Driving Down Slightly, Congestion Down Dramatically
At the CEOs for Cities blog they’re observing that last year the United States saw a dramatic decline in the volume of traffic congestion driven by a modest decline in total vehicle-miles traveled:
New data show that in 2008 the amount of traffic congestion in the nation’s cities declined by 30 percent, and that congestion was lower in every hour of every day in 2008 than it had been the year previously. How did we make these big gains? Not by adding more highway lanes or transit—the physical infrastructure barely changed—we did it with a very modest decline in car travel. On urban interstate highways, total vehicle miles traveled in the US declined by about 3 percent in 2008.
Part of what’s notable about this is that the decline in congestion is gigantic relative to the decline in driving. This is because:
[T]raffic congestion is subject to a tipping point–what economists call non-linearities. Add an additional car to a crowded road at rush hour, and traffic slows down a bit, and then the “carrying capacity” of the road declines. Traffic engineers estimate that most roads carry their maximum throughput — number of vehicles per hour at about 40 miles per hour — so as traffic slows below that speed, the road actually loses capacity and goes slower and slower, producing a traffic jam.
Basically, what we saw last year was this same tipping point in reverse. To tackle America’s congestion problem by building new roads would be hideously expensive, not workable at all in many metro areas (where’s little-to-no space to add roads), and almost certainly futile over the long run. But what this natural experiment suggests is that to tackle congestion with “demand management” policies such as congestion pricing and market-rate parking would be relatively easy. In other words, you would only need to decrease the volume of peak-hour traffic by a pretty modest amount in order to produce a dramatic gain in the ease with which traffic flows. Meanwhile, the modest charge would generate some revenues that could be used for public purposes.
Advocacy of congestion pricing of roads has come to be associated with a more general movement for a reinvigoration of pedestrian- and transit-oriented lifestyles, but in many respects this is misplaced. I live in a walkable, transit-accessible neighborhood in a central city. I don’t own a car and get around on foot, on bike, on bus, or on Metro. Consequently, it doesn’t really bother me if other people have unnecessarily long commutes. Ultimately, neither drivers nor non-drivers benefit from bad policy that causes unnecessary traffic jams and inconvenience, but it’s regular car commuters who are paying the highest price.
78 Responses to “Driving Down Slightly, Congestion Down Dramatically”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Excellent find, Matt.
This, btw, is why the arguments about transit being wasteful because the number of users is a small % of all commuters are so wrong-headed.
Taking 3-5% of the cars off of the highways in a large metropolitan area not only gets those riders to work, but it vastly improves traffic congestion for the driving majority.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I don’t know about the ‘little-to-no space to add roads’ constraint…
Here in Houston when it came time to expand the Katy freeway to something like 16 lanes (I think that includes the feeders too) they just seized the land and knocked down all of the adjoining commercial – which simultaneously devastated the tax base of some enclave cities along the way.
Of course, what there really wasn’t room for was commuter rail, but that’s another story…
March 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Another important point to consider is that the places with a lot of traffic congestion are, by definition, the places with enough economic activity and population to make transit economically feasible, as long as the development patterns are right.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
It also seems to me that while vehicle-miles-driven might have only slightly declined, the huge decline in congestion means that those miles were driven more efficiently (less time spent sitting in traffic) so the environmental improvement is greater than the VMD measurement would suggest.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
This reminds me of Paul Krugman’s point about the relatively painless steps that can be taken to curb carbon emissions. Sometimes when you look at the tradeoffs you get a pleasant surprise.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
After the price of gasoline jumped last year to record levels there was also an increase in carpooling, which lowered traffic congestion levels noticeably where I live and work. (Minneapolis/St. Paul)
March 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The Onion had an important story on this issue some months ago
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters
March 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“Here in Houston….”
When a sentence starts like that, you know that whatever government policy follows will be a perfect example of what not to do. Especially if it’s about transportation. From my many times there, the primary goal of Houston’s transportation policy seems to be increasing oil consumption.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
But what this natural experiment suggests is that to tackle congestion with “demand management” policies such as congestion pricing and market-rate parking would be relatively easy.
