Learning to live in gridlock nation

By Joan Lowy SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

The next time you are stuck in a traffic jam, take a good look around and consider yourself lucky — it's only going to get worse.

For decades, increases in traffic congestion have outpaced attempts to expand the nation's transportation infrastructure on the ground and in the air.

Despite two major legislative efforts by Congress during the 1990s to beef up that infrastructure, some transportation and urban policy experts predict the United States is headed toward a "congestion crisis" that could have serious consequences for the economy.

"We are approaching an impending capacity crisis where demand threatens to overwhelm our existing transportation systems," said William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association.

The 2000 census figures released this year — which show the U.S. population grew by 32 million people in the last decade and will gain 120 million people by 2050, for a total population exceeding 400 million — were a "wake-up call" for transportation planners, said Dean Carlson, secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation and president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Driving — as measured by the amount of vehicle miles per person — has been going up even faster than the population almost every year. So has the number of cars on the highways. Between 1980 and 1997, the United States added 1.2 cars or trucks for every additional person.

At that rate, there will be 48 million to 62 million more vehicles on the road by 2020, estimated Anthony Downs, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Downs is among a growing number of urban policy and transportation experts who believe that congestion is going to continue to worsen even if the nation builds more roads and adds more public transit.

"This is a problem without a solution — at least no solution the American public will accept," Downs recently testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "My advice is that everyone should get used to being stuck in traffic some of the time.

"You should get a climate-controlled car with a stereo radio and tape deck and CD player, a hands-free telephone, a fax machine and even a microwave oven, and commute each day with someone you really like."

The situation has alarmed business and industry leaders who fear that without even greater federal expenditures on new roads and airports, some areas of the country may reach a point where they are unable to effectively move goods and people.

Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced the formation of a new lobbying coalition of transportation industries and users — Americans for Transportation Mobility — whose aim is to pry more money out of Congress for highway and airport projects when lawmakers begin work next year on the next five-year transportation construction bill.

But many transportation experts, urban planners and environmentalists contend that nothing short of a fundamental change in where and how we live will turn the problem around.

That means moving away from the car-oriented culture that has marked America since World War II. It means building and redesigning "smart growth" communities that are high-density and mix housing with retail and office development so that walking, biking and taking public transit are realistic alternatives to congested highways.

It means more telecommuting and flexible work hours. It means rethinking public transit in metropolitan areas so that trains and buses go more places people want to go, rather than just to and from city centers.

And it also may mean "congestion pricing," a concept that is already being tried in New York, San Diego and other metropolitan areas. Congestion pricing is aimed at weeding some drivers off the road by applying higher tolls or surcharges for using highways, bridges and tunnels at peak hours.

One thing many experts believe should not happen is massive new highway construction, which they say worsens congestion. The theory, called "induced demand," is that new highways built to accommodate suburban sprawl or to reduce congestion create only temporary relief as drivers quickly fill up the open roads until traffic is as crowded as before.

"If you build it, they will come," said Eric Anderson, director of the development, community and environment division at the Environmental Protection Agency. "Most people nationally are seeing that road-building by itself has not been an effective solution."

But failing to increase the nation's highway system in a substantial way ignores the realities of growth, says U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue.

"The arguments that say, 'If we don't build it, they won't come,' just don't carry any water," Donohue said. "They are coming. They are here. And we have got to build an infrastructure or we're going to be in a California situation."

It's unrealistic to expect people to completely give up their cars or not to build any new roads at all, Fulton agreed. Nevertheless, Americans need to change fundamental expectations, he said.

A study by the industry-funded American Highway Users Alliance concluded that construction improvements to 170 major traffic bottlenecks could sharply reduce air pollution and save millions of gallons of fuel.

"That sounds a lot better to me than the Kyoto treaty," said Donohue, referring to the international accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "We can't allow the antigrowth people to use layer and layer and layer of environmental arguments to prevent us from building the infrastructure that will in fact reduce pollution."

Environmentalists, however, contend that new road construction — as opposed to maintaining and improving existing roads — increases, not lessens, pollution.

"Alleviating bottlenecks can sometimes have a short-term benefit for cutting pollution and fuel use," said Michael Replogle, an urbansprawl expert at Environmental Defense, "but that is rapidly offset by the induced traffic that fills up the wider roads. The traffic count monitors corroborate that."

07/16/01

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/top/w16gridlock.htm

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), July 16, 2001

Answers

Martin, I passed you on some road, long ago. And as I remember, I complimented you for your informative. From whence, I was led into study of local politicans as had to do with politicans "sleeping" with the local land developers. Twas not a pretty sight, once I saw, a property owner, stripped of property rights, most recent. Local single older wide owner, hoping to improve his plight, by moving out the older single wide, to replace with a newer. He was halted, by some local government. That is Not Right! By the way, I am not some fantasy email address. I Stand Firm.

-- C. Robbs (crobbs1@bellsouth.net), July 16, 2001.

Thanks My Story...

At least there is still one person out there.

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), July 16, 2001.

San Diego CA faces a severe housing crisis. Rents and mortgages are skyrocketing so high that discretionary income is nonexistent for many full time workers. One proposed solution, which is to "reduce regulation on housing developers" makes NO sense. This regulation is required, as new development requires an intricate complex of added INFRASTRUCTURE in support: Electric, gas, sewers, trash removal, water, roads, other transport, schools, police and fire . . .

These high housing costs are the market's way of saying that the infrastructure's population carrying capacity is near (or even already over its long term) limits.

Unfortunately, the demand, and thus cost, of moving vans OUT of CA is so high that even those who want to move out can not afford to, unless they can find an employer sponsor. These prospects are dim for those over forty, even with a good work record.

Hence, the Free Market as a whole is dysfuntional, telling people to leave CA, but simultaneously prohibiting it.

The song, "Hotel California" has become oh, so approprate.

-- Robert Riggs (rxr.999@worldnet.att.net), July 17, 2001.