0ptimal Levelof AutomobileDependency (A TQ Point/CounterpointExchange with PeterSamuel and Todd Litman)

strangebook appeareQ,in 1.862called The Propbeciesof Mother Shipton.It setout a numberof mysteriousprophecies, including a vision of the automobileage, long before the first automobilehad beeninvented. According to Mother Shipton:

"Carriageswithout horsesshall go, and accidentsfill the world with woe."

\7hile Mother Shiptonturned out to be the invention of London booksellerCharles Hindley, the vision is nonethelessan extraordinaryone, especiallywith benefitof hindsight.It does not focus on the independence,richness, and choice that the auto 'We would bring, but on its social costs. have adopted the automo- bile even though we pay a staggering price for it in lives, pollution, noise, and land and resourcesconsumed. Automobility is a two- sided coin, and a mountain of social criticism, movies, Iiterary works, and technical papers has attempted to addressthe miracle and its attendant horrors. There is probably no one, in any part of the world that has not been profoundly affected by the automobile has an opinion about its proper role. How much automobility and '$fhat is enough? How much is too much? should we do to get the right mix? These simple questions raise very difficult philosophical, social, and economic questions-more widely ranging than a con- ventional Transp ortation Quarteily article. PeterSamuel To address these questions, we decided to try something new: we invited two thoughtful observers-Peter Samuel, publisher of Toll Roads Newsletter and Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute-to share their views in a Point/Counterpoint exchange.Both agreed to a seriesof questions and a processfor interacting on them. The resulting exchange is reported here''We wish to thank both contributors for their cooperativeness and their insights. 'We believe that this format is an effective way to give you valu- able perspective on complex matters of this sort. What do you think 'We of this approach? invite your comments on this Point/Counter- point feature and your suggestions on other issues where this Todd Litman approach might be useful.

Transporta.tionQuarteily, Vol. 55, No' 1, Winter 2001 (5-3?l - O 2001 Eno TransportationFoundation, Inc., Washington,D.C. TRANSPORTATI ON OUARTERLY

TQ: Is automobile useexcessiue in tbe and environmental impacts. These benefits U.S.?Are ue too automobile are often overlooked when parking decisions are made. Our current transportation dependent?If so,uhy? market provides the equivalent of matching grants Litnan: Considerable research indicates that for driving. The reforms we are discussing a significant portion of automobile use reduce such grants or allow them to be results from market distortions rather than applied to other modes. true consumerpreference.l In a more optimal Many market distortions represent older transportation market consumers would social objectives and technologies.Under- drive less than they do now and be better off pricing may have made sense during the overall as a result.' Our research suggests early years of the automobile age to take that personal automobile use could probably advantage of economies of scale in vehicle decline by 30% or even more if all trans- and road production. In the 1920s and portation and land use market distortions 1930s, your costs of owning and driving an were corrected. automobile declined as your neighbors' A properly functioning market reflects mileage increased.Free roads and parking consumer choice, competition, cost-based may also have been justified to minimize the pricing, and economic neutrality. Current costs and inconvenienceof collecting fees. transportation markets violate these princi- But these practices no longer make economic ples:3 Consumers have few viable travel sense now that automobile markets are choiees for many trips; many costs of driv- mature and electronic pricing greatly reduces ing are either fixed or external; and land use transaction costs, and transportation investment practices Some people are skeptical. They ask, "If tend to favor automobile travel over other driving provides benefits, how can reduced modes. driving increase benefits?" The answer is that Individually these distortions may seem a more optimal market gives consumers modest and justified. For example, free park- more of the savings that result when they ing is convenient and tax exempt, so busi- drive less. Consumers only reduce their driv- nessesconsider it a cost-effective way to ing when they are better off overall, that is, attract customers and reward employees. when they value the additional savings more Local governments often require generous than a particular mile of driving. amounts of off-street parking to avoid park- This is illustrated in Figure 1. When you ing spillover problems. But free parkjng make a transportation decision that reduces underprices driving which "leverages" in- automobile use (for example, by riding tran- creased vehicle traffic. As a result, free park- sit, cycling, telecommuting, or simply using a ing not only increasesparking costs, it also closer destination), you reduce congestion, exacerbatestraffic congestion, roadway ex- parking costs, crash risk, and environmental penses,crashes, and environmental impacts. impacts. But such benefits are currently dis- Businesses and city officials often ignore persed throughout the economy. Your neigh- these indirect impacts when making deci- bors benefit from your actions as much as sions about parking prices and regulations. you do. An optimal market returns more of To put this another way, correcting mar- thesebenefits directly to you, increasingyour ket distortions provides multiple benefits. incentive to choose the most efficient travel For example, charging motorists directly for option for each trip. You would not give up the parking they use not only reduces park- all driving, but you would probably reduce ing costs, it also reduces traffic problems some car travel to take advantage of these such as congestion, roadway costs, crashes, additional savings, just as many consumers 6 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY

FIGURE 1: Optimal MarketsReturn More Samuel: Only by assigning a huge array of Benefitsof ReducedDriving to Individual external costs to the use of the private auto- Consumers mobile is it possible to conclude that there would be 30'/" less motoring in a better- arranged market for transportation. Those kinds of calculations have been shown to Parking, include: Crashes,Pollution, etc. (1) double-counting of crash costs that in ., factfall on motorists akeady, albeit often Through in an imperfect fashion

(2) attribution of a large proportion of the In currentmarkets, when motorlstsreduce U.S. defensebudget to motoring, when in (for theirvehicle travel example,by riding fact U.S. defenseforces are maintained transitor telecommuting),they provide bene- fot alarge arcay of reasons unrelated to fitsthat are widely dispersed through society. the defenseof imported oil-support of NAIO, containment of North Korea and China, periodic peacekeeping interven- tions, and the capability to respond to unpredictable challenges that may arise more rapidly than the ability of the U.S. to reconstitute its forces

(3) very high-proposed levies on motorists for quite uncertain health damages from tailpipe emissions

In a more optimalmarket, benefits are In addition it makes no senseto propose returnedto individualmotorists. This gives loading onto market prices some theoretical consumersan incentiveto use alternatives when they are more cost effectiveoverall. estimate of external costs without making a corresponding calculation of social benefits. This kind of theory surely is seeking to adjust respond to retail store sales and discount market prices with the net of social costs ver- coupons. sus social benefits, and it is one-sided in the Market distortions tend to be unfair and extreme to list and calculate only external harmful to people who are transportation costs of motoring and propose that they disadvantaged.They result in cross-subsi- alone be loaded onto motoring via raxesor dies from households that drive less than price controls. The road and car lobbies can average to those that drive more than aver- produce corresponding extc,rn'al benefit age, and reduce travel choices for non-driv- accounts that are similarly arguable, and ers. Market distortions also reduce econom- which run up equally large numbers to the ic productivity by increasing indirect and external costs that Litman cites. external cost burdens.aInternational studies We can agree in principle that market dis- indicate that regions with balanced trans- tortions are bad, but we probably disagree portation are more economically competi- about the nature of those distortions. tive.s If properly implemented, transporta- tion market reforms can increaseequity and Litrnan: Samuel has clearly not read rhe stimulate economic develooment.. material he is criticizing. He claims incor- TRANSPORTATI ONOUARTERLY rectly that the reforms I propose consist pri- Existing taxi services and municipally pro- marily of internalizing non-market external- vided bus and rail transit are heavily protect- ities. In fact, most travel reductions result ed from competition by entrepreneurial from more mundane reforms: charging minivan, minibus jitney-style services.We motorists directly for parking and local road- therefore have artificially high cost public way expenditures, distance-basedinsurance transport or transit, and stunted innovation. and registration fees,congestion pricing, Taxi serviceis restricted by limits on license charging road usersrent on roadway rights- numbers, reflected in huge entry fees, black of-way, and removing tax and investment markets in self-supporting "gypsy" van serv- policies that favor driving over other travel ices,and limited choices.Carpooling is limit- modes. ed by restrictions on drivers charging passen- Our analysis is carefully structured to gers. minimize the problems Samueldescribes. We Cities and other municipalities often dis- avoid double-counting internal and external tort mode choice in favor of the automobile crash costs. Fuel taxes would increase little by mandating the provision of minimum or not at all under our proposed optimal amounts of parking in new buildings. This price structure, and do not include significant often forces property owners to provide an military costs. The pollution charges we uneconomic parking space, which is then assumeare relatively modest, basedon mid- dumped on the market at what they can get dle-range estimates published in peer- for it. They are forced to "bundle" parking reviewed reports and articles, and represent a with usable building space. small portion of total price and travel At the state and federal level, huge distor- changes. tions in favor of urban passengerrail exist Personal automobile use certainly pro- through the diversion of highway trust fund vides user benefits, but there is no reason to monies and toll profits to rail services. 'Whereas, expect significant external marginal benefits by and large, motorists in the (i.e., you benefit if your neighbors increase aggregatepay their way, rail transit usefs are their driving) to offset external costs, because subsidizedin the range 50 to 95o/" of their rational participants in a market externalize costs. This results in inefficient and unpro- benefits and internalize costs as much as pos- ductive investment in rail, resources which sible. Objective research examining rhis would, in general, provide higher social question has found no significant external yields if put into road pavement for the rich benefits from personal automobile use.6 mix of rubber-tired vehicles that could use it. A "Lionel complex" or rail fetish seems TQ: Are theresignificant economic to be part of the psychological makeup of key decision-makers in metropolitan plan- distortions in our transportation ning organizations and legislatures. Their system?If so,uthat are they? ability to skew money toward lightly utilized Samuel:We have major distortions in U.S. high-cost, custom-built rail constitutes a fur- ther distortion. (See G6mez-Ib6fiez,Tye transport, most being a product of over- Jos6 and \finston, Essaysin Transportation Eco- involvement by governments, and misuse of nomics and Policy: a Handbook in Honor of tax powers to subsidize favored modes. N7e R. Meyer, Brookings Institution Press have arbitrary restrictions at the city level lohn 1999, and studies at www.publicpupose.com, against provision of consumer responsive www.rppi.org, www.ti.org for support of transit service in the form of competitive thesepropositions.) demand-responsivetransit and ride sharing. On the roads, the heavy reliance on flat