It depends on what was the root cause of the lowered peak travel.
One vector was the higher gas prices – so people switched and/or cut back – and your methods will work.
But another vector was that less people were going to work every day (especially towards to end of the year) If this was the primary factor, then your method won’t really work much at all.
fwiw, I think it was a little of both but the high gas prices were the primary force for most of the year – but that’s why a straight up gas tax is just so much simpler and effective than your more complicated ‘demand management schemes’ – although I don’t necessarily oppose thos either.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Congestion pricing can create pareto optimal conditions where everyone is better off. Congestion pricing where the revenues are spent on public purposes (i.e. public transit) are distortional. They tend to make more people worse off than they make people better off. And since the people who would be made worse off would most likely be middle class drivers it has almost no chance of happening.
I do love the last paragraph though. It really shows just how truly virtuous the ordinary progressive is. Makes me feel ashamed to be so skeptical of the left.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Um, isn’t a terrible economy part of the reason for the decline. I’m sure there are many sensible ways to combat congestion, but losing a job (or house) is not a good way to ’solve’ the problem. Anyway, even in Washington, probably the least hard hit by the recession, I notice that parking lots downtown are less full and many have reduced prices by 20% or more.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“Congestion pricing can create pareto optimal conditions where everyone is better off. Congestion pricing where the revenues are spent on public purposes (i.e. public transit) are distortional. They tend to make more people worse off than they make people better off.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Congestion pricing “could” make everyone better off, but if you spend the revenue on something (instead of using it to cut taxes, I assume) it makes everyone worse off?
Also, Matt’s last sentence is “Ultimately, neither drivers nor non-drivers benefit from bad policy that causes unnecessary traffic jams and inconvenience, but it’s regular car commuters who are paying the highest price.” Do you actually disagree with something in there? With anything in the last paragraph? Or are you just spouting random anti-liberal words?
March 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The cheapest anti-traffic congestion tool is promoting work-at-home programs for office workers. By far.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Your argument that traffic reduction is capable of long-term conjestion mitigation and road construction isn’t is totally illogical. Your using an unfair standard that the latter method will fail because usage increases. In reality planners should (and do: see carpool lanes) compare the costs and benefits of construction and traffic reduction. Both can get you across this saddle point but one will do it more efficiently. I do agree that a consumption tax is a no brainer if you can target it to specific roadways at specific times. It would be perfectly feasible for cities to sell ’smart’ ezpass w/ gps and a radio link to let a customer know what their trip will cost and how much they’ll save if they leave an hour earlier.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The number of cars on the road declined because the cost of gas skyrocketed last year.
Why go through the hassle of “congestion pricing” and other things like that when all your really have to do is raise the gas tax by $1 or $2 a gallon?
March 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Adam,
My first point is that while there can be a strong economic argument for congestion pricing this justification depends on how the revenues are used. But more importantly if someone is made worse off it will probably be the middle class driver (instead of the poor commuter or rich driver). You cannot, as Matt has done, ignore the political difficulties this creates. Also, it is not a question of tax rebate versus public spending. It really all depends on how the revenues’ benefits are distributed.
Did you read the same last paragraph? It was a disingenuous attempt to hide his ulterior motives. And a laughable one at that. Nothing I said was meant to be anti-liberal. I even support much of what Matt has to say on this and most other topics. My only problem is when his ideology trumps pragmatism or reason.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
And the war on private automobiles by the Norman Finkelstein wannabee, Mr. Yglesias continues.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
My question concerns a possible apples-to-oranges (tangerines-to-oranges might be a better description) comparison: the 30% congestion reduction in cities is tied to a 3% decrease in interstate miles driven. Are these two stats properly related?
Even though I support some congestion pricing schemes, mass transit, and a higher gas tax (and I drive for a living in Phoenix — let my virtue be duly noted), I’d still like to have a more detailed traffic analysis. Also, the data here came from GPS-equipped vehicles, which leaves out a large majority of drivers (is a “class-based” traffic analysis warranted?).
