Two Strategies for Fighting Traffic Congestion

Several days ago Chicago was awarded $153 million by the US Department of Transportation to implement the first ten miles of a bus rapid transit system in coordination with a variable price parking scheme downtown. Compare this strategy to that of Los Angeles, which is moving forward to get $213 million in federal funding for converting HOV lanes to HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes as part of its regional congestion reduction demonstration initiative. Why are these two cities going after congestion in such strikingly different ways?

The Chicago plan envisions an eventual 100 mile system of dedicated bus rapid transit with a parking pricing strategy that charges more during peak times. Taken together, these steps will encourage commuters to drive downtown at off-peak hours or to use transit. By using innovative technologies, like traffic lights that automatically change for buses, this system promises to be cutting edge.

Chicago is making this bet: that the indirect cost of congestion in the downtown area is currently so high that putting a direct price on driving will provide benefits that outweigh the costs to the economy. In other words, downtown Chicago has such allure for businesses that they are willing to bear higher costs (i.e. their employees may need to pay more or travel more inconveniently to get to work) to locate there. Improving transit is a key element of this strategy, and a viable one, because of the city’s density.

Los Angeles is going about it differently: the city is implicitly recognizing that the LA region is so diffuse that the allure of the downtown is not strong enough to bear higher commuter costs – instead they are raising the price of driving on the freeways in general for those who want to pay for quicker passage, and investing more in buses and park and ride lots. Taken in isolation, this plan creates few new incentives for the use and viability of alternative modes like transit or walking. But if the metro area proceeds along these lines to a region-wide road pricing scheme it could, in fact, encourage densification of the area’s economic activity - making transit a more viable and attractive option in the long term.

This is not to say that increased transit use should be the end goal of every region. Nevertheless, increasing useful alternatives for commuters is an economic benefit (be they buses, walking, bikes or rail), and those alternatives become most feasible in dense urban areas – which, through no coincidence, are the engines of growth for the nation’s economy. Moreover, while shifting commuters to transit is often a challenge in cities like Los Angeles, it will be an even greater challenge to meet energy security and climate change goals by increasing the overall capacity of the freeway system there. If capacity expansion is necessary for economic growth, that capacity needs to be provided with a sustainable energy source and climate change in mind.

-Joshua and Daniel