Those of us who whine about road improvements maintain that expanding roads to accomodate a projected increase in traffic is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you build it, they will come. This is referred to in the literature as 'induced traffic'. "Hey, look at all the new lanes on this road! I'm gonna drive on that one !" is how we envision the automobile-dependent society thinking to their collective self. Is there any truth to this viscious rumor?
The following is the result of a brief survey of the literature.
Many thanks go to Tim & Scott from the
bikies listserv,
for pointing me in the right direction;
and to Allison Dobbins & Nils Eddy from Ped-net, whose
comments are included below (w/o permission).
For the reports I've been able to find, I added my laymen's interpretation or just quoted
from the reports. As they
say, your mileage may vary. In particular, much of these studies concern big freeways
in California, while my immediate concern is a
proposal for
a much smaller urban area (Madison, WI).
You can also find useful information
here
Assessment
of Induced Travel
A report prepared for the
Transportation Planning Board (TPB) of MWCOG. Their conclusions are
Do New Roads Cause Congestion?
Hank Dittmar, STTP Executive Director
Progress, March 1998
A pretty good overview of the subject.
Widening may not make I-25 speedier Denver Post - Ricky Young.
"Minority Statement "
Michael Replogle,
Appendix E in Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use.
Special Report 245. Transportation Research Board. 1995.
"Review of Empirical Studies of Induced Traffic,"
Harry Cohen
Appendix B Expanding Metropolitan
Highways: Implications for Air
Quality and Energy Use. Special
Report 245. Transportation
Research Board. 1995.
Impacts of Highway Facility Improvements On Travel and
Regional Development - Wisconsin TransLinks 21,
Charles H. Thompson, Secretray of Transportaion, Wisconsin
January 1994
Relationships between highway capacity
and incuded vehicle travel
(128 kb, PDF format)
Robert B. Noland
US EPA, Office of Policy, Paper no. 991069 (Nov 16, 1998)
Accepted for presentation at the 78th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Jan. 1999
Accepted for presentation at the
Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Ojai, CA, Feb. 1999
Determining Generated Traffic External Costs
Todd Litman
available from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Now available for free on the 'Net! (formerly, they charged for these reports).
"Transportation improvements can encourage more and longer trips, changes in travel patterns, and land use changes that require special consideration when assessing benefits and costs. Current transportation planning often fails to do this, resulting in incorrect conclusions. This paper summarizes current technical information on "generated" (or "induced") travel, describes how increased travel and related impacts should be assessed, and provides analysis tools for doing this."(blurb)
An Analysis of the Relationship Between Highway Expansion and Congestion in Metropolitan Areas
Lessons from the 15-Year Texas Transportation Institute Study .
This report by the
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)
is an analysis of a study from the
Texas Transportation Initiative (TTI).
From their summary:
"By analyzing TTI's data for 70 metro areas over 15 years, STPP determined that metro areas that invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not. Trends in congestion show that areas that exhibited 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 delay. The STPP study shows that on average the cost to relieve the congestion reported by TTI just by building roads could be thousands of dollars per family per year. The metro area with the highest estimated road building cost was Nashville, Tennessee with a price tag of $3,243 per family per year, followed by Austin, Orlando, and Indianapolis."This report received press coverage in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, San Jose Mercury News, and ContraCosta newspapers.
A good place to start is a recent issue of a publication
put out by the Transportation Research Board
and the National Research Council.
Highway Capacity Expansion and Induced Travel
Evidence and implications
Transportation Research Circular, No. 481, Feb. 1998
In addition to the four articles below, it also
includes an Introduction and Summary of Discussion.
"The traffic inducement effect : its meaning and measurement "
Mark Hansen
This is apparently a summary of two previous publications by Hansen,
(1993, 1997),
a professor at UC-Berkeley. His results come from studies of the California Highway system
and the Bay Area in particular. He concludes:
"We have presented evidence that adding road capacity generates traffic. The effect is "strong" in the sense that the proportionate increase in traffic is of the same magnitude, although smaller than, the proportionate increase in capacity. ... Although the effects may derive from diversion of traffic from local roads, the limited evidence available does not support this interpretation."He then lists several caveats, e.g. "they apply to urban highways for a single state, California, over a limited time period, the 1970s and 1980s." He goes to note that "it is not obvious that induced demand detracts from the social value of road improvements."