I buy into the “tipping point” theory of traffic; the question is what’s the best path around that point. I saw a huge decrease in traffic when gas was over $4/gal — if congestion pricing can do as good a job as a gas tax, bring it on.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
DTM,
Of course congestion pricing doesn’t have to make everyone better off but theoretically it can. It would be hard to implement and even harder to measure but it is possible. Most likely it will make more people better of than it makes worse off. But unless those people made worse of are either small or lack political power, congestion pricing will go nowhere. Why not address this?
March 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I know I’m just another blinded/insane libertarian but does anyone not see any irony in the fact that government is expressly responsible for this problem? Subsidizing road construction and practically forcing people to use them along with the fact that most Government institutions run 9-5 only furthers this problem. Letting private companies run roads and properly set tolls for different times of the day while making commonly used government institutions open for longer and more varied time periods would in turn allow other businesses that require interaction with the government to have more varied employee hours.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Karl,
Doesn’t that just mean miles drivine on interstate highways? Most of the daily commuting in metro areas is on interstate freeways without ever crossing state lines.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
SLC Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
And the war on private automobiles by the Norman Finkelstein wannabee, Mr. Yglesias continues.
Reducing traffic congestion is anti-automobile?
Does it hurt to be that stupid, SLC, or is it sort of a numb sensation?
March 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Yes Nathan, let’s set tolls on all the roads and see what that does for congestion. Highways, sure. But setting tolls beyond that wouldn’t be remotely feasible at this point.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“The cheapest anti-traffic congestion tool is promoting work-at-home programs for office workers. By far.”
This would lead to a drastic downsizing of those whose function it is to call unnecessary meetings, I suspect. My place of work would lose at least 1/4 of its employees.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
SN,
Your company must not have teleconferences:-)
Trust me you can have just as many pointless meetings when everyone is on the phone rather than sitting around a table.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
eric k,
I didn’t mean interstate travel between states. I wondered how tight a correlation there is in intracity congestion between interstate highways and surface streets. If the numbers match up perfectly then an easily instituted wide-brush policy like a higher gas tax makes the most sense; but if not, other policies might work better.
Of course, we can’t let the best be the enemy of the good and forego politically possible solutions — this is one social problem where time really is money.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
(Linus I think tax policy should basically cater to the ten or twenty thousand 20-something kids with trust funds that live in and own property in cities and have no plan to leave because even when we have kids we can afford to send them to private schools rather than lousy public schools in cities.)
I had no idea.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
DTM,
Sorry I thought it was implied that any congestion pricing (especially one that is pareto efficient) involved a return of the congestion pricing revenues. Whether it does create winners or losers and who those are depends on the actual congestion price (the boring part) and how those revenues are distributed.
I still stand by the middle class driver hypothesis as to why congestion pricing faces so much opposition. I wish I had a blackboard to explain this. You will agree that under Matt’s scheme the rich driver is much better off as well as the poor transit commuter (now paying a subsidized fair). You also agree that an inadequately compensated former driver who now takes transit could be worse off. However, it is not certain that the driver who remains driving is worse off as well. It is quite possible he still benefits from driving (i.e. pays the tax) but less so then before.
While it is hard to quantify these welfare effects it should remain clear from New York’s attempt that the people who lose are somewhere in the middle. This is where the revenue should go if you want to increase pareto efficiency and welfare.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Basically, what we saw last year was this same tipping point in reverse. To tackle America’s congestion problem by building new roads would be hideously expensive, not workable at all in many metro areas (where’s little-to-no space to add roads), and almost certainly futile over the long run.
On the contrary, the tipping-point phenomenon suggests that a small increase in capacity could produce a large decrease in congestion, and hence is a much less expensive way of reducing congestion than it would be if the relationship between capacity and congestion were linear.
The fact that congestion has declined so dramatically also greatly undermines the argument for transit subsidies on grounds of the “positive externality” benefit of congestion relief.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’m back^^^
March 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’m back^^^
March 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
And not making any sense.
Showing that a small decline in auto usage leads to a large decline in congestion greatly undermines the argument for transit subsidies on grounds of the “positive externality” benefit of congestion relief.
