LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

References: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Approved-By:  Todd Litman <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:28:56 -0800
Reply-To: Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues
        <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues
        <[log in to unmask]>
From: Todd Litman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Sprawl Definitions: CORRECTION
To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <00d701bf82c5$0133bf80$0100a8c0@newmicronpc>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At 08:55 AM 02/29/2000 -0600, Wendell Cox wrote:
>Generally, the data shows that traffic congestion is less severe in less
>dense urban areas. See: www.demographia.com/db-hersprawl.htm
>
>I am unaware of any cities that do not experience traffic jams... it is only
>a matter of degree, but a very important degree to those who experience them


Let me add a few general points about Cox's contribution to this list. I
think having alternative views is helpful, and I strongly recommend that
regardless of how much you disagree with somebody's ideas or how they
present their ideas you avoid insults. It's bad style that sets a bad tone
for the list. If you disagree with somebody, simply explain why you believe
them wrong.

Although I disagree with Cox on many issues, and I believe many of his
claims and arguements are wrong, there are also subjects on which we agree,
including the desirability of implementing congestion tolls and other price
reforms, the importance of applying the user-pay principle to road use, and
the potential benefits of innovation in transit service.

Below are a few points on which I think Cox takes the wrong approach.

As the quote above indicates, Cox considers traffic congestion as a major
indicator of transportation service quality. He argues that density, and
therefore Smart Growth" is bad because it increases traffic congestion. He
is true that if per-capita travel patterns are constant, higher density
increases congestion. However, per capita vehicle travel declines with
density, land use mix, and travel choice (better pedestrian, cycling
conditions and transit service). If we only affect one of these factors
there is likely to be an increase in congestion, but if we implement
several changes at once (i.e. "Smart Growth"), density can increase with
minimal increase in congestion. Unfortunately, most cities are not doing
this, which explains why traffic congestion is becoming such a problem.

The emphasis on traffic congestion can also be criticized at a more basic
level. The ultimate goal of transportation is "access", the ability to
obtain desired goods, services and activities. Unfortunately, many
transportation professionals have an automobile-oriented perspective, so
they evaluate access primarily in terms of vehicle access ("How easy is it
to get there by automobile?"), and so they use congestion as the primary
indicator of transportation system quality.

But if you use a broader definition, increased density can significantly
improve access because it brings destinations closer together and increases
travel choice (particularly walking and transit). For urban residents, the
fact that the roads are congested is made acceptable by the fact that most
of the things they need are within convenient walking distance. Cities like
New York and London can have extreme peak-period traffic congestion, but
this is only a modest constraint on access because most of what people need
are nearby, or accessible on the subway. Again, this shows that Smart
Growth objectives of density, mixed use, good design and travel choice are
justified.

Interestingly, I raised this point to Cox on another list, and he replied
that he had never heard of the concept of "access" in this way, although it
is fundamental to the disciplines of geography and urban economics, and is
increasingly appreciated by transportation professionals. That Cox
continues to focus on traffic congestion as the measure of transportation
quality and has not acknowledged the access benefits of Smart Growth I
think reflects his ideology, and show how difficult it is for many
transportation professionals to change their paradigm.

Similarly, Cox tends to define transit benefits and costs quite narrowly,
focusing on direct project costs and congestion reduction benefits. For
example, his website points out that the proposed commuter rail system in
Seattle would cost more than a Jaguar car for each additional rider, with
the implication that is overly expensive. However, he ignores that a
transit trip substitutes for a car, a highway, and a parking space. When
all these costs are considered, transit is often more cost effective than
highway projects.

Cox also ignores a number of land-use benefits associated with rail. Rails
stations can provide a catalyst for higher density development ("Transit
Villages") that provide economies of agglomeration and reduce per capita
vehicle travel and therefore transportation problems. These benefits are
reflected, in part, by higher property values around transit stations.

This is not to say that every rail transit system is an optimal investment.
It simply shows how conventional assumptions are skewed toward automobile
solutions and often overlook multi-modal and land use solutions to our
transportation problems.


Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.vtpi.org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]