The original research project was as a result of a lawsuit by the Sierra Club against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (regional transportation planning agency for the SF Bay Area) and others. If I remember correctly, the judge decided that the travel demand forecasting model could use improvement to capture the "feedback" interactions between land use and transportation but that it would only affect this lawsuit if it could be found that the resulting traffic numbers would increase "significantly" (something like 10 percent) from the old model results. A single highway expansion project in a large metropolitan region like the Bay Area is unlikely to cause a 10 percent increase in regional traffic, so this case didn't meet the threshold.
Caltrans funded the UC Berkeley research, with some hoping that the results would indicate that highway expansion reduces congestion, increases speeds and therefore reduces air pollution. The research showed that this occured in short run, but that over time, the new lanes filled up and, once again, became congested with automobiles and generated (surprise, surprise) more air pollution.
"Current travel forecasting practice probably results in an underprediction of three to five percent in the number of trips that may be induced by major new highway capacity projects."
Accounting For Induced Travel In Evaluation Of Urban Highway Expansion
By Patrick DeCorla-Souza and Harry Cohen . This article describes a
methodolgy, and includes a
spreadsheet model. for estimating the effects of induced travel.
"Road Supply and Traffic in California Urban Areas"
"Do new highways generate traffic? "
"Air Quality Impacts of Urban Highway Capacity Expansion:
Traffic Generation and Land Use Changes"
"The effects of new high-occupancy vehicle lanes on travel and emissions "
"The effects of added transportation capacity on travel:
a review of theoretical and empirical results"
"Evidence on the effects of road capacity reduction on traffic levels "
An article on this report appeared in
New Scientist. .
Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions:
Assessment of the Evidence
"Modelling the traffic impacts of highway capacity reductions"
Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Report on Modelling.
"BART's First Five Years:
Transportation and Travel Impacts", interpretive summary of the final report
Sierra Club v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Peak-Period Traffic Congestion:
Options for Current Programs.
Gridlock - poll of engineers perceptions.
"Automobile travel reduction options for urban areas"
1990 National Personal Transportation Survey:
Summary of Travel Trends
References cited in EPA study:
"Md.'s Lesson: Widen the Roads, Drivers Will Come"
By Alan Sipress,
Washington Post Staff Writer,
Monday, January 4, 1999; Page B1
Transportation and Growth: Myth and Fact
Mark Hansen and Yuanlin Huang
Transportation Research, Part A, Vol. 31A, No. 3. (May, 1997)
60%-90% of increased road capacity is filled with new traffic within 5 years [NE].
Mark Hansen
Access
: research at the University of Transportation Center no. 7 (Fall 1995), p. 16-22
Mark Hansen, et al.
Research Report UCB-ITS-RR-93-5
Institute of Transport Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1993.
Total vehicle travel increased 1% for every 2%-3% increase in highway lane miles [NE].
Robert A. Johnson and Raju Ceerla
Transportation research. Part A, v. 30A, no. 1 (Jan. 1996), p. 35-50.
As the title implies, the focus of this report is the effect on emissions, in particular,
compliance with US EPA and the California Clear Air Act. They argue that current traffic
models are deficient in a number of areas for predicting emissions. I found the following
quotes enlightening:
"While the inducement of additional trips by new roadway capacity is difficult to
accurately project, in general (Kitamura, 1991)) it is accepted that
greater accessibiltity by auto increases auto ownership and auto tripmaking. Also, the
construction of new facilities that extend into developing areas is likely to increase the
share of new house starts that are single family and that, in turn, generally increases
trips per household... The effects of higher travel speeds on the number of trips and on
trip lengths can be projected with commonly used travel demand models."
and here is a meta-quote:
Sherret (1979) , in an interpretation of the BART reports, noted that
"induced travel is a common phenonmenon... whenever an automobile route is heavily used..."
(p. 14, cited in Sierra Club, 1990 p.8)
This tidbit is not referenced:
"Caltrans and official engineering bodies (Institute of Transportation Engineers,
American Society of Civil Engineers, and Transportation Research Board) agree that we cannot
build our way out of urban congestion anymore in the US."
And here they discuss other relevant reports:
"They [TRB, 1976] found that new highway capapcity attracts new auto travellers and
was expensive and recommended transit development as moderate in cost, effective, and
longlasting(p.4) The authors state that road congestions is self-limiting, especially in
large urban areas. "
They found that the ranking of preferred projects changed
significantly when generated traffic feedback is included. Specifically,
capacity expansion options provide less congestion reduction benefit and
increase air emissions, while demand management and no-build options
offer greater benefits. [NE]
"An American Society of Civil Engineers Committee (1990) found that
it is not practical to size freeways to handle peak-hour volumes (p.536)."
