DRIVEN APART — FINALLY

For the last three decades Billions of dollars have been spent on traffic congestion “solutions.” These ‘solutions’ are based on conventional wisdom and validated by the annual Texas A&M / Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) annual Urban Mobility Report (UMR.)

Every year for three decades Urban traffic congestion has grown worse and settlement patterns have become more dysfunctional – not just from a traffic congestion perspective but from a broad range of economic, social and physical parameters.

In April of 2003 SYNERGY published a PowerPoint “The Physics of Gridlock” which demonstrates why the basic perspectives upon which UMR is based generate more and more congestion and perpetuate the Mobility and Access Crisis. An updated version is available on The Shape of the Future, 4th Printing CD.

On 20 September 2004 SYNERGY published Column 39 “Spinning Data, Spinning Wheels” that catalogued problems with UMR. This column is available on the RESOURCE page at www.emrisse.com

Every column, report and post by SYNERGY that has addressed the Mobility and Access Crisis since 2004 has quoted these two sources.

And every year more Billions are plowed into infrastructure designed to overcome congestion but in fact making it worse – as documented by UMR.

NOW, finally, someone has put together enough money (from the Rockefeller Foundation) and enough talent (from CEOs for Cities – aka Enterprise Chief Executive Officers for Urban Regions) to expose UMR for what it is.

DRIVEN APART: How Sprawl (aka, dysfunctional human settlement patterns) is Lengthening Our Commutes and Why Misleading Mobility Measures are Making Things Worse.” http://www.ceosforcities.org/work/driven-apart

DRIVEN APART does not directly address the issues raised by SYNERGY, it attacks the core congestion index – the Travel Time Index. However, anyone who has understood anything SYNERGY has published since 1988 will understand the mutually supportive relationship between the problems with TTI’s TTI (sic) and the SYNERGY perspective.

How big is the change documented by DRIVEN APART?

Among the largest 51 New Urban Regions in the US the change is dramatic.

The Core of the Richmond New Urban Region goes from 44th worst congested due to settlement pattern dysfunction to number FOUR.

The Core of the National Capital SubRegion goes from 2nd worst in the US to 14th worst. The Cores of Chicago, New York and San Francisco New Urban Regions all improve dramatically. Even Houston goes from 4th worst to 12th worst.

These are not ‘good’ scores. Everyone agrees there is a Mobility and Access Crisis.

The key reality is that what has been done to solve the problem in fact makes it worse. The reasons are very clear if one understand human settlement pattern dynamics.

The exec summary is 24 pages but is only a 4 page read – a lot of big print and repeats.

Read it and weep.

Post Script: Several readers requested that the irrelevant comments by ‘hydra’ be deleted.

Later they changed their minds and requested that this note be added at the end of the post:

“Please read the comment on this topic by ‘Concerned Readers.’”

Since the Litmus Test criteria for removing irrelevant comments are not yet finalized, this seemed like a good comprise.

EMR

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “DRIVEN APART — FINALLY”

  1. "Driven Apart ranks how long residents in the nation’s largest 51 metropolitan areas spend in peak hour traffic, and in some cases the rankings are almost the opposite of those listed in the 2009 Urban Mobility Report.

    For instance, the UMR depicts Chicago as having some of the worst travel delays, when it actually has the shortest time spent in peak hour traffic of any major US metro area…"

    ================================

    Oh, for crying out loud. Of course they are different, they are using two completely different measurements.

    The facts on the ground have not changed, and neither should the conclusions drawn from them.

    The urban mobility report measures traffic delays, which is defined as the difference between the time in peak travel and the time the same trip would take absent any traffic. You could have a long commute in distance, and therefore spend more time on the road during peak hours, and still have very little DELAY as measured in the urban mobility report.

    You would hae a long commute, but you wopuld be MORE MOBILE, not less mobile than soemoen else who spends and equivalent amount of time traveling less distance.

    C'mon Ed, you know better than that. The idea is to make things more clear, and more truthful, not more obfuscated.

  2. Groveton Avatar

    I don't know Doc…

    Roughly spoeaking – It's better to live in the building where you work than to drive long distances down empty roads at high rates of speed?

    That's what I got out of the executive summary.

    If that's the point – I hope they didn't spend a lot of money developing that point. And I certainly hope they didn't spend any Virginia tax money on the study. 'Cause I'd hate to have to call the Cooch on them!

