Slashdot Mirror
Is Traffic Congestion Growing Three Times As Fast As Economy?
cartechboy writes "Math watch time: For many traffic analysts, INRIX is considered the gold-standard. This week the company says traffic congestion surged in 2013 and grew over three times as fast as the American economy. The bad news: If true, this reverses two consecutive years of traffic declines with a six percent increase in 2013. (GDP, by comparison, grew 1.9 percent last year.) The analysts then theorize links between economic growth and traffic congestion, which makes sense on the surface. (As the economy improves, more jobs are created, so more commuters on the roads) But INRIX's theory creates as many questions as it answers. For example, the U.S. GDP has been steadily growing since 2009. So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?"
Surely there's some way to blame Obama on this....
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
The false equivalence between GDP and labor (and therefore commuting.)
We're shedding workers. The labor participation rate is declining. GDP, like inflation, the unemployment rate, cost-of-living, etc. are political fictions derived from politically derived formulae.
Like the movie? Or Internet traffic? Or vehicular traffic?
Thanks for the context in the summary, douchemonger.
companies are starting to get smart and letting their employees work from home.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Don't use GDP. They are trying to find a solid coorelation where one doesn't exist.
If all that money didn't increase total employment, then GDP could go up while the same number of people stayed home out of work.
The increase in congestion is actually a good sign. It suggests that the employment situation might finally be improving.
layoffs in good jobs where you had to go in during rush hours. night managers at the Burger Doodle, not so much.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
First ARS, now Slashdot with autoplay video ads. Extra LOUD too I guess I'll turn adblock back on. Tried to support you, but tough nuggets now.
Tax revenue (road construction) trails economic growth by what, a year at least? If you have exponential economic growth, expect that discrepancy to be exaggerated.
Particularly so since the increase in revenue will be unevenly geographically distributed, plus property values nationwide still haven't returned to 2008 levels.
Congestion declined in 2011/12 because of the persistent, delayed suppression of consumer demand that accompanied the Great Recession.
Having a job is one thing. Having a job and thinking it'll be there for a year or two is another. Everyone was financially "turtling up" so it's not a real surprise that indicators like traffic will lag behind. I was talking to a trade school instructor who said that businesses are STILL cutting back on good will perks like donations of equipment and time to students. Even the silly little fun trinkets they used to hand out at intramural competitions are gone.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The article keeps trying to compare GDP with employment. GDP has been increasing but yet unemployment is stuck at about 7%.
Why is that?
Because the "recovery" is not happening to the average guy. We are seeing a gutting of the middle class, more folks are getting (sometimes multiple) lesser jobs, and yet, companies profits are at record levels.
And in the meantime, the uultra-rich are getting ever more richer and scolding us peons that "we could be in India!" so shut the fuck up!
Income and capital gains taxes at 1950s level is what we need.
the 2011/2012 GDP growth was a lie, simply put. You can guess why, when you see 2012 is divisible by 4.
The true cause of congestion is government incompetence and mis-spending, not economic growth. Out in California, we pay $.30 (or more) per gallon gas tax that was designed to go into a lock box for transportation. Much of it is raided by politicians for their social programs. What is left is spent mostly on municipal transportation systems; trolleys, sprinter trains and buses, lots of buses which consistently have 2-5 passengers every time I see one (figure the carbon footprint on that inefficiency, a 40,000lb vehicle in stop and go traffic all day to move a tiny fraction of people around the city). The cities do this because they can and because they don't want private cabs to do the job because it would put city workers out of work... So instead of putting 100% of the gas tax on roads and freeways, only a small fraction goes where it was supposed to, because it is not politically "sexy" to fix and widen roads. (But it is extremely green. Commuter's gas mileage goes in the toilet in slow stop and go traffic, not to mention added safety risks associated with large differential speeds caused by traffic jams.) I don't even mind the other mass transit options, but they have to have good capacity usage, and if there is demand, let private industry invest to get it done and run the damn things, because government run anything has zero customer service, and zero incentive to improve 99% of the time.
