<<  <  >  >>

· Reconstructing

count the cost of congestion to businesses,

streets and highways

which some estimates indicate are comparable

with the aim of slowing auto traffic and

to the costs to commuters.

making the streets more attractive to

The typical light-rail line costs as much per

pedestrians and cyclists.

mile as a mile of four-lane freeway, yet carries

only 15 percent as many people as a single free-

Though only a few plans have been candid

way lane.15 Heavy rail, such as Washington

enough to admit it, many planners see

increased congestion as one of the tools they

Metro and San Francisco BART, carries more

use to discourage auto driving. "Congestion

people but costs more. Commuter rail costs

is our friend," says Gainesville, Florida, plan-

less but carries fewer people. Meanwhile,

ner Dom Nozzi. Congestion "is a powerful

urban-growth boundaries and other efforts to

disincentive for sprawl [and] creates political

make urban areas more compact necessarily

pressure to create a quality transit, bicycle,

drive up land prices and increase housing

and walking system."9

costs by two to four times.16

Planners in Portland, Oregon, and Min-

Behavioral tools are also intrusive. Instead

neapolis-St. Paul agree. "Congestion signals

of providing a level playing field, government

positive urban development," say Portland

must favor certain property owners, housing

"Congestion is

planners, who have decided to allow rush-hour

types, and modes of transportation over oth-

our friend," says

congestion on most major highways in the

ers. While no one can say that government

region to deteriorate to stop-and-go condi-

planners are forcing them to live or travel a cer-

one urban

tions.10 In fact, they say, "transportation solu-

tain way, when planners divert highway user

planner.

fees into transit with the expectation that

tions aimed solely at relieving congestion are

inappropriate" in most of the region.11

highway congestion will increase, they are

imposing huge costs on auto drivers and giv-

Minneapolis-St. Paul's 1996 transporta-

ing huge subsidies to transit riders. Similarly,

tion plan noted that the region's roads "are

when planners restrict low-density develop-

approaching or exceeding capacity." Yet plan-

ment and subsidize high-density housing,

ners decided that "expansion of roadways will

they are denying many families access to the

be very limited in the next 25 years." "As traf-

form of housing that most Americans say they

fic congestion builds," the plan stated hope-

prefer--a single-family home with a yard.

fully, "alternative travel modes will become

more attractive."12 So when planners say they

Some people might excuse the behavioral

tools their expense and intrusive nature if

need to do regional transportation planning

they worked as promised--but they do not.

to reduce congestion, what they often mean is

As Sacramento planners found, transporta-

that they want to do regional planning to

tion plans can emphasize alternatives to the

increase congestion in the unlikely hope that

automobile, but most people still drive.

(as the Sacramento plan put it) the "lack of

Cities can subsidize the construction of

road building and the resulting congestion

mixed-use developments, but most people

[will encourage] people to take transit instead

of driving."13

living in those developments will still mostly

travel by car. Regions can impose more com-

These behavioral tools--congestion, rail

pact, higher-density development, but the

transit, and compact development--are expen-

percentage of travel by car will not signifi-

sive. The Texas Transportation Institute esti-

cantly decline.

mates that congestion cost the nation's com-

If anything, the behavioral tools make

muters $78 billion in 2005 and that the

matters worse. Higher density development

amount of time people waste sitting in con-

combined with minimal new road construc-

gestion has hextupled since 1982. That has

tion necessarily means more traffic conges-

forced drivers to waste 2.9 billion gallons of

tion. Cars in stop-and-go traffic use more

fuel a year, adding 28 billion tons of CO2 to

the atmosphere.14 And that doesn't even

energy and emit more toxic fumes and green-

3