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.