Progressives in favor of congestion pricing on highways and in central cities tend to argue for those policies on progressive grounds (shock!)—that such pricing systems reduce emissions, improve air quality, and fund transit improvements, which benefit lower- and middle-income households. Those are all nice benefits to congestion pricing programs, but we shouldn’t neglect the congestion reduction function.
Congestion costs America some $80 billion per year, in the form of lost time and wasted fuel. And as it turns out, commutes extended by congestion have other effects, as well:
There is a strong empirical evidence demonstrating that labor force participation rates of married women are negatively correlated with commuting time. What is more, the analysis shows that metropolitan areas which experienced relatively large increases in average commuting time between 1980 and 2000 also had slower growth of labor force participation of married women.
Long commutes are typically associated with dense cities like New York, but in recent decades, congestion has grown fastest in places with rapid exurban growth—like Dallas, Riverside (California), San Diego, and Washington, D.C.
At the heart of the problems of increased congestion and longer commutes are three related issues. We have focused excessively on inefficient transportation technologies (namely, personal automobiles), we have underpriced the infrastructure supporting those technologies (via subsidies or free parking and roadways), and those policy choices have led to poor land-use decisions.
We can think about the Washington, D.C. area as an example. In the center—the District, Arlington, and Alexandria—there is good access to high-capacity transportation technologies—Metro, and a dense, mixed-use settlement pattern. As such, commute times in these places are the lowest in the metropolitan area. But this density rapidly gives way to low-slung suburban development, which spreads people out over much larger distances, and keeps residential areas well away from jobs centers. What’s more, the principle transportation technology in the suburbs is the automobile (personal vehicles can’t move nearly as many people along rights-of-way as mass transit), and the roads are almost entirely free to use. The result is that too many people try to use underpriced roads and parking, and too many people choose homes in places that rely on underpriced roads.
And the problem becomes worse in that the most convenient urban locations are limited in scope—central density rapidly gives way to suburbia—and these supply limitations generate very high housing costs. In suburbia, the most convenient locations—nearest to job centers—are also very limited, and therefore expensive. So increasingly, affordable workforce housing is only found on the outer edges of metropolitan areas. And households there bear the brunt of congestion costs and the brunt of increases in fuel costs, and, as the research above indicates, they struggle the most to balance work and family life.
Differences in taste dictate that some folks will prefer low-density suburbs while others will want to live in denser neighborhoods. But choices about where we live and how we get around are also heavily influenced by relative costs. Those costs are determined by supply, which is a direct function of public policy. We’ve chosen to invest heavily in one kind of development for decades, to an extent that’s entirely without economic or social justification. And we’re paying the price now, monetarily, environmentally, and socially.
More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Comments
View as Threaded
human power Posted 1:06 pm
30 Jan 2009
Of course, this will mean that the poor will be living in the large suburban houses while the rich enjoy the urban amenities, but the poor are generally industrious enough to walk, bus, and bicycle longer distances than our obese elites.
Permalink
racc Posted 2:24 am
31 Jan 2009
The funding from congestion charge should be used to fund transit, walking and cycling improvements. The improvements need to be in place when the charge starts to ensure that people have transportation choice. Otherwise, they continue to drive and the result is that it is just more expensive.
Road space can also be reallocated to buses, LRT and cycling to improve the choices and further discourage driving.
Just relying on "clean fuels" will not work very well as increases in vehicle miles travelled tend to overwhelm these types of measures. We need to drive much less.
It is not about us, it is about everyone.
http://www.everyoneforever.org/
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:38 am
31 Jan 2009
Are there statistics on that one?
I know more than a few single, childless females, as well as few "soccer moms" who ride (alone) to work and store on a daily basis in big SUVs, even if it's just a few blocks away or they could take the bus.
Personally, I also know some women who take cars no matter what, since they feel more "vulnerable" walking or taking public transit. They feel more "secure" in a vehicle they can control and lock up.
Weird, I know, but it doesn't seem to be an uncommon sentiment.
So, what gives?
Permalink
racc Posted 6:53 pm
31 Jan 2009
If you are looking for stats, in Vancouver BC, at least, 30% of women take pubic transit to work while only 20% of men do. Men are a lot more emotionally attached to automobiles than women are .
For Canada 8.6% of men use public transit and 5.3% walk to work while 13% of women use public transit and 7.5% walk to work.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/highlights/ ...
Clearly, us guys have got to step up to the plate and do our part.
It is not about us, it is about everyone.
http://www.everyoneforever.org/
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 6:11 am
03 Feb 2009
I can say that more males than females appear to be doing bicycle commuting at this time in my city and my workplace. Conversely when I ride the bus there appears to be 40 percent working age women, as well as 30 percent teenagers of both genders, 5 percent young kids (who ride free) and 25 percent working age men.
There may be a big "safety" perception among the suburban folks of all types, causing aversion to transit where they will rub elbows with folks who are (gasp!) "different" than they are. Hence the locked doors in the rolling tanklike SUVs.
My city has no transit other than buses, and the urban housing is not "overpriced", the school district there just seems to be worse than in the 'burbs. Most of those who can afford not to ride the bus, avoid it for convenience probably.
I suspect the child caregivers in the family are more apt to drive cars so they can do the necessary shuttling of kids to school or daycare, etc. That burden may fall more on the mothers at this time?
I disagree with the notion that the exurbs are the only affordable places to live. Not true in my city at least. Sub/exurban migration is more than a neutral lifestyle choice, it is an ecological decision that passes burdens on to our children, when it furthers unsustainable fossil fuel dependence and cul de sac thinking.
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
arco Posted 2:08 am
17 Sep 2009
Permalink