Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« GangSTA WARS | Breaking: Shots Fired at 3rd a... »

Monday, July 30, 2007

Highway Lobbying

posted by on July 30 at 16:38 PM

The Washington State Department of Transportation is, like all state DOTs, a highway department. But it’s a highway department that pretends, at least, to be something more noble; according to its mission statement, WSDOT’s purpose is to “efficiently build, maintain, operate and promote safe and coordinated transportation systems to serve our public.” Read between the lines, and you might assume they mean that roads are only one of many “transportation systems,” and that WSDOT works to coordinate all those systems, not just those that serve the needs of single-occupancy car commuters.

I was a bit shocked, then, to drive down the freeway from Everett toward Seattle (in my convertible Mini Cooper Flexcar) and see a giant sign that read, “FREEWAY EXPANSION Improves Traffic! - Washington State Department of Transportation.” Not just because, well, it doesn’t (more on that in a minute)—but because it’s pro-freeway lobbying by an (allegedly non-political) organization that has been, if not exactly pro-transit, at least nominally concerned for the environment. Is this an early campaign ad for the joint roads and transit measure on the ballot in November? And if so, is it kosher?

Back to the contention that expanding roads makes traffic better. It may at first, but not for long, because traffic seeks an equilibrium. Thanks to a phenomenon known as induced demand (two-second version: Increasing supply unleashes latent demand; 20-minute version here), new miles of pavement create a greater demand to drive. Drivers who used to avoid rush hour because of congestion start driving at peak times again, and the new capacity is quickly eclipsed by new demand. The same theory, fortunately, holds for transit service, which is why people will use transit if they see it as plentiful (i.e. frequent). If it seems like taking the bus—or driving on the freeway at rush hour—will be a pain in the ass, people will avoid it. Supplying roads unleashes latent demand with negative results; supplying transit unleashes positive latent demand. It’s simple economics.

RSS icon Comments

1

Those signs have been up at least since the gas tax roads packages passed a few years ago. They suck, but they have nothing to do with the Roads and Transit campaign.

You really should get out more...

Posted by tiptoe tommy | July 30, 2007 4:54 PM
2

This is a really cool post, ECB.

A Mini Cooper flexcar - man, I am so jealous!

I think the ST people sense that they've managed to p.ss off a lot of Seattle with the roads package in the ST2/RTID vote, and it's no wonder, with behavior like WSDOT has.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 30, 2007 5:03 PM
3

Nice post Erica. Any comment from WSDOT as to why these signs are there?

Posted by Sean | July 30, 2007 5:10 PM
4

Do you ever let up?
How many different ways can you make the same points, over and over.
We get it!
You don't like cars, except when you drive one. Everybody should live on Capitol Hill. Yadda yadda.

Posted by Next topic, please! | July 30, 2007 5:10 PM
5

your 20-minute-version link is broken.

Posted by Zach | July 30, 2007 5:12 PM
6

I loathe freeways no less than Erica does, but I wouldn't be so quick to take up the "Is it kosher?" question on the self-promotion. Sound Transit does much the same thing, and with paid billboards no less. Perhaps Sound Transit doesn't make the same claims about its traffic benefits, but I'm not sure that puts it on any sounder footing.

Yeah, the assertion that "freeway expansion improves traffic" is a stretch. Induced demand and the congestion that comes from making freeways free is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.

If you really want to improve traffic flow, you build toll roads instead of freeways and plow the proceeds into viable transit alternatives. Instead of pitting roads and transit against each other, you have them complementing each other, and it benefits everyone: drivers get faster rides, for a price, and transit riders get faster, better transit service.

Anyway, until WSDOT gets into the business of providing real transportation solutions like this, they should go back to calling themselves the Washington State Department of Highways.

Posted by cressona | July 30, 2007 5:12 PM
7

Why were you in Everett? Maybe that was the real problem.

Posted by Cook | July 30, 2007 5:37 PM
8

Excellent description of the induced traffic phenomenon, Erica. I've seen WSDOT signs touting responsible use of gas tax dollars from a fiscal management perspective, but I've never before seen WSDOT signs touting freeway expansion as improving traffic. That's ridiculous.

It's probably just coincidental that this sign went up as Doug McDonald was stepping down as Secretary of Transportation. Not that he was opposed to road building, but he seemed to have a little more appreciation for transit/bike/ped facilities and was a champion for congestion pricing.

The Governor's appointment of the next Secretary should be watched carefully. She can appoint someone who will move things forward- more multi-modal planning, congestion pricing, advocate for state transit investments and commute trip reduction, and address transportation needs with an understanding of climate change. Or, she can appoint someone who will further the ridiculous notion conveyed by these signs.

Posted by Bill LaBorde | July 30, 2007 5:43 PM
9

No. 7: Heading out to hike in the woods, like a good elitist urban hippie who thinks everyone should live on Capitol Hill.

Posted by ECB | July 30, 2007 5:43 PM
10

Ahhh, my Dear Ms. Baris a wise choice, as after this installment for roads, the road lobby will be satisfied and they won't come back for more! Then we can be what we want which is mainly 90% transit all the time.