No, it doesn’t – it demonstrates, supports, that very point. It shows that transit subsidies can result in benefits for large numbers of people even when only a small number of people move to transit.
What it undermines is the argument that transit subsidies only benefit a small number of people, Mixner.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
So to just add a little more analysis, this makes the case for congestion reductions being a significant source of positive externalities to transit use
Only for routes and at times where transit use replaces a significant amount of traffic on congested roads. At all other times and places, the congestion-relief benefit is likely to be small or nonexistent.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
You mean like, the morning and evening peak hours from suburbs to core cities?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No, it doesn’t
Yes it does, Josephine.
- it demonstrates, supports, that very point. It shows that transit subsidies can result in benefits for large numbers of people even when only a small number of people move to transit.
Only a tiny share of the reduction in VMT was attributable to people substituting transit for driving. The vast majority of the congestion relief was achieved by other means. Therefore, the congestion-relief benefit of transit is now much less than it was before the VMT reduction occurred. Hence, the case for transit subsidies on grounds of congestion relief is greatly weakened.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
You mean like, the morning and evening peak hours from suburbs to core cities?
No, I mean like morning and evening weekday peak hours from suburbs to inner cities where transit use replaces a significant amount of traffic on congested roads. What share of the total number of transit routes and the total number of transit operating hours is that?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Yes it does, Josephine.
Using implications of femininity as an insult = never gets laid.
Only a tiny share of the reduction in VMT was attributable to people substituting transit for driving.
So? It demonstrates that VMT reductions, even small ones, can greatly reduce traffic congestion. A car off the road for one reason reduced congestion exactly as much as a car off the road for another reason. Getting 1000 more people to leave their car at home, or in a park-and-ride lot, will have precisely the same effect as 1000 people not driving because they lost their jobs, because they telecommute, or because their shifts now begin and end on off-peak hours.
Therefore, the congestion-relief benefit of transit is now much less than it was before the VMT reduction occurred. I suppose this would be a respectable argument, if one were to posit that the demand-reduction effect was 1) permanent and 2) accomplished precisely the amount of congestion relief necessary to put the road system below its design capacity, but those are rather tenuous claims.
Your argument is like saying a 10% reduction in lung cancer from a coal fired power plant going off line greatly reduces the argument for putting scrubbers on coal fired smoke stacks.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
where transit use replaces a significant amount of traffic on congested roads.
You still aren’t following the argument, Mixner. This study demonstrates that you don’t have to remove “a significant amount of traffic on congested roads” to have a substantial impact on congestion; just a small reduction in road demand can have a major impact on congestion.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The title of the blog post:
Driving Down Slightly, Congestion Down Dramatically
March 4th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Using implications of femininity as an insult = never gets laid.
Being joe from Lowell = never gets laid.
So? It demonstrates that VMT reductions, even small ones, can greatly reduce traffic congestion.
So? It does NOT demonstrate that expanding transit is an efficient or effective way of reducing VMT. The fact that the vast majority of VMT reduction came from actions other than substituting transit for driving suggests the opposite.
I suppose this would be a respectable argument, if one were to posit that the demand-reduction effect was 1) permanent and 2) accomplished precisely the amount of congestion relief necessary to put the road system below its design capacity, but those are rather tenuous claims.
Unless and until congestion rises significantly, the case for transit subsidies on grounds of congestion-relief, which was never very strong to begin with, has been significantly weakened. Your statement about “design capacity” makes no sense at all.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
You still aren’t following the argument, Mixner.
No, you’re completely confused, Josephine.
This study demonstrates that you don’t have to remove “a significant amount of traffic on congested roads” to have a substantial impact on congestion; just a small reduction in road demand can have a major impact on congestion.
No, it doesn’t demonstrate that. “Small” does not mean “insignificant.” More to the point, the study tells us nothing about the efficiency or effectiveness of trying to reduce congestion by spending money on transit.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Traffic engineers estimate that most roads carry their maximum throughput — number of vehicles per hour at about 40 miles per hour.
Beginning of lecture on traffic flow theory.
