified, with completion expected in April 2013.

With a cost of approximately $90 million, the building will be funded primarily through philanthropic contributions, including a grant from the Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation Inc., the O. Wayne Rollins Foundation, the Zeist Foundation Inc., Dr. Raymond Schinazi funds, the Georgia Research Alliance and two anonymous foundations.

Atlanta roundtable trying to figure out transit investment; Charlotte N.C. shows the way

Posted in Maria’s Metro

Date: June 12th, 2011, 11:52 pm

 

For decades, the third rail for transit in Georgia has been money.

The state’s gasl tax is constitutionally limited to funding roads and bridges — giving the state a convenient excuse for not investing in public transit or alternative transportation modes, such as sidewalks, bicycle and multi-purpose paths.

As a result, almost all of the state’s transit systems have been financed by county governments, or in the case of the Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb — the one-penny MARTA sales tax.

But now metro Atlanta has an opportunity to pass a one-penny transportation sales tax for the 10-county region in a 2012 referendum.

And those could be the most “precious” transportation dollars we’ve ever had because we finally have a mechanism to pay for the development of transit, sidewalks and bikeways.

On June 1, the Georgia Department of Transportation issued the “unconstrained” list of transportation projects in the Atlanta region — a $22.9 billion wish list, including $14 billion for 66 transit projects. The list also includes $8.6 billion for roads, $27 million for aviation and $204 million for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Now the Atlanta Regional Transportation Roundtable has the unenviable task of trimming down the list of projects to match what the tax could possibly raise over its 10-year lifespan, if the sales tax is approved.

Currently, it is estimated the tax will raise between $6 billion and $8 billion over 10 years (Georgia State University will be releasing new estimates in the coming week).

So the executive committee of the Roundtable met on June 9th to try to figure how to decide which projects should be included in the list presented to voters next year.

Among the issues that could narrow the list include whether projects significantly reduce congestion, whether they can be completed within the 10-year time frame, whether the projects fit into a regional vision, whether the projects promote sustainable development patterns, whether the projects are geographically balanced and equitable, or whether the projects make economic sense.

Decatur Mayor Bill Floyd said another factor should be considered. “I’m looking at projects that don’t have other avenues of funding,” Floyd said.

Bingo.

If state dollars from the motor fuel tax are available for interchange improvements, why should we use these “precious” sales tax dollars on projects that can be financed through other means?

Of course, the ultimate goal should be to get the state to become a true investor in public transportation, be it commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus systems. So far, the only real consistent state funding for transit has been for part of the costs of running the XPress bus system operated by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA).

Remember, MARTA is the largest transit system in the country that receives virtually no funding from its state government.

That point really hit home on June 8th during the Metro Atlanta Northern Crescent Transit Summit held at the Cobb Galleria.

Pat McCrory, the former Republican mayor of top Atlanta competitor — Charlotte, N.C., had made the development of light rail a centerpiece of his administration.

On this issue, McCrory encouraged leaders in the Atlanta region to embrace new transit development — just like he did in Charlotte.

“We in the entire (Southern) region have to work together,” McCrory told the gathering of hundreds of business and government leaders from the north metro area. “In the whole I-85 corridor, we are in this together. Our competition is not each other.”

So then McCrory shared his wisdom.

“Everything you do must be integrated with what your vision is, not just a transportation vision but a development vision,” McCrory said.

As a way to make his point, McCrory showed a picture of a commercial strip with loads of concrete, ugly billboards and little signs of urban vitality.

“I call these ‘corridors of crap,’” McCrory said. “I call this ‘anywhere USA.’ You have got to redevelop these corridors. As goes the commercial districts, so go your neighborhoods.”

Then McCrory showed how such corridors were transformed once light rail was added.

“You need to start showing pictures,” McCrory said about how to sell the transportation to tax to prospective voters. “Show them what it will look like if they implement transit.”

In Charlotte, McCrory’s message was to create “the best of Mayberry in Metropolis” as a way of telling voters they could have the best of both worlds — big city, small town.

McCrory said the backers of light rail were able to communicate their passion about improving Charlotte’s quality of life, sustainability, not just for today but for generations to come.

But McCrory also was able to communicate that passion to the state of North Carolina. Funding for Charlotte’s light rail system was: 50 percent from the federal government, 25 percent from a local sales tax AND 25 percent in state funding.

So how did McCrory convince state leaders to invest in Charlotte’s transit system?

First, McCrory convinced state leaders that transit would improve Charlotte’s economic development potential, and he got the governor on board.

Plus, McCrory’s argument was that Charlotte contributed greatly to the North Carolina’s tax revenues. And as the state’s economic engine, Charlotte deserved its share of state’s revenues. (Now substitute Atlanta and Georgia in that same argument).

After McCrory’s comments, Norcross Mayor Bucky Johnson, one of the most influential leaders in the region, made a ground-breaking statement.

“I think the state should invest in transit in the metro region,” said Johnson, who is chairing the executive committee of the regional roundtable. “The state needs to put some money in transit. I think the governor needs to get involved in this.”

Bingo again.