Through the magic of appeasement, you see, we shall enjoy Transit in Our Time. But only if we satisfy the demand for highways, just this one last time!
Yours, etc.,

Posted by Neville Chamberlain | July 30, 2007 6:13 PM
11

ECB,

Just wondering if you complained about WSDOT putting up the "Your Nickel at Work" signs promoting the Nickel package while the campaign was on to repeal the gas tax in '05...

Posted by Chris | July 30, 2007 9:38 PM
12

You're half right, ECB. The billboard makes an inaccurate statement, knowing most drivers aren't going to verify and research it. New highways aren't going to change the traffic situation, which is backup and gridlock in certain areas.

But it's inaccurate for you to say that building new highways simply increases the demand. Often highways are expanded/built in areas that are already growing and seeing population increases. These areas are growing for outside reasons, industry, living environment and other draws that have nothing to do with the construction of new highways. If anything, it's this growth that perpetuates the expansion of highways, rather than the other way around.

So of course once the highways are built out, the increased capacity is going to get taken up. The highways do not create the demand... the demand simply increases as a result of a given increase in population, and thus this increase takes up the increased supply.

The VTPI and other parties probably did not think of this simple phenomenon when they conducted their study. They simply waited for new highways, did a head count (or vehicle count, in this case), and jumped to a conclusion based on a worldview that favors a transit-centric agenda.

Posted by Gomez | July 30, 2007 10:18 PM
13

Erica is about as dogmatic as her opposite number, Kemper Freeman, Jr., and about as credible.

Posted by ivan | July 30, 2007 10:19 PM
14

I'm confused. When I used to drive SR 18 in East King County when it was a 2 lane road, the backups were gigantic. They expanded it to a 4 lane divided highway and now traffic flows freely at all hours of the day.

Kinda belies that whole "new roads don't help do away with congestion" argument, doesn't it?

Posted by Bax | July 31, 2007 6:28 AM
15

Bax, could we all stop being intellectually dishonest for once? So you cherry-pick one anecdotal case (I don't know whether this one case is accurate) and that's proof there's nothing to induced demand?

Does traffic fill up 100% within x number of years every single time there's a road expansion somewhere in the United States? I guess not. Is there no such thing as induced demand? Get real.

Posted by cressona | July 31, 2007 8:04 AM
16

ECB-
Those signs are all over the state where there is a project going on. Like one of the other commenters pointed out the "your nickel at work" signs.

Sound Transit puts up signs to promote new services and attract ridership. They also do it to "brand" transit.

I agree with you on highway expansion not fixing the problem, but most of the Roads & Transit roads are actually safety replacement, HOV lanes and in some cases - the completion of routes for moving goods in and out of ports - see Hwy 509 and 167.

Of course those Hwys are in South King and Pierce...you probably wouldn't ever have a reason to go there.

PS - if you do go there, take the Prius Flexcar, the Mini Cooper only gets 26 MPG

Posted by Everett in Everett | July 31, 2007 9:56 AM
17

The key to all this is land use management. If no new uses are allowed added road capacity will in almost every case reduce congestion. Transit that speeds people to the edge of the metropolitan area will induce demand for housing further out from the city employment centers. The fastest way to reduce green house gases is the change in vehicles - hybrids, electrics, high mileage conventionals, etc. - that is already starting to happen. The fact that WashDot is putting up signs indicating something is getting done really isn't as bad as the millions ST - Metro - Monorail spends on paid advertising. Added capacity does reduce congestion and speed up travel. The question is for how long and how much development will we permit. Want to reduce congestion - stop building sewage capacity.

From wikipedia:
Research indicates that the elasticity of traffic demand with respect to roadway expansion is between 0 and 1, indicating that a 1% increase in roadway expansion will generate less than a 1% increase in traffic demand. However it is greater than 0%, so new roadway construction will result in some additional traffic that would not have occurred but for the new capacity. In the long term, however, traffic demand may increase by more than 1%, since elasticity of demand is a partial derivative. In other words, this figure between 0 and 1 assumes that, apart from the increased supply, all else is constant, which is unlikely to be true in the long term.

Posted by whatever | July 31, 2007 10:52 AM
18

The sign is generic and doesn't reflect the actual projects going on.

From DOT:

WSDOT and Sound Transit will build a park-and-ride facility in the Interstate 5 median north of 112th Street SE. We will also build new HOV ramps and widen 112th Street SE. This will enhance safety and reduce slowdowns caused by weaving or merging traffic, resulting in shorter commute times for all drivers.

and:

We will extend carpool lanes on Interstate 5 between SR 526 and US 2 in Everett. We will also rebuild the 41st Street interchange and improve 19 bridges. This project will help fix one of our state's most notorious bottlenecks.

The project is intended to expand HOV lanes, make it easier to use transit, improve safety, and make flow improvements. Not much in there about adding general purpose lanes.

So what's the point of ECB's slog about this sign? Just another opportunity to show us how self-righteously smart you are?

Posted by elrider | July 31, 2007 11:23 AM
19

Could it be the case that ECB, guilt ridden for driving and even more so that she choose a gas guzzler compared to what she could have been driving, was just trying to make an anti-car statement? Or wanted to have a reason to let all know that she was driving and having a great time?

Posted by whatever | July 31, 2007 11:35 AM
20

csqgzmebp wghbaj zcireua qwtscr ljzyt wvxjstagu nhueom

Posted by dboyx myagw | August 9, 2007 1:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).