    I'll definitely try to read more than the first few pages. However, I am convinced that not driving as many miles is better than driving faster.

    I just wonder why the political process in one place (like Chicago) works while the political process in another place (like Nashville) does not.

    Finally, the data about Richmond and Washington were interesting. Since Richmond is much less congested than Washington (and, I assume Northern Virginia is less congested than Richmond) – we ought to get an unfair amount of transportation funds. After all, when RoVa needs money for education NoVa supplies a lot of the money because we operate on a needs based allocation system. Since NoVa needs transportation money more than Richmond – I assume we'll get the lion's share of the money for the same reason.

    Well, maybe after the re-districting anyway.

  3. "Because this methodology does not take into account travel distances, it universally rewards cities that are spread out as opposed to compact urban areas."

    ===============================

    It is incorrect to say that it does not take into account travel distance. What is correct is that efficiency is figured differently. The UMR makes no judgement as to the efficiency of travel except as measured by DELAY in travel. The assumption is that if you are making a trip beteen two endpoints, whatever the distance, you have sufficient reason to make that trip. It is not their position to question your reasoning or motivation, but ONLY whether you are able to make the trip efficiently: without delay.

    UMR makes no reward to the cities, they get nothing out of it, except a little advertizing which says "Everything else (travel distance) equal you will be able to get around here easier and with less aggravation than in other places.

    It does not say that traveling farther will save you money, only that no matter what distance you choose to travel, it will cost less (in delays) some places than others.

    The argument made by CEOs seems to be that traveling less time (and less distance) is always good and always saes you money, which is simply not true.

  4. Larry G Avatar

    I am thinking more about the primary metric of reducing congestion and the travel time index that seems to be the gold standard for transportation planners.

    Reducing congestion – no matter the cause of it – does miss the point.

    It's as if we characterize congestion as only one thing with one cause and that we should attack it as the enemy of mobility and access.

    Transportation planners will admit if questioned that controlled congestion is a strategy and that while traffic signals render any roadway LOS F when the light is RED that it is "okay" because congestion on one side of the light to allow throughput on the GREEN side is a necessary condition.

    The same is true when the timing of multiple sequential lights is implemented.

    It does no good for a light to turn GREEN if the next light is RED to let side traffic in.

    So the lights COORDINATE so as to alternate the congestion in a way that reduces chaos rather than create it.

    But I digress.

    reducing congestion no matter the cause of it is expensive business.

    For instance, replacing a traffic signal with a grade-separated intersection (and interchange) can cost 30, 40, 50 million dollars but what good is it if it merely speeds you to the next RED light or traffic backup?

    and that's exactly the kind of thing you get into in an urbanizing region.

    if we measured net regional congestion at any point in time but especially so at rush hour and then we modeled an improvement on any part of that network – what would be the net result?

    would your overall trip be any shorter even though the part of it with the improvement got better?

    That's the futility of building improvements to reduce congestion.

    While it may not be money thrown away – the bang for the buck is abysmal… and it pretty much explains why VDOT will tell you that they have a 100 billion dollar backlog.

    YEP.

    If you want to reduce the REGIONAL CONGESTION in the NOVA area at peak travel times.. you're gonna need a bunch of money – that we do not have ad have no prospect of getting.

    This is why many transportation planners are heading in the opposite direction and putting a price on a less congestion trip – i.e. congestion pricing.

    They'll give you a more reliable, less congested trip – for a price – but there is not enough money in Timbuktu to get everyone a less congested, more reliable trip – at rush hour.

    and a hat tip to EMR.

    He's right also – reducing congestion for a transit bus with 50 people on it is a way different thing than reducing congestion for a solo-driven car on a 50 mile commute to the exurbs.

  5. Driven Apart suggests new metrics that focus on trip distances and total travel …….because they point to a broader and more powerful set of public policy options for dealing with urban transportation problems.

    ==================================

    Translated as "Lets invent something (which is partially untrue) that will give us more power and control over what people can do and are allowed to do. Screw freedom and liberty.

  6. "Reducing congestion – no matter the cause of it – does miss the point."

    =============================

    Jesus, if your travel time is not increased and you suffer no delays, then you don't have any congestion.