6 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY per gallon fuel taxes as a highway funding accurate road use charges,and the potential mechanism is distortionary, It overprices benefits of public transit innovation. Howev- travel by light vehicleson uncongestedroads er, his pro-highway, anti-transit claims are and underprices travel on congestedroad- unsupported by objective evidence. ways in peak hours. The government It is not true that "by and large motorists monopoly provision of road space intro- in the aggregate pay their way." According duces political distortions. Special interests to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Alloca- with a concentrated interest in a particular tion Study mentioned by Samuel, automobile road can often use the political processto users fees cover only 70Y" of roadway con- swing government money toward their pet struction and maintenance costs, indicating project at the expenseof projects with more that fees would need to increase about 43''/o dispersed but greater total social payoffs. for full cost recovery. Colloquially this dysfunctional favor trad- Critics point out that this study included ing by politicians is called "pork." severalbillion dollars in transit expensesas In freight the FHWfs highway cost allo- "highway cost," but on the other hand, cation studies have repeatedly shown that many costs incurred by automobile use were reliance on flat rate per gallon dieseltax and excluded. For example, traffrc servicespro- gross vehicle weight-distance charges is a vided by the highway patrol were included, serious distortion. It overcharges lighter, but the same services provided by local multi-axle trucks and undercharges high police were not. A major FH'WA study of '!flell-designed wcight per axle vehicles. toll motor vehicle costs estimated these local chargesby customer-oriented,bottom-line traffic service expensesto total $18 to $27 toll businesseswould eliminate much of this billion in L991., more than total public tran- distortion. sit subsidies.This suggeststhat applying the Truck weight and size limits and regula- user pay principle (motorists pay directly for tion of axle and trailer configuration by fed- the costs they impose) would significantly eral and state legislaturesinvolves serious increase the price of driving, reducing vehicle distortion, too. The legislatures are heavily use. Applying the user pay principle to park- influenced by waves of voter hysteria over ing, uncompensatedcrash costsand environ- large trucks. Governmental control of truck mental damages further indicate that auto- dimensionsprecludes pragmatic negotia- mobile use is underpriced. tions between trucker interests and road Samuel'scriticism of urban rail is exagger- operators which could develop win-win ated. Any transportation improvement is arrangements for trucks and roads that are expensive in urban conditions. Although both more economic and productive for transit projects may appear costly, they are truckers and more pavement and bridge often cheaper than accommodating automo- friendly for road owners. bile trips on the same corridor when all costs Another maior distortion is the "double are considered. The FH\fA estimates that taxation" of both tolls and highway user adding capacity for an urban-peak car trip chargeson toll roads. Highway user charges costs about 624 per vehicle mile.' Highway are levied for support of free roads and it is travel involves significant additional costs wrong that they should be collected on self- that are reduced or avoided with public tran- financing toll roads. sit travel: vehicle expenses,parking, down- stream traffic congestion, traffi,c services, Litman: Peter Samuel and I agree on sever- crash risk, and environmental impacts. al points, including the distortionary effects I agree that government actions often sub- of underpriced parking, the benefits of more sidize a favored mode, but this is primarily TRANSPORTATIO N OUARTERLY automobile use. Total U.S. transit subsidies levies. But such local streets serve more than averageabout $17 billion annually, most of just motorists driving through them. They which are bus service subsidies justified provide right of way for utilities, sidewalks largely for equity sake (i.e., to provide basic for walkers, accessfor deliveries, trash pick- mobility for non-drivers). Only about $S bil- up, and emergency services, and their width lion is spent annually on rail capital expendi- allows privacy spacefrom opposite buildings tures. That is small compared with the $30 and sunlight. Most new streets are financed million of general taxes spent on local and initially by the housing or commercial devel- state roads, more than $20 billion spent on oper and the costs passedon to the owners, localtraffrc services, and $100 million park- and the owners pay for the upkeep, mostly in ing subsidies provided by local governments property tax assessments.Given the multi- or mandated by zoning laws.' ple purposes of such local streets beyond It may be true, as some critics argue, that service to passing automobiles, it isn't clear bus service improvements would be cheaper that resource allocation, or equiqr, would be than rail projects, but rail offers additional improved by attempting to move toward benefits that should be considered. Rail pro- motorist charges for the upkeep of streets in duces less air and noise pollution, a signifi- thousands of cities and counties. cant benefit in large urban centers where many transit vehicles congregate. Rail transit TQzShould public policies be cbanged stations can provide a catalyst for higher denEity land development, bus transit does to addressthese di.stortions? If so,in not seem to have this effect.eThese nodes of tuhat uays? density provide economies of agglomeration Litman: I believe that reducing transporta- reflected in high property values, and trans- tion market distortions would provide signif- portation benefits reflected in reduced per icant economic, social and environmental capita automobile use.toSome research sug- benefits. This is not just my idea. Many other gests that rail transit provides significant analysts reach the same conclusion.l2 In fact, transportation benefits by "leveraging" more 'S7hile some problems cannot be solved otherwise. accessible urban land use." rail tran- For example, it is not economically feasible sit is not appropriate everywhere, it may be a to build enough capacity to meet demand for worthwhile investment on some corridors as free roads in urban areas, even with part of a community's efforts to achieve improved traffic management technologies, long-term transportation and land use objec- so traffic congestion is virtually unavoidable tives. without pricing reforms.'3 Some transportation market reforms are Samuel: The federal highway cost allocation particularly appropriate becausethey pro- study finds that at the levels of federal and vide a combination of economic, social and state government responsibility highway environmental benefits.'Wecall these "Win- users pay their way in charges. Indeed if the Win Transportation Solutions"'o (examples questionable attribution of transit costs to are listed below). There is not enough space motorists is taken out, they more than pay in this article to describe them in detail; inter- their way (see the Federal Highway Cost ested readers can obtain more information Allocation Study U.S. Department of tans- about them at our website. portation, August 1997,Table ES-5 pES-9). Distance-Based Vehicle Insurance and It is at the local government level that Registration p sssls-p lslating vehicle insur- roads are heavily paid for in other ways, ance and registration fees by mileage approx- especially with property taxes and developer 10 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY imately doubles the variable cost of driving activities closer together, such as having without increasing total costs at all. This schools and small retail shops closer to resi- incentive is predicted to reduce vehicle trav- dential areas. el and crashesby more than 1,2To,increase F lexible Zoning Re qwirements2l-Parking equitS and save consumers money. An aver- and road requirements are often inflexible age motorist is predicted to save $50-100 and over-generous.There are many ways to annuallS representing the insurance and reduce the amount of land devoted to roads roadway cost savings that result from and parking without constraining mobility. reduced driving. Parking requirements can be reduced where Reuenue -Neutral Tax Sh ifting"-Since facilities can be shared and where trans- governments must tax something, many portation management programs are imple- economists recommend shifting taxes away mented. from socially desirable activities to those that Parking-* Cash Out'"2-"Cashing out" are harmful or risky. For example, shifting offers commuters who receive free parking a taxes from employment and businesstrans- cash alternative if they use other modes. This actions to fuel consumption could reduce typically reduces driving by 10-30%, and is pollution while increasing employment and more equitable because it provides non- economic productivity. drivers with a benefit comparable in value Road Pricirugl'-Road pricing can more to what drivers receive. accurately charge users the roadway costs Transportation Management Associa- they impose. Congestion pricing can main- tions"-Transportation management asso- tain optimal roadway traffic volumes. This is ciations provide services such as rideshare more efficient andfair than current practices, matching, transit information, and parking which charge motorists according to fuel coordination in a commercial district or consumption. employment center. This helps businesses Reform Motor Carrier Regulationsls- save money and reduce local traffic and Many jurisdictions limit transportation serv- parking problems. ice competition. Private bus and jitney serv- School and College Tri.p Management- ices are often restricted. These regulations School trip management supports the use of can be changedto encouragecompetition alternative modes for taking children to and innovation while still supporting safety school.2aThese programs give families more and comprehensive service objectives. choices, encourage exercise, and reduce Local And Regi.onal Transportation De- school parking and congestion problems. mand Management (TDM) Programsle- Campus trip reduction programs are also TDM programs include a wide variety of effective." services and policies, including rideshare matching, transit improvements, bicycle and Satnwel: Reducing road fatalities should be a pedestrian facility improvements and park- major social goal. People are horrified by the ing management. Policy reforms can insure absolute number of road deaths, but most of that such programs are implemented when the difference between automobile and they are more cost effective than other solu- nonautomobile travel deaths is accounted for tions to transportation problems. by the greater absolute amount of passenger Efficient Land Usdj-Current zoning and miles traveled in autos-greater exposure. development practices tend to increase vehi- In fact the risks of automobile and nonauto- cle travel by separating land uses. More mobile travel are not all that much in favor mixed-use and infill development can of nonauto modes. In the U.S. there are increase accessand travel choices by locating about 10 deaths per billion vehicle-km (1.6 11 TRANSPORTATI ON OUARTERLY

deaths per hundred million vehicle-miles) sports such as swimming-these activities traveled on the roads. Bus and rail transit produce injuries and death on a similar scale fatalities are about four times as high in to driving. People engagein all these activi- terms of vehicle-distancetraveled so only to ties, including driving, becausethe odds of the extent they achieve a passengerloading harm in any particular trip are very low com- more than four times as great as an automo- pared to the benefits. bile (an average of about seven passeng- I seeno basis for government to overrule ers/vehicle based on auto average occupancy the judgment individuals make in taking the of 1,.7)do they offer a lower passenger-dis- risks in choosing transport modes by taxing tance risk. The use of bicycles and motor- one mode more heavily than another. bikes-and probably walking, though data On some of Litman's specific proposals, on person-miles walked is sketchy-is far vehicles suffer much risk that is unrelated to more dangerous than travel in automobiles, distance traveled-damage by theft and van- approximately an order of magnitude more dalism, for example. Another major insur- dangerous (based on National Transporta- ance risk varies with the age and skill of the tion Statistics L999, Bureau of Transporta- driver, which if anything is inversely related tion Statistics,U.S. Department of Trans- to milestraveled. Most insurancecompanies portation, pp. 231-247). aheady monitor vehicle miles traveled on a If any transport activity were to be taxed periodic basis and assignthe small weight it more heavily on the basis of risk and harm is actuariallyworth. Forcing insurancecom- alqne, it would be the use of bicycles and panies to assign distance traveled a higher motorbikes, but of course to do that would weighting than actuarially justified would be be to overlook the benefitsthe usersreceive. an unwarranted interference in their business Risks and harm in automobile use is not a and would create a new market distortion. secret. News and statistics on the road toll Distance-basedregistration and license publicize the risks all the time. Drivers see fees could be an improvement on present flat crashes,and ambulancesgoing to crashes, rate fees, but it is not clear to me that they and they know about the risks. loom large enough to make any significant People who drive their own cars have a difference to the cost of driving. The sugges- certain level of personal control over the risk tion that market-basedchanges could pro- they take. By buckling up, by driving only duce a !2To reduction in trips is implausible. when sober and alert, by keeping their car I agree with Litman in thinking there is in good mechanical condition, and by their an overwhelming case for deregulation of style of driving, they can reduce the risk in cabs and buses,and in favor of allowing a their own vehicle. On transit they take their variety of competitive transit servicesto chances over the skill and alertness of the develop. Scheduled,fixed-route bus services drivers they happen upon and the level of do, however, need some specific protection maintenance of the vehicles they drive. from opportunistic entrepreneurs who 'W'hen exposure is taken into account, the would travel ahead of the scheduled vehicles use of motor vehicles should not be catego- and pick up passengersclustered at stops on rized as an activity that is especially harmful account of the scheduled service. Klein, and risky and therefore deserving of higher Moore and Reja in Curb Rights (Brookings taxation than other activities deemed benefi- Institution Press,1.997) outline a solution to cial. Just as automobile use involves risk and this problem involving property rights at harm-but so do jobs, the use of electricity curb pick-up and set-down points. Other- and natural gas in homes and workplaces, wise free entry by different kinds of sched- climbing stairs, use of airplanes, and many uled and demand-responsiveservice is essen- 12 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY tial to serving transit patrons better and pro- tance of their home, and they wield great viding some real alternative to ownership of influence in local government. a private vehicle. The restrictions that exist TDM, TMAs and other schemesto pro- in most municipalities in the U.S. on cab mote alternatives to the automobile usually numbers and rules that prevent competition need subsidization, or involve arbitrary with established bus service are, frankly, a restriction on automobile use, and to that protectionist racket allowing a favored few extent are a market distortion in their own providers to incur costs and make profits right. they could never justify in a competitive mar- ketplace. Federal anti-trust and civil rights Litman: Again, Samuel'sresponses indicate laws should work to break up these racket- that he is unfamiliar with the concepts he is eering relationships between politicians and criticizing. He suggeststhat market reforms specialinterests. These are criminal relation- are uniustified becausesome could increase ships, or if they are not, they should be crim- crash risk. First, this implies that market inalized. reforms are intended only to reduce crash- Certainlyit makesintuitive senseto sayas es,when in fact they are intended to provide Litman does that zonings, which limit het- several benefits including traffrc congestion erogeneous land use, will increase trip reduction, road and parking facility cost lengths. If small stores are prevented from savings, increased consumer choice, con- setting up in a "residential" area, then trips sumer savings, and reduced environment- toranother store will be longer and some al impacts. Second,his argumentsare in- walking trips will be converted to auto trips. correct: Similarly when home-basedjobs are prohib- 1. Suggesting that walking and cycling ited in "residential" areas people may com- should be taxed more heavily on the basis mute some miles to an office when they of risk indicates a fundamental misunder- would prefer to work in an office just steps standing of economic concepts. Price away. But we don't have much by way of reforms are needed to correct external studies that quantify the importance of this costs. Additional crash risk borne by in generating extra trips. pedestriansand cyclistsis an internal cost, Also there are trade-offs. Small stores so additional taxes or fees would not be often cost more to operate and have higher charged to them. prices, just as schools within walking dis- tance will offer fewer choices to pupils and 2.'lfhile it's true that pedestrians and cyclists make it difficult to hire specialistteachers. bear a higher risk of crash injuries, this is 'We often make trips to gain the benefits of offset by the low risk they impose on oth- agglomeration and specialization. Single- ers (reduced external risk). \Talking and minded pursuit of trip reduction can end up cycling also provide exercise benefits that increasing overall costs and depriving peo- some studies indicate more than offset ple of benefits they would have gotten from increased crash risk to users.As a result, trips. shifts from driving to walking and cycling On land use restrictions, many of the provide overall public health benefits. same people who decry sprawl and protest at 3. The relatively high crash risk for U.S. tran- new transport infrastructure, such as a new sit travel results from low load factors. motorway, are most vocal in opposing high- Many TDM strategies would increase er density living and the "intrusion"' of com- transit load factors, resulting in lower mercial activity into "residential" areas. crash rates per passengermile. Many don't want a store within walking dis- t3 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY

4. The evidence is very clear and consis- Transportation Management Associations tent that regions with lower automobile and TDM programs have proven successful use tend to have lower per capita road- and cost effective in many situations. way injuries and deaths. The transporta- Although such programs do require funding, tion market reforms we propose could their costs tend to be lower than the cost of have substantial safety benefits.Distance- providing additional road and parking based insurance pricing in particular capacity. The problem we recommend cor- tends to produce substantial crash reduc- recting is that funds available to expand tions because it gives higher risk parking and road capacity usually cannot be motorists the greatest incentive to reduce used for demand management solutions, their mileage. even if they are more cost effective and ben- eficial. We simply suggest that a least-cost Samuel's arguments against distance- approach be used for selecting transporta- based insurance are technically incorrect. He tion improvements, whether that is more assumesthat this reform requires a trade-off asphalt or a TDM program. between mileage and other risk factors. The price strategy we propose prorates curfent 'What premiums by annual mileage and so incor- TQ: iwsffication existsfor public porates all existing risk factors. No trade-off policies that influencepeople's is involved. (the \fith one exception Progres- transportafion choices? sive Insurance Company is currently testing disDance-basedinsurance pricing), no insur- Samwel:At the micro-urbanor neighbor- ance rates apply anything near adequate hoodlevel, homeowners and business people weight to mileage. This is unfair and encour- arejustified in bandingtogether to makecol- ages excessivedriving. lective decisions about the role of different Samuel dismissesour estimatesof vehicle transport modes within their small commu- travel reductions without showing evidence. nity of say 200 to 2,000 people. A home- Since the average motorist spends about as owners' association may decide to regulate much on combined vehicle insurance and auto accessand limit parking to the outside registration fees than on fuel each year, con- of a development, to make the inner area verting these to variable costs is equivalent to auto-free. In historic districts, laid out for doubling the price of fuel. Using standard horsepower and walking,traffic calming and estimates of price effects on vehicle travel, a other limits on auto speedsand truck access 12o/" total mileage reduction is a lower-end may be decidedupon. Businessesmay simi- estimate. lady try and concentrate cat parking and The land use policy reforms we propose provide shuttles, or decide that a pedestrian do not force people to choose undesirable mall built in the 1970s was a mistake and housing locations, or forego travel that they that motorists should be welcomed again. value. It allows consumers to make their Homeowners' associations and local block own trade-offs. Current land use policies or neighborhood groups, and businesses favor lower-density single-use development. adjacent to a pedestrian mall have every These distortions reduce consumer choice, right to make these kinds of decisions to pre- increase automobile use, and are harmful to serve,or enhance,the economy and charac- the environment. There is abundant research ter of their area. After all, they will have to indicating that per capita vehicle trip gener- live with the consequencesof such decisions. ation rates are lower in communities with But at the municipal, metropolitan or more mixed land use. state levels of government, efforts to dictate

14 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY people's choices in transport mode become indirectly, just as we expect from electricity oppressive and authoritarian. Far from being and telephone service, but travel choices are an acceptanceof a chosen lifestyle by a dis- still left to consumers. crete group, they become the imposition of Public policy akeady influences a person's onet own set of values on others. Instead of travel decisions in many ways. For example, being an affirmation of choice, they become public investments in paths, roads, public at the macro-urban level. a denial of choice. transit, and airports determine what travel A person's mode choice is an exceedingly options are available. The design of such personal affair. \Whether a person uses a car, facilities and the rules that govern their use bus, SUV, cab, minivan) commuter rail, or influence the relative advantages of different bike, will depend in large measure on per- modes. Funding, taxing and pricing practices son-by-person considerations, such as their impact travel choices. Zoning laws and senseof security at transit stops, health and development policies have major effects on strength, errands that may be combined or land use patterns, which affect our travel "chained" with the work trip, trade-offs choices. between housing costs and location conven- Until recently, transportation planning ience, the extent to which they have a vehi- consisted primarily of choosing the best way cle for noncommute purposes, their spouse's to make driving convenient. Such practices and children's needs, etc. No planners or are so common that some motorists respond bureaucrats can second-guessthe individual to even modest efforts for balance as a threat on-whether their mode choice is optimal or to their "right" to drive. Motorists accus- suboptimal, warranted or unwarranted. tomed to subsidies may truly believe that They simply don't know the details of their being required to pay directly to drive and lives sufficiently well. Further-and here we park reduces their freedom, but they actually assertan article of philosophical or political bear those costs already, indirectly, through faith-no planner or legislator has the moral taxes, higher consumer costs, and lower right to overrule people's individual choices wages. Paying directly rather than indirectly in such matters. Governments have no more allows consumers to choose when an auto- right to set a limit on car usage or vehicle mobile trip is really worth its full cost. At miles traveled than they have a right to set a worse, motorists simply continue to drive as ceiling on per capita electriciryconsumption, much as they do now and bear the same to limit the number of telephone calls made, overall costs,but they have a new opportu- dictate how much people will eat, spend on nity to save money by driving less. Any trav- vacations, or dictate the maximum size of el foregone representstrips that consumers houses.At issue are freedom and individual value less than their full costs. rights. Governments have a responsibility to So, at higher levels of government than insure that transportation and land use mar- the small neighborhood from which people kets are fair and efficient, which means pro- can opt out, any government policy on mode viding reasonable choices based on full cost 'When choice is quite unjustified. pricing. that is done, most other inter- ventions would be unnecessary.Until then, Litman: The reforms we are discussing are communities may choose to establish trip no threat to freedom or rights. They do not reduction objectives and programs to involve bureaucrats dictating an individual's address traffic congestion, environmental travel decisions. They increase consumer problems and inequities resulting from exist- choice. Some require users to pay directly to ing market distortions. But not even the most use roads and parking, rather than paying aggressive programs have bureaucrats mak- t5 TRANSPORTATI ONOUARTERLY

