Growth and Traffic: Some Implications for West LA

1
Growth and TrafficSome Implications for West LA

• Brian D. Taylor, AICP
• Associate Professor of Urban Planning
• Director, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies

Institute of Transportation Studies
2
Traffic CongestionIs it an annoying friend,or
a dangerous foe?
Institute of Transportation Studies
3
It depends
Institute of Transportation Studies
4
Conventional (Planning) Wisdom 2006

• Traffic congestion exacts a terrible social and
  economic toll on society.
• People are addicted to cars.
• Expanding road capacity helps in the short-term,
  but not in the long run.
• Redesigning cities and expanding alternative
  transportation modes offer the best long-term
  means for reducing traffic congestion.

Institute of Transportation Studies
5
Is a Congested Road System a Sign of Failure?

• Queues at restaurants or theater success or
  failure?
• Should metropolitan areas be viewed differently?
• So is traffic congestion simply an inevitable
  by-product of vibrant, successful cities?

Institute of Transportation Studies
6
It depends
Institute of Transportation Studies
7
Los Angeles TimesJuly 2003

• Stuck in Traffic?
• Some Experts Say
• Thats Good News.

8
From the Men and Womenin the Street

• Dear Professor Moron

9
From the Men and Womenin the Street

• I dont know what planet you come from, but it
  must be a pretty stupid planet

10
Proposition 1 Traffic congestion is evidence
of social and economic vitality empty streets
and roads are signs of failure.
Institute of Transportation Studies
11
Proposition 1 Traffic congestion is evidence
of social and economic vitality empty streets
and roads are signs of failure.

• Cities promote social interactions and economic
  transactions.
• Traffic occurs where lots of people pursue these
  ends simultaneously in limited spaces.
• Culturally and economically vibrant cities have
  the worst congestion problems.

Institute of Transportation Studies
12
Proposition 1 Traffic congestion is evidence
of social and economic vitality empty streets
and roads are signs of failure.

• Declining and depressed cities dont have much
  traffic.
• A larger number and wider variety of social
  interactions and economic transactions can be
  consummated in large, crowded cities than
  elsewhere even with congestion.

Institute of Transportation Studies
13
Proposition 1 Traffic congestion is evidence
of social and economic vitality empty streets
and roads are signs of failure.

• Former New York Yankee star Yogi Berra on why he
  no longer patronized a popular Manhattan
  nightclub
• The place is too crowded, nobody goes there
  anymore.

Institute of Transportation Studies
14
Proposition 1 Traffic congestion is evidence
of social and economic vitality empty streets
and roads are signs of failure.

• Malnutrition and obesity are both serious
  problems
• With which would you rather have your country
  struggling to cope?

Institute of Transportation Studies
15
Proposition 3 The Congestion
ConundrumTraffic is recognizable, but not
intuitive.
Institute of Transportation Studies
16
Proposition 2 The Congestion
ConundrumTraffic is recognizable, but not
intuitive.

• Common sense tells us that substantial changes in
  capacity and/or demand are needed
• That both flow and speed could increase without
  adding capacity seems preposterous.

Institute of Transportation Studies
17
Proposition 2 The Congestion
ConundrumTraffic is recognizable, but not
intuitive.

• Non-linearity (or the tipping point) is hard
  to explain to public officials and the motoring
  public.
• Hoses dont contract as flow increases.
• That travelers can be priced on to facilities
  is counter-intuitive.

Institute of Transportation Studies
18
The Congestion ConundrumTraffic is
recognizable, but not intuitive
Source Kara Kockleman, University of Texas, 2003
19
The Congestion ConundrumTraffic is
recognizable, but not intuitive
Source Kara Kockleman, University of Texas, 2003
20
Proposition 3Short-lived congestion relief from
capacity expansion is not proof that adding
capacity is a bad idea
Institute of Transportation Studies
21
Proposition 3Short-lived congestion relief from
capacity expansion is not proof that adding
capacity is a bad idea

• When capacity is expanded on heavily used roads,
  reduced delay can prove fleeting.
• Some argue widening roads is a waste of time
  and money.

Institute of Transportation Studies
22
Proposition 3Short-lived congestion relief from
capacity expansion is not proof that adding
capacity is a bad idea

• Others go further
• It makes things worse. More people are delayed
  and more emissions are produced after the
  expanded facility fills up again with traffic.
• Like buying a bigger belt to address the problem
  of weight gain.

