Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Different Take on the TTI

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Via Newmark’s Door comes a different way to look at the numbers in the Texas Transportation Institute numbers. The post, from Prof. Peter Gordon, is very direct, but here’s the point and thrust:

1. Traffic congestion is a no-brainer; it is the default rationing mechanism because politicians are reluctant to price access. 2. It is remarkable how good traffic conditions are in spite of the policy failures; average journey-to-work times in the largest U.S. metros were less than 28 minutes at last census count (for solo auto trips). 3. These good news are explained by flexible land markets; most employers and employees find ways to locate within reasonable distances of each other. 4. The TTI index misses this phenomenon because it is constructed from metro area-wide average conditions; most traffic relief is found by relocations away from the metro area’s most congested parts. 5. Planners want to shut down this safety valve by increasing land use controls, making land markets less flexible. 6. New transit projects cause increased highway congestion because they take money away from road construction. California has pioneered this approach.

Now loop back to #2 on this list.

“Flexible land markets.” I like the sound of that.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

4 responses to “A Different Take on the TTI”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Flexible land markets.” I like the sound of that.

    =

    Abolish zoning.

    Terrifies the business as usual crowd.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Traffic congestion is a no-brainer; it is the default rationing mechanism because politicians are reluctant to price access.”

    Bingo. Congested areas are not charging for, or paying, for their full locational costs.

    “These good news are explained by flexible land markets; most employers and employees find ways to locate within reasonable distances of each other…….most traffic relief is found by relocations away from the metro area’s most congested parts.”

    Bingo. I noticed that a new Tractor Supply store saved me around 400 miles this year. If I worked at the store it would have saved me a lot more miles.

    “Planners want to shut down this safety valve by increasing land use controls, making land markets less flexible.”

    Bingo. How we ever got sold on the idea that we can reduce congestion by increasing density should become a case study in marketing 101.

    “New transit projects cause increased highway congestion….” Winston has shown that rail projects generally have a net negative social cost — believe it or not. Here we have the same information from another source.

    RH

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Flexible land markets are a key part of a market-based solution to congestion. But only a part. You also need to charge businesses and households their location-variable costs, otherwise you will get more scattered, expensive-to-serve development than a truly free market would call for.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “otherwise you will get more scattered, expensive-to-serve development than a truly free market would call for.”

    I don’t know what more scattered means. More scattered than what?

    You would guess that there are some equilibriums in development densities that work best. I’d appreciate seeing some studies (without a dog in the fight) where people have tried to identify them.

    I contend that the less scattered places are more likely not to pay their full locational costs, but I can’t prove it. The state enticed VW to move to Fairfax. Does that suggest that otherwise the locational costs would have been too high?

    Consider the steam pipe explosion in New York. That pipe was “efficient” in that it was sharing space with other infrastructure. But when it failed it took out all the surounding infrastructure too, even killing one person. What was the real locational cost?

    Fairfax has been exporting its housing costs for years. Who should pay the locational costs that resulted from Fairfax policies (and luck)? You gonna now change the rules to charge households that reacted to previous rules, regulations, and costs? Or do you send the bill to Fairfax and say, hey, you guys need to pay up.

    If you do that, how will the market react? Even more businesses and residences will flee Fairfax until we reach a condition closer to balance.

    Even if we are able to determine what the most “efficient” settlement pattern is, what is the guarantee that anyone would want to live in it?

    ——

    I think the whole point of this post is that TTI is telling us, look, we have all these preconceived notions, and conventional wisdom, but they are mostly wrong.

    Now, if you had said “You also need to charge businesses and households their location-variable costs, otherwise you could get either development that is expensive to serve because it is either too scatterd or too dense than a truly free market would call for.”, then I would have no argument.

    I just don’t think we know which it is, or maybe it’s both.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More