Review of Gridlock: Why we’re stuck in traffic and what to do about it by Randal O’Toole

Review of Gridlock: Why we’re stuck in traffic and what to do about it. by Randal O’Toole. Cato Institute Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-935308-23-2
Gridlock by Randal O’Toole is one of a slew of recent books and reports about transportation that has been released in anticipation of federal surface transportation reauthorization, the “highway” bill that is passed every five or six years by Congress which sets federal spending limits and establishes policies for both highway and urban public transit in the United States. This book identifies major problems with US transportation policy, pinning problems on planning and planners, and what it considers their misguided emphasis on rail and land use-based solutions to a variety of problems that would be better addressed without what is dubbed “social engineering” and instead focusing on technology and sound principles of economic efficiency. Reading this book in one-sitting, I found I could not dispute most of the facts brought to bear by the author in support of his case. Where this book will be controversial is in its implicit (and sometimes explicit) underlying preference for a particular set of political values. The book, published by Cato, unapologetically adopts a (somewhat inconsistent) rationalist libertarian perspective prizing efficiency in government services, minimization of those services, and maximum freedom for travelers, and aims to apply that perspective without modal prejudice.
We must begin with a caveat about the title. “Gridlock” in traffic terms is largely hyperbolic, it is seldom the case that cars are unable to move because intersections (on grid networks) are blocked and thereby locked. But the term is used as much to describe traffic as it is to describe the policy process which is stuck, and getting more stuck over time, in what the author views as strategic policy errors. It is really the governance structure for transportation which is in Gridlock. Adopting this title, “Gridlock,” suggests that the primary transportation problem is traffic congestion. The subtitle alludes to an earlier book by Anthony Downs “Stuck in Traffic” on the same topic.
The first substantive chapter “Land of Mobility” provides an excellent, though brief overview of transportation history in the United States, showing how the national wealth rises with travel speeds, taking snapshots at 50 year intervals.
It is the second chapter “Potholes in the Road” where the controversy begins. This author opposes what he views as anti-mobility forces that aim to slow traffic. He takes aims at the infrastructure panic (p. 27), traffic calming (p.32), and accessibility (p.33), among others in a few broadsides that miss their mark in my opinion. “Accessibility” is simply the ability to reach (access) destinations (e.g. how many destination one can reach in 30 minutes by a particular mode at a particular time), it is a modally neutral concept that the author conflates with transit and walk accessibility. His use of the term “mobility” (the ability to move on networks) for auto accessibility is needlessly confusing. Why congestion, while annoying and wasteful, should be the central transportation issue, rather than accessibility, which the author elsewhere essentially says increases the productivity of cities, is never made clear. Why the author believes that concern about infrastructure is a “panic”, when bridges are in fact crumbling and collapsing, is also not clear. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, the most recent, and most noteworthy, of recent infrastructure failures collapsed because of a chain of events, including and beginning with a design mistake, but including every decision not taken which could have discovered and remedied that mistake. It seems as though the author believes if the investment does not add capacity it is waste, not allowing sufficient funds for operations and maintenance.
The author then contrasts the “Smart Growth” agenda, promulgated by planners since the mid-1990s with the “efficiency” agenda the author advocates. Smart growth aims to increase densities (build up not out) and support those higher densities with transit. The author notes that these policies are likely to be largely ineffective in changing behavior, and are also likely to be expensive. I am sympathetic with the critique of the overly-prescriptive nature of so-called Smart Growth, I would suggest that instead Smart Prices be implemented, and use those prices (e.g. appropriately set impact fees) which incorporate the full social cost of development (roads, water, sewer, schools, parks, etc. required to accommodate development while ensuring “adequate public facilities”), to direct development with the invisible hand, allowing developers to decide where it is worth paying the price, and where it is not.
The author next takes on fixed rail investments at the urban and inter-urban levels. The author dislikes high speed rail, which he labels “The Next Boondoggle”, seemingly the next major infrastructure investment the US will engage in. The problems are many, and follow those of transit, strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias on the part of project promoters, and general ineffectiveness in building a capital intensive mode that is neither faster than its competitors, nor more agile. The author is in my view spot-on in identifying the problems here. These problems arise from the structure of transportation financing in the US, where capital investments are subsidized by the federal government, biasing local governments toward capital-intensive transportation improvements. Further, the incentives of members of Congress do not align with the national interest.
Twisting conventional wisdom on its head, the author argues that not only are transit and high speed rail more expensive, they are also more environmentally damaging than the auto-highway system. The author argues that technological solutions to pollution, reinforced by government policies like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, have been very effective, while behavioral solutions have all failed. It is in some ways surprising for the author to be supportive of CAFE policies, given his opposition to so many others.
The author proceeds to describe the funding situation for transportation today, and discusses the question of subsidy and cross-subsidy and the user-fee concept behind the transportation trust fund. About one-fourth of highway user fees are spent on transit projects (despite a transit mode share considerably lower than one-fortieth of all trips or all miles traveled). The cross-subsidies in urban transportation are essentially unidirectional. This helps explain the shortfall the trust fund has seen in recent years, along with the decline in vehicle miles traveled associated with higher gas prices and recession. The fact that there are cross-subsidies should not argue for no additional funding for transit, there may be an economic case for subsidies, but the policy debates devolves from rational argument to name calling (he gets more money than me) pretty quickly.
Some remedies are proposed. One of the problems is that present-day planning is subjective and misguided. The author argues for what is effectively short-run planning using a rational planning/decision-making process. I tend to agree there is no reason trying to identify problems thirty years from now when there are plenty of problems today laying about unsolved. I believe there is a tendency among planners to bring distant dangers near. The potential would be for a community to establish a vision of where it wants to be, and then to check each decision it makes against that vision (does it move the community closer or farther). That vision would be periodically revisited. That is not however what Mr. O’Toole proposes. He would eliminate the federal requirement for long-term planning (which is fine, I agree that should be a local community decision), but does not even suggest it would be wise to think about long-term impacts of decisions. Many problems in community development are coordination games … I will build a transportation facility if you build the development, I will build houses if you build offices, etc. There is a role for establishing a vision of the future that people subscribe to so that actions can be more easily coordinated. Visions like this can become self-fulfilling prophesies, hopefully to the betterment of the community.
Another remedy is Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and their promise to increase capacity and safety. The author notes the chicken-and-egg problem of deploying smart cars and smart highways simultaneously, but, inconsistently with his critique of the problem of government management of infrastructure, seems to feel that providing smart highways is an option. At this point in development of ITS, it should be clear that progress will have to be with autonomous vehicles that operate in mixed traffic, the other options are non-starters. It should be noted that my own work with students is cited. While the author is supportive of the technology-fix more than behavioral-fix for addressing transportation problems like pollution and congestion (as am I), only one of many technology-development paths can actually be pursued, and efforts barking up the wrong tree will delay the deployment of the ultimate solution. This is a case where one would think the author would see the difficulties of central planning.
The author lays out policy prescriptions, some of which are mainstream among the academic transportation community (allowing road tolls and avoiding earmarks), but others, like eliminating federal planning mandates and clean air requirements, are likely to spark dissent.
Overall, I think the author over-states the power of planners, and should consider what are the forces the underlie the ability of planners. He suggests citizens are misled by referenda, and the problem is simply the few beneficiaries of expensive investments out-spend the diffuse losers and persuade voters to support them. Certainly that is part of the story, but is there more? Do people perhaps have different values about freedom than the author himself? Is there a possibility that network effects and positive externalities do exist, so that collective action in support of higher densities and transit might create economics spillovers (agglomeration benefits) for everyone? The author admits these exist in New York City. Why cannot similar benefits be attained elsewhere?
This is an important contribution to the policy debate, and O’Toole, who writes a blog called “The Anti-planner“, brings a fresh and seldom heard perspective grounded in empirical evidence and relentless application of objective analysis drawing from the tradition of Hayek. While many planners may not subscribe to his values, it is crucial they understand the facts laid out, if only to sharpen their own arguments, and disentangle propaganda from reality.