Institute of Transportation Studies
23
Proposition 3Short-lived congestion relief from
capacity expansion is not proof that adding
capacity is a bad idea

• If capacity expansion in areas of dense activity
  fails to eliminate congestion, might it still
  bring social and economic benefit?
• Expanding capacity can accommodate more activity
  (economic transactions and social interaction)
  even it does not eliminate congestion

Institute of Transportation Studies
24
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.
Institute of Transportation Studies
25
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• When capacity is expanded on a congested
  facility
• delay is reduced in the short term,
• traffic speeds increase,
• reducing the time costs of trips,
• making travel more attractive,
• travelers previously dissuaded from making car
  trips begin to do so,
• and the facility gradually becomes congested
  again.
• This, in a nutshell, is the latent-demand effect.

Institute of Transportation Studies
26
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Some argue
• Given latent/induced demand, emphasize
  operational improvements (such as coordinated
  signal timing and ramp metering) and
  transit-capacity expansions (like added rail
  transit and express bus service).

Institute of Transportation Studies
27
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• But such improvements are no less vulnerable to
  the recongesting effects of latent/induced
  demand.
• If a new ramp-metering program smoothes traffic
  flow and reduces delay in the short-term,
• Or if a new rail line that lures a substantial
  number of travelers off a parallel roadway,
• latent/induced demand can still re-congest roads.

Institute of Transportation Studies
28
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Example San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge when
  BART opened in the 1970s.

Institute of Transportation Studies
29
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Example San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge when
  BART opened in the 1970s.

Institute of Transportation Studies
30
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Absent corresponding increase in the monetary
  price of a trip, any change that reduces delay
  and travel times is subject to these effects.

Institute of Transportation Studies
31
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Some argue
• Given this, focus instead on the land uses that
  generate and attract trips.
• Mix land uses and increase development densities
  into more compact, transit-oriented development.

Institute of Transportation Studies
32
Proposition 4The effects of latent/induced
demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

• Some argue
• Given this, focus instead on the land uses that
  generate and attract trips.
• Mix land uses and increase development densities
  into more compact, transit-oriented development.
• But compact development is unlikely to reduce
  congestion.

Institute of Transportation Studies
33
Proposition 5Changing land use patterns in an
attempt to change travel behavior is a very
long-term endeavor
Institute of Transportation Studies
34
Proposition 5Changing land use patterns in an
attempt to change travel behavior is a very
long-term endeavor

• Metropolitan land use patterns change very
  slowly, slower than changes in employment, trade,
  demographics, and especially technology.
• Even in rapidly growing areas, new urban
  developments and new land uses change only a
  fraction of the overall urban fabric.

Institute of Transportation Studies
35
Proposition 5Changing land use patterns in an
attempt to change travel behavior is a very
long-term endeavor

• Significant changes to current land use
  arrangements would have to be maintained for
  decades before they could reshape overall travel
  origins and destinations

Institute of Transportation Studies
36
Proposition 6Compact development whether in
older, central city areas, or in newer, outlying
areas increases congestion.

• Increased densities may lead to increased walking
  and transit use and to decreased car travel
• but they do so largely by increasing congestion.

Institute of Transportation Studies
37
Proposition 6Compact development whether in
older, central city areas, or in newer, outlying
areas increases congestion.

• The most densely developed cities tend to be most
  congested.
• Traffic congestion decreases the attractiveness
  of automobile travel.
• increasing relative attractiveness of some other
  modes (though travelers may be worse off,
  overall, as a result).

Institute of Transportation Studies
38
Population DensityVersus Travel Density
Location Population Density Person Travel Travel Density
(people/acre) (vmt/person/day) (vmt/acre/day)
Healdsburg 5 people/acre 30 miles/person 150 miles/acre
Berkeley 30 people/acre 10 miles/person 300 miles/acre
San Francisco 250 people/acre 4 miles/person 1,000 miles/acre
Source Wachs, 1996
Institute of Transportation Studies
39
The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001  The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001  The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001  The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001  The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001  The Most and Least Densely-Settled Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas in 2001 
      RANK       URBANIZED AREA NAME   STATE   ESTIMATED POPULATION (1,000) NET LAND AREA (SQ. MILES) PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
1 Los Angeles CA 12,770 2,231 5,724
2 Honolulu HI 694 135 5,141
3 San Juan PR 1,306 274 4,766
4 Las Vegas NV 1,256 270 4,652
5 San Jose CA 1,655 365 4,534
6 New York-Northeastern NJ NY 17,146 3,962 4,328

