To recap
where I finished my last post, StrongTowns, a land-use planning
advocacy group from Minnesota, will visit Santa Rosa in a couple of weeks. I was disappointed that, after banging the
StrongTowns drum in the North Bay for three years, the urbanists of Petaluma
weren’t included in the planning, but I’d begun assembling a fallback plan.
I’d be encouraging
a solid contingent of Petalumans, along with others from throughout the North
Bay, to gather in Santa Rosa on the evenings of January 19, 20, and 21 to
participate in the StrongTowns public meetings scheduled by
the Santa Rosa organizers. And I was chatting
with StrongTowns about a return trip that would include a StrongTowns event in
Petaluma.
Organizing
the StrongTowns visit to Petaluma would be a fun challenge, but one I could
defer for awhile. The immediate
challenge was getting folks to the StrongTowns meetings in Santa Rosa, both for
the educational value and to build momentum toward a Petaluma event.
To encourage
meeting attendance, I’d try to connect the StrongTowns philosophy to a real-life
North Bay example. I chose the recent
Caltrans construction projects near Petaluma, projects with a total price tag
of nearly $200 million. I suggested that
aliens arriving on earth would be puzzled by the massive and elaborate
engineering works on the edge of a community where the basic infrastructure of
daily life is aging without a reasonable plan to fund the necessary maintenance.
At the same time,
I acknowledged that the big transportation projects usually have a number of
reasonable-sounding justifications offered on their behalf.
My intention
today is to show how most of those arguments blow away like dust when examined
closely.
One note
before I continue. None of my comments
below should be understood as coming from the “StrongTown playbook”, mostly because
there is no StrongTowns playbook.
StrongTowns isn’t about pat answers, but about looking at transportation
decisions and other matters of public policy from a fresh perspective, less
fettered by preconceptions from the past.
What I write
below is the result of my years of personal observations, filtered in recent
years through the new perspectives offered by StrongTowns and other similar organizations. It’s possible that another StrongTowns member
could take a different take to one of my answers below, perhaps offering a more
cogent response.
To
paraphrase a sentiment used by many authors, whatever I get right below is the
result of StrongTowns and other organizations that take similar stances. Whatever I get wrong is on me.
With that
understood, let’s tackle the transportation rationalizations:
Traffic
congestion: “We need more and better freeways because the current freeways
are jammed” is probably the leading justification for new construction. But the problem is that new lanes don’t ease
congestion. Instead, they create more
trips. A typical finding is that half of
any new road capacity is claimed on the day the improvements open, with the
remainder consumed over the next decade even in the absence of population growth
or new development.
The problem
is that we’ve made auto travel sufficiently inexpensive, often by assigning the
actual costs elsewhere instead of to the driver, that there are pent-up trips
waiting to be made when the capacity becomes available. This phenomenon, called “induced traffic” results in congestion
relief being a myth.
Travel
time reductions: The American Society of Civil Engineers is
known for totaling up the hours spent in congestion, multiplying the hours by the
wage the driver would earn if at a desk, and using the sum to argue for more
construction. The problem is that travel
time is the flip side of congestion. If
congestion relief in lost to induced traffic, then travel time reductions disappear
with them.
Traffic safety: It’s true that most freeway construction
projects comply with new and improved safety design standards. It’s also true that traffic deaths have been
declining in the U.S. But correlation
isn’t always causation.
In recent
years, we’ve seen dramatic increases in automobile safety, from airbags to
crash-resistant frames. At the same
time, trauma room practices have been consistently improving, increasing survivability
for crash victims. Sorting out the reduced
deaths between road safety, car safety, and medical practices depends on how
the data is parsed. But the number that
can be attributed to road design safety is certainly less than the total
improvement.
Also, many
observers note, and correctly so, that a primary effect of better roads is drivers
traveling faster and with less attentiveness, both of which increase traffic
risks. No one ever thought of driving a
Model A on a gravel road at 65 mph, much less doing so while texting. In many settings, traffic safety is highest when drivers are
uncomfortable and fully attentive.
The traffic
safety argument wobbles when examined carefully.
Job creation: Construction proponents, particularly
for large projects, often point to the number of construction jobs that would
be created. But the problem is that
spending large amounts of money will always create jobs, no matter what’s being
built. The goal shouldn’t be
construction jobs, but long-term jobs created as a result of the transportation
improvements. And in an economy that is
increasingly based on knowledge and creativity over manufacturing, it’s getting
harder to prove the value of transportation.
Free
money: Many argue that the money for large construction projects, such as
the freeway improvements near Petaluma, are mostly coming from Sacramento and Washington,
D.C., so are “free” to the local communities.
But the contention misses several key points.
While it’s
true that little local incremental funding may be required for a community to
accept the funds, the money certainly isn’t free. Over the years, Petaluma has likely provided $200
million, through income taxes, corporate taxes, and government debt, to a
myriad of similar projects elsewhere, money that could have been more effectively
allocated if it had remained in Petaluma.
Of course,
declining the money now wouldn’t be a good strategy because it wouldn’t put the
$200 million back into the community.
But, while the money should be accepted, smart communities should also (1)
recognize that funds of this sort won’t be available much longer because burgeoning
debt will rob our capacity to keep paying the bills, (2) ask Sacramento and
Washington, D.C. to changing the model so we can wean ourselves, and (3) begin building
towns that doesn’t rely on large transportation infrastructure projects funded with
money vacuumed from our wallets.
Housing:
Some will note that we need freeways because many families can only afford
homes in other communities. While the observation
about the location of affordable housing is often true, the causality is
reversed.
Affordable housing
may not exist in a community because the presence of freeways allowed
communities to provide a limited range of housing options and yet still hire
school teachers, firefighters, and police officers, expecting other communities
to house those people.
If the inexpensive
freeway travel hadn’t been provided, communities would have had to address affordable
housing in a comprehensive, inclusionary approach a half century ago.
I could go
on, but I think the pattern is becoming clear, funding and constructing large
freeway projects is often done because it’s the way we’ve done things as far
back as many of us remember. And many of
us have lost the ability to question whether it’s the right way to do things.
I’m reminded
of a quote from John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower,
“The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with,
but whether it is the same problem you had last year.” Transportation agencies, aided and abetted by
engineers and contractors, have been dealing with the same problem for more than
half a century and yet the problem remains the same year after year.
StrongTowns
tries to tell us why and then suggests different paradigms. We should be listening, starting January 19
in Santa Rosa.
In my next
post, I’ll take a different angle on the StrongTowns organization, citing both
the booklet with which StrongTowns made their first inroads in public awareness
and a podcast that highlights other aspects of StrongTowns.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment