final post

There is an assertion made in the article Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation that “U.S. transportation system provides Americans with the greatest mobility of any society on earth”. Yes there are cars everywhere and the United States has been a leading player in the world of globalization but has transportation really improved the social mobility of working people? As the paper states, it is fundamental for the American economy but the disparity in income in the United States is an indicator that transportation policy has not helped everyone. Mobility is important but the conversation about the future of transportation policy ought to include a socio-economic agenda that aims to promote equity for disadvantage communities. Transportation is about scientific technology but not exclusive and should encompass modern concerns about employment and education. In order for innovative technology and policy to be successful, education and social issues must be taken into account. We cannot have only a small percentage of Americans driving smarter cars and having the necessary education with the rest of the country still struggling just to keep up.

In the section where the authors state that there are 4 fundamental ways to reducing GHG emissions. “Increasing vehicular energy efficiency, better substitutes for energy sources, increase transportation system efficiency and reducing transportation activity” are the suggested strategies, yet nothing about education or issues about inequity. If the goal is to reduce emissions on a scale that actually lowers the rate of pollution than policy will require the all commuters be engaged in the process. Transportation policy should be collaborative and inclusive as it engages more stakeholders beyond just economists and environmentalists.

As this course comes to its close and all the topics have been explored, it becomes evidently clear that the conversation of transportation policy ought to shift. Transportation is critical for all our livelihood, without it, we severely suffer socially and economically. Yes, we are a culture of cars but there are communities throughout the country that do not have this kind of accessibility, transportation is a real concern. While it is important to remember the environmental factors of transportation, policy making should take into account the issues and concerns of communities that are experiencing barriers in transportation. It isn’t realistic to envision a world with better cars and cleaner air, transportation systems need to be concerned with economic and social issues. Transportation isn’t just about the physical act of moving people and goods; it is about politics, the environment and people’s equity.  Thank you Colleen for reviewing my final submission.

The Modern Freeway: A Thing of the Past?

As walkable and bikeable development continues to gain popularity, many cities, developers, and organizations have forced cities to consider tearing down inner-city freeways.  While a freeway teardown isn’t an easy feat, the process offers many benefits including the opening of land for real estate development, the addition of parks and open space, and, above all, the creation of a place for people. 

Seoul, South Korea tore down a 14-Lane Elevated Freeway Running through Downtown, credit: SDOT blog

Reading response: Access to Choice by Jonathan Levine

Jonathan Levine contends critics on urban design based on accessibility. Urban sprawl influences on travel patterns to have long travel distances, and it creates cities in United States as a more automobile dependent society. Negative impacts of urban sprawl include congestion, inefficient gas consumption, air quality, equity issue, and etc. Jobs-housing balancing, transit villages, and New Urbanism are designed to focus on accessibility rather than mobility. This article refutes critics on these new ideas on urban design, and proclaims that urban design focusing on the ease of access would provide various ways of life styles associated with land uses and travels to accommodate households' needs and preferences .

The first critic is regarding the limit of people's choice by applying new alternative urban designs. Levine argues current local government regulations exclude some urban development design, and it constraints various choices of some households regarding land uses. Current some local land use policies need to be loosened.  The second, it is argued that the new alternatives for some cases increase congestion. New alternatives provide better accessibility, and it might not reduce congestion although it would reduce vehicle mile travel. Levine contends that there are better valuable goals than automobile movement at free flow speed, and if there are demands for new alternative land use options, it should not be regulated, and let market choose it. Third, some researches regards neighborhood self-selection as an example of invalidating alternative land use, because it is hard to prove the effect of urban design on travel behavior. Levine thinks self-selection would be desirable behavior because it shows how households react to alternative transportation oriented urban design although it is not easy to be estimated.   

