Road congestion and diminishing returns

Carol Coletta from CEOs for Cities (and our keynote speaker in the last annual conference) links a fascinating study on road congestion and car usage in the US. It turns out that traffic congestion in America's cities declined 30% in 2008, a truly amazing figure in a single year. The reason behind the suddenly unclogged, agreeable roads was a 3% decline in total miles traveled by drivers during the year.

How come such a small drop of driving produced such a gigantic drop in congestion? Basically, road and highway capacity has a tipping point: a certain stretch of asphalt carries more and more cars up to a point where the average speed drops bellow a certain threshold (40 mph in highways) and traffic slows down dramatically, creating a traffic jam. A road can take only a certain amount of cars before it becomes useless, and sometimes a tiny drop in the number of drivers can make a drive much more pleasant by moving the the volume under the level where capacity is maxed out.

As Carol says, we have two ways then to lower congestion. One is expensive, and favored by DOTs everywhere: add more lanes, cut bottlenecks, and basically throw concrete at the problem. For a massive amount of money we will have a road that can take more cars before being clogged, but that will end up getting congested sooner or later, as drivers have free access to it anyway. The second option is fairly cheap: raise the price for road use, aka congestion pricing.

Last year we saw something similar to congestion pricing in the form of very high gas prices. The added cost moved a very small percentage of drivers to carpool or look for alternatives, pushing congestion down in a dramatic fashion. A more rational, less indiscriminate way of doing the same is coming up with a system (let's call it "not-a-toll") that makes driving more expensive when roads are busier (higher "demand", thus higher prices) and much cheaper when they are not full of conmuters. That is, congestion pricing.

The basic idea to have in mind is that driving in Connecticut right now is not free. When I get on my car and drive to work, I am spending time. When I-91 is not cooperating, I am spending a lot of time that could be used in other more profitable endeavours (sleeping). The big problem with me sitting in I-91 in traffic is that the price of my conmute is not only being paid by me in lack of rest, but by all the other drivers as well stuck in traffic. If only 3% of us (wild estimate) decided to work from home or take the train (if it was there), the other 97% will enjoy a road with 30% less congestion, being able to add a good 20 minutes sleep every day.

As ConnDOT is not able to have direct control of our work hours, what they can do is make this pain I am inflicting other explicit: if I am going to be lazy and not walk 10 minutes to the station for the convenience of using my car and annoying everyone else on the road, I will have to pay X dollars. Some conmuters will be lazy and eat the cost, but if a number big enough cheapens out and teleconmutes, works 10 am to 6 pm to avoid the charge or takes the train, driving will be much faster for very little cost. If well done, transportation costs on aggregate can be much lower, as the cost of congestion is reduced dramatically.

Is this an endorsement of tolls? Not necessarily; depends on many factors. Congestion is not distributed evenly, after all; and the lack of alternatives could just turn this into a tax. What it means, however, is that congestion charges could make a lot of sense in many cases.

How the recession could reshape the country

Richard Florida has a long, provocative article in this month's issue of The Atlantic on how the (very deep) recession will probably reshape the development patters of the country, and what cities can do to jump start their prosperity. Besides giving some really dismal information (average home price in Detroit: a bit of $18,000), it is remarkable how many of the changes relate to smart growth, and how Florida argues that denser, more integrated and flexible regions are what will drive a city forward.

Well worth a read, at least to have a bit of a bird's eye view of the issues at hand. If Florida is write, Connecticut might be in a fairly good position to thrive and prosper by thinking regionally not just within but also beyond its borders. Building infrastructure to connect the state effectively and efficiently both to Boston and New York City is urgent, and the plans should go beyond relying in piece meal upgrades of the existing rail links and institutional arrangements.

On gas mileage

There has been a lot of talk in the past few months on how Detroit has failed Americans by not producing smooth running, gas sipping, energy efficient cars. High gas mileage cars are a wonderful way to reduce emissions and fight global warming, or so it is said.