    You may (or may not) have a long trip, but that is a separate issue. And that trip may or may not be worth it, depending on not only the lenght of the trip, but the delays encountered and the VALUE of the trip.

  7. "However, I am convinced that not driving as many miles is better than driving faster."

    ================================

    As a first principle, yes.

    But it also depends on what it costs to move those destinations closer. All of them, and all closer to all of the others.

    This is a classic many body problem that can only be solved partially and only within certain boundaries.

    At some point it no longer matters if the distance is shorter, if you cannot get from here to there.

  8. "So the lights COORDINATE so as to alternate the congestion in a way that reduces chaos rather than create it."

    ==================================
    Sometimes chaos works better. Sometimes you trade traffic chaos for the chaos of attempting to coordinate too many signals. When disorganization and lack of control or power results in lower costs, then giving up control and power is a viable option.

  9. if we measured net regional congestion at any point in time but especially so at rush hour and then we modeled an improvement on any part of that network – what would be the net result?

    ================================

    I'm willing to bet the cheapest and most durable solution is to take part of that traffic and move it someplace else: create new satring points and new destinations that do not interfere stochastically. Consider shells of electrons, just like EMRs radius bands. Each shell can contain only so many electrons, because they interfere with each other, at some pint you have to make a quantum jump to the next shell out.

    Consider these to be the urban support regions. Their energy helps bound, and sustain the dense central nucleus at the same time the nucleus keeps the electrons from flying off.

  10. "If you want to reduce the REGIONAL CONGESTION in the NOVA area at peak travel times.. you're gonna need a bunch of money – that we do not have ad have no prospect of getting."

    =================================
    Oh yeah?

    How did Arizona get all that money?

    You are going to spend a bunch of money if you do nothing about congestion.

    It is a classic trade off, of the sort TC = PC +EC + GC.

    The question isn't whether this is going to cost money, it is how wisely you spend the money you choose to spend.

    You can choose to spend money doing nothing, but it is hard to make progress that way.

    This isn;t a question of spending money: it is a question of WHOSE money, HOW MUCH money, and WHAT WE GET (property rights) in return.

  11. "This is why many transportation planners are heading in the opposite direction and putting a price on a less congestion trip – i.e. congestion pricing."

    ==============================

    You trust transportation planners to set the price, or the market to set the price?

    If you tax something (congestion charge), you get less of it. This is an incentive for people to go someplace else (among other possible options), and as such it is the exact opposite of what you need to do to promote a denser style of living.

    In order to make this desrieable it needs to be less expensive, more convenient, safer and more pleasant, and offer more opportuinties.

    What urban area achieves that? Name one.

    Why do they exist, then?

    Urban areas do offer relatively more opportunites than the near countryside, but in a global economy that may not be an overarching advantage. At this point, a main reason they still exist is because it takes so long for them to fall apart. Urban dwellers today are mining the capital and ifrastructure that was built and paid for during the industrial revolution.

  12. I'll bet every one of thsoe CEO's has a rural or exurban estate.

    If they don't they are just waiting until some county supervisor (like mine) goes out of his way to make one available to them at a deep discount.

    Since no city has managed to make itself less expensive, safer and more convenient, the way you promote urban living and shorter commutes is to restrict everything outside the urban growth boundary, which precisely plays into the hands of the big developers TMT claims are getting handouts.

    What is going on is an absolute marvel of Newspeak.

  13. Larry G Avatar

    " I'm willing to bet the cheapest and most durable solution is to take part of that traffic and move it someplace else"

    ha ha ha ha ha

    for how many urban regions in the US ..????

    All of THEM?

    Each Urban region pretty much as the same problem and that is that peak hour has congestion and there is no reasonable way to build out of it – such that you get a net regional improvement.

    METRO could easily have a similar problem.

    Most of these systems were never designed to optimize regionally… or holistically.

  14. Larry G Avatar

    " This is an incentive for people to go someplace else (among other possible options), and as such it is the exact opposite of what you need to do to promote a denser style of living. "

    that's not true I don't think.

    does density lead to less congestion?

    I don't think so.

    you still get the congestion but the travel time is shorter if you live closer to work- no?

  15. Larry G Avatar

    the further you drive – you longer it takes and the more resources it takes.

    Ask any truck driver.

