Not!
There’s an interesting analysis on the Daily Score blog that looks at the greenhouse gas impacts of adding highway lane miles to ease congestion.
Yes, getting that traffic moving reduces emissions, but the additional traffic generated quickly swamps the benefit.
11 responses to “Congestion Relief Helps Greenhouse Gases?”
Great link, thanks!
But what about those streetcars that gum up traffic ;)?
How many kwH do those street gumers use a day?
Chris, do you have any studies that show that induced demand “swamps the benefit”?
Despite perceptions to the contrary, there is already little difference in greenhouse gas emissions between cars and public transport. On a per passenger mile basis, cars emit nearly the same GHGs per passenger mile as all public transport outside the New York urban area. Hybrid automobile technologies are already producing GHG emissions lower than the New York public transport figure.
http://demographia.blogspot.com/2007/09/greenhouse-gas-emissions-us-public.html
I don’t actually buy the “induced demand” theory. Just like phone companies yhat built more fiber-optic cables than they needed and found that it didn’t lead lead to people talking more on the phone or send more data over phone lines, adding freeway capacity will not make people go places they otherwise would not. They may switch from a dangerous and slow side road to a safe and comfortable freeway but they probably are not going to make too many extra trips just for the fun of it.
What we should do is act like the phone companies in the days before they had too much capacity. Charge different rates at different times so they maximized the use of the limitied bandwith.
Value pricing, meaning road tolls that are higher during congested periods than other times of the day, can smooth out traffic peaks and dips by encouraging people to drive at less-congested times of the day. According to commuting expert Alan Pisarski, commuters make up less than half of morning rush-hour and less than a third of afternoon rush-hour driving, so value pricing has the potential of greatly reducing peak-period demand and greenhouse gas without more lanes even if few commuters have flexible hours.
I would be interested in seeing a study that says how much ENERGY the entire transit system uses on a given day divided by how many passengers that use it so we can truly see if transit is really more “energy efficient” or “green” than driving is. The skodas and MAX trains we import from third world countries all use electricity which impacts the environment chopping fish or spewing coal exhaust into the atmosphere in Eastern Oregon (I think TriMet should buy blue sky power). I guess as long as the energy is produced somewhere else satisfies the Portland NIMBYs.
Maybe the highways could be net greenhouse gas reducers.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1191551122230690.xml&coll=7
That’s a good idea! Maybe in the more urban areas they could put giant fans along the freeways to suck in the exhaust. I’m trying to convince my parents to put solar on all their exterior buildings on their farm but they think solar is “unsightly” even though it would greatly reduce their bill. I think the objection is silly but NIMBYs will probably find a way to stop ODOT from ruining the view, too….
I don’t actually buy the “induced demand” theory. Just like phone companies yhat built more fiber-optic cables than they needed and found that it didn’t lead lead to people talking more on the phone or send more data over phone lines, adding freeway capacity will not make people go places they otherwise would not.
You are talking about two different things. But I thought the glut of fiber optic cable had contributed to the increasing volume of data on the internet by providing extremely cheap data transfer.
The result of freeway capacity is also quite clear. People take advantage of the freeway to commute further to work, to drive further for entertainment, to shop at stores that are further away. Those are good things, but they increase the amount of traffic. And that increase is what ultimately causes congestion.
And adding capacity on the freeway requires additional capacity to get people on and off the freeway. That means that the local street grid that supports the freeway ends up clogged with even worse congestion every time you add capacity on the freeway.
Increased capacity increases the number and length of trips in the short term. And it encourages development and economic choices that further increase the length and number of trips in the long term.
As I stated in another post Honda Motors is coming out with a (reportedly) 52 mpg diesel engine car in 2009. This is about the same time as the LOREMO is slated to debut from Germany. The LOREMO has gotten as much as 157 mpg from its twenty horsepower diesel powerplant.
Even if we got back down to earth and could project normal vehicles getting eighty mpg from diesel—that would make it sensible to develop biodiesel production. So far the best technology, IMO, is the direct drive electric motors at each wheel powered by batteries, and recharged with a diesel motor. I suppose the diesel could be used also for long distance cruising.
Yeah, hybrid diesel-electric with little power-loss because of directly driven wheels. This could also work for commuter vehicles–so I don’t see any reason to get all psyched up about future MAX expansion. It is becoming an obsolete technology–especially with all of its overhead catenary wires and supporting poles.
Maybe we should contract with North Korea to build a cost-effective rail system. That would probably make more sense.
The result of freeway capacity is also quite clear. People take advantage of the freeway to commute further to work, to drive further for entertainment, to shop at stores that are further away. Those are good things, but they increase the amount of traffic. And that increase is what ultimately causes congestion.
Once again, WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Why do so many cars travel on 99W/18? Not because it’s a freeway (it isn’t) but because there is a demand on the other end of the road.
I have driven on HUNDREDS of miles of freeway that have never seen a rush hour, and likely won’t anytime in my generation. I-84 at any point east of The Dalles to Boise. I-90 east of the Idaho/Montana state line. I-15 anywhere north of Salt Lake City. I-82, pretty much anywhere.
Under your incorrect logic, 99W/18 should be empty (because it isn’t a freeway), and I-90 through Montana should be gridlock. And hundreds – if not thousands – of people would commute daily between The Dalles and Portland.
And according to ODOT traffic statistics, Highway 99W carries more traffic on a daily basis than many miles of I-5 in southern Oregon or I-84 (outside of Portland).
Please find me a new analogy that is correct. Freeways do not spontaneously cause demand and ultimately congestion.
Erik: “Once again, WRONG WRONG WRONG.”
First, no need to shout- but in this case you are wrong and your logic flawed.
We are talking about the impact on a system here. In the case of the article it has to do with urban systems that already suffer from congestion. You can’t compare that (well, I guess you can, you did) with a rural uncongested system.
Erik: “Freeways do not spontaneously cause demand and ultimately congestion.”
Of course not. Read the original article and I don’t think you will see that it is suggesting spontaneous congestion.
Very efficient vehicles would be a death blow to their attempts to regulate land use…. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Blumenour and Kulongoski try to outlaw these Hondas (or else come up with a new elaborate tax scheme to discourage people from using them). If people knew they could not only LIVE cheaply outside the urban centres but also drive their cheaply and not have to put up with living inside a shoebox… Watch out!