65 Kansas City MO 1,427 1,036 1,377
66 Jacksonville FL 886 727 1,219
67 Sarasota-Bradenton FL 550 464 1,185
68 Nashville TN 669 571 1,172
69 Birmingham AL 663 609 1,089
Source Highway Statistics, 2002 Source Highway Statistics, 2002
40
Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas Large (500,000) Urbanized Areas      
with the Most and Least per Capital Vehicle Travel in 2001 with the Most and Least per Capital Vehicle Travel in 2001 with the Most and Least per Capital Vehicle Travel in 2001 with the Most and Least per Capital Vehicle Travel in 2001 with the Most and Least per Capital Vehicle Travel in 2001  
          AVERAGE
      MILES OF TOTAL DAILY
      ROADWAY DVMT TRAFFIC/
    STATE PER 1,000 PER FREEWAY
RANK URBANIZED AREA NAME LOCATION PERSONS CAPITA LANE
1 Houston TX 6.1 37.6 18,174
2 Atlanta GA 4.7 35.6 19,031
3 Birmingham AL 6.9 34.8 12,847
4 Nashville TN 4.4 34.3 13,763
5 Indianapolis IN 4.7 33.6 16,911
6 Austin TX 5.2 32.9 16,424

46 Los Angeles CA 2.1 22.2 23,123
65 Philadelphia PA 3.1 18.4 14,656
66 Honolulu HI 1.5 16.8 14,014
67 New York-Northeastern NJ NY 2.2 15.7 15,329
68 New Orleans LA 3.1 14.4 13,478
69 San Juan PR 2.2 13.4 15,557
Source Highway Statistics, 2002 Source Highway Statistics, 2002        
41
Institute of Transportation Studies
42
Proposition 7Automobiles are a central part of
metropolitan life, and efforts to manage
congestion must accept this fact.
Institute of Transportation Studies
43
Proposition 7Automobiles are a central part of
metropolitan life, and efforts to manage
congestion must accept this fact.

• 2000 travel mode for intra-metropolitan person
  travel
• Private Vehicles 86.4
• Walking 8.6
• Public Transit 3.2
• Bicycling 0.9
• Other means 0.9
• Source 2000 National Household Travel Survey

Institute of Transportation Studies
44
Proposition 7Automobiles are a central part of
metropolitan life, and efforts to manage
congestion must accept this fact.

• The American love affair with automobiles is a
  rational response both to the utility of private
  vehicles and to public policies supporting their
  use.
• Widespread auto use unquestionably imposes
  significant costs on society, but it also brings
  enormous private benefit.

Institute of Transportation Studies
45
Proposition 7Automobiles are a central part of
metropolitan life, and efforts to manage
congestion must accept this fact.

• Its so easy to see the many costs of auto use
  like chronic traffic congestion that we forget
  how fast and flexible automobiles benefit
  travelers.
• In most European cities where policies and
  planning explicitly favor alternative modes over
  automobiles private vehicle use continues to
  increase.

Institute of Transportation Studies
46
Proposition 7Automobiles are a central part of
metropolitan life, and efforts to manage
congestion must accept this fact.

• But while popular, more work remains on better
  managing automobiles in cities
• Rather than simply aiming to both facilitate
  automobile use and expand alternative forms of
  travel
• For some ideas
• Giuliano, Genevieve with S. Hanson, "Managing the
  Auto" in S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, eds. The
  Geography of Urban Transportation, 3rd edition.
  New York Guilford Press 2004

Institute of Transportation Studies
47
Closing QuestionIf congestion is such a serious
problem, then why so much hostility to the most
promising long-term solution?

• Most research confirms that motorists do not pay
  the full costs they impose on society.
• Lots of debate over how much automobile travel is
  under-priced.

Institute of Transportation Studies
48
Closing QuestionIf congestion is such a serious
problem, then why so much hostility to the most
promising long-term solution?

• There is general agreement that proper pricing of
  automobile use would
• reduce congestion
• and increase the attractiveness of other modes
  such as public transit, bicycling, and walking
• Central London
• Traffic down 14, transit use up 16, delay down
  31

Institute of Transportation Studies
49
Closing QuestionIf congestion is such a serious
problem, then why so much hostility to the most
promising long-term solution?

• Public officials
• Toll roads and parking charges are risky and
  unpopular.
• Mitigate congestion with other (less effective)
  means.
• Regardless of successes elsewhere, the idea
  wouldnt work here.

Institute of Transportation Studies
50
Closing QuestionIf congestion is such a serious
problem, then why so much hostility to the most
promising long-term solution?

• Does the traveling publics frosty reception of
  pricing suggest that people see congestion as
  less of a problem than they let on?
• Or, do such attitudes simply reflect The
  Congestion Conundrum (i.e. that traffic is
  recognizable, but not intuitive)?

Institute of Transportation Studies
51
Questions? Comments?
For more information, go to www.its.ucla.edu
Institute of Transportation Studies
52
(No Transcript)