Why are we still widening highways?

 Seriously.  Why are we still widening highways, when we know that highway widening projects (1) increase traffic, therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions and running counter to our climate change mitigation goals; (2) don’t relieve congestion in the long run, because new capacity is filled up with new traffic in 5 - 10 years; (3) have major negative social and environmental impacts; and (4) cost a lot of money, draining resources from many alternative projects?  (I say “we know,” but of course not everyone is in agreement with these points – more on that shortly.)  Reason number one is enough for me, but clearly all these factors, and more, are not enough to stop many very large, controversial projects from going forward.

It does seem perplexing, but fortunately there is new research that sheds light on the question.  A recently published PhD dissertation by Amy Lee at the University of California, Davis, addresses just this question.  (“The Policy and Politics of Highway Expansions,” available here.  Read the Abstract and the Conclusions chapter if you don’t feel like wading through all 300+ pages.)

Lee approaches the issue through what I would call a political sociology lens.  She outlines the process by which a set of freeway expansion projects were advanced in California and identifies the key actors involved.  She then interviewed many of these key actors – state DOT officials, MPO staff, local elected officials, etc. – to explore their understanding of the issues and their reasons for advancing these projects.

The key findings for me (I am simplifying and adapting from Amy Lee’s conclusions):

1. Congestion is the main driver of these projects.  Many of the decision makers – especially local elected officials – are eager to do something about congestion, even though they may understand that the benefits of these particular projects will be transitory and insignificant in the long run.  As Lee says:

“So although highway expansion projects do not solve the foundational policy problems – e.g., separated land uses, auto-centric communities, housing unaffordability and segregation, lack of local jobs, or air pollution – they do offer a concrete and immediate avenue for elected officials to demonstrate that they are working for their constituents.”

2. Although most of the actors have at least some understanding of the concept of induced traffic, they tend to view it as a long-term problem, something to be addressed tomorrow.  As one actor put it, “The short-term congestion relief is worth it.”

3. There are still many actors, including the construction industry and building trades, that see benefits in the sheer scale and expense of highway widening projects. 

4. There are also psychological factors at play.  Engineers who have been trained to solve straightforward problems are reluctant to enter the morass of social and environmental issues in the modern transportation realm, tending to fall back to their design manuals.  A quote from one actor is worth showing in full:

“Induced travel is counter to why practitioners became engineers to begin with. They became an engineer to find a problem, with a formula, and a solution, end of story. Induced travel is disturbing to their worldview in some fundamental way. It disturbs their identity and ego. Engineers don’t want to be bothered with messy things like people. They’re used to deciding where huge amounts of money go and getting to be at ribbon cuttings. Unfortunately, it’s not much more complicated than that.”

5. Actors sometimes also believe that expansion projects promote other societal goods, such as access to housing, transportation equity, and economic development.

6. Developers, local elected officials, and various business interests may support highway widenings because they understand that increasing highway capacity promotes land development – notwithstanding the fact that the sprawl development stimulated by these projects works counter to climate change and environmental goals.

So how do we stop the highway widening juggernaut?  Amy Lee has a number of suggestions, many specific to the California context.  California already has a significant head start in this regard in that regional transportation plans must undertake to reduce total traffic (vehicle miles traveled) over time and individual highway widening projects must mitigate any increased traffic they generate.  Obviously these provisions have not been entirely successful, and Lee recommends some practical legislative and administrative steps to enforce them.

On a broader stage, Lee suggests the need for culture change among decision makers: planning for the long term rather than the short term and prioritizing the overarching goal of meeting the climate change challenge.  Not so easy to do.

Many thanks to Amy Lee for wading deep into the weeds of transportation decision making and for illuminating the complicated issues we will need to grapple with to stop the foolhardy practice of major  highway widening.

States Concede Induced Traffic

You may have read about the lawsuit filed by 21 red state attorneys general against the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) seeking to stop implementation of a greenhouse gas rule.  The new rule would require states to measure and report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector as part of the overall highway performance management system.  It would also require states to adopt targets reducing those emissions and to report on progress.  (A good story explaining what’s going on can be found here;  the text of the lawsuit is here.)

There are a couple of big issues involved here.  First, should the states be measuring GHG emissions and adopting plans to reduce them?  In my opinion (apparently not shared by the 21 attorneys general), of course they should.  Second, does FHWA have statutory authority to adopt this requirement?  On this question, I defer to the lawyers.  But what I want to comment on today is neither of these issues, but rather an extraordinary admission that many of these states have made as part of their lawsuit: that expanding highway capacity increases traffic and GHG emissions.  Now that statement might seem obvious to many of us, but in fact many state DOTs argue – especially in environmental documents supporting highway widening projects – that those projects reduce congestion and improve air quality, glossing over the phenomenon of induced traffic.  (“Induced traffic” is the term currently used for the increase in trip making caused by creating more capacity on a highway.)  But in the GHG rule lawsuit, many of these states say the quiet part out loud – projects that increase highway capacity cause induced traffic and more air pollution.

Now the language of most of the lawsuit text is not explicit on this issue.  Concern is expressed that the rule will limit a state’s ability to choose the projects it wants, damaging its ability to advance its own goals, such as economic development (see Paragraphs 163, 164, 166, and 169.)  The good stuff, however, is at the front of the document, where each of the states participating in the lawsuit says why it is joining.  Eleven of the 21 states explicitly state that they can’t be expected to reduce GHGs because the widening projects they are building will increase traffic, thus increasing GHGs.  Typically, the state describes its biggest projects, and why they consider them important, then says that means more traffic and more GHGs on the way.

Here are the key sentences for each of the twelve, with reference to appropriate paragraph in the lawsuit document (see if you can spot some similarities):

Kentucky – “These projects, and similar expansions, will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 3)

South Dakota – “However, some highway investments, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.” (Paragraph 5)

Alabama – “These projects, and similar expansions, will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.” (Paragraph 8)

Idaho – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 19)

Indiana – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 25)

Mississippi – “These and other projects will certainly result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 30)

Montana – “Some highway investments, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 32)

Nebraska – “And the projects will certainly result in increased traffic and a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 36)

Ohio – “Highway investments, and economic growth, will result in additional greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, and the State of Ohio will continue to make decisions to maximize all the benefits of its highway investments.”  (Paragraph 41)

Utah – “These and other projects will result in additional vehicular traffic and thus, CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 47)

Wyoming – “However, some highway investments and projects, and straightforward economic growth, can result in additional CO2 emissions.”  (Paragraph 58)

Notice some similarities?  Apparently, someone coordinating or coaching these submissions suggested: “Here’s a good argument.  Try this!”

I have no idea where the issue of adopting and implementing a GHG rule for transportation is going.  I do hope at least that people engaged with state DOTs on the issue of highway widenings and induced traffic will press them on this obvious inconsistency.