Well, not really, and the key is actual car use. Let's say I have been driving a gigantic General Fnords Gigantic SUV for the past few years. My budget for transportation is relatively fixed; I have $300 for gas a month, and I won't drive much over that. This pays a certain amount of miles traveled, that I will restrict to trips I really need when gas prices spike, and will cover maybe a couple of long weekend drives if the prices fall.

Now, let's say that I get tired of having to think twice before driving my monster-sized SUV to go out to buy some milk, so I get rid of it and buy an efficient, comfortable sedan from Japan. My new car gets roughtly twice the milleage, so I can drive much, much more and stay within budget - which means that I can drive more for the same price. This will probably translate that I will feel better about driving to Vermont once a month to the outlet stores, driving 10 miles to do groceries to use coupons at a specific store, and not even consider talking the bus to go to work as my car is oh-so-good in mileage.

The end result of a fleet with twice the mileage could well be a fleet that drives almost twice as much, clogging the roads with the same hopeless enthusiasm as before while feeling green and clean about it.

What is the better option? Well, a less popular one - one that makes people budget thinking on how much they drive. A higher gas tax is actually the one reliable way to make people reduce miles traveled, not just enjoy driving a bit more. This doesn't mean that Connecticut should raise this tax by itself -it something that makes more sense on a Federal level- but it should be on the table.

Obviously, the wrong thing to do

NYT: Downturn forces transit cuts as ridership grows

If there is a reason the stimulus package needs to include money for transit, is this one. It is pretty astonishing (and completely irrational) that in a context where Americans are driving less and using transit more, state and local governments are forced to cut service in order to balance their budgets. Transit makes sense, both in the short term -people are using it now- and the long term, to create a more sustainable, smart growth friendly future.

Obviously, we must go beyond keeping what we have. Places like Meriden will benefit immensely to be a 30 minute rate of both Hartford and New Haven with departures every 30 minutes, for instance. The station is right in the middle of downtown in all three places, so commuting from Meriden will be highly attractive, sending property values and economic activity to a very depressed area almost inmediately.

The infrastructure is there, the money could be there, the technology is there. It is the perfect low-cost, high-return investment.

Little piece of good news

A quick note on the stimulus package. All things considered, mass transit got a better deal; the assigned funds went from 10 billion to 13 billion. Still less than roads and less that what the US needs, but it is some good progress; people like Transport for America did a great job furiously lobbying for this increase.

The feared transit cuts

For some reason states and cities always look at the same places when they need to make budget cuts, with transit being always first in the line in the chopping blog. We have talked extensively on how this is disruptive for economy in many ways, and goes against sustainable growth. Transit for America is pushing back hard in this issue, trying to make sure that states and cities don´t make cuts now that will put in jeopardy clean, efficient transportation later. 

For that they have launched a transit cuts map, to put on the table the places that are cutting and shouldn't be doing this kind of changes. Remember, most transit services that are eliminated are used by low income people in many metro areas; the cuts are not just bad in the long run, but they also hurt those who are at the bottom. 

Do streetcars make sense for New Haven?

The city of New Haven has been making noise and plans for the past couple of years about the possibility of building a streetcar line downtown. Mayor DeStefano went so far this past week to visit Washington DC, looking for a cool $20 million for the project. Do trams make sense for a city the size of New Haven?

In fact, it might make sense, although it is not all that clear. The Greater New Haven area has a population just over half a million; slightly smaller, but not by much, to metro areas like Burdeaux, and bigger than places like Montepellier or Alicante. Mid-sized cities can host successful light rail / trolley systems, specially if they are well planned and designed. Far from being a fancy project, a good network can be a great addition to the strenght and attractiveness of a metro area.

For starters, the city becomes much more walkable, as residents are less likely to need a car. This allows building with less focus on having massive amounts of parking space, as well as allowing denser zoning and more pedestrian-friendly streets. In addition, easier transportation tends to raise property values where it is installed, specially when the infrastructure is fixed and stable. Buses and bus stops are easy to move, making routes more confusing and planning around them less likely; a fixed tram line, in contrast, offers a solid path that will remain there.