1. This number is about 50 years out of date. Currently, the maximum flow rate on a high design freeway occurs at 50 – 55 mph. The theoretical maximum flow rate is currently estimated at 2300 vehicles/hour/lane.
2. As demand rises, traffic flow approaches the analog of a phase transition (e.g. ice – water) at the 2300 vehicle/hour/lane figure. Traffic flow theorists refer to this point as the transition from laminar flow to forced (or queue discharge) flow. In the forced flow regime, the flow rate drops about 100 – 200 vehicles/hour/lane. Unfortunately, this transition point is an unstable equilibrium which means that even the smallest disturbance can cause the flow to pass through the transition point at demand levels somewhat lower then the 2300 figure. To make the situation worse, there is a phenomena known as hysteresis (e.g. ferromagnetism) that occurs which requires that the demand level drop considerably below the 2300 figure to return the freeway to laminar flow.
End of lecture on traffic flow theory.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Being joe from Lowell = never gets laid.
I’m married. What’s your excuse?
Unless and until congestion rises significantly… Wait wait wait…you’re actually staking out the position that the reductions from driving that took place as a result of the slumping economy might just be permanent, and that there’s a distinct possibility that we’re not going to see any population growth. Seriously? You’re arguing that it’s up in the air whether VMT is going to rise?
The fact that the vast majority of VMT reduction came from actions other than substituting transit for driving suggests the opposite.
Not at all. If there was a debate about whether consuming Vitamin C tablets prevented scurvy, and a trial was held in which people eating Vitamin C from oranges didn’t get scurvy, that trial would demonstrate that consuming Vitamin C, from whatever source, prevented scurvy.
Your statement about “design capacity” makes no sense at all. You don’t know what the term “design capacity” means, do you? That’s ok, I’ll educate you. Roadways are designed to allow a certain volume of traffic to flow smoothly. This is typically measured in cars/period of time. At 5%, 10%, 40%, 70%, and even 95% of design capacity, traffic travels at the same level of efficiency. It isn’t several times as efficient at 5% than at 90%; the only difference is that you see one car go by at 45 mph every ten seconds (or whatever) at 5% capacity, and 45 of them go by at 45 mph every ten seconds at 90% capacity. However, when you approach 100%, the cars start to slow down. Beyond that, they slow down more and more. This is what congestion is – a volume of cars above the road’s (or intersection’s) design capacity causing traffic to slow down. Eventually, it stops, and you get gridlock.
Your argument – that there aren’t further gains to be made by reducing VMT, because it was already reduced, assumes that these reductions just happened to drop our roadways from 101% of design capacity to 98% of design capacity, and that’s simply indefensible.
“Small” does not mean “insignificant.” Eyeroll.
More to the point, the study tells us nothing about the efficiency or effectiveness of trying to reduce congestion by spending money on transit. No, it doesn’t. It does, however, refute two of the primary arguments against transit, one that you have often made yourself, Mixner. It demonstrates that a small (ooh, I said “small!”) reduction in road usage during peak hours – the type of reduction produced by transit, which people like you attempt to dismiss as unimportant because they are a single-digit % of total trips – produces transportation benefits that greatly exceed the scale of transit usage; and it refutes the argument that spending money on transit only benefits transit users, while only imposing costs on non-transit users.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
([(Linus I think tax policy should basically cater to the ten or twenty thousand 20-something kids with trust funds that live in and own property in cities and have no plan to leave because even when we have kids we can afford to send them to private schools rather than lousy public schools in cities.]
I don’t know what this type is Linus except for you talking to your imaginary friends as is persistently the case. A tax policy favoring domed cities to keep climate change and bugs out and leaving suburbs to bandits and mashers would be bestest for all.)
I see.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I’m married.
So it’s true, then.
Wait wait wait…you’re actually staking out the position that the reductions from driving that took place as a result of the slumping economy might just be permanent,
They might be permanent, although that’s unlikely. But I didn’t refer to “reductions from driving” in the text you’re responding to here. Try reading it again, more carefully this time.
and that there’s a distinct possibility that we’re not going to see any population growth. Seriously?