"An institute of Transportation Engineers survery (ITE, 1985) found
that the most effective means of reducing traffic congestion were land use planning, transit,
and vanpooling."
Ryuichi Kitamura
"Ryuicha Kitamura suggests that the addition of transportation
capacity may have some significant long-range impacts on household
automobile ownership, residence, and job location choices.
Improved access to/from fringe areas provided by new or expanded
service may promote the geographic expansion of an urban area, and
eventually result in new levels and patterns of travel in an urban
area (1991). He believes this development-inducing impact to be
the most important impact, while the changes discussed earlier to
be secondary because they may be small compared to the primary
growth impact. He points out the difficulty in attempting to
disaggregate the effects of transportation supply, land use,
accessibility, and travel demand, which together form a dynamic and
interrelated system."
from
1991 Conference on the Effects of Added Transportation Capacity, Bethesda, MD
USDOT, DOT-T-94-12 [published 1994?]
This report is also available as
Institute for Transportation Studies report CD-ITS-RP-91-4, available from
ITS.
It is also in
Proceedings from Conference "Effects of Added Transportation
Capacity", December 1991; Texas Transportation Institute, College
Station, Texas.
Some report (possibly this one), by someone named Kitamura (possibly R. Kitamura)
is included in the full report by
Goodwin et. al.
Phil B. Goodwin, Carmen Hass-Klau and Sally Cairns
Traffic engineering and control, v. 39, no. 6 (June 1998), p. 348-354
This is a summary of much larger study (see
below), whi ch was published in conjunction
with a parallel study by MVA Limited. They studied over 100 locations where traffic capacity
was reduced (e.g. to allow new construction, disaster, etc.) and evaluated its effect on the
total traffic. The average was a 25% reduction in traffic. This is essentially the corallary
to the 'induced traffic' effect, vis. if you unbuild it, they will go away. They list a number
of caveats, notably that the data is purely empirical and no controlled studies were done. Also, the
question remains, where did that 25% of traffic go? Presumably, car-pooling, other forms of
transportation, reduced trips to avoid congestion, etc. They conclude:
"The balance of evidence is that measures which reduce or reallocate road capacity,
when well-designed and favoured by strong reasons of policy, need not automatically be
rejected for fear that they will inevitably cause unacceptable congestion....
Hence, the research results tend to support the view that an integrated transport policy should
take account of the interaction between transport and other activities, as well as the
interaction between different elements of the transport system itself."
synopsis.
Sally Cairns,Carmen Hass-Klau and Phil B. Goodwin
1998 - Landor Publishing, London
Denvil Coombe, John Bates and Martin Dale
Traffic engineering and control, v. 39, no. 7/8 (July/Aug.1998), p. 430-433
This is a discussion of a much larger report, see below
MVA Ltd.
1998 - Landor Publishing, London
Alistair Sherret
USDOT, Washington, DC
US District Court for the Northern District of California
No. C-89-2044 TEH and C-89-2064 TEH
Exhibit B to the declaration of Dr. P. R. Stopher in support of Sierra Club's objections
to MTC's Proposed Conformity Assessment.
R. Remak and s. Rosenbloom/Transportation Research Board (TRB)
NCHRP report No. 169, Washington DC
J. Transportation Engng v. 116, p. 532-549 (1990)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Committee on Energy and Environmental
Aspects of Transportation
Institute of Transportation Engineers Technical Committee 6A-26
ITE Journal p. 44-48 (1985)
US DOT, Federal Highway Administration
Coombe, Denvil, 1996, Induced traffic: what do transportation models tell us?,
Transportation, 23: 83-101.
Goodwin, Phil B., 1996, Empirical evidence on induced traffic, a review and synthesis,
Transportation, 23: 35-54.
Goodwin, Phil B., 1992, A review of new demand elasticities with special reference to
short and long run effects of price changes, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy,
26: 155-169.
Hills, Peter J., 1996, What is induced traffic?, Transportation, 23: 5-16.
Mackie, Peter J., 1996, Induced traffic and economic appraisal, Transportation, 23: 103-
119.
SACTRA, 1994, Trunk roads and the generation of traffic, Department of Transport,
Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, London.
Transportation Research Board, 1995, Expanding metropolitan highways: implications
for air quality and energy use, Special report 245, National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Some things you are expected to pay for:
Available from the Urban Land Institute
Home
About this site