  16. “The key role of sprawling development patterns in driving peak period traffic and the limitations of the Urban Mobility Report underscore the need for a much improved system for measuring and comparing the performance of urban transportation systems.

    =================================

    You gotta love this kind of salesmanship based on lazy thinking.

    Sure, we need better measurement systems, I'll agree with that, outright.

    But if you preface it with the idea that sprawling development patterns are key to the problem, then what do you need the measurements for?

    You already decided the answer. there is a logical fallcy for this, where you preface something obvious with something ridiculous so that the ridiculous appears true by association: anyone know the name of that one?

  17. the further you drive – you longer it takes and the more resources it takes — and the more money you make

    Ask any truck driver.

    It is equally fallcious for UMR to deny distancce as it is for the CEO's to deny value. Either way you hold a variable constant, when it really isn't.

    It is a many body problem, and all the principal players vary.

  18. Larry G Avatar

    when you charge people by the mile – they pay more attention.

    when you charge them by the mile but increase the charge at rush hour – they pay even more attention.

    If we charge people for a less congested trip – a more reliable trip – how many are willing to pay a higher fee for that?

    The doctor that needs to see a patient or the lawyer that needs to go to closing or the mom that needs to get home for the kids birthday?

    how about the guy who needs to get home so he can fatten up on popcorn before dinner?

    or the guy who decides he needs his favorite pizza at the height of rush hour?

    you see – we ALREADY PAY for congestion.

    The doctor and lawyer have to leave 2 hours early just to make sure they are on time.

    Mom..takes 1/2 day off of work to make sure she can do her thing.

    and the popcorn and pizza guys… ??? well.. neither of them are going to pay for less congestion… or a more reliable trip.. they'll just wait.

  19. that's not true I don't think.

    does density lead to less congestion?

    I don't think so.

    ================================

    We are in violent agreement. If you charge people to go where it is congested, they will go someplace else. This is no way to promote denser living patterns.

  20. Larry G Avatar

    re: " the further you drive – you longer it takes and the more resources it takes — and the more money you make"

    that's not true.

    it might be true for SOME people but it's not true for others and it's certainly not true at rush hour.

    truckers avoid the DC area like the plague when they have a time-sensitive delivery.

  21. you see – we ALREADY PAY for congestion.

    =================================

    Exactly what I said, and exactly how UMR calculates the cost. The CEOs have not said how they will caclulate the cost of moving all those staring points and destinations, or how they will decide which ones are valuable and necessary.

    It is only a question of WHO pays and WHAT they get in return.

    Property rights.

  22. that's not true.

    it might be true for SOME people

    ================================

    Talk to the truck drivers. It is true for all of them.

    There might have been some for whom it was not true, but they are out of business or will be soon.

    Truck drivers have a reason for their trip and it is the rate at which they get paid. When the rate goes down, a lot of truck drivers park their rig.

    It is the exact same for everyone else. You don't make a trip you cnnot afford. You do not make a trip for no reason. You do not make a trip unless the reason for the trip is more valuable than the trip.

    That is why homes in the boonies dropped in value as the price of fuel went up. The drivers "parked their rigs" because the trip was no longer wrth the tariff paid.

    Right now, you can still by a big truck, dirt cheap, but it won't last much longer.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Truckes avoid DC like the plague…

    What do they do when there is a time sensitive delivery in DC?

    Either way, SOMEONE pays the price. If we had better metrics, we would know who, and how much.

  23. Google announced Sunday that it has developed cars that drive themselves automatically in traffic, and that it has been testing them on the streets of California for months.

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    By Concerned Readers:

    We requested that irrelevant comments by ‘hydra’ be deleted.

    After further consideration it was determined that the “hydra” comments themselves make it clear why they are irrelevant, and as MGM noted akin to stink bugs.

    Almost as soon as the note on “Driven Apart” was posted, ‘hydra’ said”

    “Oh, for crying out loud. Of course they are different, they are using two completely different measurements.”

    Yes and that is just what both Driven Apart and Professor Risse said.

    The whole point is that the criteria are different and the wrong criteria are being used to determine how to improve the Mobility and Access infrastructure.

    If you do not get it, you do not get it.

    It is interesting to see ‘hydra’ has found an employer in Arizona who pays him by the word to obfuscate on blogs about issues that he does not understand.

    CRS

Leave a Reply