What about all the road construction that is going on? That can be a big cause of congestion.
as the economy has come back, people have been forced to take jobs further from their homes - wherever they can get one.
with the housing market a mess, they also couldn't easily move closer to work.
when they can sell their houses, and move closer, or there are more jobs closer, we will see an adjustment.
personally, i want to see traffic hell. enough that we bring back light rail as a priority.
its stupid that we do not have lines running down the center of most highways in the country.
comment directly in my journal
The band, man, Traffic the band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
No brain, no pain.
The great recession of 2009 became the justification of many companies to lay off workers despite healthy revenue and increasing profits. While this may contribute to the GDP, it doesn't do much for employment.
But INRIX's theory creates as many questions as it answers. For example, the U.S. GDP has been steadily growing since 2009. So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?"
I know in my area, transit has become decidedly less desirable in the past year or so as it's become more crowded. A few years ago I could almost always get a seat and commute in relative comfort. Now the trains are so full that some days it skips my stop (or even if it stops to let someone off, there's not enough room to squeeze on). Biking is an option for me, so I've been biking regularly, but if that wasn't an option, I'd probably drive rather than take an unreliable train that's uncomfortably full. Equipment purchases are large capital expenses that can take years or evena decade to plan, fund, and complete, so public transit lags demand.
According to INRIX, traffic in the U.S. reversed two consecutive years of declines with a six percent increase in 2013. The country's GDP, by comparison, grew 1.9 percent last year. INRIX suggests that continued economic growth will result in more traffic congestion, longer commutes, and more productivity losses.
INRIX is getting their conclusion from one data point: last year. Even though previous years do not support their conclusion, multiple data points. As a result, their conclusion that traffic increases at 3 times GDP growth is not convincing. They need to put a lot more effort into this study. Even the article author pointed that out,
Bottom line: roadways are complex ecosystems, and congestion results from jobs, commuters, road work, mass transit, and countless other factors. While it's encouraging to see traffic jams as symbolic of economic growth, that's not an accurate or complete picture.
In a complex environment like this, data needs a control point and a link from cause to effect. All I see here is a very loose correlation in one year of data. Hence, this is FUD.
This is total flamebait. Either the parent is dim (everyone that I know calls it congestion), or he is trolling. Moderate him as such.
The increase in congestion due to increased economic activity and reduced unemployment isn't just a factor of more people on the road. When the economy improves, people get offered better piles of money to take jobs farther from their homes. People drive farther in a good economy. Then add in all the ancillary travel from increased economic prosperity, eating out more, buying more stuff, going more fun places.
Traffic in South Floriduh seems to be much worse than it was 2 or 3 years ago. Seems to be more people and more cars.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
If you look at places like San Francisco and the way wealth is pooling there, it's easy to understand why traffic congestion is growing faster than the economy.
If you put a bunch of rich-ass people together in one highly-concentrated place, even if all of them are working from home or taking Google busses to work, they're going to need services. Grocery stores, plumbers, babysitters, teachers, restaurant workers, you name it. Many of those sorts of jobs are not ones which are compatible with telecommuting--if my garbage man starts working from home, I'm going to be pissed!--and most of them are not of an income level which would allow a comfortable residence within the city where the job is. If you're making $30,000 a year as a teacher, spending $2,000 a month on a 400 sq ft studio apartment so you can walk or bike to work doesn't leave much left over for food and the like.
So inevitably, thousands upon thousands of workers need to commute various distances to keep their jobs and live in some level of comfort.
I realize that SF, as a peninsula, is a fairly unique scenario: it provides a high-value destination with severely constrained access points. Maybe not the actual logical conclusion of all similar circumstances, but a useful indicator of how things might play out in areas where money is aggregated into smaller and smaller groups who then take over relatively small and very desirable locations.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Isn't this confusing the issue? Traffic Congestion isn't traffic volume. One huge factor could easily be weather in which we've had some of the worst weather in a few years. Which ruins roads and congests traffic. They're looking at this as "How difficult it takes to get to work" as an indicator of our GDP? just because they lined up for a year or 2 doesn't make a correlation... Other factors (+/-): Working from home, bad roads, increase in jobs, older cars on the road, more accidents.
Have gnu, will travel.
After years of decline, US oil production began to rise again in 2009 with fracking technology and the increases since have been astounding.
This oil boom has kept gasoline prices in check and has probably helped the economy from slipping back into recession.
See, people are too stupid to realize a bus with 60 people that gets defunded means there are now 60 more cars crammed onto the same failed underfunded highway infrastructure.
A 5 percent reduction in transit funding results in a 30 percent increase in traffic congestion and a 25-50 percent increase in commute times.
Penny-wise.
Pound-foolish.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I clicked this link hoping to see a story about Chris Christie. What a disappointment.
It's clear the reason for the traffic disparities are a direct result of Netflix not yet signing deals with the major ISP's; allowing them to double dip on each byte of traffic they handle.
I think that we need Christie to do a "traffic study" to sort this out once and for all.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I know at 5 o'clock when I'm getting onto the freeway and see miles of cars standing still, then looking around at the beaten, downtrodden, frustrated and exhausted commuters that this is indeed the pinnacle of human efficiency.
In Austin, they deliberately fuck up traffic in the name of "Traffic Calming".
They refuse to build new roads also. If not for the state putting in toll roads there would be no new ones.
They mistime lights. You are virtually guaranteed to hit every red light on any road.
They use giant, empty buses to create running road blocks on major thoroughfares.
They constantly tear up the same streets at least twice a year for who knows what reasons.
They regularly close streets in order to accommodate the latest parade put on by any number of special interest pervert groups.
The federal government has been spending ever more money in order to prop up the GDP (remember that gov't spending is part of the GDP). In reality, the economy has been shrinking for some time except in Washington DC. And, no, we can't continue this forever or even much longer.
Do you have ESP?
If you had a nation of perfect drivers then I suspect you could pack many times more cars on the road. But needless to say we have a bell curve. I find that there are a few smart people who are bad drivers but that many people who are genuinely stupid are also really bad drivers. So as these really stupid people start to find jobs they then drive to these jobs. So as the left side of the bell curve is being tapped for drivers you have a potential that not only are these drivers bad but that with each tiny addition of these magically bad drivers results in a massive set of problems.
For instance the last time I was in Washington DC heading south I got stuck in a 3.5 hour traffic jam. It was caused by one car that had managed to end up upside down in the ditch. So if you could have eliminated that single bad driver from the road traffic may have run fairly smoothly that afternoon.
So if one assumes that stupid people are worse drivers (which a UK study agrees with) and that stupid people are generally the last people to get jobs and are the first to get fired then you can't look at the total number of drivers or even road capacity but the probability that a supremely bad driver will have a stunningly huge impact on traffic patterns.
The other question would be to look at how long after an economic downturn that stupid people can keep driving. For instance in 2008 white collar people lost their jobs and many construction people lost their jobs. But did it take a while for the supremely stupid to lose their jobs. Or did they lose their jobs but it took until 2011 for their cars to wear out and for them to give up on finding a new job?
I distinguish bad drivers from the magically bad generally not just by driving skill but by decision making. Not being able to parallel park is different than going below the speed limit in the passing lane or getting a flat tire on a busy bridge and immediately pulling over and calling for a tow; or going the wrong way up a one way street and then insisting you are correct and all the other people are wrong; or making a left on a no left turn intersection which is marked that way for a very good reason; and on an on.
I suspect that you could test my theory by looking at the frequency of truck traffic and accidents (as a percentage of truck traffic) under that famous 11' 8" bridge that opens all the trucks like sardine cans. When the economy is poor my guess is that they only have the best drivers available but that in times like 1999 that anyone with a pulse gets a job and it is they who screw up. You would also have to adjust for hours driven that day as during a boom the drivers may also be overworked.
