Now and then, someone mentions that a particular public transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that were evidence of failure. In fact, the relationship between transit and congestion is indirect. It is not always wise to claim congestion reduction as a likely result of your proposed transit project.
Road widening, however, is also not a very good way to relieve congestion, except in the short term. In his 1992 book Stuck in Traffic Anthony Downs described the effect of widening an expressway in terms of a “triple convergence”:
In response, three types of convergence occur on the improved expressway: (1) many drivers who formerly used alternative routes during peak hours switch to the improved expressway (spatial convergence); (2) many drivers who formerly traveled just before or after the peak hours start traveling during those hours (time convergence); and (3) some commuters who used to take public transportation during peak hours now switch to driving, since it has become faster (modal convergence).
Today we call this phenomenon induced demand, and it’s the main reason that widening roads doesn’t reduce congestion (and why removing roads doesn’t always make congestion worse.) Induced demand is a really obvious idea: If you make a desirable thing easier, people will do it more.
Downs is describing only the immediate effect of the road expansion. Further increases in traffic will come from any new development that is attracted to the road’s catchment as a direct consequence of its expansion.
So the only way to make the congestion benefit of new road capacity permanent is to severely restrict development in the catchment area of the road — an impossible bar in most cases. In fact, parties who will profit from further development in a corridor may be part of the political consensus in support of a road expansion, even as the same expansion is marketed to existing residents as a congestion reducing project.
Otherwise, there appear to be two broadly applicable ways to relieve congestion in a substantial and permanent way.
- Economic collapse, pandemic, etc. Traffic congestion drops during economic slowdowns, because fewer people have jobs to commute to, or money to spend on discretionary travel. A complete economic collapse, which causes people to move away from a city in droves, is always a lasting fix for congestion problems!
- Correct pricing of road space. Congestion is the result of underpricing. If you give away 500 free concert tickets to the first 500 people in line, you’ll get 500 people standing in line, some of them overnight. These people are paying time to save money. Current prevailing road pricing policy requires all motorists to act like these frugal concertgoers. Motorists are required to pay for road use in time, rather than in money, even though some would rather do the opposite and our cities would be safer and more efficient if they could. Current road pricing policy requires motorists to save money, a renewable resource, by expending time, the least renewable resource of all.
So if transit isn’t a cause of reduced congestion, what is its role? Do transit advocates offer nothing in response to congestion problems that have many voters upset? In fact, transit’s role is essential, but its effect is indirect.
- Transit raises the level of economic activity and prosperity at a fixed level of congestion. Congestion appears to reach equilibrium at a level that is maddeningly high but that can’t be called “total gridlock.” At that level, people just stop trying to travel. If your city is car-dependent, that limit becomes the cap on the economic activity — and thus the prosperity — of your city. To the extent that your city is dependent on transit, supported by walking and cycling, economic activity and prosperity can continue to grow while congestion remains constant. For example, commenter Brent writes: “Toronto achieved significant downtown employment growth without increasing road capacity after the 1960s, thanks first to increased subway ridership and later due to increased commuter rail ridership. Congestion is still bad on the roads and expressways into downtown, even with transit expansion, but (as you say) the expansion of transit has permitted the downtown to grow beyond what the road network would have supported.” A similar pattern can be observed in many similar cities.
- Transit enables people who don’t drive to participate in economic life. Groups who don’t have the option to drive include many seniors and disabled persons, some youth, and a segment of the poor. There are also many people who are just terrible drivers, and/or who hate driving. Providing mobility to these groups is not merely a social service; it also expands prosperity and reduces emissions. (The latter effect is because many of these trips would have gone by car — driven by another person — if transit where not available). This benefit of transit should routinely be described in terms of economic efficiency, emissions, and vehicle trip reduction, not just in terms of equity or rights.
- Transit-dependent cities are generally more sustainable than car-dependent cities. They cover less land and tend to have fewer emissions both per capita and per distance travelled. The walking that they require is also better for public health, which produces further indirect economic benefits in reduced healthcare costs.
- Intense transit service is essential for any policy that correctly charges for road space. (These tools are called congestion pricing, although I prefer to call them decongstion pricing). Pricing is the only effective and durable tool for ensuring free-flowing roads while maintaining or growing prosperity. It always causes mode shift toward public transit, so quality public transit, with surplus capacity, must be there for a pricing plan to be credible.
- Surface exclusive transit lanes (for buses, rail, and arguably two-wheelers and taxis) improve the performance of emergency services. This argument should be much more prominent, because even the most ardent car-lover will understand it. Few things are more distressing than to see an emergency vehicle stuck in traffic, sirens blaring. When confronted with this, all motorists do their best to help. But if the entire width of a street or highway is reserved for cars (moving or parked), and is therefore capable of being congested, it can be impossible to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle even if every motorist present has the best of intentions. Emergency response should be one of the strongest and most obvious cases for surface transit lanes. Motorists understand the need to drop to a low speed in school zones, to protect the life of every single child. Why do we not accept come degree of delay to save a child who may be dying somewhere else, because the ambulance is stuck in traffic?
In the end, of course, “congestion” is not a good measure of the outcomes of transit. In fact, the very notion of congestion presumes a motorist’s view of the world. What we should really care about is access to opportunity. Can people get to the things they need, and things that will give richness to their lives, in an amount of time that they can spare? If we focus on that, we’ll see congestion in its place: It’s a barrier to access, but it’s not everyone’s barrier, and we need many other strategies, including public transit, if we want a city that provides abundant opportunities for everyone.