No, I think population growth is essentially a certainty. I’m not sure what you think that has to do with what I wrote, though.
Not at all.
Yes at all. Yes entirely. The fact that so little of the VMT reduction came from people leaving their cars at home and taking transit instead suggests that expanding transit is unlikely to be an efficient or effective method for reducing VMT.
Your argument – that there aren’t further gains to be made by reducing VMT, because it was already reduced,
That’s not my argument. I didn’t say that. Try reading my posts again, more carefully this time.
Eyeroll.
Laughs out loud.
It does, however, refute two of the primary arguments against transit, one that you have often made yourself, Mixner. It demonstrates that a small (ooh, I said “small!”) reduction in road usage during peak hours – the type of reduction produced by transit, which people like you attempt to dismiss as unimportant because they are a single-digit % of total trips – produces transportation benefits that greatly exceed the scale of transit usage;
Josephine, no it doesn’t demonstrate that. In fact, this statement of yours is just incoherent. What it does demonstrate that a small reduction in VMT can produce a large reduction in congestion. What it does not demonstrate is that spending money on transit is an effective or efficent way of reducing congestion. Try to understand the difference between those two propositions. It’s important.
it refutes the argument that spending money on transit only benefits transit users, while only imposing costs on non-transit users.
I haven’t seen anyone argue that transit produces no benefits at all for anyone other than users. The important questions have to do with whether the benefits exceed the costs, whether the benefits can be achieved in some other way for lower costs, and how the costs and benefits are distributed among different groups of people. I don’t believe the answers to any of those questions are favorable to transit in general.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
They might be permanent, although that’s unlikely.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Good night, Mixner. I’ve got you to the point where you’re writing completely implausible things, just to avoid acknowledging that I’ve bested your argument.
Yeah, sure, road demand might never increase again. That’s something a reasonable person might say in good faith.
Oh, and you acknowledge that there is going to be population growth, but whether road demand will increase – gee golly, who knows? That’s unpossible to figure out.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
The fact that so little of the VMT reduction came from people leaving their cars at home and taking transit instead suggests that expanding transit is unlikely to be an efficient or effective method for reducing VMT. It suggests NOTHING OF THE SORT. It tells us NOTHING about how effective any particular method of reducing VMT would be at its task. There is no zero nada zippo evidence one way or the other in that fact. See the Vitamin C analogy above.
That’s not my argument. I didn’t say that. Really? You didn’t write this: Only a tiny share of the reduction in VMT was attributable to people substituting transit for driving. The vast majority of the congestion relief was achieved by other means. Therefore, the congestion-relief benefit of transit is now much less than it was before the VMT reduction occurred. Hence, the case for transit subsidies on grounds of congestion relief is greatly weakened. Why, yes, you did. You argued that the benefits of congestion-relieving policies would be lower, because congestion is lower, which is exactly the argument I attributed to you. Don’t be a worm, Mixner. If you’re going to make an argument, stand by it, or admit it was mistaken.
Josephine, no it doesn’t demonstrate that. Yo, chief, if you’re going to quote me, don’t slice off parts in order to misrepresent my point.
Here’s the actual quote: “More to the point, the study tells us nothing about the efficiency or effectiveness of trying to reduce congestion by spending money on transit. No, it doesn’t. It does, however, refute two of the…”
That’s very dishonest, Mixner, and the type of stunt someone pulls when he’s badly losing an argument.
What it does demonstrate that a small reduction in VMT can produce a large reduction in congestion. What it does not demonstrate is that spending money on transit is an effective or efficent way of reducing congestion. Try to understand the difference between those two propositions. It’s important. Since I acknowledged that point, as you demonstrated by excising the quote in order to make it look like I didn’t, you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I haven’t seen anyone argue that transit produces no benefits at all for anyone other than users. I’ve seen you argue it many times, Mixner, and I’ve seen you on plenty of threads where others make this argument as well.
Apparently, you’ve substituted crass lying for the pointless data requests you used to use as your diversions when arguments were going against you.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I just want to take this opportunity to note that joe from lowell has been positively en fuego (apologies to Sailer!) the last few days. I am feeling genuinely unworthy.
