|
 raffic congestion
and population growth/overcrowding rated as top concerns for
San Diegans in a newly announced San Diego Association of Government's
telephone poll. The poll was conducted last November as one component
of our so-called Regional Growth Management Strategy. The poll
responses were compared to a similar poll conducted in 1992.
 Traffic and population growth
pushed crime and gangs to the third spot as the region's primary
problems. Respondents in 1998 were more "likely to favor
planning for growth." Support for actively limiting growth
dropped from 25 percent to 18 percent, while "support for
planning for growth" grew from 58 percent to 68 percent.
(I can't help but wonder what in world the respondents thought
"planning for growth" actually meant.)
Traffic congestion emerged
as a concern throughout the survey. Respondents were also asked
about solutions for relieving congestion during the morning and
afternoon commute periods. One question asked them to allocate
$100 tax dollars to three transportation areas. They chose $37
for freeways, $33 for improving local streets and roads and $30
for public transit. Just over half the respondents said no, they
were not willing to accept higher population densities in their
communities if it meant that there would be less development
in rural areas.
Apparently, San Diegans have
not yet made the connections between traffic congestion and that
popular development pattern, urban sprawl. I don't know about
you, but I know that I wouldn't allocate a single dime without
finding out what would actually matter.
The development of systems
that work to support a high-quality of life in an urban area
requires understanding of complex systems, not just off-the-cuff
pontificating by those stuck in traffic. More than eight out
of ten of the San Diegans polled work outside the home and drive
alone to work. Thirty-four percent commute 30 minutes or more,
up from 29 percent in 1992. Is it any surprise that they would
want more of their money to go toward the problems that seem
most immediate to them?
But manipulating transportation
system performance is both an art and a science and like so many
big bureaucratically controlled systems, more money does not
automatically produce solutions. Oddly enough, more freeway spending
does not get you less traffic. With big money at stake, adherence
to proven standards should be more important than what an average
person happens to think about it, based on their personal experience.
It seems that people think
that higher density means more traffic. In fact, traffic is an
"unnecessary byproduct" of mismanaged growth and bad
design and seems to be a fixture where everyone pursues car-dependent
urban sprawl with continuing population growth. Studies over
many years have shown that you cannot drive your way out of this
car-centered development pattern. You actually have to design
and build communities differently.
The Texas Transportation Institute's
1998 annual report on congestion in major metropolitan areas
provides a rich set of data on the effectiveness of congestion
management strategies. By analyzing TTI's data for 70 metro areas
over 15 years, the Surface Transportation Policy Project recently
determined that metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity
expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas
that did not. In fact, numerous studies indicate that highway
construction often generates more traffic, raising congestion
levels. Adding more roads does not help, it only generates more
and more driving, which in turn, gives you more and more traffic
and it's expensive.
Trends in congestion show
that areas experiencing greater growth in lane capacity spent
roughly $22 billion more on road construction than those that
didn't, yet ended up with slightly higher congestion costs per
person, wasted fuel and travel delays.
International transportation
research has yielded other counterintuitive insights: the reduction
of roadway capacity actually reduces traffic in most cases because
people shift to mass transit, walking, bicycling and other modes
of travel. In 1998, British researchers analyzed 60 road closures
worldwide and found that, on average, overall traffic decreased
by 25 percent when a road was closed. In some cases, they found
that an astonishing 60 percent of the driving trips disappeared.
People's quality of life undoubtedly went up.
So, how can we match counterintuitive
solutions to these complex systems?
While politicians, pundits
and pollsters debate the problem and merits of smart growth,
"urban ecology" is the becoming the term of art for
those committed to building cities that work for both people
and the environment. It's two boring terms put together and will
probably never catch on with the marketing types. But its tenets
are more clearly focused and its practical orientation may indeed
outlast the term limits of many local elected officials.
Urban ecologists seek to connect
community, convenience and conservation to create cities of neighborhoods
where people can live an integrated urban life. To these new
urban fans, cities have been and should be the most attractive
living environments with parks, residences and commerce mixed
together.
An urban ecologist's vision
of urban living conserves the earth's resources energy, materials,
land, habitat and reduces pollution and global warming. They
tout urban development and redevelopment as opposed to urban
sprawl development. This is something that can actually lead
to less traffic.
Urban ecology development
saves taxpayers money by using and upgrading existing water,
sewage, energy and transportation infrastructure. These city
proponents love getting rid of their cars, car and insurance
payments, maintenance, repairs and stress. Walking is the preferred
every day exercise for all ages in this kind of community. This
cultural evolution is the best possible path out of the traffic.
Will Californians Southern
Californians, to be precise really choose to live this way? Not
until enough people come to understand the processes that lead
to the current problems and begin to redirect those systems.
Recent polling can really only show our frustrations. Real leadership
combined with neutral expertise is required to actually support
solutions that will matter.
|
