New Report on Induced Demand Critiques our Errors on Congestion and Budgets

This past week Transportation for America published a report on induced demand, "The Congestion Con: How more lanes and more money equals more traffic."

I didn't look at it promptly because I figured it was about big cities.

And it was about them. It found that in the 100 largest "urbanized areas" they increased highway lane-miles by 42% when population increased only 32%. But a measure of congestion found delay grew by 144%!

More lanes isn't offering faster speeds and freer flow

But it turns out Salem makes the list. Salem counts as one of the 100. (I just don't think of Salem as this big. But merely as cities - not the larger "urban areas" - Salem and Eugene hover around #150 on the list right now.)

Salem too has not solved congestion

I don't think those numbers should be read too closely. The lane-mile expansion is probably mostly I-5, since they are measuring freeways, and that means trips either through the urban area or trips with only one start- or end-point in the urban area. It's something more regional than merely urban.

Also, there are many criticisms to be made of the way "delay" is measured. The report is internally consistent, so the overall point about induced demand remains, but it would be wrong to dwell on that 186% as if that said anything very meaningful about Salem, Oregon in particular.

Picking at Salem as an individual data point is not going to be very useful.

Overall, though, as a body of evidence on the general principle of induced demand and the errant nature of our current paradigm of hydraulic autoism, it is helpful.

The report ends with five broad recommendations:

1. Reorient our national program around access—connect people to jobs and services
2. Require that transportation agencies stop favoring new roads over maintenance
3. Make short trips walkable by making them safe
4. Remove restrictions on pricing to help manage driving demand
5. Reward infill development and make it easier for localities

Walks should also be useful, comfortable, and interesting
Walkable City Rules by Jeff Speck

To #3 I would add an aesthetic dimension. Walks should not merely be safe; they should also be interesting, comfortable, and inviting. They should offer inducements over and above short driving trips and be superior to driving. That's probably beyond the scope of T4A's project, but that's an important quality or set of qualities.

In the analysis they also helpfully focus on speed and increasing amounts of driving (more vehicle miles traveled, in the jargon).

The report is worth a read, and it could provide additional context or framework for talking about the forthcoming Climate Action Plan, Our Salem's update to the Comprehensive Plan, and any revisits to the Congestion Relief Task Force, which no longer seems to be front-and-center these days (a good thing!).

(And I see they've cross-posted at Strong Towns, leading up to a March 17th webinar with Chuck Marohn.)