'Where ing travel decisions for individuals. Even Samwel: TDM programs are one- "mandatory" commute trip reduction pro- tenth the cost to employers of providing grams implemented in some large urban parking spacesthen they are liable to be areas only require employers to develop implemented without the need for govern- management plans. The components of the ment programs or mandates. No doubt a plan are flexible. They may include measures great deal of voluntary TDM does occuq such as Parking Cash Out, transit and where as Litman suggests, it saves the rideshare information, and bicycle parking, employer money. which increasecommuter choicesand reduce Voluntary TDMs are quite uncontrover- automobile subsidies.No employeeis forced sial. No one proposes to prevent employers to give up driving. Such programs typically implementing TDMs. At issue have been fed- affect only 10-20% of trips, so most com- eral and state mandates requiring TDMs mutes are unaffected. A few cities are exoer- such as employee commute plans in cases imenting with "car free" transportation,but where businessesfind them ineffectual, oner- these are generally limited to downtown ous, and costly. Such programs have arbi- areas or are only implemented a few days trary targets, arbitrary thresholds for eligibil- eacn year. it5 and they have often been arbitrarily Most Transportation Demand Manage- administered. They provoked great opposi- ment (TDM) and "Smart Growth" strategies tion and have been largely abandoned. reduce government interventions or simply There is a distinction of substancebetween change existing practices. For example, a discrete neighborhood of some hundreds TDM and Smart Growth often eliminate of people choosing to be car-friendly or a parking requirements and make develop- "walkable, " transit-oriented community and ment standards more flexible. Distance- a whole metro area, state, or country decid- based pricing simply requires a change in ing this. In the first case,there will be a diver- existing insurance regulations. Even manda- sity of development patterns and people will tory Commute Trip Reduction programs are retain choices of lifestyle, whereas in the sec- no more burdensome than existing require- ond, there will be a one-size-fits-all(and a ments: the most comprehensiveprograms small size at that) development pattern, and typically cost less than $100 annually per choice will disappear. employee, about one-tenth of what employ- If that argument is "ideological," then the ers spend on a parking space. U.S. is a country founded by "ideologues" Samuel'ssuggestion that transportation and still teeming with them. management is only appropriate by small homeowner and business associations is TQ: Should it be a public policy arbitrary and restrictive. Some TDM strate- gies can be applied by such groups, but oth- obiectiueto reduceuebicle-miles ers must be implemented at other geographic traueled? levels. For example, rideshare matching is Litman: It shouldbe public policy to cor- most effective at the regional level, and tran- rect market distortions that cause excessive sit improvements require coordination automobile use.The result would almost cer- acrossjurisdictional boundaries. Distance- tainly be a significant reduction in vehicle basedinsurance requires changesby state or mileage. provincial regulators. The changes we pro- This is not to suggestthat automobiles are poseare simply modestcorrections to a cur- "bad" or that driving should be arbitrarily rently unbalanced system. Samuel'scriticisms prohibited. It simply recognizes that individ- seemexaggerated and ideological. ual consumers and society overall would 16 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY benefit from a more balanced and diverse would decline in a more optimal transporta- transportation system. Under an optimal tion market. transportation market, consumers would continue to drive when they want, but would Samwel: The United States Environmental have more opportunities and incentives to Protection Agency, the U.K. government and use alternatives when they are a better choice many European governments have explicitly overall, taking into account all benefits and embraced policies to reduce vehicle miles costs. traveled by automobiles. I'm delighted that Truly beneficial automobile travel can Litman isn't keeping that company. face the discipline of the market. It does not require underpricing, arbitrary tax exemp- TQ:Are present leuelsof expenditure on tions or other favorable treatments that our transit and roads appropriate? current transportation system provides. The additional driving that results from these Saruuel:Expenditures on transit,especially market distortions is harmful to consumers passengerrall, are far too high in the U.S. and the economy overall. There is no justification for taxpayers- As an analogy food provides tremendous mostly motorists-being required by gov- benefits. However, this does not mean that ernments to underwrite most of the costs of increasedeating is necessarilybeneficial, that building and operating thesecostly systems. current diets are optimal, or that society In general they provide more inferior serv- should subsidize all food, including luxury ice than automobiles-slower travel times, meals. At the margin (i.e., relative to current more intermodal transfers, less privacy and consumption), many people are better off securitR and a greatly reduced carrying eating less, becauseovereating is unhealthy capacity for goods. And they cost more- and reducing food expenditures leavesmore rall's 379 per passenger-mileand the bus, resourcesfor other beneficialgoods. Current 44p versus 21A by automobile (Clifford transportation pricing is akin to all-you-can- \Tinston and Chad Shirley, Alternate Rowte, eat restaurant pricing, which encourages Brookings Institution, 1.998,p.26). These excessiveeating. Direct user payments of researchersfound net disbenefits (aggregate transportation costs allow consumers to benefits exceeded by aggregatecosts) from trade costs against benefits for each trip, just transit in the U.S. presently, so any rational as a la carte restaurant pricing allows diners policy would set about an orderly phaseout to choose just the amount and combination of public subsidiesto rail. Rail is used dis- of foods they want. proportionately by the wealthy, so there Until comprehensive reforms are imple- should be no hesitation in cutting off tax- mented, there will continue to be significant payer support. Many rail operations might external costs associatedwith automobile continue since demand in major markets use, and so vehicle travel reduction objec- such as New York City may be rather price tives are justified on "second best" princi- inelastic-users would pay much higher ples. For example, the best solution to con- fares than currently prevail. gestion problems is to price road space,but Bus transit on the other hand is used more until this occurs, it may make senseto use by the poor, so there are equity and welfare more blunt, nonpricing TDM strategies to arguments for subsidy. In addition, unlike discourage urban-peak driving and encour- most rail service, buses can share the right- age alternatives, such as HOV lanes and of-way with other vehicles. It may have the employer Commute Trip Reduction pro- ability to take over at lower cost from aban- grams. The justification for such programs doned rail service, and pay its way. 17 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY

In the absenceof functioning road space Modern lifestyles with two-worker house- markets, it is difficult to know if aggregate holds, flexible work hours, and the emerg- levels of road expenditure are appropriate. ing decentralized and dispersed shape of the It is likely that far roo much is being spent on American built environment, overwhelming- roads in sparsely settled rural areas (the ly favor the door-to-door, nonstop net- work of Doug Lee, Volpe Center, and John worked service of the personal auto and sin- Semmens, Arizona Department of Trans- gle goods vehicle/roadway system. The portation, suggeststhis). On major interur- line-haul characteristics of transit are only ban routes it seems likely that proper life suited now to a tiny niche market of work cycle costing and negotiated arrangements trips from points close to a transit line to between truckers and road operators would central businessareas. These are now iust seelarger spending on capital (heavierpave- one of many employment and businessdis- ment and bridge loadings) but there would tricts within any metro area. be reduced repaving and less frequent recon- Expenditure on transit with dedicated struction. Performance warranties might trackage, elaborate stations and custom-built have the same effect of substituting capital vehicles is generally money wasted on an for maintenance spending. obsolete,high-cost mode that catersto slight In congested urban areas, ne',;\r'policies social need. and higher road expenditures are clearly needed.Annual U.S. congestion costs prob- Litunan: I believe that there are justifications ably run around $96 billion per year (assum- for society to provide a basic 'Sfhat level of access. ing the 68 cities' congestion measured by the constitutes "basic access" is a mater Texas Transportation Institute's "Annual of discussion and may vary from one com- Mobility Report" calculations account for munity to another, but it usually means that three-quarters of the national total), so sub- people have mobility options needed to stantial extra spending is probably warrant- obtain education, employment, medical serv- ed to reduce congestion. Of course, demand ices, and some shopping and recreation is artificially enlarged by the lack of peak activities. This often requires society to sub- hour pricing of road use within the cities. But sidize rural roads and transit services, to offsetting that, it is depressed by the very insure that people can participate in eco- aggravations of driving in congestedcondi- nomic and socialactivities. tions; in turn, there is a substantial latent Anything beyond basic accessshould be demand to be satisfied. funded directly by users, based on the costs The Winston and Shirley modeling (cited they impose. It is therefore an empirical above) suggeststhat efficient urban transport question based on consumer demand in the U.S. requires a substantial decreasein whether particular roads and transit systems transit and an increase in the auto road would expand or contract. As previously share-for an autoltransit split of 97.6,,/"/ mentioned, our analysis indicates that over- 2.4o/" versus the existing 93.4%16.6% split all vehicle travel would decline significantly (p. 58). This would require a once-and-for- in a more optimal transportation market, all increaseof auto usage of some 4 to 5o/o, reducing the need for road capacity. There plus growth in line with popularion after may be some corridors where vehicle travel that. Road toll variations according to con- demand is high enough that increased road gestion levels would enable us to use the capacity is still justified, but I suspect they existing roadway more efficiently and also are few. provide objective market signals as ro where Public transit could be far more produc- future investment is justified. tive if market distortions favoring driving t8 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY and automobile-oriented development were than road costs. Repeatedly it is calculated corrected. In a more optimal market, there that transit trips for which riders pay $1 or may still be justifications for some transit $2 costs $5 to $20 to provide. And usually subsidies to maintain basic mobility for non- relatively expensive rail ridership draws drivers, but per trip subsidies should decline much patronage from prior bus ridership. due to economiesof scaleand scopein tran- Few new rail riders are extracted from cars. sit service. International studies indicate that No conceivable rail network in any devel- public transit is much more cost effective in oping U.S. metro area can provide stations cities with more balanced transportation.z5 within walkable distance of more than a few Put another way, transit subsidiesare need- percent of trip origins and destinations, so ed, in part, due to automobile dependency. expensive,time-consuming, and polluting Samuel implies that motorist and transit shuttle services andlor parking are required user interests' conflict, but least-costinvest- to support rail. After-the-event studies have ment principles suggest that highway funds shown insignificant rail impacts on road should be spent on transit improvements congestion and slight land use impacts. when they are the most cost-effective solu- Fixed route passengertransit servesa niche tion to traffic problems. Transit improve- market of central city commuters, but cen- ments benefit motorists by providing addi- tral cities are declining in importance as job tional choices (even people who don't centers and commuting is declining relative currently use transit may value knowing that to noncommute trips. Rubber-tired vehicles i+is there in casethey ever need it, just like have the enormous advantage of operating a spare tire or lifeboat have value even on a hierarchical system of infrastructure if they are not actually used) and by re- from motorways at the top end down to ducing traffic congestion and parking prob- alleyways, driveways, parking structures lems. Some researchsuggests that these ben- and loading docks at the bottom end. By efits are substantial in congestedurban cor- contrast most rail journeys require an ridors." expensive and time-consuming mode shift at As stated earlier, I think that there are sig- each end. nificant additional benefits to transit in gen- eral and rail transit in particular that are TQ: A maior political issuein the U.S. overlooked by Samuel and in the analysis by Winston and Shirley. These include vehicle is suburban spraul. In uhat uays and parking cost savings, more efficient land showld transportafion p okcy be shap ed use, increasedconsumer choice, and equity. to addressland use objectiues? A more comprehensive analysis tends to jus- tify more Transportation Demand Manage- Litman: Transportation and land use poli- ment and public transit improvements. cies are two sides of the same coin: Exces- sive driving encourages low-densitg urban Samuel: Certainly where objective analysis periphery development ("sprawl") which shows a transit investmenr as a more cosr- leads to automobile dependent land use pat- effective way of satisfying demand for trans- terns that encourage excessivedriving. This portation than a highway investment, then it results in inefficient transport and land use is preferable. In the real world of developing pafferns. urban areas in advanced countries, this rarely Most comments I have made regarding occurs. Ridership on fixed route transit nor- transportation policy apply equally to land mally falls way below projections and net use. Several land policy reforms, which justified costs per passengermile end up much higher reduce sprawl, are for economic, 19 TRANSPORTATION OUARTERLY