The other reason I distinguish between driving skill and brainpower is that I don't know of a single driving license test that tests(and fails) for wit and common sense.
AC here, but trends since 2005 show that traffic has actually been decreasing, which predates the recession by years. In fact, the peak was somewhere in 2004-2005.
Many sources, but here is one: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/crash-the-decline-of-us-driving-in-6-charts/281528/
Of all the economic statistics, the unemployment rate is the easiest to understand. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calls or visit a randomly selected sample of Americans, ask them if they are employed, and if they are not, are they looking for a job. While they ask some other questions, those are the basic ones used to determine the widely-publicized unemployment rate. This is not a complicated statistical formula here, subject to all sorts of evil manipulation.
Now, you could argue that the labor participation rate is more useful, or perhaps include people that aren't working as many hours as they'd like, or include people that would like to work, but have given up looking. And they publish those numbers also for any that care to read them, so you can hardly argue that they are a big secret that The Man is trying to hide from you. But it's silly to call any of them "fictitious." And these formulas hardly seem "politically derived." (In fact, the BLS and their counterparts in the GAO are quite fiercely independent; the statisticians are all civil servants that don't really give a *bleep!* what congress or the president want the numbers to end up at.)
Inflation is much the same way; they publish numbers that are perhaps not as useful as we'd like them to be, but they have proven to be pretty free of political whims. It's a drawn-out, very public, process to fiddle with those formulas. If there was a hint that they were bowing to political pressure when calculating them, you'd know about it.
third job that day, using a car they cannot afford to repair, spewing the most blinding clouds of pollution you can imagine.
looking at the real unemployment rates (not the new system put in place in 1994), things not improving for the common man in 2010 and 11.
recession certainly cleared the highways around my area until last year, now people getting jobs
That tax money never returns to the middle class. Do you think it is a coincidence some of the richest counties in America are around DC?
Thanks to Obamacare, people have to drive to two or three part-time jobs instead of one full-time job.
I'm sad to see that I'm the only one that thinks that congestion has gotten worse due to the abundantly clear lack of thought in traffic engineering. I think there might be two scenarios that potentially account for this: 1) I learned about the idea of planning less capacity than is required to "force people's hands" on using public transit. Idealistically, it sounds great. Like most idealistic plans, the real world doesn't work that way and it just pisses people off and, viola, traffic congestion. 2) I don't feel like traffic engineering is keeping-up with our technology. At least in my area (and in many to which I travel), I see no efforts being made to use the technology we have to better improve traffic. Instead of having connected, intercommunicating and load-sensing intersections, we still have a lot of unconnected, unaware intersections that induce a lot of the congestion problems.
Bus and much light rail transit in the US is primarily a social (not a transportation) service for the portion of the population that simply can't afford to drive but needs to get around (to low-paying jobs, mostly, but also school, doctor, shopping, etc.). Yes, at peak commute times there are some "choice" riders in the mix, but it's nowhere near 100%. Dropping your 60 passenger bus, assuming it's full at commute time, would likely result in no more than about 30 extra cars - the other people would carpool, bike, walk, ride an earlier bus (if one is available), or just lose their jobs or drop out of school. Except in places like SF and NY, transit in the US seldom even reaches a double digit transportation market share in an urban area, and way less in the 'burbs. Still, I agree with your conclusion - pennywise/poundfoolish - the quibble isn't about the effect, just how big it is given the bus-sized unit you defined.
Yep, GDP growth depends on inflation.
If inflation is underestimated (as usually governments do) then the growth of GDP is overestimated.
Governments love to report GDP growth and low inflation - then they claim the debt to GDP ratio is lower
so they can increase debt and also they report lower inflation so people are tricked to buying bonds
at lower interest which is over official inflation but under actual inflation making buyers loose the money.
The most effective and most economical way to reduce traffic jams has been shown to be... to build bicycle paths and encourage more cycling.