Of course, all these benefits need a certain kind of city. First, it has to be somewhat dense; trams have a lot of capacity compared to buses, after all. Second, the distribution of the city needs to have at least a few "dense" destinations that generate traffic; areas with lots of activity that will benefit from being connected. Third, it is an investment that requires a strong commitment; as happens with rail, if the network is not extensive enough or the frequencies are too low, the system will be pretty useless.

New Haven has the density and the layout (potentially) to host an effective tram system. I am not sure if it has the money to make it work from day one; it will definetely need a lot of Federal or State (one can dream) help.

A different question would be if a tram should be the first in the list of city priorities, of course; if a transportation project that will only bring substantial development in the medium term should go before improving schools (one of the factors keeping many people out in the suburbs). To solve this we need to talk about property taxes and smart growth; and about that we will talk tomorrow.

Rail on, One Rail!

ADVOCATES FOR ENVIRONMENT, FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL AND

TRANSPORTATION REFORM UNITE TO PROMOTE RAIL INVESTMENT

OneRail Coalition Encourages Transportation Policies that Increase Mobility,

Reduce Emissions, Promote Economic Growth

WASHINGTON - January 15, 2009 – Two days before President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden arrive here by train for their inauguration, environmental, freight and passenger rail groups have come together with reform-minded transportation experts to form a coalition that will advance rail programs. The coalition will encourage public policies recognizing rail as a critical element of the national transportation system and an essential part of the future economic growth and environmental well-being of the nation.

The group, called the OneRail Coalition, brings passenger and freight rail stakeholders together for the first time. Members include American Public Transportation Association, Amtrak, American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association, Association of American Railroads, Building America’s Future, National Association of Railroad Passengers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Railway Supply Institute, States for Passenger Rail Coalition, and Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. According to the group, public policies that support both freight and passenger rail objectives are needed to maximize transportation options that enhance mobility, achieve energy efficiency, address climate change, boost economic growth and improve quality of life for all Americans.

“Rail must be an essential component of any national infrastructure investment initiative,” said Anne Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. “Rail provides a solution for many of our most urgent transportation, energy and environmental problems.”

“As we look to increase recovery and sustain economic growth, we ask that Congress and the administration focus investment on our U.S. rail system. That focus can help de-congest choke points, put more freight and passengers on fuel-efficient trains, and lower our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Frank Busalacchi, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Chairman, States for Passenger Rail Coalition and a member of the 2008 National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

Making mass transit work

There has been quite a bit of talk on expanding and extending the commuter rail network in Connecticut in the last few years. As it happens too often in the state, this talk takes years, sometimes leading to nowhere. This time, however, it looks like there is a reasonable chance that we will see at least a new Commuter rail link upgraded (the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield line) and there is even talk on creating a service linking Waterbury and the state capital.

It is important to establish these and other services; it is necessary, however, to implement them in a way that makes sense. A mass transit network can be both extensive and completely useless, if it is not designed carefully.

The first step is making sure that the transit system is as invisible as possible. A commuter train or bus is more useful the less its users have to plan their day around it; ideally, a potential traveler should not even need to check schedules or complex network maps to get around with ease. A bus line with consistent, frequent service for most of the day (buses every 10 minutes or less) is vastly more useful than a line that gives no second chances in you miss the bus. Even if understandably service is more frequent during rush hour, having a decent service in off-peak times is always important.

What does this mean? Unless you can expect a level of traffic that will justify frequent service, commuters will usually not be served well enough by mass transit. With a few exceptions (branch lines feeding a main line that serves a congested route or long distance travel), mass transit has to handled and planned with care. If the line has the traffic but the service is not good enough it will not be useful for conmuters, so it will remain underused. If the traffic is not there (be it because there is nothing close to the stations, be it because it doesn't serve enough population) it will be an expensive toy.

The New Haven-Hartford line could serve a good amount of population, and the stations are (mostly) placed in build up areas, ripe for transit oriented development and completely car-free commuting. It is important to establish a level of service that makes it useful (hint: something more splendid than the picture above), even thinking on upgrading the line with overhead wires to allow the use of more efficient electric trains.

The obvious problem, as usual, is the dire situation of the budget in the state. If only the DOT decided to fast track the -relatively cheap- construction and try to get first in line for the Federal stimulus bill. If only.