Composite Traffic Congestion Index Shows Richmond Best Newgeography.com

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Composite Traffic Congestion Index Shows Richmond Best Newgeography.com"

Morgan Carr
5 years ago
Views:

July 23, 2014 Last Update: 07/23/2014 Search Blog Contact Contributors : About the Site Archive HOME ECONOMICS POLITICS URBAN ISSUES SMALL CITIES DEMOGRAPHICS SUBURBS HOUSING PLANNING 2014 BEST

1 July 23, 2014 Last Update: 07/23/2014 Search Blog Contact Contributors : About the Site Archive HOME ECONOMICS POLITICS URBAN ISSUES SMALL CITIES DEMOGRAPHICS SUBURBS HOUSING PLANNING 2014 BEST CITIES RANKING COMPOSITE TRAFFIC CONGESTION INDEX SHOWS RICHMOND BEST by Wendell Cox 06/19/2014 It is important that traffic congestion be controlled sufficiently to facilitate a more competitive metropolitan economy. Each year, three organizations produce traffic congestion reports, Tom Tom, INRIX and the Texas Transportation Institute of Texas A&M University (TTI). These reports use different methods to estimate the excess time lost in traffic congestion during peak travel periods (morning and evening week day "rush hours"). SUBSCRIBE TO NG ARTICLES Subscribe to Articles feed Or, get articles by NewGeography.com is a joint venture of Joel Kotkin and Praxis Strategy Group FEATURED CONTENT The excess travel time is estimated relative to the travel time that would be expected if there were no congestion (if all traffic were free

2 flowing). Economists caution that achieving free flow conditions at all times would require excessive investment. Yet, the standard metric used by the three indexes are useful for comparing the intensity of traffic congestion between metropolitan areas even without knowing the level at which economic efficiency is optimized. There is generally strong correlation between the three indexes, though there are important differences. For example, the TTI report uses data from INRIX, yet agrees with INRIX on only six of the most congested 11 US major metropolitan areas (over 1 million population). The most substantial difference is in San Francisco, which INRIX (and Tom Tom) ranked as the second most congested major metropolitan area, far worse than the TTI ranking of 20th. The findings from the three traffic congestion indexes are synthesized into a composite congestion index in this article. Because the TTI's latest index is 2011, composite index covers 2011 through 2013 (for methodology, see Note 1). Worst Traffic Congestion in The "10 worst traffic congestion" list includes some of the largest metropolitan areas, those with the highest urban population densities and a few smaller metropolitan areas with special traffic congestion inducing conditions (Figure 1). View all subjects ADVERTISEMENT Los Angeles has the worst traffic congestion in each of the three indexes (44.4% excess travel time). This is consistent with the now 30 year history of TTI, which has typically shown Los Angeles to have the worst traffic congestion. This is not surprising, since Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the nation, ahead of second place San Francisco by 10 percent and New York by 30 percent. Traffic congestion has been made worse by cancellation of planned freeways and freeway segments in the Los Angeles area, such as the Beverly Hills Freeway, the Slauson Freeway, the Reseda Freeway, the La Cienega Route 170 freeway, the South Pasadena "missing link" and others (Note 2). Austin ranked second in traffic congestion (34.5%). This may be surprising, since Austin is not

3 among the largest major metropolitan areas, though it is among the fastest growing. In the middle 1950s, when the final plans for the interstate freeway system were completed, Austin was much smaller and only a single interstate route was justified. Later, opposition to freeway development led to increased congestion. In more recent years the Austin freeway system has been augmented by new toll roads, though roadway improvements have not been sufficient to deal with the rapidly rising demand. Not surprisingly, San Francisco (34.4%), with the second highest urban density among major metropolitan areas, ranked third in traffic congestion. New York (33.4%), with its higher than average density and dense core area ranked fourth in traffic congestion. Seattle ranked fifth (32.4%), despite its somewhat lower urban density. Seattle's long and relatively narrow north-south urban form and modest north-south freeway capacity is an important contributor to its intense traffic congestion. As in the case of Los Angeles, some planned freeways were canceled, which has also exacerbated traffic congestion. San Jose is a smaller major metropolitan area, yet has the sixth worst traffic congestion in the nation (32.2%). There are two principal contributing factors, its proximity to much larger San Francisco and the third highest urban density of the major metropolitan areas, 10 percent above New York. Washington (31.3%) and Boston (29.7%) have the seventh and eighth worst traffic congestion respectively. In each case, core areas have little freeway capacity (in part because of freeway cancellations in both cities). Houston, which had the worst traffic congestion the nation during the middle 1980s, now ranks much better, at ninth (28.3%). Houston's improvement has occurred because of the roadway expansions opened concurrent with some of the fastest population growth in the high income world over the past three decades. Portland, like San Jose and Austin is not among the larger major metropolitan areas. Yet Portland ranked 10th in traffic congestion (28.2%). Portland's policies, such as densification, have