Did you get laid off? Score some good weed? Swindle a republican? What gives?
March 4th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Good night, Mixner.
TEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE, Josephine!!!!
Oh, and you acknowledge that there is going to be population growth, but whether road demand will increase – gee golly, who knows? That’s unpossible to figure out.
I write “congestion.” You read “demand.” Seriously, are you dyslexic?
It suggests NOTHING OF THE SORT. It tells us NOTHING about how effective any particular method of reducing VMT would be at its task. There is no zero nada zippo evidence one way or the other in that fact. See the Vitamin C analogy above.
It suggests EVERYTHING OF THE SORT. Since only a tiny share of the VMT reduction came from switching to transit, options other than transit provide much greater potential for reducing driving. This point really isn’t hard to understand. Try.
You argued that the benefits of congestion-relieving policies would be lower, because congestion is lower, which is exactly the argument I attributed to you. Don’t be a worm, Mixner.
Josephine, the argument you falsely attributed to me was: “there aren’t further gains to be made by reducing VMT, because it was already reduced.” I made no such argument. The argument I did make is that the congestion-relief benefit of transit is now much less than it was before the VMT reduction occurred. Try to understand the difference between these two arguments. Try to understand that “much less benefit” doesn’t mean “no further gains.” Words are important, Josephine. Learn what they mean.
I’ve seen you argue it many times, Mixner, and I’ve seen you on plenty of threads where others make this argument as well.
Josephine, I am not responsible for the fantasies of your wild imagination. You really need to read what other people write more carefully, and maybe then you wouldn’t be so confused all the time.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Um, yeah, the laughing thing? It really doesn’t work if you don’t do it immediately after quoting something stupid from your opponent.
And also too, when you completely, and obviously, whiff on a point – like this It suggests EVERYTHING OF THE SORT. Since only a tiny share of the VMT reduction came from switching to transit, options other than transit provide much greater potential for reducing driving, a superior tone just makes you look like a dick.
Try to follow me here: showing that there was only a little shift to transit in this study has absolutely nothing to do with an argument about what a shift to transit would accomplish. Repeatedly saying “but only some of the reduction was from a shift to transit” is completely irrelevant to the argument “a small shift from driving to transit can have a large impact on congestion.”
Try to understand that “much less benefit” doesn’t mean “no further gains.” Words are important, Josephine. These particular words aren’t terribly important. Your point is perfectly clear; that I described it as “no further gains” instead of “few further gains” isn’t terribly important; in fact, it’s the type of pedantic semantic dodge one indulges in when the merits of one’s argument have been shown to have “much less benefit” and/or “no further gains” than one had hoped. The fact that you won’t address my point, and are now obsessed with drawing ever-finer distinctions between “words” without being able or willing to defend your argument now that I’ve destroyed it, is more or less the comment thread equivalent of throwing out smoke to cover your retreat.
Josephine, I am not responsible for the fantasies of your wild imagination. You really need to read what other people write more carefully, and maybe then you wouldn’t be so confused all the time. Apology accepted, though you could have been more gracious about it.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
J: This means if we give the crew vitamin C tablets, they won’t get scurvy.
M: But they ate oranges in the study.
J: That doesn’t matter; it’s the vitamin C that reduced the scurvy.
M: But they ate oranges in the study. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
J: It doesn’t matter that they ate oranges; both oranges and vitamin C tablets have vitamin C. So, if we give them the tablets, they won’t get scurvy.
M: Try to follow me here: they ate oranges in the study.
J: You don’t understand; I know they ate oranges. The oranges contained vitamin C. They can get the vitamin C from the tablets.
M: Why are you so stupid? They ate oranges in the study. Maybe you should learn how to read.
Yawn.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
What Matt is advocating is brilliant. With modern webcams and the internet, we have what we need to solve traffic problems.
Whenever a traffic jam forms, nationalize AIG.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Should policy changes be “Pareto optimal”, or “having majority better off”?