It is quite a interesting debate regarding association between land use and transportation. I am agree with Levine in a sense that traditional urban designs triggers people to choose only automobile as their primary mode. It is hard to consider other ways to live without automobiles in sprawl urban form because both accessibility and mobility will be reduced without vehicles. Traditional urban form might restrict various needs and preferences of households having different lifestyles. Several alternative travel modes including a bus, light rail, a bicycle, and walk are not competitive to automobiles in terms of travel time and convenience. Households might suppress other values except travel time and convenience because the gap between automobile and other modes  regarding these values are quite large which means there might be no room to think about other values. Recently, people are aware of  negative effects of automotive dependent travel patterns such as air pollution, physically low activity level, and inefficient energy use compared to other alternative ways of life style. Alternative urban form might not satisfy all needs and preferences of households who seek for a more healthier life style rather than constraining their values only on efficiency in terms of travel time and monetary value. However, it would work as alternatives for traditional urban form. Also, as Levin discussed, market would prove whether urban form focusing on accessibility is what they want and need. 

Policies, Health & Active Travel

Audrey de Nazelle, et al.’s article, “Improving health through policies that promote active travel,” discusses the necessity for holistic and multi-faceted policy solutions that address active transportation, environment, health, and urban planning. De Nazelle cites the “complexity of interactions among people, places, and the natural environment” (2011, 775) as the reason why synergistic solutions are needed, despite the difficulty of analysis.

     The Transportation Prescription report engages the conversation about the future of mobility within the context on its inextricable  connection to policies concerning health, employment and equity amongst low-income and minority communities. Policy directed towards transportation will continue to have a direct effect on the overall health on the nation. If more people were on busses or riding bikes, there sure would be less drive-thru windows. As the report points out, "transportation changes not only landscapes but also culture and society. So we know there is a problem, there is the issue of funding as well as the real life concern of those already enduring the brunt of inequity in not only transportation policy by all policy essential to supporting neighborhoods in need. 

So what is to be done now? 

       The emphasis needs to be about accessibility.  Effective transportation isn't effective if those most in need are still in need of affordable and safe transportation. What can be impactful about adjusting the focus of where to take transportation development is that is will have a trickle down effect on other socio-economic concerns. If roads and planning were to be geared towards diversifying the actors from just cars to cars, bikes, busses, pedestrians and light rail, then people will be facing the option to live a healthier life. sometimes the option is not necessarily promoted for health but everyone benefits from getting away from driving. 

     Being able to get around, have access to the essentials as well as the choice to do it without the implications of a car can help build "healthy and opportunity rich communities". Connecting the dots between accessibility and socio-economic policies is key in order to have better control of issues like pollution, obesity and just plain old mobility. Transportation is a lifeline and much how we talk about health issues, mobility has been seen as an individual matter. In order to better our individual selves, we need healthier environments that provide for all, especially those in need. 

I think this idea of shifting focus is not only key but an angle that doesn't get much talk time. Aside from everything just being expensive, tackling transportation equity problems really does mean a shift in how our culture operates. It is going to take a level of engagement and participation that we usually leave up to powers that be. It will also take a alot  of people collectively making decisions to live healthy. This kind of decision making becomes easier when options are available to interact in other ways than just by behind the wheel. Peer review was carried out by Colleen. 

Rethinking Traffic Congestion

“Rethinking Traffic Congestion“ written by Brian D. Taylor challenges commonly accepted viewpoints regarding traffic congestion.

The Full Costs of Transportation: A Case for Picking and Choosing

While reading the chapter called, “The Full Costs of Transportation" in Sustainable Transportation[1], there were several problematic concepts that were difficult to support. For the sake of writing space, I’ll narrow it down to two key areas within the article. These two areas were land loss and military security/involvement.

A Response to "Rethinking Traffic Congestion" by Brian Taylor

In “Rethinking Traffic Congestion,” Brian Taylor presents a challenge to the conventional mindset that congestion can, and should, be fought.  I found the ten propositions presented to be very thought-provoking.  That being said, I feel that many of the individual points were misleading.  Taylor is too dismissive of alternative transportation modes and does not give enough weight to the negative externalities of automotive congestion.  And while Taylor’s conclusion admits that there are many ways to fight congestion, the attitude of pessimistic inescapability questions if there’s even value in trying.

Taylor’s premise that congestion is an inevitable companion to economic success does not mean we must resign ourselves to embracing congestion’s negative effects, nor can we neglect the responsibility of a city to provide essential services to the public as best it can.  While there must be at least one business that has relocated away from LA to escape traffic, there’s certainly none that have moved there for the pleasure of being stuck in traffic.

