George Will's Traffic Congestion Solution: Repackaging the Status Quo

x-post: Brudaimonia

George Will has a keen ability to package ill-informed nonsense in a shiny wrap of apparent erudition.

Not that I disagree with all of the points in his recent article on traffic congestion entitled "Fighting the Real Gridlock." I am in favor, for example, of dynamic tolling on highways and reforming transportation pork. It's just that the spirit of the whole article contradicts itself by reaffirming the status quo it purports to shatter.

It starts off well by recognizing the costs of traffic congestion: monetary costs, family time, time for civic engagement, and so forth. (Will's occasional mention of transportation secretary Mary Peters, perhaps some politically-motivated hat tip, is awkward, as she is not really essential to the article.) Will notes that

[i]n the past 20 years, congestion in the 85 largest cities has caused the number of hours lost each year by the average driver in rush hours to increase from 16 to 47. In the 13 largest cities, drivers are stuck in traffic the equivalent of nearly eight workdays.

But then comes the call for "fresh thinking and departures from the status quo." Since the status quo has been building new highways and adding new lanes to old highways, it's exciting to hear what this "fresh thinking" might be.

There must be new highways and new lanes on some old ones.

Aw, what a letdown. The psychology of prior investment affects even the most erudite among us, for even they can't let go of the infrastructure that currently makes possible nearly half the world's automotive carbon emissions.

But there also must be new ways -- made possible by new technologies -- of using lanes.

No doubt we must forge ahead with new technologies to reduce congestion on existing highways, yet Will's big solution is just a refurbishing of the status quo. Or, as James Howard Kunstler would call it, "a desperate wish to keep the cars running by any conceivable means, at all costs."

To make this tired old scheme justifiable, Will must brush aside the formidable objection that is the theory of "induced travel": adding more car lanes to a highway only increases demand to drive on it.

The usual scolds -- environmentalists, urban "planners," [ouch, those quotation marks sting deep] enthusiasts for public transit (less than 5 percent of the workforce uses it) -- argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating. But as Ted Balaker and Sam Staley respond in their new book on congestion, "The Road More Traveled," among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion.

Responding to conservative misinformation is like playing "Find the Fallacy." Here Will uses a single, flawed comparison, cited from a book by two conservative libertarians, in an attempt to disprove induced travel and implicitly argue against the fact that highway-heavy, transit-poor cities are recipes for congestion. Dallas does indeed have less congestion than Los Angeles, yet Will presents no evidence that it is because of its pavement levels. The fallacy is implied causality in the presence of mere correlation. In reality, there are many, many factors that contribute to, or mitigate, traffic congestion.

A simple look at the numbers casts doubt on Balaker and Staley's claim. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in the 21-year period from 1982 to 2003, congestion in both Dallas and Los Angeles increased. But Dallas's congestion increased at a rate 61% higher than that of Los Angeles. This is because Dallas's congestion index increased 46 points over that time period, while Los Angeles's congestion index increased only 28 points. In fact, Los Angeles has held its congestion relatively steady since 1990, while Dallas's congestion index has risen 23 points.

What has been happening in Los Angeles to keep its congestion steady over the last 17 years? It might have something to do with mass transit, the real gridlock fighter. Los Angeles's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) opened the region's first light rail line in 1990, its first heavy rail line in 1993, and another light rail line in 1995 (Wikipedia). MetroLink, the regional rail system, began service in 1992. The Antelope Valley Transit Authority, covering the exurbs of Lancaster and Palmdale, was formed in 1992. And these are not all of the transit additions Los Angeles made in the early 90s.

Of course, back in the day, Los Angeles used to have an excellent streetcar before it was slowly killed by General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and other corporations seeking to force Angelenos to use their products to get around.

Today, the city is fighting the legacy of smog and congestion created by auto-dependent infrastructure and is embracing increased transit capacity and smart growth strategies. It has a long way to go, but LA has a chief planner, Gail Goldberg, and a mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who recognize the importance of smart growth.

Public transportation, not selling toll roads to private companies, is what will relieve America's congestion, and Americans are beginning to recognize this, even if George Will doesn't. In 2006, 10.1 billion trips were taken via public transportation, the largest public transportation ridership in 49 years.

Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995. That is more than double the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that same period. In 2006, public transit ridership grew 2.9 percent over 2005.

The article noted that light rail use increased by the highest percentage (5.6 percent). Madison officials may want to take note of that figure, as the city considers building its own light rail line. Minneapolis's new light rail line continued its ridership success with an 18.4 percent increase. This is a rail line that was opposed tooth-and-nail by then--State House Majority Leader (and now Governor) Tim Pawlenty. Even Dallas residents are tiring of all that pavement: bus ridership in the city was up 8.3 percent in 2006.

And this is all only 1.5 years removed from the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the infamous pork-laden transportation bill steered primarily by Alaska Republicans, lopsided by massive highway allocations, including the notorious "Bridges to Nowhere," and relatively scant public transit and bicycle rations.

Besides relieving congestion, the huge benefit of public transit is the gas it saves. The APTA found that transit's record ridership saved 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, which is enough to fill gasoline cans that could stretch to the moon (PDF). Traffic congestion, on the other hand, wastes 2.3 billion gallons of gasoline (FHWA).

Yes, there are some things we can do on the highways to relieve congestion, but focusing solely on highways misses the larger solution of increased alternative transportation. But seeing that solution will require actual fresh thinking and freedom from the pavement status quo.