social, and environmental benefits. For throw a ball with the kids, store a boat and example:28 have some buffer spacebetween themselves Zoning Laus-Current zoning laws often and their neighbors. Lower density ware- require excessiveparking supply and single- housing and big-box stores are needed to use development patterns. This discourages deploy loading docks, forklifts, and pallets in infill development, unnecessarilylimits den- place of the much less efficient handling of sity and reduces access,favors automobile- goods and use of two-wheeled handtrucks dependent land use patterns, and results in involved in cross-sidewalk or alleyway deliv- underpriced driving. eries of old cities. Transportafion Planning and Iruuestment It is simply untrue, in the U.S. anyway, Practices-Current planning tends to favor that current planning practices favor high- highway improvements over alternatives way improvements over alternatives. As (such as congestion pricing and other TDM specified in federal regulations, all alterna- strategies),in part becausededicated high- tives must be compared.'When the highway way funds are an incentive for local govern- alternative comes out of the comparative ments to define their transportation prob- process as the most cost-effective,transit Iems in terms of highway solutions when enthusiasts will often charge that the process other solutions may actually be more cost was biased, but they seldom go beyond effective overall. This leads to more automo- assertion on the basis of the result. bile-dependentland use patterns. Often the project selection processis in JJtility Pricing and Tax Rares-Although the hands of an agency dedicated to transit public service costs tend to increase for and road-based solutions are given short lower-density, urban fringe development, this shrift. Road pricing or toll lane projects, is not usually reflected in taxes and fees. which would often improve a road solution, Households in older urban neighborhoods are rarely among the alternatives considered. tend to overpay for public services, while That is a major source of anti-highway bias those in newer, lower-density suburban loca- in the planning process. tions tend to underpay." This underpricing Another anti-highway bias lies in the way encouragessprawl. contemporary transport planning focuses Urban Disinuestment-O1.der, multi- analysis on major corridors rather than modal urban neighborhoods have become on analysis of an areanetwork. This stacks degraded, in part because they tend to the odds in favor of choosing high invest- receive less infrastructure investment per ment, fixed guideway, line-haul systems, and capita than suburban areas.Households that against solutions that enhance the overall want amenities such as good public schools network. The strength of road transport is often have no alternative to automobile- its ubiquitous infrastructure, from drive- dependency,suburban locations. This lever- ways, alleyways and local streets, through agesmore automobile-dependentlifestyles collectors, distributors and arterials, all the than would occur if the housing market way up to motorways. It usually offers offered more consumer choices. alternative routes. It involves door to door, or loading dock to loading dock, travel in Samuel: Peripheral development is not nec- the one vehicle. That minimizes the need for essarily low-density, though sometimes costly and time-consuming intermodal municipal zonings make it lower density transfers. When analysis focuses on a corri- than a developer would choose. But low den- dor, usually a radial corridor, it tends to sity developmentmay also simply be a reflec- minimize consideration of the network tion of householderswanting the spaceto strengths of road-based vehicles. 20 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY

Litman: Samuel approachesthis as an ideo- regional planning objectives, but there are logical debate between highway and public still many policies that tip the scalestoward transit. which I think blinds him to the real highway capacity expansion solutions to our issues.The reforms we have proposed are transportation problems. not based on choosing between highways and public transit; they concern choosing Sarnuel: America and Canada, too, continue between capacity expansion and demand to draw strength from immigration. Silicon management. This is not "anti-highway" Valley and associated high-tech industry any more than a healthy diet is "anti-food." draw on the whole world's talent pool and I am not suggestingthat highway construc- on venture capital and entrepreneurship that tion and automobile use should stop, but U.S. institutions seemto spawn. So our met- be subjected to the ropolitan areas continue to grow even simply that it should 'We same economic discipline that regulates most though the natural birthrate is low con- economic activities. tinue to be a mobile people, relocating to I don't think the evidence supports warmer parts of the country, and beautiful Samuel's assertion that current planning and settingsof mountains, lakes, desertsand the investment practices favor transit over high- sea. At the same time, we want improved ways. I believe that an objective review amenities in traditional and historic settings. would show that highway investmentsare It is not ideological but simply practical, and consistently favored over demand manage- in serviceof people, to say that we should me-pt.This results from planning practices accommodate the reasonable needs of our that define goals and objectives in terms of fellow citizens for personal transportation vehicle traffrc flow. So, for example, im- where they are prepared to pay the costs of provements in electronic communications or improved infrastructure in the form of more efficient land use patterns that reduce newer, safer and more efficient roads, bridges the needto travel are not usuallyrecognized and tunnels. as transportation improvements, and not considered as options in planning and fund- TQ: What are the prospectsfor imple- highway funds ing processes.Dedicated menti.ngsignificant policy changesto reward lurisdictions with money if they choose roadway projects, but provide no achieuetransportation and land use comparable levelsof funding for TDM solu- objectiues?.Whois likely to support tions. There is little opportunity or incentive and uho is likely to opposesuch incentives, such as conges- to use economic changes? tion or parking pricing to address trans- portation problems. Samuel and I agreethat Samwel: Those who decry suburban congestion pricing should be used more to "sprawl" may, unfortunatelS have some suc- address congestion problems. However, I cessin limiting construction of needed new certainly don't blame opposition from transit roads and in blocking development on the interestsfor a lack of road pricing (road pric- fringes of our built areas. Many influential ing increasestransit demand), and I seeit as Americans seem to have bought the wrong just one of several pricing reforms that idea that capacity enhancement won't pro- should be implemented. duce congestion relief, and hence is pointless. Public transit receives a share of federal And those who will benefit from new devel- and state funds, and new federal transporta- opment aren't politically organized to com- tion policies allow some funds to be used for pete with those who want to block develop- either highway or transit, depending on ment. Settled property owners will often be 21 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY

wary of, or flat out oppose, new develop- vative and fearful groups in the suburbs. ment. They see it as bringing unwelcome Arrayed against them will be new entrepre- change-for example, conversion of verdant neurial businesseswanting low cost facilities farmland fields to suburbs that are inevitably for themselves and their workers, tract stark until softening vegetation has matured, homebuilders, immigrants and, of course, extra traffic, new and different people, new the road gang. demands on public servicessuch as schools, Neither camp is likely to win a clear polit- and possible increasesin local taxes. Those ical victory and have its vision prevail. People who resist change are in place and find it eas- of my persuasion who believe transport facil- ier to organize and elect "slow-growth" offi- ities should be shapedto respond ro demon- cials. Those who would benefit from new strated public need, and expanded to over- development would come from all over, and come congestion, are likely to remain very the poor would benefit by moving into their frustrated by strong opposition to every road vacated houses. The dispersed beneficiaries enhancement proposal. That will mean are only protected by the old American Americans continue to suffer unnecessary notion that it's only fair to provide opportu- congestion and aggravation on the roads. But nity for others to buy their way into home- in cars equipped with automatic transmission ownership and that the suburbs are the best and soon intelligent cruise control, mobile place for them to raise families. phones, sound systems and perhaps in-vehi- Those who want to harness transport pol- cle Internet access,congestion time will be icy_to their vision of a so-called "New less aggravating and unproductive. So people Urbanism" will not have it all their way, will not be "congested out of their cars" as however. Their promises of a lower cost, some transit enthusiasts hope. The anti- higher quality, less congested way of life in sprawl crowd will only succeedwith the neg- planned, higher density inner areas are ative part of their agenda-that which blocks doomed to failure. Higher density is more, some roads and delays some development. not less,expensive. Congestion is certain to They will find the public heavily resistant to increase, not decreasewith greater density, densification and seedevelopment leapfrog- becausethe absolute number of trips mode ging to areas beyond their "green belts." shifted will be less than the absolute increase in trip numbers. Most serious for the would- Litman: I don't think Samuel'sapproach is be sprawl-busters, the overwhelming major- helpful for evaluating reforms. I believe that ity of Americans prefers the present moder- there can be significant economic, social and ate densitiesof the suburbs and will fiercely environmental benefits to applying Smart resist densification. Growth principles, such as better coordina- The sprawl-busters have a totally unrealis- tion between transportation and land use, tic notion of the power of planners to antici- and incentives for more clustered develop- pate future needs and to "plan" spatial ment to reduce infrastructure costs and pre- arrangements that reduce the demand for serve greenspace.'oI see a growing portion mobility. Hopefully the smug Smart Growrh of North Americans who appreciate these program will prove a short-lived political fad, benefits for a variety of reasons:some want and it will be recognized as a political scam to live in a more pedestrian-friendly commu- full of hyperbole and impossible promises. nity, some value having wildlife habitat, Inner city administrations and property- while others simply want to reduce tax bur- owners, together with transit suppliers and dens. Increasinglg developers seethe value of agencies have a strong self-interest in the "New Urbanist" design to meet market "anti-sprawl" movement, as well as conser- demand, and businessessee better planning 22 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY as a way to support more regional economic older urban neighborhoods, and suburban development, as indicated by a 1995 study neotraditional neighborhoods. Given good by the Bank of America on the benefits of choices, many consumers prefer being less Smart Growth in California. This suggests automobile dependent. that it is possible to organize a broad coali- As a personal example, when our family tion of interests to support innovations and was shopping for a home many friends reforms, including residents, taxpayers, pub- encouraged us to locate in an outer suburb to lic officials, businessleaders, health profes- have better schools for our children. This is a sionals, and environmentalists. common sentiment. It indicates that many Of course, such changes must overcome families choose suburban homes for ameni- considerable inertia, including developers ties such as school quality, not becausethey and public officials accustomed to existing want an automobile-dependent lifestyle. It is planning practices, local officials who prefer often more cost effective to improve urban the administrative simplicity of inflexible services and environmental conditions, zoning laws, industries that profit from mar- thereby attracting middle-class households ket inefficiencies, and citizens who resist the back to multimodal neighborhoods, than to short-term costs required to achieve long- continue increasing road capacity and term benefits. Although most residents could extending services at the urban fringe. benefit overall from these reforms, they tend to be skeptical and easily influenced to Samuel: Automobiles and other rubber- oppose innovation. tired motor vehicles are as central a part of Critics try to portray TDM and Smart our way of life as electricity telephones and Growth as anti-consumer. They often focus no% computers. For several decadesnow on just one or fwo strategies, such as parking city planning and government budgets have fees or urban growth boundaries. But TDM been heavily devoted to reducing the role of and Smart Growth involve a balance of automobiles and providing "alternatives." strategies that increase consumer choice, More has been spent in government grants remove market distortions, and reward con- and subsidiesto urban transit systemsthan sumers for choices that reduce problems cre- on building the whole U.S. interstate high- ated by excessivevehicle traffic and sprawl. way system. Government monopoly control I think that there is considerable poten- of toll bridges and tunnels is used to restrict tial for changing public policy, becausethe supply and generatevast profits, which dis- solutions used in the past are no longer effec- appear into the bottomless pit of subsidized tive. Although automobile use provides ben- transit. The result: 2"/" of trips are catered efits, these benefits experience diminishing to. returns. Most people don't want to be more At Baltimore-'lfashington International automobile dependent than they are no% Airport, a $1 million trolley looks splendid and many welcome alternatives that allow but rarely delivers more than the number of them to be less automobile dependent. Over passengerswho could fit into a $30,000 van, the long term there will be opportunities for because "light rail" is all the political rage. reform as problems continue to increase and No one thought to ask how many air trav- conventional solutions continue to fail. elers would be attracted to a mode which For example, developers are finding that has an averagespeed of about 20 mph and many households will pay a premium for whose stops are within walking distance housing in well-designed urban neighbor- of less than 2o/oof Baltimore's population. hoods with balanced transportation. They This attempt to overcome "auto-depend- can make money selling city lofts, infill in ence" is crazinessat the level of King Canute 23 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY ordering back the tides. tia and resistancefrom interests that benefit There are no realistic alternatives to rub- from the existing distortions. Although soci- ber-tired transportation, any more than there ety benefits overall from more efficient pric- are realistic alternatives to electricity, or the ing, the benefitsare dispersed,while those use of computers. We have been devoting who perceive that they would be worse off enormous resources to the search for alter- are quick to organizeopposition. natives. They aren't there. Surely it will be I believe, however, that much of this more constructive to focus our energies on resistance is actually misplaced. For exam- refining, reforming and accommodating the ple, the trucking industry has consistently automobile, rather than continuing to pursue opposed congestion pricing, although truck- nostalgic notions and chimeras of alterna- ers would be among the greatest beneficiaries tives. due to their higher operating costs. Similar- ly, many business organizations oppose fuel TQ: Throughout the world, uhere are tax increases on the grounds that it would be economically harmful, although there is thesepolicy changescurrently being good evidence that tax shifting would implemented? increase overall businessactivify and employ- ment. There is a great need to educate people Litman: Many market reforms are being about the potential benefits they could gain implemented: from economic reforms, and to organize . Vury cities have parking management coalitions to support thesechanges. and TDM programs.3l . The U.K. has implemented comprehensive Samuel: Many policies claim to be market traffic reduction plans and programs." reforms but many lack essentialelements of the free market. Good parking policies will . U.S. federal tax policy now allows parking involve minimal government "manage- Cash Out (although it is still taxable and ment," and maximum competition among therefore worth lessto employees than the different self-financing parking providers, samemoney spent on a parking space).33 and maximum flexibility for businessesand . The Progressive Insurance Company property owners to provide and sell parking, offers Autograph vehicle insurance cover- or buy it from others as they seefit. In many age, which employs GPS technology to cases, anti-market policies masquerade charge motorists basedon vehicle use.to under the name of "parking management . The U.K. and Scandinaviancountries are reform" and TDM. implementing tax shifts to encourage U.K. governments likewise have talked a energy conservation and reduce driving." great deal about traffic reduction and pricing but have deferred action, or left initiatives o The cities of Singapore and three Norwe- to local government. Norwegian cordon tolls gian cities have implemented downtown were sold to the communities of Trondheim, road accessfees using electronic tolls, and Oslo, and Bergen as the means to fund a congestion pricing is being considered packageof road and transit improvemenrs, elsewhere." rather than as demand management Despite theseisolated successes,there is schemes,though they have been moderately still far to go. Few governments are imple- successfulin that regard. mentingcomprehensive transportation mar- Singapore'sroad pricing sysremseems to ket reforms basedon economic principles. have major benefits in assisting free flow of This is expected, since any reform faces iner- traffic, but such a comprehensive approach is 24 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY politically impossiblein most of the U.S. and these issues, and baseshis arguments on ide- difficult in the European and Australasian ology rather than thoughtful, objective analy- democracies as well. Singapore is unique in sis.He opposesTDM programs becausethey being a citylstate having a single level of gov- are government funded, yet so are most exist- ernment and an executive branch that ing roadway programs. Similarlg he opposes derives its power from a majority of the leg- parking management that involves govern- islature. It can force through comprehensive ment regulations, but so do current parking schemesthat most other countries could not, policies. I agreewith Samuel that it is prefer- as demonstrated by the recent defeat of the able to let decisions be made by consumers ambitious "Rekeningrijden" cordon tolling in a free and efficient market. However, after in the four major Dutch metro areas.Rather decadesof tax and zoning policies causing than pushing for comprehensiveschemes of excessiveparking supply and automobile use, road pricing and demand management, we correcting distortions often requires active need successfuldemonstration projects, like intervention. In may casesit may make sense I-15 HOT lanes in San Diego, Houston's for a community to establish parking and HOV-two pricing, the 91-Express Lanes in transportation demand management objec- Los Angeles, shoulder discounts on Lee tives to more quickly achieve an efficient County, Florida's bridges, and the three-tier transportation and land use system. pricing of the 407 toll road in Toronto. 'What I am thinking of genuine "demonstration TQ: trends and neu) technolngies projects" hoping that term is not contami- nated by associationwith U.S. "pork" proj- are occurring that ui.ll alter tbe 'We ects. need limited projects that can be ffictiueness or feasibility of tbese sold as trials only, rather than as schemesof poliqt changes? broad social engineering, that will demon- strate the benefits of pricing to motorists. It Samwel:We may be about to seesome major will be fatal to pricing if it is seen as a way breakthroughs in new automotive propul- of trying to get motorists out of their cars sion technologies. Much more fuel-efficient and otherwise extract more money from and cleaner dieselsand gasoline engines are them for transit or other purposes. These being developed.Hybrid internal combus- projects must offer motorists the choice of tion/electric battery vehicles may find a sig- using the priced facility, and getting a better nificant niche market for shorter-distance level of service, or sticking with the present trips. At last fuel cells look to have more unpriced facility. Only such unthreatening- than theoretical promise. This technology to-motorist projects will fly politically. will allow per-mile emissions to be reduced Truckers and their customers must stand much faster than vehicle-miles traveled is to benefit from priced lanes and variably likely to grow, so total vehicular emissions tolled crossings. When these schemes are will drop. Motor vehicles, though more advocated by groups that vilify trucks and numerous, will become a smaller environ- want to pour taxpayer or motorist resources mental burden. into rail lines, it is not surprising that truck- Most importantly for polic5 the flat rate ing groups are suspicious and resistant. Pric- per gallon fuel tax will become a diminishing ing has to be developed as attractive to source of revenue for roads and tolling will truckers by offering tangible benefits to truck gfow. operators in excessof their costs for them to Intelligent transport systems (ITS) have be expected to buy in to the idea. been an area abounding in "hucksterish" Litman: I think that Samuel oversimolifies hyperbole, of solutions in search of prob- 25 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY lems, attracting swarms of animals reared to ing the labyrinth of federal and state tax col- feed at government troughs. But in the right lections and politicized disbursement