HB 2370: Bike lanes and sidewalks instead of reducing traffic congestion
A new bill in Olympia would add Health as a transportation policy goal, leaving congestion relief off the list…again.
Washington has six transportation goals. They are:
- Preservation: To maintain, preserve and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services.
- Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation customers and the transportation system.
- Mobility: To improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington state.
- Environment: To enhance Washington's quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities and protect the environment.
- Stewardship: To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system.
- Economic Vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy.
I have often pointed out that congestion relief is not among these policy goals and there is no official relationship between spending and reliving traffic. Mobility should mean congestion relief but reading the state’s definition carefully, reveals the goal is more about predictability than moving freely between destinations. This means that as long as your commute is congested the same every day, state officials are meeting their goal.
One of WPC’s long time recommendations is to add congestion relief as a transportation policy goal, like it was prior to 2007. So I was excited when I saw democrat legislators in Olympia wanted to add a seventh goal…except sadly, it has nothing to do with making our commutes faster.
House Bill 2370, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to consider the potential to save lives, improve health and well-being, and reduce health care costs by creating transportation opportunities that prevent chronic diseases, improve air quality, and reduce obesity in designing, building, or maintaining the transportation system.
In other words, this bill would add Health as the 7th Transportation Policy Goal, leaving drivers wondering yet again, if the state will prioritize traffic relief like they used to.
Comments
Bike and pedestrian infrastructure does reduce congestion
Hello--
I live in Seattle and recently started bike commuting to work because the new Dexter bike lane is so safe and well built. Many of my friends are too. A few years ago I was driving downtown.
I've lost weight because I'm getting exercise regularly and enjoy my commute a lot more. I of course still drive to go skiing and to Costco etc, but now I just use my bike for short trips. My shift in transportation patters alone has reduced VMT by hundreds of miles.
Active transportation infrastructure is a great way of reducing congestion while also helping people fight obesity and diabetes. I think the WPC should support bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure as a way of reducing traffic congestion.
It is fiscally responsible too as active transportation infrastructure is far cheaper than car infrastructure.
Best,
Christine
Comments on this post
If you had posted a comment and it no longer appears, please know this is because our website has been undergoing periods of maintenance and so comments posted at certain times aren't appearing. Rest assured this is NOT because of any sort of censorship. Thanks for your patience. If you have any questions or concerns please email me at jbarnes@washingtonpolicy.org.
Yeah, it's been working
Mennis,
Great! Without multiple goals we'd all be single passenger drivers on the road. Think it's congested now...Think of how bad it could have been if we only had the general goal of reducing traffic congestion.
yeah, seriously?
Mr Ennis says, "I have often pointed out that congestion relief is not among these policy goals..." Yet each of the above stated goals coupled with the success of the others will result in congestion relief. Just because a result isn't stated directly as a goal doesn't mean that it isn't on people's minds. It's kind of like the difference between talking tactics and strategy.
Yeah right. How has that been working so far?
Yeah right. How has that been working so far?
Seriously?
Historically, "congestion relief" has had no trouble finding a more than adequate home in: "maintain, preserve and extend the life and utility of prior transportation systems and services," "provide for and improve the safety and secruity of transportation customers and the transportation system," improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington state," "improve the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system," and promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy."
....and yet...congestion
....and yet...congestion continues to worsen and is expected to double in the next 20 years.
More roads will just make things more congested
Researchers at the University of Toronto have empirically analyzed the relationship between road building and traffic volumes, and they found that: “increased provision of interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads.”
Specifically, they found that a one percent increase in roads leads to a one percent increase in traffic within less than ten years. In other words, if you double the road infrastructure, car traffic also doubles very quickly.
(Quite interestingly, the researchers also found public transit has virtually no effect on traffic volumes - though it's worth noting transit still has substantial value for people who can’t afford a car, can’t drive, prefer not to spend their time behind the wheel, or want to live in a place where road space is constrained.)
The paper is entitled “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities” and has been published in the latest issue of the “American Economic Review”, one of the globally most renowned and demanding economic journals. Here’s a free working version:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/sercdp/0030.html
If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's a summary:
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/12/14/study-more-roads-more-traffic/
Um, who's numbers are you using Mr. Ennis?
You say congestion is expected to double in the next 20 years, but the facts show that:
- Measured per person, traffic on Seattle bridges fell 12 percent in 7 years.
- State forecasts say we've already hit peak gasoline use.
- State traffic forecasts have changed radically in just three years, and Puget Sound traffic forecasts have been way (way!) off the mark.
There's a lot more about how much traffic is changing - and confounding expectations - here:
http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/dude-where-are-my-cars/
Your points don't dispute the growth in traffic
Most congested cities in 2030: http://reason.org/news/show/127670.html
Bridge travel demand is not a comprehensive indicator of overall traffic in the Puget Sound region. Besides, all travel mode demand has fallen because of unemployment rates above 10%. As unemployment reaches normal levels (between 3-4%), mode volumes will assume their normal growth rates....which is is good thing, despite calls for VMT reductions. Personal mobility leads to economic activity, productivity, freedoms, access and gives us all the quality of life we enjoy today. Artificially suppressing personal mobility diminishes all of these things.
Perhaps you are forgetting that the number of general purpose highway lanes through Seattle will decrease in the next 20 years. Or perhaps a refresher in demographic forecasts that show population and job growth will be over 1 million by 2030. Or that the PSRC estimates that spending multiple dozens of billions of dollars on public transit will raise its mode share from a paltry 3% to a whopping 5% by 2040.
actually, my points do dispute your contention about traffic
I'll just go ahead and quote from the link I posted earlier:
"According to the most recent forecasts from the Washington State Office of Financial Management, drivers in Washington State will rack up...21 billion miles lower than the forecast that OFM made 3 years ago, and more than 10 billion miles lower than their forecast from just last year."
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/08/02/washingtons-20-billion-mile-diet/
"Total annual vehicle travel in Washington and Oregon grew steadily for many years. Then, in about 1999, growth started to moderate. And after a few years of slower-than-average increases, traffic volumes essentially plateaued in 2002."
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/08/08/disappearing-cars-circa-2002/
"Meanwhile, the Washington State Department of Transportation continues to insist that traffic volumes on the SR-520 bridge across Lake Washington are going up up up—even though actual traffic volumes have been flat or declining for more than a decade!"
http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/13/wsdot-vs-reality/
If WPC is really interested in improving transportation policies, why don't you do a series of blog posts that debunk these facts and others posted here:
http://daily.sightline.org/blog_series/dude-where-are-my-cars/
why have my comments been deleted?
Mr. Ennis, you may disagree with my facts, but why have my comments been deleted? Is there some WPC policy on that?
missing comments
Our website has been undergoing periods of maintenance yesterday and today, and so comments made at certain points haven't been saved/posted. You're not the only person to experience this.
This was an unanticipated hiccup but I appreciate your patience as we work through this.
no worries
Thanks for the clarification, and best of luck with the rest of your work on the site.