This may seem illogical, but it's not. Every extra bike really does mean one fewer car in a traffic jam ahead of you.
Cars cause far more congestion for other cars than do bikes, which are smaller and if they are ridden on separate cycle-paths (which can be designed to attract cyclists due to being faster than riding on road) then those bikes are nowhere to be seen.
From 2003 to 2009 traffic in Detroit went from parkinglot to deserted highways. it's still pretty sad compared to what I remember back in 2003 when I had to drive 696 from southfield to brighton. 5 lane highway turns into 7 lanes of morons from 4:30 to 6:00pm
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Private Cars is just about the most stupid thing in these times. Germans spend 4.7 Billion man hours per year in traffic jams. Mind you, this is Germany, where there are better and more roads per capita, far less speed limits and people actually know how to drive. 4.7 fucking billion man hours per year. Let that sink in for a minute. And that's like 80% of the monetary income generating population wasting that sort of time (I won't say working population, for obvious reasons).
With that time wasted, we could send every person in the workincome population on a paid 3 week vacation each year and still have money to spare.
Cars are an anomally, only around today for mostly historical reasons, with no sensible reason at all. Sort of like the PC keyboard or MS Windows. Only with far more negative impact on overall quality of living and the environment.
Most populations and societies would be better of if we banned private cars alltogether and switched to e-bikes and public transport entirely. With taxis and cargo taxis for the special occasions. Would be cheaper for all, faster for all, better for the environment and we'd all be happier for it. I'd bet money on that.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay some bankrupt German cities to ban cars alltogether and then heavyly invest in them and then sit back and watch the local economy and quality of living skyrocket.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Whoever is at fault large scale transportation projects are one if the two main drivers for all short term changes in traffic patterns. The other is weather.
The tail end of the economic bubble and the first round of stimulus programme projects led to high levels of construction. Those projects likely completed between 2010 and 2012. As they completed road capacity increased faster than demand or traffic load. Hence reduced congestion over that time.
Last year it is possible more projects started up causing lane and road closures again. Also as I mentioned weather can be an issue. The flooding in Alberta Canada and in Colorado for example caused extended closure of damaged roads. Also the very cold winter discourages use of public transportation in most cities as nobody wants to walk to a stop and wait for a bus or train outdoors in freezing weather...plus public transportation can be very unreliable in bad weather....more so than using personal vehicles. This may br a long term thing too. The climate is changing (NOT warming... where I live average temperature has gone DOWN most of the last 10 years and it is noticeably colder than at the turn of this century especially...all year but especially in winter...this rapid cooling has changed snowpack melting and caused flooding issues more typical of what happened 100 years ago). Whether you live where it is warming or where it is cooling she effects of weather on traffic are likely to become more pronounced.
Private Cars is just about the most stupid thing in these times. Germans spend 4.7 Billion man hours per year in traffic jams. Mind you, this is Germany, where there are better and more roads per capita, far less speed limits and people actually know how to drive. 4.7 fucking billion man hours per year. Let that sink in for a minute. And that's like 80% of the monetary income generating population wasting that sort of time (I won't say working population, for obvious reasons).
With that time wasted, we could send every person in the workincome population on a paid 3 week vacation each year and still have money to spare.
Cars are an anomally, only around today for mostly historical reasons, with no sensible reason at all. Sort of like the PC keyboard or MS Windows. Only with far more negative impact on overall quality of living and the environment.
Most populations and societies would be better of if we banned private cars alltogether and switched to e-bikes and public transport entirely. With taxis and cargo taxis for the special occasions. Would be cheaper for all, faster for all, better for the environment and we'd all be happier for it. I'd bet money on that.
If I were a billionaire I'd pay some bankrupt German cities to ban cars alltogether and then heavyly invest in them and then sit back and watch the local economy and quality of living skyrocket.
My 2 cents.
And you want a return to fascism...
Traffic comes from EMPLOYMENT. Economic growth used to be a good gauge of employment. That's not a reliable correlation anymore.
Every rule has more than one consequence.