Clark Howard: Traffic could kill Atlanta

[walker1962]

First,metro L.A. has 13 million people vs. 5 million in Atlanta, so not sure why you are surprised traffic can be bad in the middle of the night.
Second, L.A.'s street system is grid-structure and overall have more lanes to handle traffic.
Third, what people don't realize is L.A. county is as larger as Fulton/DeKalb/Cobb/Gwinnett combined! So when someone says it took them 90 minutes to go from Pomona to Beverly Hills, keep in mind the size of L.A. county.

[magnetar]

Traffic isn't a problem that can be solved with infrastructure. It's simply the result of people choosing to drive their cars. In Baltimore, which has nearly nothing in terms of intracity rail transit, traffic is horrible both intown and around the beltway (695). DC, which has a transit system everyone points to as an example, also has terrible traffic both intown and around its beltway (495). Atlanta, which has a small transit system, also has terrible traffic both intown and around its perimeter (285).

It's the nature of the beast.

[cwkimbro]

One thing is people are getting hung up on traffic... congestion.

In some ways there will always be congestion in any city that is of a certain size with enough of a travel demand going to a few limited areas.

Most look at congestion, because it is a personal inconvenience. Business leaders look at it, because they are concerned about the 'employee commuter sheds' of where potential talented employees might be able to reach their work place. Congestion does have adverse affects on that.

But beyond that there is one important thing not being mentioned. Yes, things will stay congested... but there is an issue of quantity. We can maintain equal congestion, but more proportionally more people can still move from one place to another. That alone still helps us grow. So we shouldn't stick with an ideology that we can't change anything and we will be ok. No, we always have to proportionally grow to how many residents we attract. It is just a matter of how.

We didn't grow as much infrastructure in the 90s and early 00s, but we did have a massive growth spurt in infrastructure in the 80s that was a bit too much at once. We enacted zoning in the 90s that let more existing infrastructure receive two-way traffic encouraging multiple business centers and suburban employment corridors. In the 00s commutes got shorter as more people could live near work and jobs were more dispersed around town. The problem is going into the future... those tricks are used up.

There is one more trick, which is allowing more residential density around employment districts, including suburban employment districts.

But if we want our economy to stay growing, flexible, and quick to adjust to economic trends we need people to be able to move between employment centers to as life changes. That capacity needs to be expanded.

I tend to support commuter rail... for at least peak hour commuter service, since it maintains a large commuter footprint for at least one major business district in the region no matter how congested the roads get. That will forever make us make us competitive for the pickiest of high paying companies that are seeking location.

But we still have a great deal for room in growth of better arterial streets throughout the region. There are some key freeway bottlenecks that are important. Sure congestion will stay and the next weak link will create a bottleneck, but the corridor can still move more people.

It is also worth sticking with this HOT lane and double down on commuter buses too (including more destination options). It isn't the best form of transit around, but some corridors have enough riders with limited service that moves enough commuters to be the equivalent of adding an extra lane of freeway @ peak hours... and that is frequently across a long distance.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by magnetar

Traffic isn't a problem that can be solved with infrastructure. It's simply the result of people choosing to drive their cars.

be careful with this... it isn't a matter of just choice either.

At the end of the day we have to work within existing congestion. When consumers go to buy a home... yes they have a choice, but what those choices are greatly affected where existing homes are across the region. New builds are affected by zoning, but every home purchase can't be a new home.

There is definitely room to change the dynamic of where some people live and to densify residential uses in key areas to limit major regional infrastructure investment, but that can only go so far too. That approach alone eventually won't cut it. Some of it is do to consumer choices of new residents and businesses we want to entice to the region. Upper middle class families don't want to be crammed into a condo for example, but the entry level post-MBA student might. Some of it has to do with resistance to zoning changes and to no small part historic districts and existing neighborhoods. Some of it has to do with the fact that existing homes 99% of the time are going to be used by someone... that means someone will still be commuting from existing homes and existing infrastructure.

As for cars vs transit. It still has to become a viable choice for more people for it to really be a choice. Fixing this for some newbuilds is a matter of zoning and incentives, but for most... it means new infrastructure.

So problems must be solved with infrastructure... and we can't become a region of 8 million with an infrastructure for 4 million.

Things have to change. Infrastructure has to be built, but that doesn't mean we should ignore ways of lowering commute distances for more people with future buildings growth or increasing options.

[magnetar]

I'm not advocating against building infrastructure. I'd love to see MARTA double or triple in size. I just wouldn't expect it to have any effect on Atlanta's automobile traffic, nor do I care whether or not it does.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by magnetar

I just wouldn't expect it to have any effect on Atlanta's automobile traffic, nor do I care whether or not it does.

Well I'm sorry you feel this way, but if you want Atlanta to be a successful region going into the future... all of these things matter.

[blktoptrvl]

Clark Howard is a personal finance "expert." What he knows or thinks about city planning and population migrations might be interested. but it is nothing to take too seriously.