4 contributed to this; these include a cancelled freeway and a preference for light rail over highway capacity expansion. According to the TTI index, Portland has seen its peak period congestion ranking rise from 47th worst (out of 100) in the middle 1980s to 6th worst in RECENT BLOG POSTS Demographia City Sector Maps Available New York City Net Domestic Migration Losses Improving Beijing Gigacity to Cover Area of Cambodia or Oklahoma Circling the Brain Drain IMF's Lagarde: Build on Greenfield Land Thrive 2040: Toward a Less Competitive Minneapolis-St. Paul Thomas Sowell Explains the Economics of Urban Containment (Smart Growth) The Monuments of Gentry Liberals in Chicago: White Students Dominate the Test-Admittance Public Schools Time Magazine Gets it Wrong on the Suburbs The Economist Indicts Urban Containment "Fat Cats" more NEW BOOK Joel Kotkin's

Least Traffic Congestion in 2011-2013 The major metropolitan areas with lower levels of congestion tend generally to be smaller and to have lower urban population densities (Figure 2).

Kansas City had the second least traffic congestion (10.9%), while nearly stagnant growth Rochester (11.5%) and Cleveland (12.9%) ranked third and fourth.

7%), while slower growing Memphis ranked ninth (14.1%). Indianapolis (14.4%), one of the few Midwestern metropolitan areas growing faster than average, has the 10th lowest traffic congestion level.

5 Least Traffic Congestion in The major metropolitan areas with lower levels of congestion tend generally to be smaller and to have lower urban population densities (Figure 2). Richmond is the least congested major metropolitan area in the nation (8.7%), and has experienced growth since 2000 that is greater than average. Kansas City had the second least traffic congestion (10.9%), while nearly stagnant growth Rochester (11.5%) and Cleveland (12.9%) ranked third and fourth. Faster growing Salt Lake City ranked fifth (13.3%). Population losing Buffalo ranked sixth (13.5%) edged out seventh ranked and slow growing St. Louis (13.5%). Faster growing Oklahoma City ranked eighth (13.7%), while slower growing Memphis ranked ninth (14.1%). Indianapolis (14.4%), one of the few Midwestern metropolitan areas growing faster than average, has the 10th lowest traffic congestion level. more at Amazon. new book The New Class Conflict is now available for pre-order at Amazon. Find out Authored by Aaron Renn, The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Download

6 Millennial Majority, the new book from Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Traffic Congestion and Density The connection between higher levels of traffic congestion and higher urban population densities has been documented in various analyses (also here). The traffic congestion index confirms that metropolitan areas with higher urban densities generally have more intense traffic congestion (Figure 3). Obviously, there are other factors that contribute to traffic congestion, not least the insufficient provision of highway capacity. This is evidenced by growing Dallas-Fort Worth and Phoenix, where state and local officials have provided substantial increases in highway capacity. Traffic congestion index shows Dallas-Fort Worth to have only the 16th worst traffic congestion and Phoenix to have the 33rd worst traffic congestion (out of the 52 major metropolitan areas). Greater employment dispersion can also be an important factor. The data for each of the major metropolitan areas is in the Table. ADVERTISEMENT Advertise here RECENT POPULAR CONTENT America Down But Not Out Showing the Flag: The Transit Policy Failure Largest World Cities: 2014 A Tale of 273 Cities Long Island Needs Regionalism Why Are There So Many Murders in Chicago? World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update Is Perestroika Coming In California? more MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update Root Causes of the Financial Crisis: A Primer Sprawl Beyond Sprawl: America Moves to Smaller Metropolitan Areas Louvre Café Syndrome:

7 World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update Root Causes of the Financial Crisis: A Primer Sprawl Beyond Sprawl: America Moves to Smaller Metropolitan Areas Louvre Café Syndrome: Misunderstanding Amsterdam and America America is More Small Town than We Think RECOMMENDED BOOKS Composite Traffic Congestion Index: Excess Travel Time: Peak Periods Rank Metropolitan Areas Index 1 Los Angeles Austin San Francisco New York Seattle San Jose Washington Boston Houston Portland 28.2 The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 By Joel Kotkin - Available Now The City: A Global History by Joel Kotkin Why is construction so backward? Co-authored by Ian Abley Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking

8 11 Miami Chicago Philadelphia Atlanta Denver Dallas-Fort Worth San Diego Baltimore Nashville Minneapolis & St. Paul Tampa-St. Petersburg Charlotte New Orleans Orlando Virginia Beach Riverside-San Bernardino Pittsburgh Sacramento San Antonio Hartford Cincinnati Las Vegas Phoenix Detroit Providence Columbus Milwaukee Jacksonville 15.7 America by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life by Wendell Cox Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited by Matthew Stevenson An April Across America By Matthew Stevenson BLOGROLL AND PARTNER SITES Burgh Diaspora Center for Economic Research and Forecasting China Urban Development Blog Chris Bradford - Austin Contrarian Demographia Design New Haven Houston Strategies LA Observed Labor Lou Siegel Multiplier Effect: Levy Economics Institute

9 39 Birmingham Raleigh Louisville Indianapolis Memphis Oklahoma City St. Louis Buffalo Salt Lake City Cleveland Rochester Kansas City Richmond 8.7 Derived from Tom Tom, INRIX and Texas Transportation Institute data Traffic Congestion and Economic Growth While there are different interpretations of the appropriate standard for traffic congestion, there is no question but that less traffic congestion benefits a metropolitan area's competitiveness. Because traffic congestion increases travel times, it necessarily reduces the share of a metropolitan area's (labor market) jobs that can be reached by the average employee. A considerable body of research associates greater access (measured in time) with improved economic performance and job creation Note 1: The index represents the average excess travel time estimate of the three NDN New America Foundation: Economic Growth Newsalert Politico Top Stories Second Shelters Technology and the City The Cost of Energy The Electoral Map The Rural Blog The Urbanophile The Washington Note Patrick.net - Housing Crash Joel Kotkin Praxis Strategy Group American Association of Retirement Communities more USER LOGIN Username: * Password: * Create new account Request new password

10 0 sources. For each source, each metropolitan area's excess travel time is converted to a percentage of the metropolitan area with the worst excess travel time. These percentages are then averaged and the final excess travel time estimate is calculated by applying this percentage to the average worst excess travel time for the three sources. But these estimates are based on the TTI travel time index, and the peak hour excess travel time percentages from INRIX and Tom Tom (the Tom Tom figure is obtained by averaging data from the morning and evening peak period). Note 2: I have a personal attachment to the Long Beach Freeway "missing link" in South Pasadena. In the early 1960s my great aunt and her husband were forced to sell their home taken to the California Highway Department for the imminent construction of the roadway. This was the beginning of a decades-long fight to keep the freeway from splitting the city of South Pasadena. In the early 1980s, as a member of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission I was appointed to a special committee chaired by County Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum to make a final route selection between the Caltrans "Meridian" route and the South Pasadena preferred "Westerly Route." Our decision, the result of submittals and hearings, confirmed the Caltrans route, but did nothing to alleviate the South Pasadena opposition. Now, there is the possibility of building a tunnel, which would minimize surface disruption Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy and demographics firm. He is co-author of the "Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey" and author of "Demographia World Urban Areas" and "War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life." He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He was appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council to fill the unexpired term of Governor Christine Todd Whitman and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris. Photo: Richmond (major metropolitan area with the least traffic congestion) by

Bringing Vitality to Main Street How Immigrant Small Businesses Help Local Economies Grow

Bringing Vitality to Main Street How Immigrant Small Businesses Help Local Economies Grow A report of the Fiscal Policy Institute and Americas Society/Council of the Americas Cities with Declining Population