If Georgia were a true partner in strengthening metro Atlanta’s economic vitality, the state would invest in transit in the same way that North Carolina has invested in Charlotte’s light rail system.

Imagine how much further our regional transportation sales tax dollars would go if the state were to match the local contributions in transit, and if the state were to invest in rail projects that cross over several metro regions, ie: helping pay for commuter trains between Atlanta and Macon.

But the Georgia Department of Transportation recently pressured Erik Steavens, its director of intermodal programs and senior rail transportation expert, into resigning from his position — resurfacing questions about the state’s commitment to rail and alternative modes of transportation.

And then there’s that question of funding.

Now here is a dirty little secret. Georgia DOT has been able to invest in transit, sidewalks and bikeways all along.

Every time someone buys a gallon of gas, 7.5 cents is the gas tax. But a driver also pays a 4-cent state sales tax on that purchase. Of that, 3 cents goes into GDOT’s pockets and 1 cent goes into the state’s general fund.

That state sales tax has no constitutional restrictions meaning there is NO reason for the state to sit on the sidelines when it comes to developing a transit system for the Atlanta region.

Bottom line. Some way, some how, we must find a way to invest in transit once and for all — be it through a “precious” regional sales tax or through direct state funding or preferably both.

 

Creating safe links between transit and walking a vital part of our transportation future

By Guest Columnist SALLY FLOCKS, founder, president and CEO of PEDS, an Atlanta-based advocacy group for pedestrians, for SaportaReport.com

The decades-long neglect of pedestrian safety in the design of state roads exacts a heavy toll. Each year in metro Atlanta, some 1,400 pedestrians are hit by motor vehicles, resulting in 1,000 pedestrian injuries and 70 pedestrian deaths.

While the region has made dramatic progress during the past five years in reducing overall traffic fatalities, the number of pedestrian deaths remains constant.  In 2009, pedestrians accounted for one out of five traffic fatalities in the 10-county region.

Pedestrian safety is often perceived as a local issue. Yet 45 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in Georgia occurred on state highways. For people on foot, the combination of wide roads, infrequent crosswalks, no pedestrian walkways, and high speeds often has tragic outcomes.

Discussion about the project list for the proposed regional transportation sales tax has focused primarily on roads and transit. Yet a successful transit system will depend on safe pedestrian access.

Sally Flocks

The on-board transit survey conducted by the Atlanta Regional Commission last year confirmed that nearly three-fourths of transit trips begin with walking trips. And when people exit the bus or train, four out of five walk to their destinations.

Research by the ARC also suggests that people who walk to transit are among the region’s most vulnerable road users. From 2004 to 2008, one-fourth of all pedestrian crashes occurred within 100 feet of transit stops. People with a choice will not take transit if they have to put their lives in their hands to get across the street.

Despite the high number of fatalities and the interdependence of transit and walking, few public resources have been used to retrofit dangerous roads with pedestrian safety improvement. On much of Buford Highway, the deadliest road in Georgia for pedestrians, traffic signals and crosswalks are few and far between and sidewalks are missing from both sides of the street.

Metro Atlanta needs to transform outdated roads that were designed only for cars into complete streets that serve all modes safely. Fortunately, transportation professionals at state and local agencies now recognize the importance of increasing pedestrian safety and are eager to help.

Improving the pedestrian environment requires a relatively small public investment, which will quickly pay for itself with lives saved, increased transit usage, and better public health. Even at locations without marked crosswalks, installing raised median islands is likely to reduce pedestrian crashes by 39 percent. Additional lighting, HAWK signals, and Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons can also help transform our deadliest roads into places where people can safely access transit on foot.

If passed, the transportation sales tax will also enable the region to build new transit lines. In selecting projects, elected officials need to remember that our region is aging. In the years ahead, a growing number of people will be living until their mid-80s or 90s. Most will lose their ability to drive long before they lose their ability to walk.

To serve aging adults, the region needs to provide transit projects that people can get to on foot. Without that, more and more people will be homebound, and paratransit and human services transportation costs will continue to spiral upward.

Elected officials also need to recognize that locating transit on corridors people can walk to will provide tremendous economic benefits. We can learn a lot from the Orange Line in the Washington D.C. region, which runs through Arlington and Fairfax counties.

Taking the cheapest option, Fairfax County ran the line down the center of an existing interstate. Arlington County, in contrast, located the Orange Line through a decaying and then-unwalkable commercial corridor.  In the decades that followed, development near Arlington’s section exploded and land values tripled. In Fairfax County, the transit line is surrounded by park and ride lots, with little other development.

It took over 50 years – and billions of dollars—for the Atlanta region to build infrastructure as auto-centric as what we have today. And it will take time and money for the region to create streets that are safer and more inviting for people who walk to transit.

The regional transportation sales tax provides an outstanding opportunity to achieve major progress. By investing just $400 million in sidewalks, refuge islands and corridor improvements that transform outdated roads into complete streets in the decade ahead, we can create safe routes to transit throughout the region.

