HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2018, 8:16 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Congestion can be good, study reports

Congestion can be good, study reports


JUN. 6, 2018

By ROBERT STEUTEVILLE

Read More: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/201...-study-reports

Quote:
....

A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Denver and Florida Atlantic University concludes that traffic congestion does not slow down economies, productivity, or job growth.

- "Our findings suggest that a region’s economy is not significantly impacted by traffic congestion. In fact, the results even suggest a positive association between traffic congestion and economic productivity as well as jobs," say authors Wes Marshall and Eric Dumbaugh.“ --- Without traffic congestion, there would be less incentive for infill development, living in an location-efficient place, walking, biking, and transit use, ridesharing, i --- nnovations in urban freight, etcetera,” Marshall explained by email. “And if your city doesn't have any traffic congestion, there is something really wrong.”

- Conventional wisdom regarding traffic congestion suggests that higher levels of peak hour delay would be associated with decreases in GDP and jobs as well as higher wages to compensate workers for the increased costs of travel. We did not find this to be the case. For our regions, peak hour delay had a statistically significant and positive effect on both per capita GDP and jobs. This suggests that our current concerns about traffic congestion negatively impacting the economy may not be particularly well founded. --- In terms of per capita income, the results were statistically insignificant. Thus, regions with more congestion were more economically productive with more jobs, and this took place without traffic congestion manifesting itself with higher labor costs.

- “Congestion in 498 metropolitan areas caused urban Americans to travel 5.5 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $121 billion.” --- On the contrary, traffic congestion may entice positive adaptations. “For instance, traffic congestion could potentially lead to positive economic externalities such as infill development (via improved location efficiency), more efficient travel patterns, and/or agglomeration benefits. People may also adapt to high levels of traffic congestion by switching to other travel modes.

- “Case in point: of the ten most congested cities in the recent Urban Mobility Report, seven of those cities rank in the top ten for lowest driving mode share. Eight of the top ten congested cities rank in the top ten for highest transit mode share, and four rank in the top ten for highest active transportation mode shares. “It would make sense for individuals and businesses to respond to traffic congestion by changing modes or locations, but there might also be higher-level shifts toward a greater concentration of industries—such as professional service and tech industries—that would be less impacted by traffic congestion than industries such as manufacturing.”

- Marshall acknowledges that not all congestion is created equal, and further research is needed to explore the impacts of particular kinds of congestion. --- The good congestion could be described as a place, like a city center with lots of destinations or a historic town with nice architecture, that is so popular and appealing that it is crowded. If you are stuck in traffic on a freeway, on the other hand, that’s bad congestion. The data used in this study could not distinguish qualitative congestion types, but new datasets might be able to do that, Marshall says.

.....



Conventional thinking sprang from the long-time correlation of rising vehicle miles traveled and rising gross domestic product (GDP). But correlation does not equal causation, and that correlation did not hold from the late 1990s to about 2013.


__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:01 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,794
Congestion is a reason dense cities are dense. And dense cities tend to be where the greatest value-adds are. No secret about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:03 AM
Urban Zombie's Avatar
Urban Zombie Urban Zombie is offline
Crisp and Squishy
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kailua-Kona
Posts: 7,825
Even nasal and sinus congestion?
__________________
As a staunch Marxist, I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member. Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well I have others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 4:14 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,507
Congestion isn't good it's just a symptom.

A correlation with growing cities having congestion isn't telling us anything new.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 6:02 AM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Based on basic economic theory I’m intensely skeptical. We know agglomeration externalities, or the productivity and amenity benefits that come from size and density, are massive. So what keeps cities from getting even bigger and denser? It must be congestion and travel times. That’s the contractionary force that keeps cities from exploding in size. So a study that says congestion is irrelevant begs the question: why aren’t cities bigger?

[As to the fact that congestion is a reflection of a city’s attractiveness and vice versa, I think the authors recognize that and, according to their abstract, try to address that endogeneity problem in their paper. News articles tend to do a terrible job of explaining academic papers and the novelty of their results. Nonetheless I do think the authors are being disingenuous in not more explicitly acknowledging that, and definitely seem to be overselling their findings. The veracity of their results really hinges on the particulars of their estimation strategy, which is impossible to judge without reading the actual paper. But theory alone is reason enough to be very skeptical (their own hand waving about positive benefits of congestion notwithstanding).]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 8:35 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Congestion isn't good it's just a symptom.

A correlation with growing cities having congestion isn't telling us anything new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 9:35 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Classic example of correlation being confused with causation.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 12:04 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,999
What is groundbreaking about that study?

The traffic overload that causes potholes and promotes ceaseless road infrastructure growth?

Yes, that would force you to break the ground for a few things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 5:52 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Classic example of correlation being confused with causation.

Yeah, how does something like this even get published? Clickbait I guess. Any conventional research would indicate that congestion itself is a huge drain on the economy.


That said, there are some benefits to congestion - it encourages residential & commercial intensification rather than outward expansion, and usually leads to improvements in transit & cycling infrastructure and use. One of the big drivers of the past 15-year condo boom in Toronto has been the fact that travelling around the city is so unbearable that people just want to live as close to work as possible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:15 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,794
I believe there's some causation, not just correlation. It's a balance of course, with any city's outcome having a trillion factors.

If talented, well-paid 20-somethings like to live and work in the top urban cores, and those urban cores became dense and urban in part because of congestion, then there's a link. Likewise if the city races to add transit because of congestion, that contributes to urbanity and reduces the other problems.

Likewise, buildings go vertical because high demand turns into high land costs and low land availability especially in key spots. Being expensive is a cause of urbanity.

At the same time, the same congestion and land prices are negatives for many mid-career people. The tech star cities tend to have fewer of those in relative terms even in some relatively high-paying fields.

The same is true within regions. In my area you can find districts with easier traffic, decent transit, and cheaper developable land. But companies still generally go to the main urban core or (secondarily) the most expensive and urban suburban quadrant. They specifically talk about recruitment and being among other companies as the reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:27 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,885
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2018, 7:59 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Yeah, how does something like this even get published? Clickbait I guess. Any conventional research would indicate that congestion itself is a huge drain on the economy.
I'd be interested in seeing how this is demonstrated. Seems to me that congestion is worse around hubs of economic activity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 1:42 AM
floor23 floor23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: New York City
Posts: 70
I expect to see this study used in the future by anti-transit activist to make the argument we should do nothing at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2018, 4:14 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,048
How exactly is this study considered new or groundbreaking? I remember hearing about a study on this several years ago and I thought it was even posted on this board. I believe it was this study although it was quite awhile ago so i'm not 100% sure.

I even remember hearing how some cities were embracing congestion since it reduces vehicle speeds leading to safer pedestrian environments and fewer serious collisions.

I didn't even think the idea would be considered controversial after all this time but I guess the idea that there's any potential benefit from something that people don't like will always be controversial regardless of how much data is behind it.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2020, 6:40 AM
Nathaniel Davis Nathaniel Davis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 2
Classic example of correlation being confused with causation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2020, 2:18 PM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,449
when cities get too much traffic people move out of the city. its good for small cities, but then people moving to the small cities causes traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2020, 2:49 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,894
Sorry but having light traffic for past 3 months has been such a joy, I dont really miss gutwrenching traffic one bit.

Not one. damn. bit.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2020, 3:50 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Sorry but having light traffic for past 3 months has been such a joy, I dont really miss gutwrenching traffic one bit.

Not one. damn. bit.
Maybe so, but the reason for there being no traffic is not good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.