strings institutional setting, ITS can deliver the and allocation channels. goods in spectacular fashion. Electronic Communications, location tracking and tolling has transformed the public accept- computing technologies now make it possi- ability and the economics of toll roads and ble to run far more efficient demand respon- road pricing. Tolling can now be practically sive transport services.Customer needs can implemented on individual lanes of an other- be logged and priorities established at a cen- wise tax-financed and traditional road, and tral dispatching or fleet management center, tolls can be registered at full highway speed and vehicles directed, en route, to pick up and collected remotely like a utiliry bill. Toll and deliver people or goods door to door rates can be varied independently of coinage while maintaining minimum wait times and sizesand fine-tuned by the minute to manage maximum load factors. This will enable us to traffic flow and to prevent breakdown in- increasingly dispense with traditional line- to inefficient stop-and-go-as brilliantly haul and train systems, which have heavy demonstrated by the San Diego Association shuttle and transfer costs at their ends, and of Governments on I-15. Motorists have which impose unnecessary waits before proven far more receptive to variable pricing, departures, and stops and circuitous routings where it has actually been implemented, than along the way. its strongest advocates dared to predict. It In an age of disperseddevelopment, mul- hasproven difficult, however, to get pricing tiple activity centers) and diverse origins, des- projects through the political minefields to tinations, and timings of trips, centralized the stage where the public can try it and see transport systems will be as much an ana- its benefits. Hopefully as working examples chronism as a computing world dominated succeed,they will capture the public imagi- by mainframe computers. The road system nation and be widely implemented. In the with its hierarchy of road types from drive- American system of dispersed government, ways and loading docks, through local implementation is likely to be piecemeal and streets, and arterials right up to highways, is uncoordinated. Pricing policies will be amat- simply without serious competition for the ter of trial and error pragmatics, of what is overwhelming majority of trips today and locally acceptable in the circumstances, with will be even more dominant in the foresee- little chance for grand theoretical notions of able future. Just-in-time delivery practices, optimal prices that incorporate planner-des- the new logistics revolution, and increasing ignated social costs. That kind of stuff may international specialization in manufacturing fly in a few more centrally governed nations, favor aft for really long distance, plus road but not in America. for most of the rest of the transport task. Congestion-related road pricing remains Rail and water have inherent advantages for the only serious hope for combating conges- homogenous, heavy products going from tion and generating the funds and support one point of concentration to another. But for needed roadway enhancements. It now products are being constantly lightened and has robust enabling technology in the elec- produced to more heterogeneous specifica- tronic toll transponder, and in digital pho- tions and locations, favoring continuing tography and optical character recognition mode shift to air and truck. systems for identifying license plates. Nearly Safety is an important area where the ubiquitous mobile wireless phones and cheap aatolroad system lags. The carnage on the geographic positioning systems (GPS) offer roads is terrible. Rail, though imperfect, is other ways of pricing roads directly, bypass- safer as a guideway than the human driver 26 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY at the steering wheel, and its switching sys- significant environmental and social impacts, tems are safer at junctions than traffic signals including the barrier that roads and traffic and "stop" signs for human drivers. The create to pedestrians and animals, crash automated highway system (AHS), while off damages,water and noise pollution, loss of to a false start in attempting to dramatically green space and wildlife habitat, and the increase highway lane throughput, has much hydrologic impacts of pavement.3TMost promise for improving road safety. Vision technological innovations only solve one or enhancement in fog and rain so vehicles two problems, and may exacerbate others. ahead can be "seen." creation ofvirtual lane For example, by reducing the cost of driv- markings and in-vehicle display of warning ing, improved fuel efficiency tends to and directional signs, collision warning increasevehicle travel (what economistscall radars, driver monitoring systems that can a "take back" effect), exacerbating traffic take over an undriven vehicle and bring it to congestion, and crash and urban sprawl a safe halt, all seem to have potential for problems. Similarly, automobile safety fea- reducing crashes. It may gradually take over tures (seatbelts, air bags,etc.) can encourage routine lane keeping (steering)and the bor- risky behavior that offsets much of the safety ing driving chores of maintaining suitable gain and significantly increases pedestrian headways from the vehicle in front with and bicycle crashes." I believethat society "intelligent cruise control. " would benefit from market incentives that encourage less polluting technologies and Litman: I certainly welcome vehicle efficien- more efficient travel behavior. cy, emission reduction, and safety technolo- New electronic pricing technologies are gies, but I don't believe that they eliminate cost effective and convenient, and can over- the environmental and social problems asso- come many objections to direct pricing. For ciated with excessive automobile use. Im- example, motorists would not need to stop to proved engine technologies significantly pay road tolls or feed parking meters with reduced tailpipe emissions under design con- coins. However, not all market reforms ditions, but reductions under actual driving require new technologies. Some can be conditions are smaller, and nontailpipe emis- implemented using off-the-shelf hardware. sions are not controlled at all. For example, per-mile insurance and road use Although manufacturers have incentives fees only require an odometer audit, which to sell low-emitting and alternative-fueled can be performed during scheduled mainte- vehicles in some markets, there is little incen- nance, such as an oil change. Shared parking tive for people to maximize their use. With- and zoning reforms simply require changes in out significantly higher fuel prices or institutions and managementpractices. mileage-based emission changes, a typical multicar household will continue driving its Samuel: Road use in our cities is both over- larger, gasoline vehicles for most trips, and encouraged by the lack of flexible price man- use a hybrid or electric vehicle for a relative- agement of scarce roadspace and over-dis- ly small portion of total travel. As a result, couraged by the congestion and lack of the emissionreduction impacts will be small- choice in roadway level of service. Winston er than their percentage of the vehicle fleet. and Shirley's modeling suggests that in a This suggeststhat pricing reforms and TDM world free of the distortions of government are critical for addressing air pollution in the intervention and selective subsidies, there short and medium term. may be more personal transport, not less.Of Even if cars had no air emissionsat all, course all such modeling has its limitations, our transportation svstem would still imoose but it is not clear that we have "excessive" 27 TRANSPORTATIONOUARTERLY automobile use overall. It is just as arguable ment, and recommend better practices. Some that we have excessive transit. Sweeping analyses focus on pollution externalities and changesare unlikely to be achievable at the propose financial incentives to reduce emis- national level, so we are most likely to sions. Others are particularly aware of prob- progressby demonstrating the value of inno- lems automobile dependency createsfor non- vation piecemeal, relying on the pragmatic drivers, and propose strategies to improve political tradition of picking up on what mobility choices. works. Our researchtakes a comprehensivelook Let the environmental impacts of the at these market distortions and solutions. automobile be directly tackled with good sci- Although individual transportation market enceand pragmatically tailored policies, tar- distortions may appear modest and reason- geted to reduce only those aspectsof auto able, combined they causesignificant ineffi- use which generate identifiable problems. ciencies. In a more optional market, with Adoption of sweeping general policies for better travel choices and pricing, consumers reducing vehicle-miles traveled is unwarrant- would choose to drive significantly less,and ed. Vehicle-milestraveled in clean vehicles be better off overall as a result. This research in uncongested managed roadway conditions also suggestsa number of practical ways to impose very low if any social costs. So we reduce a host of transportation problems by 'When need to push for cleaner technologies, safe- correcting market distortions. appro- ty, and better management of roadspace, priately implemented, I believe these "'$7in- especiallypricing it. \fin Solutions" would be cost effective and benefit consumers, the economy, and the Summary environment. This researchhas been describ- ed briefly here, and in greater detail in other Litunan: I believe that automobile travel can articles and papers. I believethat the conclu- be highly beneficial to society. But this does sions withstand objective technical scrutiny. not mean that all driving is beneficial, when Unfortunately,many transportation pro- all costs and benefits are considered. Like fessionals are quick to oppose these solutions other goods, automobile use experiences becausethey represent a fundamental change diminishing marginal benefits and after a cer- in the way we define problems and imple- tain point, increased driving makes society ment solutions. Rather than measuring worse off overall. To achieve the greatest net transportation primarily in terms of vehicle benefits, automobile use must be subject to movement, Win-I7in Solutions focus on market discipline. Our research indicates "access." Rather than relying largely on that various distortions in transportation major construction projects, they rely on and land use markets causeexcessive driving, managementstrategies, economic incentives, that is, levelsof automobile use beyond what and small programs. Rather than considering would occur in an optimal market. This con- iust one or two problems at a time, they are clusion is not fundamentally new. Many most justified by considering a wide range economists and policy analysts have identi- of benefits and costs. fied significantdistortions in our transporta- In this exchange, Samuel demonstrates tion land use markets. However, most con- this reluctance to consider innovative solu- sider just one or two. For example, many tions. He approaches this exchange as an economists recognize traffic congestion as a ideological debate between "pro-highway" market failure and propose congestion pric- and "anti-highway" interests. He betrays a ing as a solution. Others point to inefficien- tendency to oppose innovations without cies in road funding and parking manage- understanding them. Many of his criticisms 28 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY are technically inaccurate. I hope that Trans- costs of planning fads and fashions. Innova- portation Quarterly readers will keep an tion is neededin how we cater to trucks, and open mind as they investigate potential in how we reach size and weight standards, transportation demand management solu- and in devising separate lanes and facilities tions to the problems we face. for trucks versus light vehicles. It should be possible to go beyond the bureaucratic and Samwel: Litman, here, is reasonable and politicized setting and to have road operators pragmatic, but the Smart Growth movement and trucker groups negotiate win-win with which he is often allied, smacks of high- arrangements in which they perhaps pay ly ideological thinking-passionately vilify- higher user charges or tolls but employ much ing the suburban lifestyle and the automo- more profitable and safer consists.'Weneed bile, ignoring progressthat has been made far more innovative thinking about the pos- in safety and tailpipe emissions.using sim- sibilities of taking roads underground where pleminded theories of causation (highways right-of-way acquisition and wider surface cause sprawl), conspiracy-minded history highways are unacceptable. We need innova- (GM killed the trolleys), doctrinaire in its tion based on a hardheaded assessmentof assertions about the solution (denser devel- the changing nature of work, family life and opment), arrogantly contemptuous of past the value of our time. This surely makes practice ("smart" growth implies all elseis... unrealistic any major return to hub-and- dumb?), blithe in its disregardfor life's trade- spoke, centrally oriented, corridor transit. o{s (big box stores' lack of charm), utopian More in tune with our needsis flexible net- in its faith in planning and controls admin- worked demand-responsivepersonal trans- istered by the enlightened, and intolerant of portation, probably deploying near door-to- different choices and diversity. door service vehicles carrying single digit A large dose of skepticism is in order loads of people. about the ability of a public policy elite to It seems to me to be ideological, and foreseethe future implicit in assertionsthat indeed authoritarian, to insist that we build land use and transportation can be "coordi- few new highways when these are the essen- nated." For some decadesnow, our present tial infrastructure for the dominant mode, ciry counfy, and metropolitan level planners the transportation choice of the modern and our existing institutions have been MASSCS. attempting exactly this. They have had to The last great ideological movement in work with the constraints of imperfect fore- city planning was "comprehensive redevel- casts,conflicting local interests,due process opment" or "slum clearance."S7ith great procedures, dispersed government, officials passion, and federal funding, it was promot- elected for two- to six-year-terms, and pri- ed by idealists, and also a few opportunists, vate property rights. Those are not suddenly as the city's panacea. Its major constructs going to be swept away-one hopes. were public housing high-rises now being 'We Of course we need to innovate. espe- demolishedin spectacular"implosions." The cially need to innovate in pricing roadspace clouds of dust and piles of rubble of the and letting the incentives and price signals 1950's public-housing towers are an apt of markets shape our investments. \7e need metaphor for the results of excessivezeal in to innovate in letting investors take risks city planning. Unintended consequencesand (and earn rewards) from providing infra- great waste are just as likely to follow in the structure, rather than simply continue to train of ideological"smartgrowthism." have future generations of taxpayers bear the

