Minority Report

The pace of road construction on Franklin Blvd., seen from my bike, is painfully slow. Both directions now have the sidewalks torn up and there are hundreds of feet of exposed re-bar, waiting for concrete encasement. I'm riding 3 feet into the traffic lane because there's a sharp drop off from the asphalt and I'm not gonna ride anywhere near it. If I went in, I could, seriously, die by impalement. I'd rather be hit by a car.

But there isn't any major stacking at the traffic lights either due to me or the construction. Overall, area commuters have coped. This is the same thing that's going to happen in two weeks when they shut down all lanes of I-5 for a few weeks. There won't be horrific in-town congestion...people can and will adjust, as they did during the '89 Bay Area quake, the '94 Northridge quake, and the '07 MacArthur Maze tanker truck fire.

This leads me to wonder...why do we spend so much money in this pursuit of normal traffic congestion relief if unexpected events such as these demonstrate our capacity to absorb them? In 2006 this state's constituents didn't want to tax oil for alternative energies (prop 87) but were more than willing to float billions, billions! in bonds for traffic reduction (prop 1B). We could argue the merits of prop 87 either way, but the trend is telling: we want to keep driving at any cost; and preferably, at least cost.

I don't support road capacity improvement projects and that's exactly why I could never get into a position of power. I'd never receive the necessary campaign funding from pro-growth industries and thus I'd never stand a chance. It's partially because my minority report says that excessively cheap motoring will not have a prominent role in our future...but mostly because building our way out of congestion does not work.

Assume that the free market, when it's ready, will deliver us hydrogen, batteries, or any other alt.energy source to allow us perpetual, convenient motoring. So energy isn't constrained. I don't doubt this to be a possibility...just not a probable one. Anyway, we'd drive more. A lot more. And so it is with roadway capacity. Every 'congestion relief' project there has ever been has only led to increased roadway use...and more congestion, not less. There's a powerful latency effect. The question shouldn't be "Can we build out of our congestion?", but rather the question is, "How many lanes of congestion do we want?"

Today I modify my behavior around traffic congestion and I don't even drive. Do I ride to the supermarket at 5:25PM or don't I? Do I get on the bus at 3:25 or at 4:50? So it is that actual car drivers are doing the same thing, and if there weren't any constraints their behaviors would reflect that. My observation: the second a new freeway lane is built, it's always sucked up by latent use, either immediately or shortly thereafter.

I will post my own personal observations about the I-5 shutdowns here during the next few weeks. I don't think there will be much to report, however. People will grumble, but they will cope.