xkcd: Ahead Stop
Ahead Stop

Thousands protest over new Stuttgart rail station

Freeway revolts in Russia and Rail revolts in Germany.
Reuters: Thousands protest over new Stuttgart rail station

“Ten of thousands took to the streets of Stuttgart Friday to join a demonstration against a new train station that began as a one-issue protest but has become a wider movement against German politicians in general.
Later in the day up to 50,000 people are expected to form a human chain, organizers said, and march against one of Germany’s biggest-ever building projects — demolishing Stuttgart’s landmark railway station and building an underground station.
Violence has erupted in the southern city this week as thousands have staged daily sit-down strikes trying to stop the 4.1 billion euro ($5 billion) project, which critics say is not needed and a waste of taxpayer money.

City, state and local officials spent 15 years working on the project to turn Stuttgart’s terminus station into an underground through station. They say it will cut down on travel times and open up a vast tract of inner city land to developers.
But critics say the costs, which studies have estimated could rise to 10 billion euros, make the project too expensive and will lead to higher ticket prices. They also warn the tunnel in Stuttgart, which lies in a valley, could flood.”

International System Safety Conference

At the 28th International
System Safety Conference 2010 30 Aug-03 Sep 2010 in Minneapolis
, I will give a keynote on Aug 31 (at 8 am) on the Rise and Fall of the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. It looks like an interesting conference. I am sure there is a lot to be learned at the intersection of system safety and network reliability.