Are cigarette taxes, the most popular targets of tax inreases, Pareto optimal? I say, there are not. The chief loss in excessive cigarette taxes is that Pigovian capabilities of state legislatures seems to be limited to cigarettes and lottery. Then morons are at loss of ideas how to collect enough money for the upkeep of highways (this is in PA, we like our taxes low, our roads bumpy and our road repair to consume the entirety of snow free season).
Driving alone is clogging highways, lungs and warms the planet, so it should be taxed.
I am wondering if some ways can be invented to make carpooling more popular. If there would be large pools of participants with needs and capabilities matched using computers and websites, carpooling could be attractive even to persons who need flexibility in timing their trips. I think that a combination of carpooling and mass transit could address even bewildering realities of suburban sprawl.
One problem in DC area is that many people who clog the beltway do not have transit alternatives, as they live and work along the beltway, while the transit is, as a rule, available in radial directions. Yet, I bet that for almost any trip to work and back there is another that starts and ends within a mile of another, and during a similar time, but people have no way of coordinating it, even if they were so inlined. A combination of congestion pricing, HOV discounts and electronic matchmaking could bring it close to Pareto optimal (if I had my way, I would make sure that a highway would have a very expensive and very slow lane, to be used by Mixner and similar anti-social types, “lane of shame” if you will, with 10 mph speed limit, zealously enforced, this is rambling, what i want to say that some minority will always be unhappy, even without such drastic measures).
March 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I don’t think advocacy of congestionless roads is necessarily misplaced. For some it really does not matter whether congestion is light or heavy after a point because they take the bus as you say, but what about the people who do have the option to drive but instead take a bus because, although it may take a little longer, is really better for the city, the environment, etc.?
March 5th, 2009 at 1:35 am
…this statement of yours is just incoherent…
Shorter Mixner: Inconceivable!!
March 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Just as a point of terminology, I think everyone (such as piotr above) means something like “Pareto beneficial” or “Pareto improving” rather than the grandiose “Pareto optimal”
I think there are relatively few of the sort Daniel wonders about; certainly it’s not representative of the vast majority of bus takers, especially in suburban to urban or urban to suburban jaunts. Moving here and there within an urban setting is different, and public transit is (for me, and I think for many others) much more convenient and timely than lugging a car around. But that’s not what this thread is about.
The glee and self satisfied happiness that so many seem to be taking in what is actually a fuel price/then economy driven budget constraint biting rather than a newfound expression of preference for using public transit is quite interesting. Of course congested facilities work this way (modest reduction in load leading to meaningful reduction in headway times, etc), although it should be said that it took a pretty significant whack to the economy and the real incomes of many low income commuters to induce this modest reduction in auto use. This reduction in auto commuting represents a response to real hardship for most of those pulled out of their cars and off the roads by limits on their ability to pay (rather than a more textbookish “willingness to pay”), both financial and, in many cases, a loss of personal time due to cheaper but more time consuming commutes on public transit, and it’s sort of sad to see so many of Matt’s loyal readers treating this as a happy and successful social experiment. It’s little different than a country club raising its membership fees to cull out a bit of the riff raff.
As someone early on noted, meaningful change will only come when there are significant changes in living place/work site distances.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Shorter bdbd: you need to put a disclaimer about how guilty to feel before examining traffic numbers.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
shorter joe from Lowell — economic hardship makes it easier for me to get a tee time at the golf course.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I imagine I can get all the tee times I wanted, now that I’ve been laid off.
Ooooooopppppsssssssssss!
What a dick!
March 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
then you’re probably not driving as much either, so you’re also contributing to the socially beneficial congestion improvement that everyone thinks is so swell. Thanks for all the pareto improvements.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 am
Buy Viagra…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra…
March 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
April 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Very nice site! [url=http://ypxoiea.com/qyrqrq/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Very nice site!
April 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I noticed that this is not the first time you mention the topic. Why have you chosen it again?
April 10th, 2009 at 5:28 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
April 10th, 2009 at 5:28 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/4.html
April 10th, 2009 at 5:28 am
Very nice site!
April 12th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Hello very nice site! sitemap