29 TRANSPORTATIO N OUARTERLY

Endnotes

1. Lee,Douglass "Uses and Meaningsof Full SocialCost Estimates," The Full Costsand Benefitsof Transportatioa,Springer (Berlin), 1997, pp. !'J.3-148. 2. Lrtman,Todd "SociallyOptimal Transport Prices and Markets,"WPI (www.rtpi.org),1999. 3. Litman, Todd "TransportationMarket Distortions-A Survey,"VTPI (www.vtpr.org),1999. 4. Litman, Todd and Laube,Felix "Automobile Dependencyand EconomicDevelopment,' VTPI (www.vtpi.orgl,1999. 5. Newman,Peter and Kenworthg Jeff "Sustainabilityand Cities;Overcoming Automobile Depen- dency," IslandPress (Covelo; www.islandpress.org), 1998. 6. Rothengatter,'Werner"Do External BenefitsCompensate for External Costsof Transpott?",Trans- portation Research,Vol. 28A, 1991, pp.321-328. 7. DeCorla-Souza,Patrick and Jensen-Fisher,Ronald "ComparingMultimodal Alternativesin Malor TravelCorridors," Transporta.tion Researcb Record 7429,'1.997, pp. 15-23. 8. 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, lJ. S. Department of Transportation (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final), L997;Litman Todd "TransportationCost Analysis,"VTPI (www.vtpi.org),2000. 9. ParsonsBrinckerhoff Quade& Douglass"Transit and Urban Form," Transit CooperatiueResearch ProgramReport #16, NationalAcademy Press (Washington D.C.; www.nes.edu/trb),1996. 10. Cervero,Robert "Transit-InducedAccessibility and AgglomerationBenefits: A Land Market Evalu- ation," Instituteof Urban and RegionalDevelopment, UCn lnerketey),1,997. 11. Seenote 5 above. 12. Downs,Anthony "Stuckin Traffic," BrookingsInstitute (Washington D.C.; www.brookings.edu), 1.992;Fox,Halcrow "The Pricingand Financingof Urban Transportation,"DG VII (Transport), EuropeanCommission, 1995; Moore, Terry and Thorsnes,Paul "The Transportation/LandUse Con- nection:A Frameworkfor PracticalPolicy," American Planning Association (Chicago; www.plan- ning.org),Report # 448/449,1,993;"Taming the Beast;A Surveyon LivingWith the Car," TheEcon- omist,June 22,'1.996. 13. Goodwin, Phil "Solving Congestion,Centre for Transport Studies" (London; www.ucl.ac.uk/trans- port-studies/tsuhome.htm),1997. 14. "'S7in-'SfinTransportation Solutions, " VTPI (www.r,tpi.org), L999 . 15. Butler,Patrick "Operation of an Audited-Mile/YearAutomobile InsuranceSystem Under Pennsyl- vania Law," National Organizationfor'Women (IfashingtonD.C.; wwwnow.org), 1992;Edlin, Aaron "Per-Mile Premiumsfor Auto Insurance,"Department. of Economics,University of Califor- nia at Berkeley (http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/edlin),1.998; Litman, Todd "Distance-Based Charges;A PracticalStrategy for More Optimal VehiclePricing," VTPI (www.vtpi.org),1998. 16. Durning, AIan and Bauman, Yoram "Tax Shift," Nortbwest Enuironment Watcb (Seattle; www.northwestwatch.org),L998; "RedefiningProgress" (www.rprogress.org); Litman, Todd, Komanoff, Charles,and Howell, Douglas "Road Relief; Tax and Pricing Shifts for a Fairer,Clean- er, and LessCongested Transportation Systemin \TashingtonState," Climate Solwtions(www.cli- matesolutions.org), 1"9 9 8. 17. Committeefor Study on Urban TransportationCongestion Pricing, Curbing Gridlock; "Peak-Peri- od Feesto RelieveTraffic Congestion,"Na/ronal ResearchCouncil SpecialReport #242, National AcademyPress (Washington D.C.; www.nas.edu/trb),1.994;"Buying Time"l Researchand Policy Symposiumon the Land Use and Equity Impactsof CongestionPricing, Institute of Public Affairs, Universityof Minnesota(Minneapolis; www.hhh.umn.edu), 1995; Reno Arlee and Stowers,Joseph

30 OPTIMALLEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY

"Alternatives to Motor VehicleFuel Taxesfor Financing SurfaceTransportation Improvements," NCHRP Report 377, Tr ansportationResearch Board (www.nas. edu"/trb ), 19 95. 18. Klein, Daniel, Moore, Adrian, and Reja, Binyam "Free to Cruise:Creating Curb Spacefor Jitneys," Access,No. 8, Spring1995, pp.2-6. 19. GreenTransport Plans, Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions(www.local- transport.detr.gov.uk/gtp/index.htm;Litman, Todd "Potential TDM Strategies," VTPI (www.vtpi.org),1998;USEPA Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq); The TDM ResourceCenter (www.wsdot.wa.gov/Mobility/TDMhome.html). 20. Ewing, Reid "Best DevelopmentPractices; Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time," PlannersPress (Chicago; www.planning.org), 199 6. 21. Burden,Dan "StreetDesign Guidelines for HealthyNeighborhoods," Center for LivableCommu- nities (Sacramento;www.lgc.org/clc), 1998; Litman, Todd "Pavement-BustersGuide," VTPI (www.vtpi.org),'J.998. 22. "Local GovernmentGuide to ParkingCash Out," InternationalCouncil for Local EnvironmentalIni- tiatives,(www.iclei.org/us),1,998; Shoup, Donald "CongressOkays Cash Out," Access,No. 13, UCTC (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/-uctc ), F all I 99 8, pp. 2-I . 23. Associationfor CommuterTransportation (http:/itmi.cob.fsu.edtlactlact.htm); Center for Urban TransportationResearch, University of South Florida (http://cutr.eng.usf.edu). 24. "Active and SafeRoutes to School," Ottawa; wwwgoforgreen.ca;"Way To Go! SchoolProgram," www.waltogo.icbc.bc.ca;Safe Routes to SchoolProject www.sustrans.co.uk/srts. 25.-?oinsatte,FranEoise and Toor,.Will "Finding a New'Way: CampusTransportation for the 21st Cen- tury," Universityof Colorado EnvironmentalCenter (Boulder; [email protected]{,1999. 26. Seenote 5 above. 27. Lewis, David and Williams, Fred Laurence"Policy and Planningas Public Choice:Mass Transit in the United States," Ashgate(Aldershot; www.ashgate .com), 1.999. 28. Ewing, Reid "Transportation and Land Use Innovations;When You Can't Build Your'Way Out o{ Congestion," PlannersPress ( Chicago; www.plann rng.com),'J,9 97 . 29. Guhathakurta,Subhrait "\X/ho Pays for Growth in the City of Phoenix?An Equity-BasedPerspective on Suburbanization," Urban Affairs Reuiew, Vol. 33, No. 5 (www.urbanfutures.org/j 102898.html),Jtily 1998, pp. 813-838. 30. Burchell,Robert, et al., "The Costsof Sprawl-Revisited," TCRP Reporl 39, Transportation ResearchBoard (www.nas.edr.r/trb), 1998. 31. Meyer,Michael D. "DemandManagement as an Elementof TransportationPolicy," Transporta- tion ResearchA, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept.AJov.1,999, pp. 57 5-599. 32. Goodwin, Phil, "Transformationof TransportPolicy in Great Britain," TransportationResearch A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov.L999, pp.655-669; Road Traffic ReductionAct 1997, HMSO (www.hmso.gov.uk). 33. Shoup,Donald "CongressOkays Cash Out," Access,No. 13, UCTC (http://socrates.berkeley.edut- uctc),Fall 1998,pp.2-8. 34. "ProgressiveAutograph," ProgressiveMutual Insurance,(888-928-8647; wwwprogressive.com), 1999. 35. "Climate ChangePolicy Initiatives: t994 Update," InternationalEnergy Agency (Paris),1994. 36. FHWA, "Riducing Traffic Congestion;Using Market Pricesto EnhanceMobility," Report to Con- gress,U.S. Department of Transportation,1998. 37. NEMO Proj ect (www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/nemo).

31 TRANSPORTATION OUARTERLY

38. Chirinko,Robert and Harper, Jr., Edward "Buckle Up or SlowDown? New Estimatesof Offsetting Behaviorand their Implications for AutomobileSafety Regulation." Jowrnal of PolicyAnalysis and Management,YoI.1.2, No. 2, 1993,pp.270-296.

PeterSamuel is publisberand editor of Toll RoadsNewsletter, which focwseson toll and road pricing issues.Four yearsago, Samuel started the newsletteawbich hasa frequencyof 10 issuesper year.He is a U.S.correspondent for'World Highways and InteLligentTransport SystemsInternationalmagazines pwblished in London, and haswritten policy papersfor think tanks like the Cato Institute, tbe ReasonPublic Policy Institwteand the Heartland Institute on road congestion,sprawl and associatedissues. He holds an bonors degreein economicsfrom the Uniuersityof Melbowrnein Awstralia,where he tawghteconomics for two years;he also spent L4 yearsas a public policy reporter dnd commentatorbased in Canberra,Australia. He also tawghtcourses in landscapedesign and wrbanplanning. Celebratinghis 21st year in tbe U.5., Samuelis basedin Frederick,Maryland, wbich is locatedin tbe'Washington,D.C./Bal- timore, Maryland area.

Todd Litman is director of the Victoria TransportPolicy Institute, an organizationdedicated to deuelopinginnouatiue tools for transportation decision-making.He has worked on many stwdiesthat eualuatethe full costsand benefitsof ahernatiuetransportation policies and inuestments.Litman has also deuelopedtransportation demand rnanagement and parking managementstrategies and programs,and has written numerouspa.pers, articles, and reports concerningtransportation cost and benefitanalysis. An Affiliate of the Institwteof Trans- portation Engineers,Litman hasbeen appointed to tbreeTransportation Research Board com- mittees.He is a Ph. D. candidateand teacbesplanning at the Uniuersityof Victoria, Depart- ment of Geography.The Lincoln Institute for Land Policy recentlyawarded him a research fellowsbip to inuestigaterelationships between trdnsportation, land use,dnd tax policies.He and his wife, SuzanneKort, bauecoawthored two trauel books: \X/ashington;Off the Beaten Path and BestBike Ridesin the PacificNorthwest. Litman and Kort, who residein Victoria, British Columbia,also coawtbora weekly bicycling column in theTimesColonist.

32