Kremlin Relents, for Now, to Foes of Russia Highway

NYT: Kremlin Relents, for Now, to Foes of Russia Highway
A highway revolt in Russia. I am impressed there is no freeway class road between Moscow and St. Petersburg to date, I think this is to complement the M-10:

MOSCOW — For years, environmentalists have risked arrests and sometimes beatings by the police and masked plainclothes thugs in their efforts to halt the construction of a highway linking Moscow to St. Petersburg that they say would destroy the Khimki Forest, one of the few remaining in the Moscow region.
Typically in Russia, such efforts lead to little but holding cells or worse for proponents of a cause. But supporters of the Khimki Forest were handed a surprising victory on Thursday when President Dmitri A. Medvedev reacted to the public outcry. He postponed construction of the highway. “Given the number of appeals, I have made a decision,” Mr. Medvedev said in a message on his video blog. “I order the government to halt the implementation of the decision to build this highway and conduct further civic and expert discussions.”

In India, Many Potholes and Not Enough Engineers

From the NY Times In India, Many Potholes and Not Enough Engineers

PUNE, INDIA — Call it India’s engineering paradox.

Civil engineering was once an elite occupation in India, not only during the British colonial era of carving roads and laying train tracks, but long after independence as part of the civil service. These days, though, India’s best and brightest know there is more money and prestige in writing software for foreign customers than in building roads for their nation.

Moreover, many people who earn degrees in civil engineering never work in the profession or, like Mr. Mandvekar, leave it soon after they graduate to take better-paying jobs in information technology, management consulting or financial services.

China’s 60-mile traffic jam could last for weeks

From the AP China’s 60-mile traffic jam could last for weeks

China’s 60-mile traffic jam could last for weeks
By ANITA CHANG , Associated Press
Last Update: August 24, 2010 – 6:56 AM
BEIJING – A massive traffic jam in north China that stretches for dozens of miles and hit its 10-day mark on Tuesday stems from road construction in Beijing that won’t be finished until the middle of next month, an official said.
Bumper-to-bumper gridlock spanning for 60 miles (100 kilometers) with cars moving little more than a half-mile (one kilometer) a day at one point has improved since this weekend, said Zhang Minghai, director of Zhangjiakou city’s Traffic Management Bureau general office.
But he said he wasn’t sure when the situation along the Beijing-Zhangjiakou highway would return to normal.
The traffic jam started Aug. 14 on a stretch of the Beijing-Zhangjiakou highway. That section has frequently been congested, especially after large coalfields were discovered in Inner Mongolia, Zhang said. Traffic volume has increased 40 percent every year.
Drivers stranded in the gridlock in the Inner Mongolia region and Hebei province, headed toward Beijing, passed the time sleeping, walking around, or playing cards and chess. Local villagers were doing brisk business selling instant noodles, boxed lunches and snacks, weaving between the parked trucks on bicycles.
The highway construction in Beijing that is restricting inbound traffic flow and causing the jam “will not be finished until Sept. 17,” he said.
Authorities were trying to speed up traffic by allowing more trucks to enter Beijing, especially at night, Zhang said. They also asked trucking companies to suspend operations and advised drivers to take alternate routes.
China’s roadways are increasingly overburdened as the number of private vehicles booms along with commercial truck traffic hauling materials like coal and food to cities. Traffic slowdowns because of construction and accidents are common, though a 10-day traffic jam is unusual even in China.

Parking Lots Help Predict Earnings

From GigaOM

Parking Lots Help Predict Earnings: “”

UBS Investment Research has started incorporating analysis of satellite images of the parking lots of big-box retailers into its earnings estimates, reports CNBC, forecasting an uptick in sales based on parking lot traffic where a drop was previously expected.

I imagine one could do the same with Traffic Counts for the economy as a whole, without requiring satellites, though it would not be store-specific.

With a Sit-Down Stand, a Briton Kicks the Boot






From NYTimes

With a Sit-Down Stand, a Briton Kicks the Boot:

“Mr. Zafaryab, 27, defied a tow-truck team by sitting in his car for 30 hours, eventually running up more than $6,000 in parking fines, as towing company officials, supporters of Mr. Zafaryab and police officers gathered in the delivery area behind a shopping plaza where he had started it all by parking for two hours in a restricted zone.

Eventually, with the popular hubbub rising, the towing company relented, after plastering Mr. Zafaryab’s windshield with more than 40 tickets, and settled for a $160 fine. But the episode, which occurred last Wednesday, had reverberations far beyond the showdown at the Plaza Parade in the London neighborhood of Wembley, where Mr. Zafaryab parked to visit a nearby mosque for his noon prayers — then decided to make a stand, as he put it, for “the little man.”

On Tuesday, the British government announced that it would introduce legislation in the fall banning private companies from clamping — the British term for what Americans know as “booting” — or towing any vehicle parked on private land, and limiting the companies to a regulated system of parking tickets.”

What they do to illegally parked cars in London (in this case, probably a stolen car as well), shown in the pictures, taken by me from my flat in 2006.

Illegal parking is of course wrong, but private law enforcement is a dubious practice.