Overall, Taylor identifies many thought-provoking elements of the complex phenomenon of congestion.  With so much funding dependent on the premise of fighting congestion, Taylor has given planners much to think about.

PROPOSITION ONE: Traffic congestion is evidence of social and economic vitality; empty streets and roads are signs of failure.

This is perhaps the most important of Taylor’s points, and there are really two ideas here.  The first is that, fundamentally, congestion is an indicator of the popularity of the route and the destinations it connects. The second is that conventional “costs” attributed to congestion should be balanced with the “benefits” of economic and social vitality.  I agree that congestion is partially an indication of a city’s vitality, and that the costs of congestion are often exaggerated when compared to some ideal but unattainable state of traffic.

While Taylor identifies that causality flows from popularity to congestion, there are many other causes of congestion as well.  Land use patterns (“dumb sprawl”), network design, and roadway management all contribute to delay and unreliable traffic flow.  Efforts to reduce congestion that preserve accessibility, be it through transit or management or compact development or robot cars, still reduce the costs of congestion without reducing the benefits of popularity.

PROPOSITION TWO: Our current focus on transportation networks is misplaced and ignores the effects of congestion on individuals and firms.

Taylor is correct to point out that freeways should not be the sole focus of anti-congestion efforts, as much of a typical trip is non-freeway travel.  But, congestion is a problem on local/collector/arterial streets as well as freeways.  To me, this observation suggests that we should broaden our conception of congestion and the transportation network, not that we should accept congestion as an insignificant component of travel.

PROPOSITION THREE: Automobiles are central to metropolitan life, and efforts to manage congestion must accept this fact.

The utility of private cars, especially in the inaccurate marketplace we have now, is undeniable.  But even with the costs of auto travel internalized, this utility will remain. Experience shows that drivers adapt to pricing, in line with the utility Taylor identifies.  However, Taylor goes on to use auto dominance to dismiss the notion that expanding transportation options can reduce congestion. This defeatist mindset becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

PROPOSITION FOUR: Short-lived congestion relief through capacity expansion is not proof that adding capacity is a bad idea.
PROPOSITION FIVE: The effects of latent/induced demand are not confined to capacity expansion.

Here, Taylor attempts to simultaneously promote auto-focused roadway expansion while downplaying multi-modal capacity expansion.  He concedes that expanding freeways does little to meaningfully reduce congestion, since the capacity is quickly filled from latent demand.  He goes on to claim that the increase in accessibility is still a benefit.  I disagree that there is a meaningful increase in accessibility, especially if capacity is added to an already existing route. Moreover, it is still inaccurate to promote capacity addition by claiming congestion or air quality benefits - a claim that is frequently made.

Taylor goes on to point out that effective capacity expansion via other methods, such as better management or multi-modal service, is also subject to the re-filling effects of latent demand.   This is a great point, and one that is not often acknowledged.  However, these capacity increases are usually much less costly, environmentally damaging, and generally have less negative externalities than adding lane-miles to roadways. Additionally, expanding the capacity or performance of multi-modal options has beneficial effects on the transportation market landscape in a way that more lane-miles doesn’t.

PROPOSITION SIX: Changing land use patterns in an attempt to change travel behavior is a very long-term endeavor.

Absolutely true, and it’s good to keep in mind when promoting land use changes.  But even slow changes have to start sometime.  And while regional effects will take a long time to materialize, local changes to land use happen constantly.

PROPOSITION SEVEN: Compact development is correlated with more walking and transit use, but the nature of this relationship is not completely understood.

It is true that correlation is not causation, and is always important to keep in mind.  But even if circumstances make causality difficult to discern, there is causation somewhere.  Research and real-world experimentation are necessary to discover the underlying relationships.  That being said, I absolutely appreciate Taylor’s sentiment.  The relationship between urban form, sociodemographics, economics, and travel are complex and do not simply reduce down to “denser is better.”  Even if the exact relationships are not yet clear, it’s important that we acknowledge that these factors do affect travel in some way, and that we design mindfully.

PROPOSITION EIGHT: The best way to get more people to walk and ride transit is by making driving slow, uncertain, and expensive.