Motorist scammed by phony HERO

By  Mike Morris

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

10:18 a.m. Friday, June 10, 2011Metro Atlanta drivers have a new danger to be wary of, according to the state Department of Transportation – a phony HERO operator charging disabled motorists for assistance.

David Spear, spokesman for the DOT, said that earlier this month, a motorist whose vehicle had a flat tire on I-75 near Moore’s Mill Road was scammed by a man claiming to be a DOT Highway Emergency Response Operator, or HERO.

“The driver said an individual clad in a gray safety vest and driving what he recalled being a white Dodge pickup truck stopped and identified himself as a DOT employee,” Spear said.

The man took the motorist’s wheel rim, $100 and left, promising to get a new tire mounted on the rim, Spear said. “He never returned,” Spear said.

Spear said real HEROs “drive easily identifiable [DOT] trucks, wear department uniforms and have DOT identification.”

HEROs do not charge for assistance and will not solicit or accept tips for rendering aid, according to Spear, who also warned of a second recent scam targeting job seekers with the promise of DOT jobs.

He said a man is reportedly identifying himself as a job recruiter and approaching individuals at job fairs throughout the metro area.

“He apparently offers employment with the Georgia DOT as a ‘freight inspector’ or mobile truck ‘weigh station’ operator in exchange for $75 application and $12 background-check fees, which he instructs the individuals to wire to what prove to be fraudulent entities,” Spear said.

“As a general rule, the department does not utilize employment recruiters,” he said. “Nor does it ever charge job applicants any fee whatsoever.”

Why Building Roads Creates Traffic

Posted on Monday June 6th by Eric Jaffe for The Infrastructurist – Ameica Under Construction

In the transportation world our intuition can lead us astray. On first thought, no one would suspect that removing a major road can improve traffic flow — yet that’s exactly what it does (or would do) in some cases. The flipside of this contrarian coin is that building a brand new highway often fails to alleviate the congestion that inspired its construction in the first place. Economists Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner of the University of Toronto offer an impressive and empirical explanation for this concept in an upcoming issue of the American Economic Review (full paper via Google Docs).

Duranton and Turner analyzed loads of data on traffic, infrastructure, and travel behavior from metropolitan regions across the United States and found that “vehicle-kilometers traveled … increases proportionately to roadway lane kilometers for interstate highways.” For those who don’t care for either academic abstracts or the metric system, the authors then parse their conclusion in pithier terms: “roads cause traffic.” The basis for this confusing reality, write Duranton and Turner, is a three-pronged “fundamental law of highway congestion” that explains why road construction can never keep pace with road congestion:

people drive more when the stock of roads in their city increases; commercial driving and trucking increase with a city’s stock of roads; people migrate to cities which are relatively well provided with roads.

As compelling as the evidence in this study may be, it doesn’t tell perceptive urban planners anything they haven’t known for decades. Duranton and Turner trace the “fundamental law of highway congestion” to a study published by road researcher Anthony Downs in 1962. In an issue of Traffic Quarterly, Downs reported his law of “peak-hour” congestion: “This Law states that on urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity.”

Before Downs, social critic Lewis Mumford recognized the properties of this law in the behavior of drivers in and around New York City. Mumford was well ahead of his contemporaries when it came to recognizing the perils of road construction; Jane Jacobs is often remembered as the foil of road-builder Robert Moses, but at the time many would have cast Mumford in that role. While researching my history of transportation in the Northeast, I came across an illuminating four-part series Mumford wrote for the New Yorker in 1955 called “The Roaring Traffic’s Boom.” In the second article, Mumford provides a commentary that anticipates Duranton and Turner half a century ago:

[O]ur one-eyed specialists continue to concoct grandiose plans for highway development, as if motor transportation existed in a social vacuum. … Instead of curing congestion, they widen chaos. …

All the current plans for dealing with congestion are based on the assumption that it is a matter of highway engineering, not of comprehensive city and regional planning, and that the private motorcar has priority over every other means of transportation, no matter how expensive it is in comparison with public transportation, or how devastating its by-products.

Prescient as he was, Mumford had little impact on the policies of his day, partly because his suggested solutions — carefully planned communities, population limits, and a fully balanced transportation network — were even more objectionable than curtailing road construction. (And you thought raising the gas tax was politically unpalatable.)

Likewise the findings of Duranton and Turner are the type that should, but probably will not, inform good social policy. This is not a blatant call for more public transportation funding; in fact, the Toronto researchers found that adding transit does nothing to ease highway congestion. When one driver leaves the road, another simply takes his or her place, as Turner explained to Streetsblog DC. (That finding will be misappropriated by road-building enthusiasts to argue for more highways under the fundamental “if nothing helps, then who cares?” error.)

The only solution endorsed by Duranton and Turner is congestion pricing. In April 1955, Mumford predicted that Manhattan would soon have to “banish private wheeled traffic” in midtown during the day. This extreme version of congestion control did not come soon, and when Mayor Bloomberg did introduce a pricing plan recently, it was roundly beaten. “People, it seems, find it hard to believe that the cure for congestion is not more facilities for congestion,” Mumford wrote. Some beliefs are hard to change.