This is, again, a wonderfully radical way to think about congestion.  But this would be a very hard sell to the public as a way of increasing transit and active transportation use.  There’s a case to be made that as urban designers, we should be focused on helping to increase access and expand mobility options by enhancing the performance of alternatives.  Moreover, even the slowest, most uncertain, and expensive driving network does not help increase transit without a good transit system in place to begin with.  Additionally, most transit in America uses the same roads as drivers and must deal with the same congestion.

PROPOSITION NINE: Compact development—whether in older, central city areas, or in newer, outlying areas—increases congestion.

This is my favorite of Taylor’s propositions, and is strongly related to the seventh and eighth propositions.  It is both intuitive and counter-intuitive.  It reminds me that compact development, on it’s own, does not fight congestion.  It’s also worth remembering that fighting congestion, on it’s own, is not the only proposed benefit to compact development.

That being said, the measure of “travel distance per residential acre” is novel and pretty worldview-altering, in my opinion.  I’ve always thought about trip reduction on a per-trip distance basis, but this is different.

“Put simply, vehicle travel decreases more slowly than population density increases, and congestion is the result.”

This is a very astute observation.  However, many of the policy approaches for reducing congestion: better transportation alternatives, better land use mixes, etc. aim to reduce vehicle travel (while maintaining overall accessibility) and become more feasible as population density increases.  Thereby addressing both sides of the “congestion” equation.

PROPOSITION TEN: Absent some form of congestion/parking pricing, development patterns congruent with private vehicle use offer the best chance for land use planning to reduce congestion.

Absolutely, we must design in harmony with private vehicles – but that does not mean a blind pursuit of their every need, nor does it mean neglecting alternatives.

Conclusion

Taken together, Taylor’s propositions present a dramatic rethinking of the role of congestion in the complex system that is the transportation network. Though I take issue with some of Taylor’s assertions, I appreciate the article’s effort to broaden the discussion around a topic that is often approached single-mindedly and receives little critical thought.

Thanks to John Dornoff for editing this post. 

Review of Eric Jaffe's article

“The End of Federal Transportation Funding as we know it” provides historic information about the United States’ transportation systems. Many of today’s current challenges stem from the growing costs of transportation but it also covers the top down approach that has led to vague priorities and little direction for the future of transportation. The article addresses the debate over funding and whether or not the federal government should be a player.

The argument for decentralization states that road networks are very local and transportation needs are unique to every location. Engagement from state and local government allow for variation and effective modes of transit that meet the local needs. In addition, money generated within a state circulates more directly to its place of origin. Through referendums, state and local municipalities have found a way to generate the necessary funds to pay for projects.

Advocates for centralization focus on the importance of historical funding, and the necessary coordination for maintaining and creating infrastructure. In addition, there is a national interest in transportation, it is a basic service that some believe should be provided to everyone. A criticism about state and local funding is that it usually involves an increase in sales tax, which can be a backward approach. The backlash is that such projects have the potential to threaten transportation equity. These projects tend to maintain highways while leaving rail and public transportation with less funding and less importance. Federal involvement ensures that areas experiencing high rates of poverty will still receive the necessary money for its transportation needs.

Ideas of reform are addressed at the end of the article. Government funding is beneficial and much needed but a top down approach must change. The author uses Canada as an example where the state and local government take the lead on transportation projects with the help of federal money. Other ideas involve competitive funding and subsidies for successful projects. While the article tackles the issue of reducing central authority while increasing state engagement as well as maintaining roadways, it does not address social factors that contribute to current challenges.

There are many cultural beliefs that encourage Americans to drive cars instead of utilizing public transit; the conversation must incorporate an analysis of these attitudes in order to change to behaviors. Creating solutions involves acknowledging such behaviors that translate into costs and avoiding them. Instead of encouraging funding for freeways, both federal and local governments should provide competitive incentives for mass transit. Transportation equity needs to become a key player, a driving force that ensures the availability and stability of public mobility. The approach to transportation problems must include both social and political factors that shape the future of the United States’ mobility. 

Student reviewer for this post was Yunemi Jang.

Reading Responses

Another option for a blog post is to respond to assigned readings. Reading response posts should include the briefest of synopses followed by your commentary. Be sure to mention the title and author of the reading. These can be posted at any time